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

[jonb2]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

You don't get wide horizons when surrounded by lots of people.

RQ - I know what you are on about and agree that other people are hell in most cases.

But I think you need to address problems like this first, rather than Brexit if you want more space:

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-08-10/duke-of-westminsters-extensive-property-portfolio/

 

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

RQ - I know what you are on about and agree that other people are hell in most cases.

But I think you need to address problems like this first, rather than Brexit if you want more space:

http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-08-10/duke-of-westminsters-extensive-property-portfolio/

Hah, no argument there!

[dugsbody]

9 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

No, people have just gone around in the same old circles, answers that are no answers. There's nothing concrete that I can disagree with. No "it would leave the EU worse off than the type of deal they want because..." The closest to a reason is that it's simply against the EU's ideology, which I'd at least find consistent even though it leaves me taking a dim view of that ideology. There are some "Well, that's how people behave, and that's what we need to deal with" type answers but they're answers to the practical issues - they explain the position truthfully enough but don't justify it.

You just won't accept the reality of the situation. You can disagree as much as you like but here is the reality:

The EU is not some etherial concept. It is made up of member states and these states are acting in a way that is congruent with how certain people on the remain side said they would act. They will not allow a situation where the UK leaving causes potential political and more concrete damage to the EU but leaves the UK obtaining all or most of the economic benefits without sharing the social responsibilities. They would rather take a smallish financial or economic knock in the short term in order to come out stronger in the longer term. The reason for that is that they believe in the concept of the EU, which is that together, long term, all members are better off socially and economically.

You are allowed to believe that all 27 member nations heads of state and other representatives are incorrect (you might start to wonder what they know that you don't) but you are not allowed to say we haven't provided you with the reason that the EU will act in a certain manner. The manner which as it turns out is consistent with what we said. 

Here is another post I made on this subject. You should stop assigning personal reasons to the actors, they are simply playing their respective parts:

 

[pig]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

See the post upthread about different things for different people. Some love living in cities, for others it's hell on earth. You're saying that what you want is what is right for everyone.

Well, that's two posts in a row now you've either not read properly or don't want to. 

I can see now how 'other people' may be a problem for you.

 

[rollover]

2 hours ago, pig said:

Im not so sure - the stakes have ratcheted up and there is now a real risk of Tory implosion.

What you have outlined would be entirely unnacceptable to the hardline Brexiters (even if inevitable) who'd be quite happy to guzzle from the chalice - after decades of disruption they will not be up for defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory.

Will of the sheeple, Mays fault, new leadership, lurch to the right, HMS Britain broadside against the damn frogs etc etc

On the other hand, save the country, save the party, Mays fault, new leadership, lurch to the left, mature relations with the continent etc etc 

That's what I was thinking too.

 

Quote

 

Nigel Farage to decide on Ukip comeback within a week

The former Ukip leader thinks the party has a bright future, if Theresa May's disastrous election paves the way for a watering down of Brexit. But Theresa May’s shocking performance in Thursday’s general election has called into grave doubt whether she will be able to deliver the kind of “hard” Brexit she had set out, namely leaving the single market and the customs union, paving the way for a return for Mr Farage, and a possible Ukip resurgence. Independent

 

 

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, pig said:

Well, that's two posts in a row now you've either not read properly or don't want to. 

I can see now how 'other people' may be a problem for you.

Then  what was the point to your post? We agree that different people like different things, and that none of them are unarguably right? Then great, let's hope for getting the best for the most, in all its variety.

On the London aspect I find it odd that that was used as an example though, a place where talking to a stranger on public transport is viewed as a very odd thing to do.

[Riedquat]

20 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

You just won't accept the reality of the situation. You can disagree as much as you like but here is the reality:

The EU is not some etherial concept. It is made up of member states and these states are acting in a way that is congruent with how certain people on the remain side said they would act. They will not allow a situation where the UK leaving causes potential political and more concrete damage to the EU but leaves the UK obtaining all or most of the economic benefits without sharing the social responsibilities. They would rather take a smallish financial or economic knock in the short term in order to come out stronger in the longer term. The reason for that is that they believe in the concept of the EU, which is that together, long term, all members are better off socially and economically.

You are allowed to believe that all 27 member nations heads of state and other representatives are incorrect (you might start to wonder what they know that you don't) but you are not allowed to say we haven't provided you with the reason that the EU will act in a certain manner. The manner which as it turns out is consistent with what we said. 

