Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Sheeple Splinter]

5 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

1) What does this even mean? He doesn't like free movement? Well, most EU citizens do.

2) If the EU did not exist, the refugee crisis would not cease to exist and would possibly be worse as nations had even less incentive to cooperate. 

3) The EU has experienced rstrong growth throughout almost its entire existence bar since the 2008 general crash. Since then, as you'd expect on nations highly exposed to the spiderweb of world finances, growth took a dip, as it did elsewhere. Also since then, most countries have returned to growth while some remain stagnant. Just as many countries not in the EU also either remain stagnant or continue to decline. 

1) Did you read the article?

2) They are not cooperating on the migrant crisis.

3) Not according to Juncker's, 'White Paper on the Reform of Europe'.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-385_en.htm

[Confusion of VIs]

11 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:

If you think free trade is more important than democracy.

We had democracy before Brexit and quite probably will still have it after Brexit.  

[Riedquat]

14 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

Soros suggests that a reformed EU could see the UK voting to remain/rejoin:

I did wonder at the time whether Brexit would ironically result in the EU reforming into something I wouldn't have wanted to leave (although the odds of it going far enough to completely satisfy me are zero). If it keeps up the mentality that drove the UK away it will fall apart sooner or later.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Riedquat

[dugsbody]

3 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

1) Did you read the article?

2) They are not cooperating on the migrant crisis.

3) Not according to Juncker's, 'White Paper on the Reform of Europe'.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-385_en.htm

1) Yes, what does that phrase mean?

2) That means nothing. If you're arguing that the EU should be dissolved because of the migrant crisis then your point needs to be that they'd cooperate more if the EU didn't exist. That would not be the case. It would likely be worse. Therefore it is a non argument.

3) That paper says what about the stats of countries outside of the EU (apologies, it's late and I just re-scanned it)

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

No, it just means that you don't, can't or are unwilling to see the justification. There are huge benefits to socialising the costs between regions and allowing people to move freely. The UK does it. We're all far better off because of it. You have this notion that national borders are an absolute and need no explanation or argument further. You need to define why this is.

I can see the problems it all causes. You need to tell me what the benefits that outweigh them are, because I sure as hell don't see them. National borders are arbitrary lines (mostly, the UK's is largely geographic but that's beside the point), but they do set up some sort of balance between the upsides and downsides of movement. Certainly more people is the last thing the UK needs. That might not be the case with other countries but that's up to them. And please no stupid black-or-white extremes that try to equate being able to travel 100 yards down the road with fundamentally no different than moving thousands of miles to a completely different country.

[Steppenpig]

14 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

We had democracy before Brexit and quite probably will still have it after Brexit.  

That doesn't make sense as a response to my question. You've turned it round to imply it is brexit that undermines democracy.

 

edit, but I'll assume you intended to indicate that improving free trade would justify sacrificing a little democracy. Anyway, bedtime. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Steppenpig

[Sheeple Splinter]

2 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

1) Yes, what does that phrase mean?

2) That means nothing. If you're arguing that the EU should be dissolved because of the migrant crisis then your point needs to be that they'd cooperate more if the EU didn't exist. That would not be the case. It would likely be worse. Therefore it is a non argument.

3) That paper says what about the stats of countries outside of the EU (apologies, it's late and I just re-scanned it)

1) Which phrase? 

2) The point is about reform rather than dissolving the EU. WRT to EU crisis in managing the migrants, they are now adopting the UK's approach from 2 years ago.

3) "Europe’s share of global GDP is shrinking" P.8

[pig]

22 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Democracy is meaningless if it harms the people it is supposed to help. In other words, democracy doesn't trump every outcome. 

Well, that's not quite true.

It looks like Trump is about to devastate the people who voted him in. Ideally they'd learn from that experience - that would be 'meaningful' democracy.

For a variety of reasons - as with Brexit - many won't learn. That's where Democracy is at risk of being ineffective.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

21 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:

That doesn't make sense as a response to my question. You've turned it round to imply it is brexit that undermines democracy.

 

edit, but I'll assume you intended to indicate that improving free trade would justify sacrificing a little democracy. Anyway, bedtime. 

No, I intended to indicate that the two were not directly linked.  

However, trade deals increasingly involve agreeing regulations etc. that are overseen by supranational courts and some people do see that as a loss of sovereignty. For those people it remains to be seen whether the post Brexit world leaves us with more or less sovereignty 

[OnionTerror]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

No, I intended to indicate that the two were not directly linked.  

However, trade deals increasingly involve agreeing regulations etc. that are overseen by supranational courts and some people do see that as a loss of sovereignty. For those people it remains to be seen whether the post Brexit world leaves us with more or less sovereignty 

As eluded to earlier, if we sign up to future regulative bodies et al, then any decisions made to do so, will be made by the UK parliament...this should lead to more sovereignty...

