Jump to content

The EU referendum - 23rd June


Matt

The EU referendum  

216 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want the UK to leave or remain in the EU?

    • Leave the EU
      93
    • Remain in the EU
      102
    • Currently undecided
      21

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Crusoe:

 

Point 1: Like piglinbland, the writer of the FT piece doesn’t have a solution to the chronic problem the EU is facing. Piglinbland doesn’t see the relevance to Brexit of the IEO’s damning indictment of the IMF’s lack of due diligence and misrepresentation.

Point 2: The author of the FT article espouses complex requirements in support of staying in the EU and punitive measures to get out. They do not enlighten the reader of the dangers of staying ‘in’ the EU.

 

Referring to point 1, of course the IEO’s ruling is relevant. What predicament would Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy be in now, financially or unemployment, if the IMF had proceeded with the due diligence and utilised unbiased accurate assessments expected of it? While we can’t guess how badly it would have ended if the relevant guidelines had been followed, we can safely assume the end game would have been worse and possibly catastrophic. Within my peer group (mainly small business orientated) we wanted out because of how the EU was run, based on years of actual ‘evidence’ accumulating including easy to interpret statistics. If the referendum voters had been faced with a worse scenario within the Eurozone than the one put forward during the campaign it would be reasonable to assume the majority would have been greater.

 

Referring to point 2, I am assuming the FT writer is a journalist or politician. Many a graduate student could tell you of being asked to write a synopsis ‘for’ or ‘against’ a given topic. This invariably would necessitate research of the subject matter. Journalists are very adept at this, especially when covering a story without an in house expert. There are no experts on Brexit, anywhere, and nothing to research. Bringing together the many unknowable permutations and components of Brexit beforehand would have been quite pointless.

 

Canadian, Jeremy Kinsman, is also quoted as saying: “We’ve always counted on Britain both as a friend and as a sort of ‘Liberal voice’ (the quotation marks are mine, what is he saying about the rest?) within the European Union,” “And its exit worries Canadians, Canadian policy makers, because we don’t any longer have that channel, that particular channel in which generally we vested quite a lot of confidence.” No mention of the spiraling decline in the Eurozone’s immigration policy, debt crisis, unemployment crisis, just concern for Canada. You can see where I’m going with that on a worldwide basis.

 

“Greenland population less than Croydon – fish.”

European exports to UK £290 billion goods and services.

UK exports to the EU £220 billion. It’s hard to believe a journalist pitched that stat for comparison but not a politician. I would think a £70 billion profit in EU’s favour not to mention the jobs created by £290 billion worth of exports will help focus minds on a little more effort and moderation. Croydon - fish, I ask you!

Giuliano Amato serves as an Honorary Co-Chair for the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project works to lead a global, multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the Rule of Law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity.[5]

 

With Amato and Lord Kerr wording it we should be in safe hands. But does it not say something about the EU bureaucrats. It sounds like we could have been done up like a kipper along with the rest of Europe if it had not been for our stubbornness. Not for the first time it’s worth noting. Amato is quoted as likening his wording of Article 50 as a fire extinguisher, never to be used. Perhaps he didn’t expect the European Commission bureaucrats expanding the citadel using highly inflammable material.

 

The rest of the article is nothing more than a worst case scenario slightly more dramatic than Remains’ pitch in the referendum. Ejection, really? Are the Eurozone expecting growth during these negotiations? Are their unemployment figures tumbling? Why can’t Remain identify their will be no profit for ‘anyone’ by stalling.

 

Brutal comments on a Brexit item, or any other item? Nothing new there then. You can’t say ‘I don’t like cats’ without the floodgates of bile opening on comments columns and social media. My only contact with social media is Facebook. While I’m not a daily visitor I have not seen Brexit mentioned once since 23/06. No bragging and no complaining.

 

I can understand misgivings about the task ahead. It is enormous and believed by many to be foolhardy.

What I believe to be foolhardy is believing the principle that a group of different cultures, different languages and different economies can coexist under an unanswerable bureaucratic regime who’s only worry seems to be keeping the substantial gravy train on the rails. Their inability to address their failings is what has brought us to where we are now.

