How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Eddie Strohacker said:
For better or worse, I consider Brexit a vandalistic act of self harm, grossly oversold to the public, therefore arguing against it is an act of patriotic duty on those terms, no? You can really frame the notion either way, only time will tell who's on the right side of the debate.
Calls to Patriotism either way are nonsense. However, equally the desire to be absorbed into the EU as a means of eradicating perceived shortcomings in our country is nonsense. Both are looking to a higher power to take responsibility for decisions we should own ourselves. As such, yes of course you can believe Brexit is self harm - but you have to do so as an individual rather than claiming that some moral authority makes it so.
Tuna said:
I suspect the final outcome of the negotiations is going to come as a complete surprise to you. 
Leave/remain voters aside, let's be realistic does anyone actually think that the UK government (this or any other) will not make complete mess of the process as they do and have done with just about everything else?... Eddie Strohacker said:
For better or worse, I consider Brexit a vandalistic act of self harm, grossly oversold to the public, therefore arguing against it is an act of patriotic duty on those terms, no? You can really frame the notion either way, only time will tell who's on the right side of the debate.
What did you do during May/June 2016 in the campaign? Tuna said:
Calls to Patriotism either way are nonsense. However, equally the desire to be absorbed into the EU as a means of eradicating perceived shortcomings in our country is nonsense. Both are looking to a higher power to take responsibility for decisions we should own ourselves.
As such, yes of course you can believe Brexit is self harm - but you have to do so as an individual rather than claiming that some moral authority makes it so.
Eh? That's a bizarre statement. I don't claim to speak for anyone other than myself & what has morality got to do with anything? You think maybe I want to drown Brexiteer's babies or something? As such, yes of course you can believe Brexit is self harm - but you have to do so as an individual rather than claiming that some moral authority makes it so.
SantaBarbara said:
How do you arrive at this perverse conclusion?
Simple:(1) Brexit has already done and will continue to do real harm to the UK economy. We are in a very fragile economic state, and we need huge investment (which will not now be possible for at least 5-10 years). Brexit is economic self-harm.
(2) The projected long term benefits of Brexit depend on highly unlikely events, including (a) a consistent right-of-centre economic policy (lower welfare costs, lower taxes, lower consumption and more private investment) and (b) beneficial free trade deals with major non-EU states (e.g. the US, which will not sign any such deal in a million years or China which is even less likely to do so).
Definite short term harm coupled with highly unlikely long term benefits. Not a good plan.
Couple these points with the strong likelihood that the Labour party will win the next GE if the economy is struggling (almost certain), and you have a huge blow to the prospects of our children. 10 years of Labour will leave this country on the brink of collapse.
Eddie Strohacker said:
For better or worse, I consider Brexit a vandalistic act of self harm, grossly oversold to the public, therefore arguing against it is an act of patriotic duty on those terms, no? You can really frame the notion either way, only time will tell who's on the right side of the debate.
No, there is a subtle difference. The UK IS LEAVING THE EU - as decided by the referendum, therefore the process is going to happen.
Arguing against that serves nothing - the debate on whether to remain or leave has been done and decided. (It may have been mis-sold by EITHER side - as what happens every time there is a vote to be had - welcome to democracy).
Next step - the negotiation (present day and working towards the future), this is where the nation comes together to serve the common good to get a relationship with the EU that provides the base for the UK to prosper.
Arguing against the UK performing well in the negotiation is unpatirotic and arguing to prevent brexit happening is undemocratic.
So there is a subtle different in time-line on your position on the term of 'patriotism'.
But I fully agree that time will tell.
I strongly suspect that once out of the EU, that if Britain is simply not working for the majority, there will be another referendum providing the option to re-join the EU.
However, if Britain thrives outside of the EU and we enjoy prosperity on a scale not experienced in our lifetimes, then that referendum option may be a distance memory.
SantaBarbara said:
David Cameron and George Osborne failed to get a good outcome to their negotiations 18 months ago. It is mostly Cameron's error
I think the failure to do so is more understandable now that we have seen the EU's attitude to Brexit, and Cameron really isn't to blame.Tuna said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
For better or worse, I consider Brexit a vandalistic act of self harm, grossly oversold to the public, therefore arguing against it is an act of patriotic duty on those terms, no? You can really frame the notion either way, only time will tell who's on the right side of the debate.
Calls to Patriotism either way are nonsense. However, equally the desire to be absorbed into the EU as a means of eradicating perceived shortcomings in our country is nonsense. Both are looking to a higher power to take responsibility for decisions we should own ourselves. As such, yes of course you can believe Brexit is self harm - but you have to do so as an individual rather than claiming that some moral authority makes it so.
jsf said:
The government knows what it is doing,
So this is the Government who’s proposals for EU citizens in the UK are open to multiple court challenges and operationally impossible to deliver.
Who's second contribution on a new customs union is a total mess suggesting we need a new CU with a bit of SM thrown in but no idea of how this would work.
Let’s not forget the classic “NDIBTBD”, but when asked DD admitted he had no idea what it means.