[thecrashingisles]

3 hours ago, tomandlu said:

Then what are you saying? The bottom line is that leaving the EU should be no more ruthless or punitive than it needs to be. Otherwise, what exactly is the relationship between the EU and its members?

That's the wrong question.  The right question is what is the relationship between any one member of the EU and all the rest?

[thecrashingisles]

3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Certainly more people is the last thing the UK needs.

The UK?  

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/attachments/british_isles_population_-25-png.230792/

[Confusion of VIs]

6 hours ago, Dave Beans said:

As eluded to earlier, if we sign up to future regulative bodies et al, then any decisions made to do so, will be made by the UK parliament...this should lead to more sovereignty...

That's a narrow view of sovereignty.

If you regard sovereignty as the ability to achieve the outcomes you wish for, the test is whether our lone voice has more influence over these bodies final decisions than we obtain by working within the EU to first influence the EU's position.  

[Riedquat]

45 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

That's a narrow view of sovereignty.

If you regard sovereignty as the ability to achieve the outcomes you wish for, the test is whether our lone voice has more influence over these bodies final decisions than we obtain by working within the EU to first influence the EU's position.  

Sovereignty is being the one in charge of your own affairs. A lack of influence with the wider world may or may not be an issue but it's not a lack of sovereignty.

[Riedquat]

5 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's the wrong question.  The right question is what is the relationship between any one member of the EU and all the rest?

In an ideal EU, yes. That's why a lot of people think it needs serious reform.

[pig]

19 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Sovereignty is being the one in charge of your own affairs. A lack of influence with the wider world may or may not be an issue but it's not a lack of sovereignty.

A few thousand years ago you could almost literally be in charge of all your affairs.

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, pig said:

A few thousand years ago you could almost literally be in charge of all your affairs.

Another silly "go to a ludicrous extreme" example. They're only of any use when someone holds a rigidly absolute principle and refuses to aknowledge any deviation from it at all can be acceptable. If I was to follow your example I'd say may as well be locked up in prison as accept the EU, after all you've not got complete freedom. But that would be silly.

[Confusion of VIs]

23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Sovereignty is being the one in charge of your own affairs. A lack of influence with the wider world may or may not be an issue but it's not a lack of sovereignty.

You are not in charge of your own affairs if you are constantly having to bend to the will of others.

Having more sovereignty but with less power to achieve our aims is a backwards step.

[pig]

Just now, Riedquat said:

Another silly "go to a ludicrous extreme" example. They're only of any use when someone holds a rigidly absolute principle and refuses to aknowledge any deviation from it at all can be acceptable. If I was to follow your example I'd say may as well be locked up in prison as accept the EU, after all you've not got complete freedom. But that would be silly.

 Precisely.

Ideally I'd like complete 'sovereignty' over the food produced for us, happy to settle for maximum influence though.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, pig said:

 Precisely.

Ideally I'd like complete 'sovereignty' over the food produced for us, happy to settle for maximum influence though.

Definitely. Which is one of the reasons it's bloody obvious that the UK is badly over-populated. I've little interest in influence over what other countries do.

[Riedquat]

10 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You are not in charge of your own affairs if you are constantly having to bend to the will of others.

Having more sovereignty but with less power to achieve our aims is a backwards step.

Having to and choosing to are two different things. Our aims shouldn't require power - which just means bending others to your will.

[thecrashingisles]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

In an ideal EU, yes. That's why a lot of people think it needs serious reform.

No, in the current EU. The negotiating guidelines for Brexit were agreed by the other 27 and represent their interests.

[pig]

50 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Definitely. Which is one of the reasons it's bloody obvious that the UK is badly over-populated. I've little interest in influence over what other countries do.

Which means ideally I'd want the chorizo from Spain to be made to British food standards. Oh dear, maybe that's a little bossy - surely they'd start rioting over their loss of sovereignty? 

Pretty sure though we could come to an agreement  that they'd make it to a certain standard we'd be happy for them to sell it here. Hey and vice versa.  We simply could sign up to the same standard and the Islington set could breathe a sigh of relief that their chorizo and avocado lunch has been saved. Oh shit the avocado....

But would that get past the sovereignty snowflakes ?

Imagine the hysteria from the Rees-Moggs and Liam Foxes of this world...

[knock out johnny]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Definitely. Which is one of the reasons it's bloody obvious that the UK is badly over-populated. I've little interest in influence over what other countries do.

How tediously and utterly predictable. 

Yawn

[tomandlu]

6 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's the wrong question.  The right question is what is the relationship between any one member of the EU and all the rest?

As Yanis points out, the EU position is logical but inherently undemocratic. The EU is not a democracy itself - the elected MEPs ratify rather than formulate - but nor can it heed individual democracies, since those 'belong' to the individual states, rather than the EU as a body. How on earth is that right or workable?