 

It is plain for everyone to see the Eurozone is struggling. It is staring us in the face. In my view a fear of the unknown stops more people excepting that than is healthy. The trade gap between us is widening. We are buying more of them because of our healthy economy while they are buying less of us because of their struggling economy.

 

To conclude the UK wants to trade with everyone and we have a massive economy to support cooperation in negotiations.

Our cooperation and financial input would remain fulsome in regards to terrorism, crime and security.

 

We cannot change the way the EU is run by the ballot box and while we do have a voice in the European Parliament there are too many countries fearing they have too much to lose by reform for it to be heard. It is a hole not of our making.

 

It won’t be painless nor will it be disastrous. But something does need doing, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crusoe:

 

Point 1: Like piglinbland, the writer of the FT piece doesn’t have a solution to the chronic problem the EU is facing. Piglinbland doesn’t see the relevance to Brexit of the IEO’s damning indictment of the IMF’s lack of due diligence and misrepresentation.

Point 2: The author of the FT article espouses complex requirements in support of staying in the EU and punitive measures to get out. They do not enlighten the reader of the dangers of staying ‘in’ the EU.

 

 

That's fair enough, but the emphasis on barriers to exit was more to do with the political practicalities than with pro-EU bias. No one's saying the EU isn't risky (everything is risky). The fact is that there is but one barrier to remaining: the democratic legitimacy of doing so. That be overcome either over time (the May approach) or instantly with a winning general election manifesto promising remain and renegotiate, for example. May might also take that approach when the time comes (hence no election this year, even though the Tories would walk it).

 

I don't want to go over old ground, but how democratic do you think the new UK / English parliament will be after Brexit? How much more control do you reckon you'll have over, for example, agricultural subsidies or trade deals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact is that there is but one barrier to remaining: the democratic legitimacy of doing so. That be overcome either over time (the May approach) or instantly with a winning general election manifesto promising remain and renegotiate, I thought Cameron had tried this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Crusoe:

Point 1: Like piglinbland, the writer of the FT piece doesn’t have a solution to the chronic problem the EU is facing. Piglinbland doesn’t see the relevance to Brexit of the IEO’s damning indictment of the IMF’s lack of due diligence and misrepresentation.
Point 2: The author of the FT article espouses complex requirements in support of staying in the EU and punitive measures to get out. They do not enlighten the reader of the dangers of staying ‘in’ the EU.

Referring to point 1, of course the IEO’s ruling is relevant. What predicament would Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy be in now, financially or unemployment, if the IMF had proceeded with the due diligence and utilised unbiased accurate assessments expected of it? While we can’t guess how badly it would have ended if the relevant guidelines had been followed, we can safely assume the end game would have been worse and possibly catastrophic. Within my peer group (mainly small business orientated) we wanted out because of how the EU was run, based on years of actual ‘evidence’ accumulating including easy to interpret statistics. If the referendum voters had been faced with a worse scenario within the Eurozone than the one put forward during the campaign it would be reasonable to assume the majority would have been greater.

Referring to point 2, I am assuming the FT writer is a journalist or politician. Many a graduate student could tell you of being asked to write a synopsis ‘for’ or ‘against’ a given topic. This invariably would necessitate research of the subject matter. Journalists are very adept at this, especially when covering a story without an in house expert. There are no experts on Brexit, anywhere, and nothing to research. Bringing together the many unknowable permutations and components of Brexit beforehand would have been quite pointless.

Canadian, Jeremy Kinsman, is also quoted as saying: “We’ve always counted on Britain both as a friend and as a sort of ‘Liberal voice’ (the quotation marks are mine, what is he saying about the rest?) within the European Union,” “And its exit worries Canadians, Canadian policy makers, because we don’t any longer have that channel, that particular channel in which generally we vested quite a lot of confidence.” No mention of the spiraling decline in the Eurozone’s immigration policy, debt crisis, unemployment crisis, just concern for Canada. You can see where I’m going with that on a worldwide basis.