Here is another post I made on this subject. You should stop assigning personal reasons to the actors, they are simply playing their respective par

That's getting a bit closer. You're saying that having the sort of deal that we want would be damaging to the EU because it'll cause political instability in the EU. Hardly a ringing endorsement of it, that it can't have a deal that would benefit it economically too without causing such damage.

You've stated what they'll do accurately enough but you're still short on whether that view merits any respect - the sort of thing that would make me want to remain a part of it rather than feel we need to find a way out of it.

On your quoted post, that reads as if it's a one-way gain to the UK, and nothing to the rest of the EU. Good trading relations aren't that. If it was - the EU gives, we take, I could agree with you. If members want to go further and have other arrangements too then fine, that's up to them, but the idea that you can't even have the sort of trade relations we want without the rest simply says the EU is too flawed in its current form. It says that the benefits of the rest don't add up enough - if that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be the risk of political instability you mention.

I very much accept the reality of the situation - that's why I don't think much of the EU!

Edited June 11, 2017 by Riedquat

[Confusion of VIs]

27 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You're just back to that again - never a "why", just a bald statement with no substance. No "It would be unworkable because...", no "The EU would be worse off from that because..."

Perhaps its time just to accept that you cannot understand it, rather than keep going round in circles.

l don't understand how you and others don't like city life, instead preferring the, to me, mind numbing boredom of rural life. However, I accept both your right to that view and that l probably won't ever understand it no matter how much you tried to explain it to me.

[Venger]

1 hour ago, pig said:

The biggest, widest, most beautiful horizon on earth is... other people. That's in part why people flock to cities, and why urban density, for all its challenges, tends to generate civilisation elevating ideas.

I do love lying in a sunny field rippling in the breeze, carrying the scent of a thousand others. But if forced to make a choice, for me Other People are part of the solution, not part of the 'problem'.

That's pretty good.

I like it.

[pig]

47 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's getting a bit closer. You're saying that having the sort of deal that we want would be damaging to the EU because it'll cause political instability in the EU. Hardly a ringing endorsement of it, that it can't have a deal that would benefit it economically too without causing such damage.

You've stated what they'll do accurately enough but you're still short on whether that view merits any respect - the sort of thing that would make me want to remain a part of it rather than feel we need to find a way out of it.

On your quoted post, that reads as if it's a one-way gain to the UK, and nothing to the rest of the EU. Good trading relations aren't that. If it was - the EU gives, we take, I could agree with you. If members want to go further and have other arrangements too then fine, that's up to them, but the idea that you can't even have the sort of trade relations we want without the rest simply says the EU is too flawed in its current form. It says that the benefits of the rest don't add up enough - if that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be the risk of political instability you mention.

I very much accept the reality of the situation - that's why I don't think much of the EU!

You're overlaying and editing out - that's evading the 'reality of the situation'.

28 countries have come to what they believe is a mutually beneficial agreement.

1 of them has subsequently decided it isn't. Well, kind of.

Trying to persuade the 27 to break or amend it to the benefit of the 1 country that is no longer part of that agreement could be argued to be rational, if under the circumstances a little pathetic.

Subsequently carping and whining that  the 27 are happy to stick to their mutually beneficial agreement is illogical and immature, and citing it as a reason for leaving is logic flying away on holiday by pulling on its bootstraps.

Its actually therefore more interesting to talk about your nimby views as that seems to be what is driving this nonsense. I may not agree with them but at least they have more credibility.

[Byron]

3 hours ago, knock out johnny said:

Who? How? In what way?

Please explain such a nonsensical statement

If you need to ask, I suspect that you are a Londoner.

[Byron]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

See the post upthread about different things for different people. Some love living in cities, for others it's hell on earth. You're saying that what you want is what is right for everyone.

Exactly.

The problem is that we see City folk as quite weird, liking things that we actively dislike.

Unfortunately, City folk fail to appreciate our point of view and consider us a country bumpkins.

[Byron]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

l don't understand how you and others don't like city life, instead preferring the, to me, mind numbing boredom of rural life. However, I accept both your right to that view and that l probably won't ever understand it no matter how much you tried to explain it to me.

