Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 4)
Discussion
crankedup5 said:
So your ducking out, I’ll take Neils comments and assesments having credibility over some bloke on the pistonheads forum.
I'm not really sure what there is to "duck out" from. I've already pointed out that, contrary to your claim, there's no regulatory or rule based reason why AUKUS wouldn't work under the EU. You've provided no other reason to believe what Neil says on the subject, nor have you provided any link to what Neil actually said, so it's difficult to assess whether he did actually say what you claimed him to in the first place. You're free to believe anything that aligns with your existing views, regardless of the lack of evidence to support it.
HM-2 said:
crankedup5 said:
So your ducking out, I’ll take Neils comments and assesments having credibility over some bloke on the pistonheads forum.
I'm not really sure what there is to "duck out" from. I've already pointed out that, contrary to your claim, there's no regulatory or rule based reason why AUKUS wouldn't work under the EU. You've provided no other reason to believe what Neil says on the subject, nor have you provided any link to what Neil actually said, so it's difficult to assess whether he did actually say what you claimed him to in the first place. You're free to believe anything that aligns with your existing views, regardless of the lack of evidence to support it.
mike9009 said:
Aren't the French in the EU?
They are, but that fact wouldn't preclude the UK's involvement in AUKUS. I'm sure it would have ruffled some diplomatic feathers...I mean, it did. But I struggle to see what EU mechanisms would have prevented the UK being involved in the tripartite agreement, or what recompense France would have had had they done so that would have convinced the UK not to. It smells very much like a case of Neil affirming the consequent- "X good thing happened after Brexit, therefore Brexit just have caused it". Come to think of it that seems to be how a lot of discussions in this thread go...
HM-2 said:
mike9009 said:
Aren't the French in the EU?
They are, but that fact wouldn't preclude the UK's involvement in AUKUS. I'm sure it would have ruffled some diplomatic feathers...I mean, it did. But I struggle to see what EU mechanisms would have prevented the UK being involved in the tripartite agreement, or what recompense France would have had had they done so that would have convinced the UK not to. It smells very much like a case of Neil affirming the consequent- "X good thing happened after Brexit, therefore Brexit just have caused it". Come to think of it that seems to be how a lot of discussions in this thread go...
That was not because of Brexit, we could have done it anyway but didn't before we left.
Part of Brexit was to encourage more high skilled workers from around the world to the UK rather than having all the places taken up by minimum wage EU FoMers. The figures show that is now happening. You should be delighted.
Vanden Saab said:
That was not because of Brexit, we could have done it anyway but didn't before we left.
Can you point to where that's been an unreasonable contention? I fear there's an element of confusing correlation with causation here. Vanden Saab said:
Part of Brexit was to encourage more high skilled workers from around the world to the UK
This wasn't part of "Brexit", though, was it? It was part of the policies of the government that implemented brexit, one which had been actively preventing more high skilled workers from outside the EEA coming to the UK even though they could quite easily have changed the rules to allow more. There is no cause and effect here. Brexit didn't "cause" this policy, legislation introduced after Brexit to restructure our immigration system did. That legislation could equally have been introduced without Brexit occurring, had the political will been there.
Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 12th March 19:32
Mortarboard said:
HM-2 said:
don'tbesilly said:
I’ve read it, but thanks all the same.
Then you should have realised that it's not a "brexit benefit". Nothing about our membership of the EU prevented us from removing quotas on skill migrants. Most of whom collapse.
Yay!
Be something for the (former) farmers to do, I suppose.
M.
It's interesting you think start-up companies collapsing is something to celebrate, but then again it is you, so hardly surprising.
Weird stuff.
don'tbesilly said:
Why would I have mentioned startups? I did no more than post a link to a media article.
It's interesting you think start-up companies collapsing is something to celebrate, but then again it is you, so hardly surprising.
Weird stuff.
Didn't read your article, did you? It's interesting you think start-up companies collapsing is something to celebrate, but then again it is you, so hardly surprising.
Weird stuff.
You're right then. All you did was post it.
M.
HM-2 said:
Vanden Saab said:
That was not because of Brexit, we could have done it anyway but didn't before we left.
Can you point to where that's been an unreasonable contention? I fear there's an element of confusing correlation with causation here. Vanden Saab said:
Part of Brexit was to encourage more high skilled workers from around the world to the UK
This wasn't part of "Brexit", though, was it? It was part of the policies of the government that implemented brexit, one which had been actively preventing more high skilled workers from outside the EEA coming to the UK even though they could quite easily have changed the rules to allow more. There is no cause and effect here. Brexit didn't "cause" this policy, legislation introduced after Brexit to restructure our immigration system did. That legislation could equally have been introduced without Brexit occurring, had the political will been there.
Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 12th March 19:32
Third one down
vote leave said:
We can control immigration
A fairer system which welcomes people to the UK based on the skills they have, not the passport they hold.
Guess you didn't ever get past the bus...A fairer system which welcomes people to the UK based on the skills they have, not the passport they hold.
Mortarboard said:
don'tbesilly said:
Why would I have mentioned startups? I did no more than post a link to a media article.
It's interesting you think start-up companies collapsing is something to celebrate, but then again it is you, so hardly surprising.
Weird stuff.
Didn't read your article, did you? It's interesting you think start-up companies collapsing is something to celebrate, but then again it is you, so hardly surprising.
Weird stuff.
You're right then. All you did was post it.
M.
Maybe instead of gloating at companies failing before they failed, you can come back and gloat when they do.
Vanden Saab said:
Guess you didn't ever get past the bus...
Guess you still don't know the difference between a campaign organisation and a government. A campaign organisation saying they support X, then X being passed as law some years later, does not mean the campaign organisation caused X. There seems to be a real problem with confusing correlation and causation in this thread.
crankedup5 said:
Sunak in talks with Biden to forward the AUKUS pact which obviously includes Australia. This proposal, almost certainly to be agreed, would never have had legs if the U.K. had still been in the EU, according to Andrew Neil. Another brexit benefit.
You must have read this article Cranked?It certainly corroborates your claim in regards to Andrew Neil.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/world-...
don'tbesilly said:
crankedup5 said:
Sunak in talks with Biden to forward the AUKUS pact which obviously includes Australia. This proposal, almost certainly to be agreed, would never have had legs if the U.K. had still been in the EU, according to Andrew Neil. Another brexit benefit.
You must have read this article Cranked?It certainly corroborates your claim in regards to Andrew Neil.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/world-...
"Boris Johnson claimed to me in London last week that the Aukus deal could not have happened if the UK had still been enmeshed in the EU's common foreign and defence policy ambit”.
Boris. Never been known to tell a porky. Jesus wept.
Riff Raff said:
don'tbesilly said:
crankedup5 said:
Sunak in talks with Biden to forward the AUKUS pact which obviously includes Australia. This proposal, almost certainly to be agreed, would never have had legs if the U.K. had still been in the EU, according to Andrew Neil. Another brexit benefit.
You must have read this article Cranked?It certainly corroborates your claim in regards to Andrew Neil.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/world-...
"Boris Johnson claimed to me in London last week that the Aukus deal could not have happened if the UK had still been enmeshed in the EU's common foreign and defence policy ambit”.
Boris. Never been known to tell a porky. Jesus wept.
Article also said:
Mr Neil claimed that Americans were enjoying the fact Britain was able to make decisions about military and intelligence decisions without having to consult the European Union.
Article also said:
"I was sceptical. But here in America, U.S. intelligence and foreign policy officials confirmed his claim. Indeed, they went further.
"They said that U.S.-UK intelligence and security cooperation, always close, had become even closer since Brexit. They liked the way they could deal with a Britain that didn't have to look over its shoulder for an EU response or permission to proceed.
Of course, the above ignores the fact that the point of the post was to point out that Cranked was quite right in regards to what his original post said which caused quite a kerfuffle. "They said that U.S.-UK intelligence and security cooperation, always close, had become even closer since Brexit. They liked the way they could deal with a Britain that didn't have to look over its shoulder for an EU response or permission to proceed.
HM-2 said:
Vanden Saab said:
Guess you didn't ever get past the bus...
Guess you still don't know the difference between a campaign organisation and a government. A campaign organisation saying they support X, then X being passed as law some years later, does not mean the campaign organisation caused X. There seems to be a real problem with confusing correlation and causation in this thread.
don'tbesilly said:
So the article not saying what you suggested it said meant I hadn't read it.
Maybe instead of gloating at companies failing before they failed, you can come back and gloat when they do.
You admitted it yourself Maybe instead of gloating at companies failing before they failed, you can come back and gloat when they do.
And most uk startups fail.
https://www.beauhurst.com/blog/startup-fail-scale-...
M.
Mortarboard said:
don'tbesilly said:
So the article not saying what you suggested it said meant I hadn't read it.
Maybe instead of gloating at companies failing before they failed, you can come back and gloat when they do.
You admitted it yourself Maybe instead of gloating at companies failing before they failed, you can come back and gloat when they do.
And most uk startups fail.
https://www.beauhurst.com/blog/startup-fail-scale-...
M.
MB doubling down on the gloating, stay classy Fella, although it does suit you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff