Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

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

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

All we have to do now is define what we mean by 'peoples'. Clearly the 'peoples' of Northern England have a very different view of sovereignty and how best to pursue their own economic, social and cultural development than the 'peoples' of Greater London, even though the 'peoples' of Greater London generate most of the national income.

And how about we change the word submission for the word community and try asking that question again?

Submission is an antonym and was used as a counterpoint for purpose of illustration. Community means "the condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common." Sovereignty in a democracy is a system that would mediate and resolve the differences you mention, which are valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, crouch said:

Yes you are right here. Of course it is usually the unmeasureable things that are the most valuable. Freedom is unmeasureable

It is part of the mindset that sees Brexit as only about economics; if it reduces long term GDP growth by 0.1% then it's bad.

It was a simple question...what are the benefits?

Regarding freedom.... it is not so cut and dry as you think. I remember when seat belts where made mandatory.....they where viewed as constraining (literally) of your freedom...but generally accepted as overall good for the nation...proven over time and measurable....however it was still a taking of your liberty. I have no doubt that the FTA's we have struck up through the EU have also taken away some of our liberties but they have been judged to be overall beneficial....as are all deals that are freely agreed and enetered into by both parties.

But as another posted, there is cooperation and community to consider for mutual benefit. We will have to cooperate and be part of the world's community no matter what we do....... you need to be more specific about what this new found sovereignty will give us over and above that which we have now, not just in economic terms.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

There maybe 3000 pages of posts but to date I haven't seen anything that comes close to a coherent and credible vision for a Brexit that will benefit the majority of Britons..

Lots of ridiculous claims that are easy to debunk (or ridicule) but nothing that stands up to any degree of scrutiny.  

   

Here's a bit of scrutiny on the EU trade deals we hear so much about:

Reality: Today the EU claims ‘agreements’ with only 36 countries are ‘in place’.

This is half the number of 70 countries spoken about by the British media.

The vast majority of these are tiny or meaningless. Very few of these are what might be called Free Trade Agreements.

Only 1 is officially labelled by the EU as a “Free Trade Agreement” – South Korea

  • 3 of the 36 ‘agreements in place’ have no effect on tariffs anyway
  • 3 of the remaining 33 are already part of the EU Customs Union, eg Andorra
  • 3 of the remaining 30 are already part of the EEA (European Economic Area), eg Liechtenstein
  • 6 of the remaining 27 are “Stabilisation & Association Agreements” with EU-accession countries
  • 5 of the last 21 are in fact one ‘Partnership Agreement’ deal with Southern African states such as Lesotho
  • Of the remaining 21, there are “Association Agreements” with tiny countries like Moldova

 <EDIT> ...The majority of the countries on the EU’s list of ‘agreements in place’ would barely be noticeable if for any reason they chose not to replicate the deals they have with the EU. Indeed, in many cases these ‘deals’ come at a net cost, such as those with EU-accession countries where the EU actually gives these countries billions and which the UK taxpayer part-pays for. ...

Extract from:

https://facts4eu.org/news/2019_feb_eu_trade_deals

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, crouch said:

"The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. ... All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Sovereignty is the right of self determination. An antonym is submission.

Ask people if they would prefer self determination or submission. When you've done that report back on the answers. I predict that most will choose self determination and will not only choose it but regard it as most precious.

If you cannot see the "tangible" benefits of sovereignty then you are already a slave. 

 

And so we have and continue to do so.... we initially decided to cooperate for our mutual benefit.... a sovereign decision.... we can and have decided to withdraw from that cooperation....a sovereign decision.......

The question remains..... what are the extra benefits from our decision to withdraw from this optional cooperation? (because it is and always has been optional).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, crouch said:

A very interesting article if you've got twenty minutes to spare:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/02/11/suddenly-europe-open-question-nazi-eu.html

At the moment I'm reading:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tainted-Source-Undemocratic-Origins-European-ebook/dp/B01F3Z2J5U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1549963910&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+tainted+source

Laughland identifies the idea of a Großraumwirtschaft (large economic area) as a Nazi idea to bring the continent under German control. In some ways this echos the 19th century zollverein in Bismarck's time.

The UK has historically been in favour of a balance of power in Europe to prevent hegemony. The German notion of a unified Europe goes back at least to the Holy Roman Empire.

Don't worry.

Soon you won't even have to think about foreigners and their odd ways.

If any of them dare to approach, we get Grizzly and his musket crew to hole their boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kzb said:

Here's a bit of scrutiny on the EU trade deals we hear so much about:

Reality: Today the EU claims ‘agreements’ with only 36 countries are ‘in place’.

This is half the number of 70 countries spoken about by the British media.

The vast majority of these are tiny or meaningless. Very few of these are what might be called Free Trade Agreements.

Only 1 is officially labelled by the EU as a “Free Trade Agreement” – South Korea

  • 3 of the 36 ‘agreements in place’ have no effect on tariffs anyway
  • 3 of the remaining 33 are already part of the EU Customs Union, eg Andorra
  • 3 of the remaining 30 are already part of the EEA (European Economic Area), eg Liechtenstein
  • 6 of the remaining 27 are “Stabilisation & Association Agreements” with EU-accession countries
  • 5 of the last 21 are in fact one ‘Partnership Agreement’ deal with Southern African states such as Lesotho
  • Of the remaining 21, there are “Association Agreements” with tiny countries like Moldova

 <EDIT> ...The majority of the countries on the EU’s list of ‘agreements in place’ would barely be noticeable if for any reason they chose not to replicate the deals they have with the EU. Indeed, in many cases these ‘deals’ come at a net cost, such as those with EU-accession countries where the EU actually gives these countries billions and which the UK taxpayer part-pays for. ...

Extract from:

https://facts4eu.org/news/2019_feb_eu_trade_deals

 

Here's my source for pro-Brexit information

https://www.beano.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, crouch said:

Yes you are right here. Of course it is usually the unmeasureable things that are the most valuable. Freedom is unmeasureable

It is part of the mindset that sees Brexit as only about economics; if it reduces long term GDP growth by 0.1% then it's bad.

It's also why I find it easy to accept people who simply like the EU as a concept because they agree with the idea of something a bit more closely resembling a superstate, that they like the whole idea of less distinction between its members and seeing it as one big thing. It's not a view I personally find appealing but if someone says they voted Remain because of it I have no problem accepting that, on that entirely non-tangible reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I would beg to differ. London contains the bulk of parasitical class that give the appearance of generating income. Always has.

No. All the world's capital cities are wealth aggregators, even London. Moreover, as Jane Jacobs observed in Cities and the Wealth of Nations, cities are the primary social and economic agents of change in the world not states, provinces or countries.

 

chartoftheday_11515_the_capital_s_econom

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

And so we have and continue to do so.... we initially decided to cooperate for our mutual benefit.... a sovereign decision.... we can and have decided to withdraw from that cooperation....a sovereign decision.......

The question remains..... what are the extra benefits from our decision to withdraw from this optional cooperation? (because it is and always has been optional).

EU law will no longer apply. We will set our own laws and not be subject to the ECJ. The Treaty of Lisbon detailed 135 areas where the ECJ writ would run. So far we have adopted 35 of these. Leaving would mean we can opt out of all 35 and opt back in on a case by case basis.

It will be able to set new policies in agriculture and fisheries which are closer to our national interests.

It will no longer be subject to FOM. Even though immigration may not fall we have no control over EU immigration.

The issues regarding trade are well documented.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crouch said:

EU law will no longer apply. We will set our own laws and not be subject to the ECJ. The Treaty of Lisbon detailed 135 areas where the ECJ writ would run. So far we have adopted 35 of these. Leaving would mean we can opt out of all 35 and opt back in on a case by case basis.

It will be able to set new policies in agriculture and fisheries which are closer to our national interests.

It will no longer be subject to FOM. Even though immigration may not fall we have no control over EU immigration.

The issues regarding trade are well documented.

 

There is an assumption that by 'taking back control' of the areas you have mentioned, there will be an overall benefit to us. What is that overall benefit? Sure there are issues regarding specific areas of cooperation you mention (which are evolving), but are they enough to overshadow the overall benefits we currently enjoy?....when taken as a whole and on overall economic terms I think not.... then on what other terms?

BOLD: that is not strictly true...there were many instruments we could have used to gain control over EU immigration but we did not.

I understand that this whole issue is more than just about the economy...but in my simple view if you impact the economy negatively and the 'other undefined' benefits are not self evident and demonstrably better in real terms to those who voted Leave, then you are looking square in the face of failure. I don't think they will be satisfied by answers such as 'subject to ECJ law' or the 'Treaty of Lisbon'. We are way past Bendy Bannanas being used as a propaganda tool.

I accept that ceasing our close cooperation with the EU means that we will be bound by less than we were. But this does not translate into an overall benefit automatically.

Edited by IMHAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

And so we have and continue to do so.... we initially decided to cooperate for our mutual benefit.... a sovereign decision.... we can and have decided to withdraw from that cooperation....a sovereign decision.......

