Brexit details

[SarahBell]

Prof Cox : I think this is a bigger story than the U-turn on NI. I'm not satisfied with Davis's responses or demeanour. https://t.co/NiGlC2PCAJ


Does the bit about tarrifs mean about us selling our stuff to the EU? Cos we import masses of milk to the UK from the rest of the EU and that's why our farmers plead poverty.

 

[spunko2010]

5 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Oh no, another Brexshit thread.

The flies will be along in a minute.

The only time I've ever read the word "Brexshit" was that one time I went over to laugh at the Guardian comments on June 24th.

[SpectrumFX]

I watched the video. What was supposed to be the punchline? I couldn't see anything of interest in it.

[thecrashingisles]

6 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

I watched the video. What was supposed to be the punchline? I couldn't see anything of interest in it.

The crux of it is that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is not true and everyone, including the EU, knows this.

[thecrashingisles]

12 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

The whole topic is like a steaming pile of sh*t. I'm sick of the whole subject

I'm afraid the only way out is to embrace the EU and all its works, otherwise you'll be hearing nothing but Brexit until the day you die.

[thecrashingisles]

7 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

 

Always resorting to ad muscam arguments....

[SarahBell]

55 minutes ago, SpectrumFX said:

I watched the video. What was supposed to be the punchline? I couldn't see anything of interest in it.

Well I didn't see what he was moaning about.

It's like a coach load of kids keep asking 'are we there yet'. It neither makes the journey more pleasant or shorter.

[libspero]

48 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

The crux of it is that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is not true and everyone, including the EU, knows this.

So hopefully they'll stop behaving like children and work towards putting something mutually beneficial in place within two years.

Can't see it happening..  but there's always hope.

[SpectrumFX]

47 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

The crux of it is that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is not true and everyone, including the EU, knows this.

I'm not seeing anything in the video that supports, counters or even relates at all to that view. Can you be more explicit, what was said that is supposed to be of interest?

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, SpectrumFX said:

I'm not seeing anything in the video that supports, counters or even relates at all to that view. Can you be more explicit, what was said that is supposed to be of interest?

The questions were about what happens in the event that we leave without a deal.  His answers show that a ) it would be bad, b ) they are not seriously thinking about or preparing for that outcome.  Therefore the threat that we would walk away from negotiations is clearly a bluff.

[thecrashingisles]

4 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Frankly 'crashing out of the EU' will not be any worse than Iceland defaulting or the post second world war re-building of Germany. In fact, it pales into insignificance. If there is a short term dislocation, it is amazing how quickly these things turn around. China went from the dark ages to the trappings of modernity in just over a decade or so. People need to have some perspective. Self determination is worth it rather than the drift to an EU superstate whose character is turning more and more dark. The status quo was never one of the options. Remoaners are as blind to what the future holds as the Brexiteers.

'Whose character is turning more and more dark' - this only makes sense in the context of the clash of civilisations and rise of militant Islam which would be happening regardless of the EU, and in fact it's some of the traditionally more Eurosceptic counties like Sweden that have the most issues.

[SpectrumFX]

24 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

The questions were about what happens in the event that we leave without a deal.  His answers show that a ) it would be bad, b ) they are not seriously thinking about or preparing for that outcome.  Therefore the threat that we would walk away from negotiations is clearly a bluff.

Ok. I didn't get either a) or b ) out of that video. 

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, SpectrumFX said:

Ok. I didn't get either a) or b ) out of that video. 

Because the video doesn't show the context of the questions.

[thecrashingisles]

12 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

EDIT: In terms of Britain's relationship with the EU, it harks back to the original lies put to the British people that this was just a free trading zone.

No the lie is the statement you've just made.

In the big televised debate a few days before the 1975 referendum, Ted Heath's core message was that the EEC was about leaving behind the nation state for a new kind of organisation.  That debate got higher ratings than anything in the recent campaign.  To suggest that people were lied to is simply base propaganda.

[knock out johnny]

42 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Ted Heath's core message was that the EEC was about leaving behind the nation state for a new kind of organisation.  

^^^This

The sooner people get it through their thick heads that the nation-state is in its death throes the better. 

[frozen_out]

13 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

^^^This

The sooner people get it through their thick heads that the nation-state is in its death throes the better. 

This begs the question, as if the statement is true the implicit conclusion is that replacing it with a supra-national state is the only desirable or feasible alternative. But that's not necessarily true.

[grasshopper]

4 hours ago, hotairmail said:

Oh no, another Brexshit thread.

The flies will be along in a minute.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

[knock out johnny]

1 hour ago, hotairmail said:

 

If that is true and you believe in the trend towards 'globalisation' and no borders, then I think it fair to tell people that means no welfare state. Lying by ommission.

Re the bland quote of Heath - he may well have uttered it and you can prove that, but context is everything here. It was likely put out like one of those bland uplifting messages that a Blair may utter soaring on high and taken that way. 'White heat of technology' and all that, as we ride towards the sunny uplands beyond the hill yonder. It certainly wasn't put out there as the main message and explained that meant we became one single country with the others with the Headquarters in belgium.

 

EDIT: This is the 1975 referendum pamphlet - written from one side to get the vote over the line it has to be said. It does touch on the "pooling of sovereignty", couched as it is that Great Britain like any of the super powers pools its sovereignty....but also that we will have a veto over everything we agree.

Clearly, this was not true when the treaty of Rome explicity talks about ever closer union, which means a veto by any region of the EU cannot last forever - something they would have known at the time. The very name invented for it, "The Common Market" was itself designed to deceive and probably had the greatest influence on voting.  

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#11

My comment of the death of the nation state is meant to stand alone. It is not proffered as an explanation for being part of the EU. The notion of the nation-state is becoming an anachronism

[thecrashingisles]

1 hour ago, hotairmail said:

 

If that is true and you believe in the trend towards 'globalisation' and no borders, then I think it fair to tell people that means no welfare state. Lying by ommission.

Re the bland quote of Heath - he may well have uttered it and you can prove that, but context is everything here. It was likely put out like one of those bland uplifting messages that a Blair may utter soaring on high and taken that way. 'White heat of technology' and all that, as we ride towards the sunny uplands beyond the hill yonder. It certainly wasn't put out there as the main message and explained that meant we became one single country with the others with the Headquarters in belgium.

Watch Heath's speech in the final part of this and tell me where you feel he is dissembling:

 

[grasshopper]

9 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Do you think you would think like that if you had been a country of the former soviet union as it broke apart. Or a country in the British Empire etc etc etc

These things go in cycles. Even trade globalisation was at its last peak in the run up to the Great Depression before the tariff barriers went up in response and there was a breakout of particularly nasty forms of nationalism in many parts of the world.

We are in a dangerous time in history where if we don't recognise the issues and sort them - and that means a peaceful state with a decent welfare net, then we could end up with some nasty trouble. We have been literally sleep walking towards this. And if we want a decent welfare state then some solidarity of people and cohesiveness within a distinct geographical area is required and that means for want of a better description, a nation state. A state with a decent amount of control over various factors including trade, capital controls  and immigration.

It is laughable to think these things are inevitable one way traffic. One needs a better understanding of history in order to learn from it. It doesn't mean fighting your populace and calling them ignorant racists if they don't do what you want. My argument has always been that we need to head the potentially nasty outcomes off at the pass by helping people, not crushing them with rules that benefit capital at the expense of labour. The spoils need to be shared.

I know a lot of the problem is our own government. But half the problem is also the so called rules they con people as being the 'natural order'. By bringing it back to Westminster, they have no more excuses as they no longer can point limply with powerlessness at Brussells and blame them for everything. 

EDIT: Thanks Crashingisles, when I think I can waste more of my life on this I'll have a look. There is a difference between all the things that were said in a campaign and what people took away from it. People like Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, etc etc were cast as ' the nutters' and they couldn't get 'cut thru' for their warnings. An Oxford Union debate is all well and good but the man in the street was more naive those days. Everything was telling people to vote remain and not to worry - virtually every newspaper, TV, government. The difference today is experience, certain papers coming out for Leave, the internet, the undemocratic deepening of the Common Market, the intransigence of our 'partners' towards CAP and state owned enterprises, moving to Strasbourg, the largesse, the fraud.