That is an eye opener for me. Going by the complaints of noise, pollution, traffic congestion etc. I had assumed that no-one liked living in cities and I used to feel sorry for them.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Perhaps its time just to accept that you cannot understand it, rather than keep going round in circles.

l don't understand how you and others don't like city life, instead preferring the, to me, mind numbing boredom of rural life. However, I accept both your right to that view and that l probably won't ever understand it no matter how much you tried to explain it to me.

I do understand why you might like the, to me, mind numbing boredom of urban life. It just holds no appeal to me (suburban is the one I can't understand - I can why someone might chose it out of practicality, but not why anyone would actually like it). You're mistaking me not having a high opinion of your views with not understanding them.

[Riedquat]

29 minutes ago, pig said:

Subsequently carping and whining that  the 27 are happy to stick to their mutually beneficial agreement is illogical and immature, and citing it as a reason for leaving is logic flying away on holiday by pulling on its bootstraps.

 

Its actually therefore more interesting to talk about your nimby views as that seems to be what is driving this nonsense. I may not agree with them but at least they have more credibility.

I'm not saying anything about why they might want to stick with it. You're adding in something that hasn't been part of this discussion there. The point is where the downside is to the EU of the type of deal the UK wants. That it would create political instability in the EU, one country getting a seemingly better deal, is a valid point in a narrow sphere, but one that raises the question of the validity of the EU, since it implies all the other aspects are downsides that everyone else would rather be without too.

"Nimby views" is really you imposing things that I've not said, since I'm talking about a whole wider remit than just near me. "Nimby" is just a word used towards either people who don't care what happens anywhere else, or as a lame dismissal attempt. And "nonsense" is, I'm afraid, you failing to grasp that not everyone views the world in the way you do.

[Peter Hun]

53 minutes ago, Byron said:

That is an eye opener for me. Going by the complaints of noise, pollution, traffic congestion etc. I had assumed that no-one liked living in cities and I used to feel sorry for them.

 

Considering 83% of UK population, and rising, live in cities, maybe they do like it.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

[Sheeple Splinter]

15 hours ago, Sawitcoming said:

Ruth Davidson = very gay

DUP = very not gay

RD + DUP = _

Thanks, duly enlightened. 

[dugsbody]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

I'm not saying anything about why they might want to stick with it. You're adding in something that hasn't been part of this discussion there. The point is where the downside is to the EU of the type of deal the UK wants. That it would create political instability in the EU, one country getting a seemingly better deal, is a valid point in a narrow sphere, but one that raises the question of the validity of the EU, since it implies all the other aspects are downsides that everyone else would rather be without too.

We are not starting from scratch.

You do get this right? We are not outside the union and asking to form a new mutually beneficial arrangement, we are saying, "we want to continue to benefit but don't want to share the extra responsibilities that come with those benefits". This does make a difference, despite what you think, because humans are not robots. It simply is never going to happen. You need to get that the Brits would be exactly the same if it were France leaving for example. You're not special enlightened snowflakes, you're human and emotional just like every other nation.

Regarding the second part of your argument above, it ties in to my last point. Again, you attribute malice to this thing you call the EU but you're mistaken. The EU is the member states and the member states are their citizens. The citizens are humans and as we can see by the events of the last few years, they can act very irrationally. If they see that a former member bows out of the responsibilities but continues to enjoy all the economic benefits as well as the non tangible benefits (European stability) how long till the voters are going to be voting for the next candidate who promises to take their nation out of the EU for the same deal? And then? Should the remaining states offer the same deal? The obvious end result is the complete disintegration of the EU, the end of the free trade zone, reimposition of borders, the formation of smaller nation group factions, the resulting economic trade wars (Britain has already threatened this), disagreements and even potential conflict. And suddenly we're back to where we were 80+ years ago.

Hyperbole? Perhaps, but certainly not beyond the realms of possibility and the EU governments are quite keen to avoid these possibilities while knowing full well the massive benefits the EU brings and are also quite keen to avoid seeing it collapse. You disagreeing with their views does not make you right and does not make their actions illogical. If anything, you'd think you might re-examine your own thoughts on the matter, but that's not how humans work.

[cashinmattress]

4 hours ago, dugsbody said:

They will not allow a situation where the UK leaving causes potential political and more concrete damage to the EU but leaves the UK obtaining all or most of the economic benefits without sharing the social responsibilities. 

^ Pretty much this.

[ccc]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

You're just back to that again - never a "why", just a bald statement with no substance. No "It would be unworkable because...", no "The EU would be worse off from that because..."

 

[Riedquat]

40 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

We are not starting from scratch.

You do get this right? We are not outside the union and asking to form a new mutually beneficial arrangement, we are saying, "we want to continue to benefit but don't want to share the extra responsibilities that come with those benefits". This does make a difference, despite what you think, because humans are not robots. It simply is never going to happen. You need to get that the Brits would be exactly the same if it were France leaving for example. You're not special enlightened snowflakes, you're human and emotional just like every other nation.
 

Right, it's the sort of human nature that just leaves me holding the view of them that I've got! Of course I'd expect exactly the same if it were France that is leaving, why wouldn't I? Well, not expect, the EU being what it is, that would require me having a better opinion of it than I've got. Talk about responsibilities is really just missing the point - there needs to be extra to get back from those responsibilities beside just having a mutually beneficial trade deal that's a benefit to both sides. I'm happy to lose whatever that extra is.

Quote

Regarding the second part of your argument above, it ties in to my last point. Again, you attribute malice to this thing you call the EU but you're mistaken. The EU is the member states and the member states are their citizens. The citizens are humans and as we can see by the events of the last few years, they can act very irrationally. If they see that a former member bows out of the responsibilities but continues to enjoy all the economic benefits as well as the non tangible benefits (European stability) how long till the voters are going to be voting for the next candidate who promises to take their nation out of the EU for the same deal? And then? Should the remaining states offer the same deal? The obvious end result is the complete disintegration of the EU, the end of the free trade zone, reimposition of borders, the formation of smaller nation group factions, the resulting economic trade wars (Britain has already threatened this), disagreements and even potential conflict. And suddenly we're back to where we were 80+ years ago.

Quite, you've explained quite well why I don't think the EU in its current form is up to much. Ignoring the bit about 80+ years ago, if you mean the state that lead to WWII. An argument that you absolutely can't behave as agreeably as possible with a neighbour without having that level of control over them is an argument that your other benefits aren't really much of a benefit in their own right. If it disintegrates then rebuild it without all the baggage, with rather less involved other than economic ties (have it act as an intemediary and encourage, rather than compel, in other areas, e.g. science). That would get all the real benefits of it anyway. I'd much rather it reformed in that direction than collapsed, but it doesn't look likely. Why would other leaders want to promise the same thing? That you say that is an admittance of how flawed the EU is if ever there was one. If it was truly working they wouldn't need to, people would want more than just the trade deal aspect.

When your organisation simply can't afford to deal well with the outside world, well, it's entirely understandable that it'll dig its heels in and not deal well with the outside world, but why would my reaction be anything other than questioning that organisation's existence in its current form? You're pointing out why the EU is a flawed model and saying that everything should adjust to fit that model!

I'm not necessarily attributing it to malice so much as arrogance.

Quote

Hyperbole? Perhaps, but certainly not beyond the realms of possibility and the EU governments are quite keen to avoid these possibilities while knowing full well the massive benefits the EU brings and are also quite keen to avoid seeing it collapse. You disagreeing with their views does not make you right and does not make their actions illogical. If anything, you'd think you might re-examine your own thoughts on the matter, but that's not how humans work.

You still appear to be thinking that I don't expect them to behave like that. Their actions are logical within a view of the world that I don't have much of a high opinion of. It's all self-justification. I'm puzzled as to why you don't think that I understand that. Why on earth should I re-examine my own thoughts, that it all portrays a picture of a not very pleasant organisation that I'm glad we're leaving when all your post does is reinforce that opinion? I know how humans work. That's why I don't expect better, but it's sad that there appears to be no desire to improve.

Time to press "post" and see what a mess it's made of the quoting.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Riedquat

[pig]

3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

I'm not saying anything about why they might want to stick with it. You're adding in something that hasn't been part of this discussion there. The point is where the downside is to the EU of the type of deal the UK wants. That it would create political instability in the EU, one country getting a seemingly better deal, is a valid point in a narrow sphere, but one that raises the question of the validity of the EU, since it implies all the other aspects are downsides that everyone else would rather be without too.

"Nimby views" is really you imposing things that I've not said, since I'm talking about a whole wider remit than just near me. "Nimby" is just a word used towards either people who don't care what happens anywhere else, or as a lame dismissal attempt. And "nonsense" is, I'm afraid, you failing to grasp that not everyone views the world in the way you do.

 'Not In My Back Yard' refers to people who reject new housing generally because they like the extra space around them - it's a kind of 'tragedy of the commons' where if everybody thought the same way nothing would get built.

This is what I understand you explicitly believe in - it's patently not the way I view the world and the entire point of a forum is to encounter other views and discuss - geddit?

As I understand it this belief extends from your view that the world was better with less people in it, hence you are fighting to stop others 'spoiling' your space - the young and/or immigrants.

Following on from that at a national level Brexit is a no brainer for you. Of course you are more than welcome to correct me where I have misunderstood. And it wouldn't be the first time I've got posters confused lol !

Why I have taken an interest, is because it seems to have motivated you to endlessly repeat the rationale you employed in the first above paragraph, despite it having been ripped apart by a variety of posters. It isn't even a particularly difficult point to understand being a minimal extension of 'common sense' used by people of ALL world views and walks of life. Nobody with half a brain for example  is going to fall for the 'and I wouldn't want to be part of a club that doesn't make an exception for us ...' claptrap. It is illogical at a very basic level.

It may be that you cannot express yourself properly on this point, fair enough ! But if you are going to make a case for Brexit, probably better explicitly founded on your 'world view' than doing a Maybot repeat of a rationale that makes no sense to anybody.

 

 

[Riedquat]

"Not in my back yard" refers to people who take the "don't want it here, go and build it somewhere else" attitude. Those who are quite happy for more and more people to turn up for example, just as long as it doesn't affect their spot. The level to which the UK is built up already is a bit depressing, and the rate it's changed over a mere century frightening. And even if the rate is slow it can hardly go on forever. Incidentally my back yard (or just beyond it to be more accurate) is rather a mess and a few houses there would be rather an improvement.

Not my space - everyone's space. Fewer people would mean more chances for everyone being able to get closer to what they want. That, surely, can only be a good thing.

None of that, however, has anything to do with the current line of arguing about the EU. It's about the freedom of movement aspect, which IIRC hasn't even been mentioned for quite a while.

Nothing I've said has been ripped apart. Repeating the same endless circular arguments is not ripping me apart, quite the opposite. It is strongly demonstrating that not even its supporters can really justify the situation. The best you get is the pragmatic defeatist who acknowledges that's the way it is and we have to deal with it.

I suspect the reason you're resorting to accusations of claptrap is because you're viewing it as too fixed an issue. From the pragmatic "well, this is what it is, so what are we going to do about it?" line that's fair enough. From the "why should I have a positive opinion of this organisation" it is not. The "club" argument is just accepting the status quo as it is. I'm not saying that I wouldn't want to be in a club that wouldn't make an exception for us. I'm saying I wouldn't want to be in a club that refuses to deal reasonably with people outside that club, and the reasons given for it behaving like that just paint it as a flawed club. If they were more along the lines of "it wouldn't be practically workable because..." I'd have rather more respect for it.

If you've got something I want, and I've got something you want, is it good or bad if I say "but we won't exchange those things unless you agree to help me out on all this other stuff I'm doing"?

Edited June 11, 2017 by Riedquat

[dugsbody]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Right, it's the sort of human nature that just leaves me holding the view of them that I've got! Of course I'd expect exactly the same if it were France that is leaving, why wouldn't I? Well, not expect, the EU being what it is, that would require me having a better opinion of it than I've got. Talk about responsibilities is really just missing the point - there needs to be extra to get back from those responsibilities beside just having a mutually beneficial trade deal that's a benefit to both sides. I'm happy to lose whatever that extra is.

There is, but you're unwilling to see it. And no, I'm not going to repeat it again tonight, I'm tired now and going to bed. Perhaps tomorrow you can get me or someone else to repeat what has been said thousands of times on this thread, so that you can again ignore it, change direction, then come back in a circle again later to claim no-one has answered your questions.

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

There is, but you're unwilling to see it. And no, I'm not going to repeat it again tonight, I'm tired now and going to bed. Perhaps tomorrow you can get me or someone else to repeat what has been said thousands of times on this thread, so that you can again ignore it, change direction, then come back in a circle again later to claim no-one has answered your questions.

There's been nothing of substance to ignore. The same answers that answer nothing have been given thousands of times, an appeal to dogmatic thinking, which is why it keeps circling back to this.  The only thing I'm unwilling to see are the emperor's new clothes.