The question remains..... what are the extra benefits from our decision to withdraw from this optional cooperation? (because it is and always has been optional).

I'm with GD on this. 

Even if you don't believe them yourself, list what we have been over many times on here. 

If you do it yourself it will stick in your mind much better, like doing exam revision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I accept that ceasing our close cooperation with the EU means that we will be bound by less than we were. But this does not translate into an overall benefit automatically.

Of course not and there are trade offs as you have suggested. But these trade offs cannot be valued in many cases (what is the benefit of a beautiful view?) and it all depends which stance you take. There is no "right" answer to your question; it all depends on what you value and hence there is no objective means of deciding the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, crouch said:

Of course not and there are trade offs as you have suggested. But these trade offs cannot be valued in many cases (what is the benefit of a beautiful view?) and it all depends which stance you take. There is no "right" answer to your question; it all depends on what you value and hence there is no objective means of deciding the issue.

That is a very convenient position for you to take if I might say so..... it will also prove unacceptable when people ask why we did this in the face of job losses, reduced income or higher living costs.

You need to define what you are trading the negative economic impact of Brexit for..... if you can't at least define it (measurement comes later) then I suggest you really don't have a handle on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-47211931/no-deal-brexit-food-businesses-facing-extinction

I think the correct word for this is ........decimation..

What are we trading the negative economic impact of Brexit for???? 

Of course the report refers to the frictional difficulties of no deal and there is no doubt that this is a warning that should be taken very seriously.

However, the poster has implied that this is a downside of Brexit generally when it is not; it is frictional difficulty of a no deal scenario.

Brexit means the CAP is dustbinned and we are free of the costs of the CAP, mostly in terms of higher food prices which impact on the poorest the most. Brexit will enable us to import food at World prices and selectively subsidise agricultural sectors for strategic or social reasons. 

This will be a substantial benefit but may well see more businesses withe a European orientation go out of business as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

That is a very convenient position for you to take if I might say so..... it will also prove unacceptable when people ask why we did this in the face of job losses, reduced income or higher living costs.

You need to define what you are trading the negative economic impact of Brexit for..... if you can't at least define it (measurement comes later) then I suggest you really don't have a handle on it. 

You and your ilk make the same mistake time and time again: that Brexit is only about economics; it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crouch said:

You and your ilk make the same mistake time and time again: that Brexit is only about economics; it isn't.

Brexit is about more control for the UK government. Is that really a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Brexit is about more control for the UK government. Is that really a good idea?

Brexit has shown the government to be a complete shambles and appallingly incapable; in fact almost laughably so. Realising that it is appalling is the first step to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

That is a very convenient position for you to take if I might say so..... it will also prove unacceptable when people ask why we did this in the face of job losses, reduced income or higher living costs.

You need to define what you are trading the negative economic impact of Brexit for..... if you can't at least define it (measurement comes later) then I suggest you really don't have a handle on it. 

And that's a very convenient position for you. Anything that can't be potentially nailed down with a fixed measurement you can dismiss as undefined and unacceptable, and once again you end up saying "only measurable economic considerations matter." No-one's claiming they don't matter but it's a big mistake to fixate on them mattering 100% to the exclusion of all else.

By measurable standards I made a big mistake moving to where I currently live. More time and money spent on commuting - higher living costs. There is no measurable benefit that I could define to your satisfaction that would say it was the right move, but it was simply because I'm rather happier for it. Different people, different surroundings, different atmosphere, different aesthetics - they've all proved more beneficial than the monetary cost but you can't measure or define them other than to say that's what they are.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, crouch said:

Brexit has shown the government to be a complete shambles and appallingly incapable; in fact almost laughably so. Realising that it is appalling is the first step to change.

The scary thing is just how many Remainers use that as an excuse for saying an even less accountable body should have more authority!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

All we have to do now is define what we mean by 'peoples'. Clearly the 'peoples' of Northern England have a very different view of sovereignty and how best to pursue their own economic, social and cultural development than the 'peoples' of Greater London, even though the 'peoples' of Greater London generate most of the national income.

And how about we change the word submission for the word community and try asking that question again?

Nearly one in three people in London are on welfare in some form, a large proportion of residents of inner and central London live in social housing. It consumes by far and away the highest level of welfare spending on working age people of any English region - most notably housing benefit.

There is a difference between London as an entity - and London residents 'or peoples' as you call them. Many of those who generate the wealth in London don't live there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   323 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.