I am one of your flies.

But you make a powerful argument with lots to consider.

Goodpost.

[knock out johnny]

1 hour ago, hotairmail said:

Do you think you would think like that if you had been a country of the former soviet union as it broke apart. Or a country in the British Empire etc etc etc

These things go in cycles. Even trade globalisation was at its last peak in the run up to the Great Depression before the tariff barriers went up in response and there was a breakout of particularly nasty forms of nationalism in many parts of the world.

We are in a dangerous time in history where if we don't recognise the issues and sort them - and that means a peaceful state with a decent welfare net, then we could end up with some nasty trouble. We have been literally sleep walking towards this. And if we want a decent welfare state then some solidarity of people and cohesiveness within a distinct geographical area is required and that means for want of a better description, a nation state. A state with a decent amount of control over various factors including trade, capital controls  and immigration.

It is laughable to think these things are inevitable one way traffic. One needs a better understanding of history in order to learn from it. It doesn't mean fighting your populace and calling them ignorant racists if they don't do what you want. My argument has always been that we need to head the potentially nasty outcomes off at the pass by helping people, not crushing them with rules that benefit capital at the expense of labour. The spoils need to be shared.

I know a lot of the problem is our own government. But half the problem is also the so called rules they con people as being the 'natural order'. By bringing it back to Westminster, they have no more excuses as they no longer can point limply with powerlessness at Brussells and blame them for everything. 

EDIT: Thanks Crashingisles, when I think I can waste more of my life on this I'll have a look.

I am simply calling what I see. I am neither anti welfare state nor calling people ignorant racists.

I think the nation state's defences to globalisation are  little more than various forms of protectionism which will end in tears

I don't have the solution I'm afraid, but the pandora's box of mass international travel and instant and virtually free communication cannot be shut, unless we're willing to submit to  some very strong-armed administration

In removing the lightning-rod that was the EU for the imcompetencies of westminster watch for them to go the other way and create as many devolved regional assemblies  to blame instead

 

 

[thecrashingisles]

47 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

An Oxford Union debate is all well and good but the man in the street was more naive those days.

It was televised live on Saturday night and was the main event of the entire campaign, equivalent to the Wembley debate last year.

[oracle]

5 hours ago, knock out johnny said:

^^^This

The sooner people get it through their thick heads that the nation-state is in its death throes the better. 

I don't have a problem with the death of the nation state,as long as I can join a club that I feel I belong to.

problem with the EU is(particularly southern europe), we have had the best part of 1000 years of most of them trying to screw us over and/or invade us.Why should we act like best buddies now all of a sudden?.

It is still the intention of the powers that be in the EU to get the whole shabang under direct papal decree again...with heads of state as vassals,a hierarchy of clerics as the provincials and  absolutely no rights whatsoever for the unwashed masses,who need to be stupid and illiterate once again to keep them pacified and under control.Fortunately for us it seems every 350 years or so we got someone in power who pushes it a bit too far and ends up being FORCED to concede under pain of death,if they will not do so by choice.

 

the US is a bit of a different story,because it was originally british(with help from the dutch) to start with,and they have kept our laws for the most part,and improved them...and it was born from the outset as somewher people could be free to think and learn outside of state enforced diktat.

culturally that is the club we belong to.

 

[thecrashingisles]

1 minute ago, oracle said:

the US is a bit of a different story,because it was originally british(with help from the dutch) to start with,and they have kept our laws for the most part,and improved them.

When was California British?

[knock out johnny]

34 minutes ago, oracle said:

I don't have a problem with the death of the nation state,as long as I can join a club that I feel I belong to.

problem with the EU is, we have had the best part of 1000 years of most of them trying to screw us over and/or invade us.Why should we act like best buddies now all of a sudden?

 

the US is a bit of a different story,because it was originally british(with help from the dutch) to start with,and they have kept our laws for the most part,and improved them.

culturally that is the club we belong to.

Speak for yourself (which you're more than entitled to) but is your affiliation not being influenced by your anti-catholicism?