“Greenland population less than Croydon – fish.”
European exports to UK £290 billion goods and services.
UK exports to the EU £220 billion. It’s hard to believe a journalist pitched that stat for comparison but not a politician. I would think a £70 billion profit in EU’s favour not to mention the jobs created by £290 billion worth of exports will help focus minds on a little more effort and moderation. Croydon - fish, I ask you!
Giuliano Amato serves as an Honorary Co-Chair for the World Justice Project. The World Justice Project works to lead a global, multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the Rule of Law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity.[5]

With Amato and Lord Kerr wording it we should be in safe hands. But does it not say something about the EU bureaucrats. It sounds like we could have been done up like a kipper along with the rest of Europe if it had not been for our stubbornness. Not for the first time it’s worth noting. Amato is quoted as likening his wording of Article 50 as a fire extinguisher, never to be used. Perhaps he didn’t expect the European Commission bureaucrats expanding the citadel using highly inflammable material.

The rest of the article is nothing more than a worst case scenario slightly more dramatic than Remains’ pitch in the referendum. Ejection, really? Are the Eurozone expecting growth during these negotiations? Are their unemployment figures tumbling? Why can’t Remain identify their will be no profit for ‘anyone’ by stalling.

Brutal comments on a Brexit item, or any other item? Nothing new there then. You can’t say ‘I don’t like cats’ without the floodgates of bile opening on comments columns and social media. My only contact with social media is Facebook. While I’m not a daily visitor I have not seen Brexit mentioned once since 23/06. No bragging and no complaining.

I can understand misgivings about the task ahead. It is enormous and believed by many to be foolhardy.
What I believe to be foolhardy is believing the principle that a group of different cultures, different languages and different economies can coexist under an unanswerable bureaucratic regime who’s only worry seems to be keeping the substantial gravy train on the rails. Their inability to address their failings is what has brought us to where we are now.

It is plain for everyone to see the Eurozone is struggling. It is staring us in the face. In my view a fear of the unknown stops more people excepting that than is healthy. The trade gap between us is widening. We are buying more of them because of our healthy economy while they are buying less of us because of their struggling economy.

To conclude the UK wants to trade with everyone and we have a massive economy to support cooperation in negotiations.
Our cooperation and financial input would remain fulsome in regards to terrorism, crime and security.

We cannot change the way the EU is run by the ballot box and while we do have a voice in the European Parliament there are too many countries fearing they have too much to lose by reform for it to be heard. It is a hole not of our making.

It won’t be painless nor will it be disastrous. But something does need doing, IMHO.

This +1

 

Good post. I admire your tenacity, but I am afraid wasted and those who do not want to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a good post but his points clearly show that he's someone on the other side who doesn't want to listen, like most of us he's made his mind up and will continue make the case for brexit as the country goes into serious decline.

I find it a bit sad that he can't see how different cultures can co-exist, he also mentions different languages being unable to co-exist, well the rest of Europe appear to have met us more than half way on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be fine. We won't leave and all remainers will feel superior and clever and comfortable and warm inside generally.

 

The Brexit cave dwellers will get to wallow in their sense of betrayal which, let's face it, they love. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they didn't feel exploited and disrespected by Johnny Foreigner and the British Establishment. They'll be happy as pigs in :censored:!

 

Article 50? Still no isn't it? Yep. It's no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ta

It is a good post but his points clearly show that he's someone on the other side who doesn't want to listen, like most of us he's made his mind up and will continue make the case for brexit as the country goes into serious decline.

I find it a bit sad that he can't see how different cultures can co-exist, he also mentions different languages being unable to co-exist, well the rest of Europe appear to have met us more than half way on that one.[/quote

 

I take it this is a joke post because I've read it 3 times and heartily laughed each time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nicely presented critique from mikeroyboy - Although I think that 53 pages on and 6 weeks after the referendum our views are as diametrically opposed - and entrenched - as they can be.

 

It's a bit much asking me to find a solution to the EU crisis although I have already on occasion suggested a plan - namely that Britain should have used her 2017 presidency to seriously and robustly strengthen her position in the EU. The cripplingly long and expensive Brexit process (if it ever goes ahead) will lead Britain to a place far behind where she would have been, free of charge, had she remained in the EU. I also believe that a majority of politicians from all sides of the political divide would privately agree with this.

 

On Europe - It's revealing that, as the scale of the Brexit deception became clear, the argument that Europe was sequestering 'our' money and power changed to an argument that Europe is crumbling and on the point of collapse. Nobody, however, has wished to answer my questions - If Brexit does indeed precipitate the beginning of the end for Europe, how can this possibly be something we can rejoice over? How do you envisage the future of Europe without the EU? (if this is even possible).

 

On Britain - I made a comment about Hinckley point the other day. It's indicative of our gullibility as a people in the face of giant media conglomerates that we have such a developed sense of patriotism (stimulated and nurtured all along the way, of course) when, ironically, we are about the least socially cohesive nation in Europe. If the French and the Chinese provide the technology and funding to build a nuclear power station which in turn powers our ever-increasing appetite to subscribe to and spend money with multinationals that operate out of tax havens and pay little or no tax in Britain, how the hell can we even consider ourselves to be inside the car, let alone back in the driving seat? No wonder Murdoch wants to operate outside of the EU - what with it's wretched notions of transparency, equality and social justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a good post but his points clearly show that he's someone on the other side who doesn't want to listen, like most of us he's made his mind up and will continue make the case for brexit as the country goes into serious decline.

I find it a bit sad that he can't see how different cultures can co-exist, he also mentions different languages being unable to co-exist, well the rest of Europe appear to have met us more than half way on that one.

Ha, Caruso, the old journalistic/media trick of quoting something out of context. Let me correct that for you, the full sentence. "What I believe to be foolhardy is believing the principle that a group of different cultures, different languages and different economies can coexist under an unanswerable bureaucratic regime who’s only worry seems to be keeping the substantial gravy train on the rails." A different meaning to what you inferred. Secondly, There has been no meeting us more than half way with the English language by the EU. There has been a natural global progression towards English without any sort of effort or persuasion by us over the last few decades. English may well be a language of communication in the Brussels corridors but not in Parliament and Commissions.

 

I was already financially and politically aware of many of the problems but I spent 3 months pre-Brexit reading everything I could on the subject. 'facts' on Remain were, quite naturally, few and far between. I made my mind up 6 weeks ago and I'm not about to change it yet.

 

Apart from those points you don't appear to have a problem with the other 'facts'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nicely presented critique from mikeroyboy - Although I think that 53 pages on and 6 weeks after the referendum our views are as diametrically opposed - and entrenched - as they can be.

 

It's a bit much asking me to find a solution to the EU crisis although I have already on occasion suggested a plan - namely that Britain should have used her 2017 presidency to seriously and robustly strengthen her position in the EU (Never going to happen, we are and have been for many years a stand apart, financially stable nation not dependant on the EU. There was never a chance that would break up the triumvirate of Germany with France and Italy, not forgetting all the EU dependant states who would vote for the status quo,) The cripplingly long and expensive (Fact or Fiction.....I'll go with the later because nobody knows yet but, with the greatest respect, I'll side with Mervyn King and his economic acumen before you) Brexit process (if it ever goes ahead) will lead Britain to a place far behind where she would have been, free of charge, had she remained in the EU. I also believe that a majority of politicians from all sides of the political divide would privately agree with this (More Guesswork).

 

On Europe - It's revealing that, as the scale of the Brexit deception became clear, the argument that Europe was sequestering 'our' money and power changed to an argument that Europe is crumbling and on the point of collapse. Nobody, however, has wished to answer my questions - If Brexit does indeed precipitate the beginning of the end for Europe, how can this possibly be something we can rejoice over? (There is no rejoicing about the potential collapse, just relief that we have had the foresight to jump ship and get the best lifeboat) How do you envisage the future of Europe without the EU? (if this is even possible). (Of course it's possible, these countries will start trading individually again).

