Brexit matters

[Bald Rick]

Of course I hope everyone is ready for similar drip drip drip realignments to bring us back closer to Europe and regain everything we already had because you can settle in for us to re-negotiate our way back to where were bit by bit I'm sure over the next decade or so.

Hear Hear!
#Schengennext

 

[tomuk]

Of course I hope everyone is ready for similar drip drip drip realignments to bring us back closer to Europe and regain everything we already had because you can settle in for us to re-negotiate our way back to where were bit by bit I'm sure over the next decade or so.

But this isn't a realignment it was always part of the Brexit Deal but the EU delayed enacting it as a motivator during the NI implementation issues.

 

[ATrainSpotter]

Some positive Brexit news for once:

UK rejoins EU science research scheme Horizon

UK-based scientists and institutions will have access to the £85bn fund from today.

www.bbc.co.uk

Of course I hope everyone is ready for similar drip drip drip realignments to bring us back closer to Europe and regain everything we already had because you can settle in for us to re-negotiate our way back to where were bit by bit I'm sure over the next decade or so.

I agree, and I honestly think we will rejoin the EU formally at some point in the future. It was supposed to be done in 2020, but people today are still referred and asked whether they support Brexit or not. I think the biggest breakthrough (or biggest reunification more like!) will be when we rejoin the single market/free movement just like before.

 

[tomuk]

I agree, and I honestly think we will rejoin the EU formally at some point in the future. It was supposed to be done in 2020, but people today are still referred and asked whether they support Brexit or not. I think the biggest breakthrough (or biggest reunification more like!) will be when we rejoin the single market/free movement just like before.

What was meant to happen in 2020?
As regards going back in it will need the politicians to actively seek re-joining and that would be quite bold move. Despite their bluster when they had gained control of the parliamentary process, during the indicative votes process they didn't take opportunity to bring it to a halt then.

 

[edwin_m]

But this isn't a realignment it was always part of the Brexit Deal but the EU delayed enacting it as a motivator during the NI implementation issues.

Because Johnson quite openly said he'd ditch the NI deal he'd recently signed. If you don't negotiate in good faith, you can't expect the other side to deliver what was agreed.

As regards going back in it will need the politicians to actively seek re-joining and that would be quite bold move. Despite their bluster when they had gained control of the parliamentary process, during the indicative votes process they didn't take opportunity to bring it to a halt then.

Aiming to rejoin would be quite a bold move now, but in a few years time public opinion is likely to be strongly in favour of closer ties. More Leave voters are now seeing how the whole thing was a con and has been severely damaging to the UK, and the electorate is changing as predominantly pro-EU teenagers reach voting age and replace the older and more anti-EU cohort. The situation is likely to be very different from 2019 when many politicians didn't want to go against the "will of the people" or the bullying of the hard Brexiters, despite knowing any form of Brexit would be bad for the UK and a harder one would be worse.

Joining is a lengthy process and requires broad political concensus - the EU isn't going to be interested in letting the UK join if the Tory party looks like leaving again next time they get into power. These small and practical steps are beneficial to the UK in their own right, but a route back to membership would start with the same steps.

 

[Enthusiast]

Of course I hope everyone is ready for similar drip drip drip realignments to bring us back closer to Europe and regain everything we already had because you can settle in for us to re-negotiate our way back to where were bit by bit I'm sure over the next decade or so.

I doubt it.

The EU will be a very different animal in a decade or so and the UK will be in a very different position. This latest development (rejoining the Horizon programme) was always an aim anyway and it was only the intransigence of both sides which prevented it being negotiated prior to our leaving. Good luck to any government which attempts to secure renewed EU membership salami style. It's precisely because of that tactic, so capably exercised by the EU over the years, that many people voted to leave.

 

[THC]

I doubt it.

The EU will be a very different animal in a decade or so and the UK will be in a very different position. This latest development (rejoining the Horizon programme) was always an aim anyway and it was only the intransigence of both sides which prevented it being negotiated prior to our leaving. Good luck to any government which attempts to secure renewed EU membership salami style. It's precisely because of that tactic, so capably exercised by the EU over the years, that many people voted to leave.

False equivalence. The EU is rules-based; the only intransigence was on the UK side. Remember who it was trying to leave. And many people voted to leave because they were sold simplistic populist nonsense in lieu of the national interest to the benefit of very few. Remind me again who has done well out of all this.

THC

 

[Enthusiast]

False equivalence. The EU is rules-based; the only intransigence was on the UK side. Remember who it was trying to leave. And many people voted to leave because they were sold simplistic populist nonsense in lieu of the national interest to the benefit of very few. Remind me again who has done well out of all this.

THC

It doesn't really matter where the fault lies. The EU being (inflexibly) rules based is probably one of its greatest weaknesses. It was fairly clear that the UK would eventually rejoin Horizon as it was a mutually beneficial arrangement and the hiatus could have been avoided with a little more flexibility (on both sides). The notion that only one side needed to make concessions when the withdrawal agreement was supposedly designed to be beneficial to both parties is somewhat supercilious - but of course we are talking about the EU, here.

The people who have done really well out of all of this are people like me who wanted to see the UK leave the EU regardless of the consequences. I was not swayed by the simplistic populist nonsense you describe as I came to my conclusion in 1992. The very last thing that would have swayed my decision in 2016 was the abject drivel spouted by many politicians in an effort to get the electorate to vote the way they wanted them to.

 

[class ep-09]

It doesn't really matter where the fault lies. The EU being (inflexibly) rules based is probably one of its greatest weaknesses. It was fairly clear that the UK would eventually rejoin Horizon as it was a mutually beneficial arrangement and the hiatus could have been avoided with a little more flexibility (on both sides). The notion that only one side needed to make concessions when the withdrawal agreement was supposedly designed to be beneficial to both parties is somewhat supercilious - but of course we are talking about the EU, here.

The people who have done really well out of all of this are people like me who wanted to see the UK leave the EU regardless of the consequences. I was not swayed by the simplistic populist nonsense you describe as I came to my conclusion in 1992. The very last thing that would have swayed my decision in 2016 was the abject drivel spouted by many politicians in an effort to get the electorate to vote the way they wanted them to.

Out of pure curiosity - what did you gain , that benefitted you so well ?

My guess: blue passports , innit ?

It looks that you were believing nonsense all along since 1992 , when you made your mind up .

 

[Enthusiast]

Out of pure curiosity - what did you gain , that benefitted you so well ?

My guess: blue passports , innit ?

It looks that you were believing nonsense all along since 1992 , when you made your mind up .

Your guess is incorrect.

What I gained was the satisfaction that the UK is no longer a member of the EU. I am fundamentally opposed to it as an institution and particularly the pernicious influence it wields over its members. I am opposed to its construction and democratic deficit and would be opposed to any institution which (as the EU does) claims legislative superiority over national Parliaments. I see it as a protectionist organisation which goes to great lengths to protect its members from competition from outside the bloc (with no particular regard for customers) and even instils measures to protect them from each other.

I made my decision in 1992 because it was clear from the principles of the Maastricht Treaty that the EU's ultimate aim was the formation of a single federal state with erosion of national characteristics. That was reinforced by the Lisbon Treaty and the gradual erosion of national vetoes on an increasing range of topics is a symptom of that. That federal aim seemed to have slowed somewhat in the 2010s, but remans nonetheless.

To further answer your question, I have no particular preference for the colour of my passport (so long as it does not have "European Union" emblazoned on its cover); I care not whether my pint glass has a crown on it or not; I'm not particularly fussed about having to join a separate queue to enter or leave an EU country (though this has caused me no inconvenience so far in the dozen or so journeys I have made since we left). Rather than any of those things, it's a matter of ideology - innit!

 

[class ep-09]

Your guess is incorrect.

What I gained was the satisfaction that the UK is no longer a member of the EU. I am fundamentally opposed to it as an institution and particularly the pernicious influence it wields over its members. I am opposed to its construction and democratic deficit and would be opposed to any institution which (as the EU does) claims legislative superiority over national Parliaments. I see it as a protectionist organisation which goes to great lengths to protect its members from competition from outside the bloc (with no particular regard for customers) and even instils measures to protect them from each other.

I made my decision in 1992 because it was clear from the principles of the Maastricht Treaty that the EU's ultimate aim was the formation of a single federal state with erosion of national characteristics. That was reinforced by the Lisbon Treaty and the gradual erosion of national vetoes on an increasing range of topics is a symptom of that. That federal aim seemed to have slowed somewhat in the 2010s, but remans nonetheless.

To further answer your question, I have no particular preference for the colour of my passport (so long as it does not have "European Union" emblazoned on its cover); I care not whether my pint glass has a crown on it or not; I'm not particularly fussed about having to join a separate queue to enter or leave an EU country (though this has caused me no inconvenience so far in the dozen or so journeys I have made since we left). Rather than any of those things, it's a matter of ideology - innit!

Nonsense is nonsense , no matter how you dress it up .

 

[Enthusiast]

Nonsense is nonsense , no matter how you dress it up .

What aspects of my opinion do you find particularly nonsensical? Or is it simply that it does not concur with yours?

 

[najaB]

What I gained was the satisfaction...

So no tangible gain. While others have suffered great measurable harm. Thanks.

 

[Enthusiast]

I didn't expect any tangible gains. Only people who listened to some politicians expected that.

I've explained my reasons for voting to leave quite clearly. Everybody who voted had their own reasons for voting the way they did. Are you suggesting that, despite my intense opposition to the UK being a member of the EU, I should have either voted to remain or abstained, just in case other people might suffer "great measurable harm."? It was pretty obvious some people would suffer inconvenience from such a major change. That's unfortunate. But I would rather the country moved in a different direction and since, much to my surprise and delight, I was asked the question, I gave an honest answer. Hopefully one day we'll have a government which agrees with that and makes the most of it rather than continuing to treat Brexit as a damage limitation exercise.

 

[Dent]

Are you suggesting that, despite my intense opposition to the UK being a member of the EU, I should have either voted to remain or abstained, just in case the people might suffer "great measurable harm."?

Is it unreasonable to suggest that knowing your action will cause great harm is a reason not to take that action?

 

[najaB]

I've explained my reasons for voting to leave quite clearly. Everybody who voted had their own reasons for voting the way they did. Are you suggesting that, despite my intense opposition to the UK being a member of the EU, I should have either voted to remain or abstained, just in case other people might suffer "great measurable harm."?

No, not at all. I just wanted clarity that you voted the way that you did for purely self-centred reasons and didn't expect anyone's lives to be made better in any way.

 

[tomuk]

No, not at all. I just wanted clarity that you voted the way that you did for purely self-centred reasons and didn't expect anyone's lives to be made better in any way.

How are his reasons selfish?

 

[najaB]

How are his reasons selfish?

Because he said that his vote was for ideological reasons, with no expectation that anyone would derive any tangible benefit as a result.

And, one would assume, in spite of warnings that many people would experience disbenefits.

 

[Enthusiast]

Is it unreasonable to suggest that knowing your action will cause great harm is a reason not to take that action?

In this particular case, yes. This is leaving aside the question whether my action knowingly caused great harm - something which I didn't believe when I voted and which I still don't believe now. If it was potentially that harmful the government should not have asked the question, should not have promised to enact the result of the referendum and Parliament should not have voted by five to one to invoke Article 50.

No, not at all. I just wanted clarity that you voted the way that you did for purely self-centred reasons and didn't expect anyone's lives to be made better in any way.

I didn't expect my life or that of anybody else to be made substantially better or worse if we left the EU. EU membership has some undoubted advantages and some undoubted downsides - too many and various to discuss here. If it was such a good idea, other groups of nations may have tried a similar model, but none have.

But that was not a consideration for me. As I've said, I am fundamentally opposed to the very existence of the EU as an institution and I was given a vote on the matter of the UK's membership along with everybody else. I didn't realise, when I marked my paper, that I could only vote to leave if my reasons accorded with a prescribed list.

Unlike some I am totally honest about my reasons for voting to leave. It had nothing to do with what I suspected might or might not happen if we left (if for no other reason, nobody knew for certain what that would be). I simply wanted us to leave and my attachment to that view is no different to those who are ideologically attached to the EU, regardless of the consequences of continued membership.

 

[A0wen]

Some positive Brexit news for once:

UK rejoins EU science research scheme Horizon

UK-based scientists and institutions will have access to the £85bn fund from today.

www.bbc.co.uk

Of course I hope everyone is ready for similar drip drip drip realignments to bring us back closer to Europe and regain everything we already had because you can settle in for us to re-negotiate our way back to where were bit by bit I'm sure over the next decade or so.

I agree, and I honestly think we will rejoin the EU formally at some point in the future. It was supposed to be done in 2020, but people today are still referred and asked whether they support Brexit or not. I think the biggest breakthrough (or biggest reunification more like!) will be when we rejoin the single market/free movement just like before.

I think you both need to read up on Horizon then - you don't need to be an EU member to be part of Horizon as countries like New Zealand, Israel, Serbia, Armenia, Kosovo and Switzerland have demonstrated.

It's about as relevant to EU membershipas the Eurovision Song Contest is..

False equivalence. The EU is rules-based; the only intransigence was on the UK side. Remember who it was trying to leave. And many people voted to leave because they were sold simplistic populist nonsense in lieu of the national interest to the benefit of very few. Remind me again who has done well out of all this.

THC

Unlike some I am totally honest about my reasons for voting to leave. It had nothing to do with what I suspected might or might not happen if we left (if for no other reason, nobody knew for certain what that would be). I simply wanted us to leave and my attachment to that view is no different to those who are ideologically attached to the EU, regardless of the consequences of continued membership.

I too started to doubt the benefits of the EU in the 1990s when it was clear what was on the face of it a fairly sensible free trade area started to change as a result of the Maastricht treaty.

Serious doubts kicked in when the UK crashed out of the ERM - at that point it became clear to me that monetary union was particularly dangerous and effectively meant any country signed up to that would be cedeing control of their economy to unelected officials in a Central Bank.