Interesting interview on the BBC with a member of the Irish Government.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, in that he sounded drunk after a very long lunch but he seems to believe that the EU may impose tarrifs whilst the U.K. wouldn't need to and that it's all our own fault because we voted in a referendum in 1975 to join the EU.
Seems the EU would have to impose tarrifs to protect the CAP, amongst other things.
The lunatics truly are running the asylum.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, in that he sounded drunk after a very long lunch but he seems to believe that the EU may impose tarrifs whilst the U.K. wouldn't need to and that it's all our own fault because we voted in a referendum in 1975 to join the EU.
Seems the EU would have to impose tarrifs to protect the CAP, amongst other things.
The lunatics truly are running the asylum.
turbobloke said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
Tuna said:
Equally though I don't get the apologists. That group of people for whom there can be no positive outcome in their own country, who are ashamed of their history and still personally take the blame for things their great great grandparents did. They flat out refuse to support their country because it doesn't universally fit their dogmatic political viewpoint.
There should be a middle ground where we accept the fact that though our country is not the garden of Eden, it is the one place we can actually take responsibility for and - over time - improve. That doesn't mean we have to agree with some common political position, but we should recognise that any country is the sum of its people, however diverse, mad, extreme, educated or otherwise their individual view points are.
For better or worse, I consider Brexit a vandalistic act of self harm, grossly oversold to the public, therefore arguing against it is an act of patriotic duty on those terms, no? .There should be a middle ground where we accept the fact that though our country is not the garden of Eden, it is the one place we can actually take responsibility for and - over time - improve. That doesn't mean we have to agree with some common political position, but we should recognise that any country is the sum of its people, however diverse, mad, extreme, educated or otherwise their individual view points are.
Do you see how idiotic your argument is?
This is the problem with patriotism. It makes people blind. Brexiteers are now raging against a possible continuation of democracy, i.e. allowing the electorate to change its mind, under cover of patriotism. I stand for and speak for my country's democracy, not necessarily my country's government or policy. I thought stuff like this would be obvious and not need explaining.
My country's government is making a pig's breakfast of our international position, and I wish to say so and oppose them. I also lay the same criticism at the feet of the official opposition and its proposals. It is an act of love for my country that I stand for what I believe to be its best interests, not an unpatriotic act.
Interesting interview on the BBC with a member of the Irish Government.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, in that he sounded drunk after a very long lunch but he seems to believe that the EU may impose tarrifs whilst the U.K. wouldn't need to and that it's all our own fault because we voted in a referendum in 1975 to join the EU.
Seems the EU would have to impose tarrifs to protect the CAP, amongst other things.
The lunatics truly are running the asylum.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, in that he sounded drunk after a very long lunch but he seems to believe that the EU may impose tarrifs whilst the U.K. wouldn't need to and that it's all our own fault because we voted in a referendum in 1975 to join the EU.
Seems the EU would have to impose tarrifs to protect the CAP, amongst other things.
The lunatics truly are running the asylum.
Atomic12C said:
However, if Britain thrives outside of the EU and we enjoy prosperity on a scale not experienced in our lifetimes, then that referendum option may be a distance memory.
Nobody thinks that is a serious possibility, do they? Really?Britain was an economic basket case for almost every year from 1945 until it joined the EU. It has no track record of economic success other than in the EU. You could point to the financial services boom and say that it was not caused by membership, which is fair enough, but the other side of that coin is that financial services is one of the sectors most at risk from Brexit.
turbobloke said:
And beyond that primary school response the compelling reasoning is...awol.
Yeees, as I'm often in here with no reasoning whatsoever. However, let's indulge you for a moment. Your premise is I can't oppose Brexit because it's been voted for by the public.The logic of this extended to it's limping conclusion is following a general election, there should be no her maj's loyal opposition, after all the public has spoken. And let's drop the big one - in 1934 there should have been no resistance in Germany because that guy was voted in by popular election - kind of in his case. There are literally hundreds of examples where a big decision has been taken & the democratic discourse in a free or even not so free society has taken place to shape & influence outcomes.
That's literally how these things work & if you then take this particular case, you leave guys won by about what? 1.3million votes out of 33m or so - you don't get to tell anyone to pipe down with those numbers. So, in conclusion: Lol.
Eddie Strohacker said:
The logic of this extended to it's limping conclusion is following a general election, there should be no her maj's loyal opposition, after all the public has spoken. And let's drop the big one - in 1934 there should have been no resistance in Germany because that guy was voted in by popular election - kind of in his case. There are literally hundreds of examples where a big decision has been taken & the democratic discourse in a free or even not so free society has taken place to shape & influence outcomes.
Totally different. The role of the opposition is to win the next election, not overturn the result of the previous one. If the remainers want a vote to rejoin the EU after we've left, fine, but the decision to leave in the first place still stands. You can't keep re running a vote until you get the result you want. Dr Jekyll said:
Totally different. The role of the opposition is to win the next election, not overturn the result of the previous one. If the remainers want a vote to rejoin the EU after we've left, fine, but the decision to leave in the first place still stands. You can't keep re running a vote until you get the result you want.
The role of the opposition is to hold the government to account & if you didn't know that, you really shouldn't even be here.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff