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

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Thought you meant for its own sake.

No, I don't think we shouldn't have signed it even though it's causing difficulties now.

Then you've completely negated your own point.  We should get into arrangements with our neighbours even if they are difficult to get out of if they are to our mutual benefit.

Edited September 9, 2019 by thecrashingisles

[slawek]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Historically speaking quite a bit of effort went in to repressing them. You could argue that it's reverting to tribalism to encourage their return, but personally I think it's a very good thing that children in Wales learn Welsh in school now, to pick one example.

I agree with that. The UK is dominated by England. The EU is better balanced, they really try to make decisions by a consensus.  

[jonb2]

20 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

We don't need the EU to be able work together

No, of course we don't. I am assured by the grand plans to make us a beacon of science, engineering and research after Brexit

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/science-and-brexit.aspx

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/brexit-uk-science/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49133625

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/no-deal-brexit-could-mean-130m-hit-to-research-budgets

[Riedquat]

Just now, slawek said:

Why do you then after a consideration decided that you desire to keep things as they are is more important than other people desire to freedom?

My core believe is to make people as happy as possible. 

Having a choice to make you happy at expense many other people I think that my goal is better achieved by making other people happy as I treat people equally.  

You don't treat people equally. Your desire comes at the expense of many other people too, i.e. anyone who wants something different to what you do. What you want makes a lot of people unhappy. Whilst it's fair enough to say "I think on balance my approach will make more people happier than yours" (I disagree, but it's a reasonable stance to take) the problem is that you're giving the impression that you think yours is fundamentally, unquestionably better and anyone else's is therefore wrong.

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Then you've completely negated your own point.  We should get into arrangements with our neighbours even if they are difficult to get out of if they are to our mutual benefit.

The accusation that I've negated my point only holds true if you take a simple black-and-white view that there's a set of criteria that you can apply to every situation. That something is difficult to get out of is a serious negative. It's not the only consideration though.

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, Riedquat said:

The accusation that I've negated my point only holds true if you take a simple black-and-white view that there's a set of criteria that you can apply to every situation. That something is difficult to get out of is a serious negative. It's not the only consideration though.

That something is difficult to get out of is also a positive when it comes to multilateral cooperation given that one of the fundamental points of the EU is to make war between member states materially impossible.

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

So you're against the whole principle of the single market?  Would you allow a car made to Hungarian standards to drive across the border into Austria, or would you have police checks fining people for driving substandard cars?

I'm against the principle of the single market taken to that degree, yes. It isn't even quite to that degree - the MoT test isn't a European standard even though it incorporates some EU directives. So you've already got cars crossing borders with different standards.

How does it currently work with cars outside from outside the EU? Must be an issue for countries in the EU that border ones that aren't. In your example I'd say that should be up to Austria to decide.

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

That something is difficult to get out of is also a positive when it comes to multilateral cooperation given that one of the fundamental points of the EU is to make war between member states materially impossible.

If things got to that stage of disagreement how would it prevent war? NATO is more significant in preventing war in Europe.

I'd claim that something like the EU was only possible in the first place because the countries that formed it and the ones that later joined had reached the point where war between them was unthinkable (even if the last one was fairly recent history at the time).

[slawek]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

You don't treat people equally. Your desire comes at the expense of many other people too, i.e. anyone who wants something different to what you do. What you want makes a lot of people unhappy. Whilst it's fair enough to say "I think on balance my approach will make more people happier than yours" (I disagree, but it's a reasonable stance to take) the problem is that you're giving the impression that you think yours is fundamentally, unquestionably better and anyone else's is therefore wrong.

Can you be more specific? Why don't I treat people equally? What my desire do you mean?

I thought I clearly explained my reasoning. I can't make all people happy. I can only maximise happiness. I don't deny I can make some people unhappy but it is a best solution.

You haven't answered my question below two times. Avoiding this suggests that there are some sinister reasons. 

Why do you then after a consideration decided that you desire to keep things as they are is more important than other people desire to freedom?

 

[allfiredup]

10 minutes ago, pig said:

Yes 'the dividers' like to play on this, and you're advocating division as a way of bringing people together. 

Only in Brexitland

 

No, i'm advocating maintaining the existing division to prevent a explosion

You are advocating a mixing of cultures and don't care about the outcome

And the dividers are forcing a mixture in the hope of an explosion.

So who is fighting the dividers war for them?

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, Riedquat said:

If things got to that stage of disagreement how would it prevent war? NATO is more significant in preventing war in Europe.

I'd claim that something like the EU was only possible in the first place because the countries that formed it and the ones that later joined had reached the point where war between them was unthinkable (even if the last one was fairly recent history at the time).

It's certainly not true that war was unthinkable in the 1950s.  The logic is very simple: by making countries so economically interdependent that they cannot function without each other, and backing it up with a rules-based system, you remove both the incentive and the capacity to make war on each other.

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

No, i'm advocating maintaining the existing division to prevent a explosion

You are advocating a mixing of cultures and don't care about the outcome

And the dividers are forcing a mixture in the hope of an explosion.

So who is fighting the dividers war for them?

Do you predict an explosion because of too many Poles?

[OnionTerror]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

I'm against the principle of the single market taken to that degree, yes. It isn't even quite to that degree - the MoT test isn't a European standard even though it incorporates some EU directives. So you've already got cars crossing borders with different standards.

How does it currently work with cars outside from outside the EU? Must be an issue for countries in the EU that border ones that aren't. In your example I'd say that should be up to Austria to decide.

The EU uses UNECE's WP 29 in regards to harmonisation of vehicle standards & type approvals...