 

On Britain - I made a comment about Hinckley point the other day. It's indicative of our gullibility as a people in the face of giant media conglomerates that we have such a developed sense of patriotism (stimulated and nurtured all along the way, of course) when, ironically, we are about the least socially cohesive nation in Europe (I would argue the opposite as our record stands up to scrutiny far better than that of Germany and France both now and in the past).. If the French and the Chinese provide the technology and funding to build a nuclear power station which in turn powers our ever-increasing appetite to subscribe to and spend money with multinationals that operate out of tax havens and pay little or no tax in Britain, how the hell can we even consider ourselves to be inside the car, let alone back in the driving seat? No wonder Murdoch wants to operate outside of the EU - what with it's wretched notions of transparency, equality and social justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A nicely presented critique from mikeroyboy - Although I think that 53 pages on and 6 weeks after the referendum our views are as diametrically opposed - and entrenched - as they can be.

 

It's a bit much asking me to find a solution to the EU crisis although I have already on occasion suggested a plan - namely that Britain should have used her 2017 presidency to seriously and robustly strengthen her position in the EU (Never going to happen, we are and have been for many years a stand apart, financially stable nation not dependant on the EU. There was never a chance that would break up the triumvirate of Germany with France and Italy, not forgetting all the EU dependant states who would vote for the status quo, Cop out - how do you know if you don't try?) The cripplingly long and expensive (Fact or Fiction.....I'll go with the later because nobody knows yet but, with the greatest respect, I'll side with Mervyn King and his economic acumen before you) You are entitled to ypur opinion, but if it isn't going to be cripplingly expensive, it should be finished soon, right? Brexit process (if it ever goes ahead) will lead Britain to a place far behind where she would have been, free of charge, had she remained in the EU. I also believe that a majority of politicians from all sides of the political divide would privately agree with this (More Guesswork) Well, as you said, nobody knows yet - but it's my opinion.

 

On Europe - It's revealing that, as the scale of the Brexit deception became clear, the argument that Europe was sequestering 'our' money and power changed to an argument that Europe is crumbling and on the point of collapse. Nobody, however, has wished to answer my questions - If Brexit does indeed precipitate the beginning of the end for Europe, how can this possibly be something we can rejoice over? (There is no rejoicing about the potential collapse, Hmmmmmm just relief that we have had the foresight to jump ship and get the best lifeboat) How do you envisage the future of Europe without the EU? (if this is even possible). (Of course it's possible, these countries will start trading individually again). And possibly fighting again.

 

On Britain - I made a comment about Hinckley point the other day. It's indicative of our gullibility as a people in the face of giant media conglomerates that we have such a developed sense of patriotism (stimulated and nurtured all along the way, of course) when, ironically, we are about the least socially cohesive nation in Europe (I would argue the opposite as our record stands up to scrutiny far better than that of Germany and France both now and in the past). With ever widening gaps between the North and South, rich and poor, with Scotland and Northern Ireland rekindling their own independantist agenda I would say the union has never been more divided. In fact, I'd say we could crumble faster than the EU. . If the French and the Chinese provide the technology and funding to build a nuclear power station which in turn powers our ever-increasing appetite to subscribe to and spend money with multinationals that operate out of tax havens and pay little or no tax in Britain, how the hell can we even consider ourselves to be inside the car, let alone back in the driving seat? No wonder Murdoch wants to operate outside of the EU - what with it's wretched notions of transparency, equality and social justice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A nicely presented critique from mikeroyboy - Although I think that 53 pages on and 6 weeks after the referendum our views are as diametrically opposed - and entrenched - as they can be.

 

It's a bit much asking me to find a solution to the EU crisis although I have already on occasion suggested a plan - namely that Britain should have used her 2017 presidency to seriously and robustly strengthen her position in the EU (Never going to happen, we are and have been for many years a stand apart, financially stable nation not dependant on the EU. There was never a chance that would break up the triumvirate of Germany with France and Italy, not forgetting all the EU dependant states who would vote for the status quo, Cop out - how do you know if you don't try?) The cripplingly long and expensive (Fact or Fiction.....I'll go with the later because nobody knows yet but, with the greatest respect, I'll side with Mervyn King and his economic acumen before you) You are entitled to ypur opinion, but if it isn't going to be cripplingly expensive, it should be finished soon, right? Brexit process (if it ever goes ahead) will lead Britain to a place far behind where she would have been, free of charge, had she remained in the EU. I also believe that a majority of politicians from all sides of the political divide would privately agree with this (More Guesswork) Well, as you said, nobody knows yet - but it's my opinion.

 

On Europe - It's revealing that, as the scale of the Brexit deception became clear, the argument that Europe was sequestering 'our' money and power changed to an argument that Europe is crumbling and on the point of collapse. Nobody, however, has wished to answer my questions - If Brexit does indeed precipitate the beginning of the end for Europe, how can this possibly be something we can rejoice over? (There is no rejoicing about the potential collapse, Hmmmmmm just relief that we have had the foresight to jump ship and get the best lifeboat) How do you envisage the future of Europe without the EU? (if this is even possible). (Of course it's possible, these countries will start trading individually again). And possibly fighting again.

 

On Britain - I made a comment about Hinckley point the other day. It's indicative of our gullibility as a people in the face of giant media conglomerates that we have such a developed sense of patriotism (stimulated and nurtured all along the way, of course) when, ironically, we are about the least socially cohesive nation in Europe (I would argue the opposite as our record stands up to scrutiny far better than that of Germany and France both now and in the past). With ever widening gaps between the North and South, rich and poor, with Scotland and Northern Ireland rekindling their own independantist agenda I would say the union has never been more divided. In fact, I'd say we could crumble faster than the EU. . If the French and the Chinese provide the technology and funding to build a nuclear power station which in turn powers our ever-increasing appetite to subscribe to and spend money with multinationals that operate out of tax havens and pay little or no tax in Britain, how the hell can we even consider ourselves to be inside the car, let alone back in the driving seat? No wonder Murdoch wants to operate outside of the EU - what with it's wretched notions of transparency, equality and social justice.

 

 

 

PiginBland

 

1) In recent years, Britain has voiced its opinions and lost out to heavily majority voting on motions it has tabled. So why make the assumption that just because we would have had the presidency, all these countries that previously voted against us would all cross over to our side.

2) 3 months, 1 year, 5 years.....you can't put a cost against it. Until David Davis gets his team of 200 negotiators together to commence Brexit, we are still in the same position pre-Brexit. To say will be "crippilingly expensive" is guesswork and scaremongering, but it is your opinion. Having said that, I think your opinions are based more in the political world than that of the commercial.

3) Why would there be fighting again, that's what NATO is for. But you can't legislate for historical grievances such as those in the Balkans (which are still simmering) and dare I say it, Greece and Germany.

4) Even without the Brexit Referendum, do you really think Sturgeon would have stopped any future discussions of a further Scottish referendum? All Brexit has done has accelerated the process. But if Scotland does breakaway, England and Wales will be financially richer for it, but poorer in other ways. N.I. is a different matter, since the peace process came about. I have no idea of the demographics of loyalists and republicans then and now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PiginBland

 

1) In recent years, Britain has voiced its opinions and lost out to heavily majority voting on motions it has tabled. So why make the assumption that just because we would have had the presidency, all these countries that previously voted against us would all cross over to our side.

2) 3 months, 1 year, 5 years.....you can't put a cost against it. Until David Davis gets his team of 200 negotiators together to commence Brexit, we are still in the same position pre-Brexit. To say will be "crippilingly expensive" is guesswork and scaremongering, but it is your opinion. Having said that, I think your opinions are based more in the political world than that of the commercial.

3) Why would there be fighting again, that's what NATO is for. But you can't legislate for historical grievances such as those in the Balkans (which are still simmering) and dare I say it, Greece and Germany.

4) Even without the Brexit Referendum, do you really think Sturgeon would have stopped any future discussions of a further Scottish referendum? All Brexit has done has accelerated the process. But if Scotland does breakaway, England and Wales will be financially richer for it, but poorer in other ways. N.I. is a different matter, since the peace process came about. I have no idea of the demographics of loyalists and republicans then and now.

 

You're wrong, my opinions stem from my own experience of spending more half my 50 plus years working in conjunction with Europe - the last 10 spent organising the export of goods from the UK to the EU (and often from there on towards Asia, Australia and America). Doubtless, my beliefs seem to you to be (using that outdated and obsolete term) 'left wing', but they are in fact based on pragmatism and the simple precepts of communication and collaboration - prerequisite to international trade, be that negotiating prices with dealers or meeting with customs officials at London, Bremerhaven or Le Havre. And, of the multitude of officials and entreprenneurs I meet on a daily basis, I can assure you that the prevailing opinion is that Brexit is the biggest balls-up since Suez.

 

Now, since this debate has been on a purely rhetorical level for some while now, I'll state again that reality will likely play out somewhere in between the utopian dreams of the Brexiters and the armageddon portrayed by the remainers, (myself included, as I believe in the importance of worst-case scenario). We now need to realise that the 'purest' form of Brexit is impossible to achieve (ie. total control of frontiers AND single market) and that the likely compromise will be seen as a betrayal (although heralded as a triumph). Add to that my own experience - that Britain already freely interprets EU duty directives - particularly where China is involved - benefits from the free market AND transits from the UK to the rest of the world free of charge via the EU, and it's difficult to see how we could improve on that.

Edited by piglinbland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're wrong, my opinions stem from my own experience of spending more half my 50 plus years working in conjunction with Europe - the last 10 spent organising the export of goods from the UK to the EU (and often from there on towards Asia, Australia and America). Doubtless, my beliefs seem to you to be (using that outdated and obsolete term) 'left wing', but they are in fact based on pragmatism and the simple precepts of communication and collaboration - prerequisite to international trade, be that negotiating prices with dealers or meeting with customs officials at London, Bremerhaven or Le Havre. And, of the multitude of officials and entreprenneurs I meet on a daily basis, I can assure you that the prevailing opinion is that Brexit is the biggest balls-up since Suez.

 

Now, since this debate has been on a purely rhetorical level for some while now, I'll state again that reality will likely play out somewhere in between the utopian dreams of the Brexiters and the armageddon portrayed by the remainers, (myself included, as I believe in the importance of worst-case scenario). We now need to realise that the 'purest' form of Brexit is impossible to achieve (ie. total control of frontiers AND single market) and that the likely compromise will be seen as a betrayal (although heralded as a triumph). Add to that my own experience - that Britain already freely interprets EU duty directives - particularly where China is involved - benefits from the free market AND transits from the UK to the rest of the world free of charge via the EU, and it's difficult to see how we could improve on that.

It's funny how touchy people get when called "left wing" but have no problem using the term "right wing".....just an observation.

 

Now I don't profess to have your connections but I do know through my dealings with several exporting companies in the Federation of Small Businesses that the concensus within this small group is the amount of EU regulatory, one size fits all red tape which they consider pointless and unnecessary.

 

A question, why did you not take this level headed approach earlier in this debate instead of your "Doomsday, End of the world is nigh" stance which some of us had you standing shoulder to shoulder with Cameron and Osborn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how touchy people get when called "left wing" but have no problem using the term "right wing".....just an observation.

 

Now I don't profess to have your connections but I do know through my dealings with several exporting companies in the Federation of Small Businesses that the concensus within this small group is the amount of EU regulatory, one size fits all red tape which they consider pointless and unnecessary.

 

A question, why did you not take this level headed approach earlier in this debate instead of your "Doomsday, End of the world is nigh" stance which some of us had you standing shoulder to shoulder with Cameron and Osborn?

 

Maybe you haven't followed this thread from the start? Because I put it all in there on several occasions - low-volume international trade from E.O.R.I. to the Rotterdam effect.

 

The bottom line is that (from my own observations and at risk of repeating myself) goods are purchased and shipped for, ideally, maximum return and minimum fuss. The recipe for doing so relies on flexible interpretation of the rules and establishing good (and longstanding, if possible) business relationships with all concerned, particularly customs offices and shipping brokers, who, over time, will come to understand your requirements.

 

Any product (within legal reason) can transit between the EU and Britain freely and without control, provided provenance can be supplied, obviously, in the form of receipts. Furthermore, goods can be (and frequently are) imported to Britain from outside the EU and then moved on to mainland of Europe, thus waiving EU import duties that should normally be applied - because Britain decides not to impose them. Britain can also export via all EU points of departure to the rest of the world and not pay a penny in tax and duty to the EU. Add to this that some UK businesses export successfully from the UK to the rest of the world without even being aware of some of the prerequisite formalities such is the level of rule bending! Since custom and excise regulations are the only EU directives that are not individually tailor- made for each and every member state, yet are so open to 'interpretation', I have always found it hard to believe the 'standardisation' argument.

 

Or, in other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, Caruso, the old journalistic/media trick of quoting something out of context. Let me correct that for you, the full sentence. "What I believe to be foolhardy is believing the principle that a group of different cultures, different languages and different economies can coexist under an unanswerable bureaucratic regime who’s only worry seems to be keeping the substantial gravy train on the rails." A different meaning to what you inferred. Secondly, There has been no meeting us more than half way with the English language by the EU. There has been a natural global progression towards English without any sort of effort or persuasion by us over the last few decades. English may well be a language of communication in the Brussels corridors but not in Parliament and Commissions.

 

I was already financially and politically aware of many of the problems but I spent 3 months pre-Brexit reading everything I could on the subject. 'facts' on Remain were, quite naturally, few and far between. I made my mind up 6 weeks ago and I'm not about to change it yet.

 

Apart from those points you don't appear to have a problem with the other 'facts'.

 

I don't really want to go through all of your "facts" one by one but I thought it right to pick up on those particular points, the different cultures are irrelevant as we do have shared values such as human rights and democracy, I agree with you about the gravy train aspect and that could be fixed without us leaving and swapping the EU gravy train for the home grown version. As for language I was merely pointing out that it was not the issue you were making it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Betrayal watchers: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has 46 senior civil servants. The Department for Jumping Off A Cliff will have 32. A minor detail, except in the mind of the Secretary of State for Jumping Off A Cliff.

 

All three Brexit Secretaries of State, who will flatshare at the grace-and-favour pile normally reserved for the Foreign Secretary, have obvious (they're inevitable!) routes to failure in terms of leaving the EU. Johnson doesn't care and will go where the wind blows. If he can work it so he gets taken seriously (huge doubts after this summer's drubbing), he gets to be PM, and :censored: all that about leaving the EU.

 

Davis is reputed not to be a details man and (we now know) does not have the mandarin clout to help him out of that deep hole.

 

Fox is a zealot and a dangerous enthusiast - every week he'll be writing a fresh explosive resignation letter to keep in his pocket, just so he can cope with the latest May backtrack.

 

Meanwhile, the more Her Majesty's underpaid and understaffed civil service looks into the intricacies of the entanglement, the more difficult the project gets. I don't fancy any or all of Johnson, Davis and Fox to sort that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

...and Her Majesty's Most Loyal Civil Service comes up with The Great Repeal Bill, which means the long grass of green paper (minimum consultation of 12 weeks), ponderance (no maximum time), white paper, consultation, pondernace, huge drafting exercise (no maximum time), parliamentary committee scrutiny of draft Bill (likely because of the huge constitutional aspects), second reading debate for a couple or more days (if we ever get there), line by line standing committee scrutiny, which could take longer than Crossrail or the last Companies Act, report (of a Bill different from the one introduced, further amendments, a great many defeats for the government in the various Lords stages of the Bill, attempted reversion to the original via debates on Lords amendments in the Commons, followed by royal assent. At which point (unlikely we'll get this far before the Sun expands to swallow the earth) we start negotiating.

 

To give an idea of the potential length of time involved, one common ministerial answer to demands for a speedy government analysis of, for instance, a select committee inquiry into fertilisers, is "it'll be done by spring"...to which the obvious supplementary inquiry is "spring of what year". 2020 for the Great Repeal Bill? Later? 2025? Never?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...