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive/technical-harmonisation/international_en

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Forum_for_Harmonization_of_Vehicle_Regulations

 

 

[winkie]

 

[allfiredup]

11 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

That something is difficult to get out of is also a positive when it comes to multilateral cooperation given that one of the fundamental points of the EU is to make war between member states materially impossible.

That's nonsense. When something is difficult to get out of and it gets to point where the people want out, you've got problems.

Maybe the EU is right for some of the mainland countries who have ahd those problems in the past, but it's not needed for us.

[crouch]

21 minutes ago, slawek said:

The global decision making structure with some supporting infrastructure is a state (nothing different from your local authority but on a bigger scale).  Nations are just some high level cultures within a state. Countries are just geographical units.

This is just not true. Since when has the UN the power to levy tax or make laws?

 

23 minutes ago, slawek said:

There is no need for an element of authoritarianism, people just work together. Why do you think those different cultures need to fight with each other? I don't know where you live but in London there is no problem with that. People have different customs and languages but we work together when we need fix a road for an example.   

This begs the question. If we take the EU this was never designed to be democratic; it was modelled on the League of Nations and the model contained two core elements: the abolition of a national veto and the understanding that popular consent would be the absolute minimum. 

Cultures don't need to fight each other but the fact that many find value in being part of distinct cultures and do not wish to be absorbed into a cosmopolitan miasma should be celebrated rather than decried. Diversity is good.

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

That's nonsense. When something is difficult to get out of and it gets to point where the people want out, you've got problems.

Maybe the EU is right for some of the mainland countries who have ahd those problems in the past, but it's not needed for us.

We've never been immune to war and conflict and have more recent experience of it than many of our neighbours.

Fundamentally the reason Brexit is difficult is that too many people don't want to leave.  The Brexiteers haven't done enough to convince people that it's a good idea.

Edited September 9, 2019 by thecrashingisles

[Riedquat]

5 minutes ago, slawek said:

Can you be more specific? Why don't I treat people equally? What my desire do you mean?

I thought I clearly explained my reasoning. I can't make all people happy. I can only maximise happiness. I don't deny I can make some people unhappy but it is a best solution.

You haven't answered my question below two times. Avoiding this suggests that there are some sinister reasons. 

Why do you then after a consideration decided that you desire to keep things as they are is more important than other people desire to freedom?

I have answered your question more than once. I have pointed out that overall I don't, that the best approach is what results in the greatest net happiness. I just reject your outright statement that what you want is the correct thing to achieve that. I've acknowledge more than once that your view is valid in its own right even if it doesn't do it for me, something you have not had the decency to do in return.

Freedom makes people happy. Things staying as they are when they're things that people like makes people happy. Changing things people like makes them very unhappy indeed.

[allfiredup]

7 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Do you predict an explosion because of too many Poles?

Absolutely not. The culture discussion was much wider than 'the Poles'. Nice try though, are you Polish? I am doubting it very much

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

It's certainly not true that war was unthinkable in the 1950s.  The logic is very simple: by making countries so economically interdependent that they cannot function without each other, and backing it up with a rules-based system, you remove both the incentive and the capacity to make war on each other.

There's always the capacity to make war even if it's via throwing rocks at each other.

No country is going to sign away an ability to function on its own by getting in to bed with someone it still regards with enough mistrust to contemplate the possibility of war. And tying together runs the risk of increasing the chance of conflict if it creates too much resentment (some resentment is inevitable), not that we're anywhere near that point.

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

Absolutely not. The culture discussion was much wider than 'the Poles'. Nice try though, are you Polish? I am doubting it very much

Arguably, European countries grouping together makes them less exposed to cultural globalisation.  Perhaps you've been barking up the wrong tree.

[zugzwang]

20 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

No, of course we don't. I am assured by the grand plans to make us a beacon of science, engineering and research after Brexit

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/science-and-brexit.aspx

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/brexit-uk-science/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49133625

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/19/no-deal-brexit-could-mean-130m-hit-to-research-budgets

Even worse, making the UK into a beacon of science, engineering and research is no guarantee that it won't go bankrupt! The former Soviet Union was home to some of the twentieth century's greatest scientists, mathematicians and engineers. Kolmogorov, Sakharov, Korolev etc.

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The former Soviet Union was home to some of the twentieth century's greatest scientists, mathematicians and engineers. Kolmogorov, Sakharov, Korolev etc.

Possibly the main reason for this is that science was always refracted through the political prism of communism. For evidence see the record of Trofim Lysenko, an agronomist and biologist whose work was corrupted by politics.

[allfiredup]

4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Arguably, European countries grouping together makes them less exposed to cultural globalisation.  Perhaps you've been barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not so sure, I see the EU as one step towards more globalisation.

Had Brexit and Trump not happened I believe the EU and US would have moulded into one entity, via 'trade agreements' which is how the EU started, and then so on.

How has the world spent so long trading openly and now all of sudden there's a huge push for trade agreements? It's back door worldwide control imo.

[thecrashingisles]

1 minute ago, allfiredup said:

I'm not so sure, I see the EU as one step towards more globalisation.

Had Brexit and Trump not happened I believe the EU and US would have moulded into one entity, via 'trade agreements' which is how the EU started, and then so on.

How has the world spent so long trading openly and now all of sudden there's a huge push for trade agreements? It's back door worldwide control imo.

I'm not sure the US would want to share power, but supposing we did have some combined EU-US entity, it would really be just more Western integration, not global integration.  Perhaps with the rise of China, something like that will become necessary just to hold our own.