Then we had the Brown government's deceitful behaviour over the European Constitution, dealt with here by William Hague

and the EU's "workaround" of diluting the treaty to get the same measures implemented despite its rejection by 2 countries in referendums. That is not the behaviour of a democratic body.

Finally the banking crisis of the late 2000s showed up the sham of the EU and the claims of it being a "rules based" organisation - it clearly breached its own rules to admit Greece (and others) into the Euro, when the financial crisis hit, the inability of those "sovereign" governments to take action was laid bare as the ECB dictated what they would do.

Many of us who voted leave did so not because of "populist nonsense" but because we'd been watching the EU's behaviour for the past 25 years and felt it was overbearing, undemocratic and a threat to a sovereign country.

The clincher for me was in the referendum, the remain campaign *not once* spelled out what the EU could look like in 5, 10 or 20 years time, they disingenuously claimed things would stay "as is", yet in the same breath they expected the leave campaign to spell out what the UK would look like outside the EU in that timeframe.

I voted leave and would not advocate returning to the EU.

 

[najaB]

I didn't realise, when I marked my paper, that I could only vote to leave if my reasons accorded with a prescribed list.

Naturally, you could vote whichever way you wanted for whichever reason you wanted. That's the core principle of representative democracy.

At no point have I suggested that you should have voted any other way than you did. I just wanted clarity as to the considerations that went into that decision.

 

[dakta]

At no point have I suggested that you should have voted any other way than you did

From what I read, his actions were considered selfish, which though could be considered a bit of an insult, is slightly interesting because I'd imagine one of the key advantages of having an individual vote is to advocate for oneself and ones interests

 

[najaB]

From what I read, his actions were considered selfish, which though could be considered a bit of an insult...

There's no value judgement being applied, just a recognition that on the selfish/altruistic scale the factors leading to the vote were clearly much closer to the former end of the scale than the latter.

 

[dakta]

No worries, it's totally their perogative - if there is a time to be selfish voting is probably it, it's the calling to advocate for yourself (the bright side is you get no special treatment)

 

[AlterEgo]

From what I read, his actions were considered selfish, which though could be considered a bit of an insult, is slightly interesting because I'd imagine one of the key advantages of having an individual vote is to advocate for oneself and ones interests

Yes, but it is unreasonable for any voter to vote purely out of self-interest. If there was a referendum whereby all the money and property would be expropriated from British ethnic minorities and given to white people born in the UK, if I was purely self-interested I would of course vote to become wealthier at the expense of others. But I wouldn't; no reasonable person would vote that way, because they would note that their self interest has to be balanced against potential harms. I support all kinds of policies which run counter to my self interest because I think that on the macro level they might be of benefit to society, and I suspect many people also inform their politics in the same way.

As an aside, this is also why things like YouGov should get into the bin - surveys casually filled in by bored people on their computer about all sorts of nonsense, and then presented as informing policy.

 

[dakta]

When there's only a couple of boxes to tick, you have to make the best choice you can. I don't think it unreasonable at all that someone would prioritise their self interest.

Whichever way you vote someones coming to harm, you can even pull that down to any election really. Vote one way, the poors getting taxed, vote the other way, lower taxes but healthcares getting cut... okay these aren't as exciting examples but the gist is there. someones always going to argue your choices are going to hurt them

Nah you have to go with your interest.

Your examples are a bit on the unrealistic side?

 

[E27007]

Your guess is incorrect.

What I gained was the satisfaction that the UK is no longer a member of the EU. I am fundamentally opposed to it as an institution and particularly the pernicious influence it wields over its members. I am opposed to its construction and democratic deficit and would be opposed to any institution which (as the EU does) claims legislative superiority over national Parliaments. I see it as a protectionist organisation which goes to great lengths to protect its members from competition from outside the bloc (with no particular regard for customers) and even instils measures to protect them from each other.

I made my decision in 1992 because it was clear from the principles of the Maastricht Treaty that the EU's ultimate aim was the formation of a single federal state with erosion of national characteristics. That was reinforced by the Lisbon Treaty and the gradual erosion of national vetoes on an increasing range of topics is a symptom of that. That federal aim seemed to have slowed somewhat in the 2010s, but remans nonetheless.

To further answer your question, I have no particular preference for the colour of my passport (so long as it does not have "European Union" emblazoned on its cover); I care not whether my pint glass has a crown on it or not; I'm not particularly fussed about having to join a separate queue to enter or leave an EU country (though this has caused me no inconvenience so far in the dozen or so journeys I have made since we left). Rather than any of those things, it's a matter of ideology - innit!

Well said, I hold the same views, Membership of the EU and the creation of a Federal European State by various means represents a weakening of democracy in our country

 

[AlterEgo]

When there's only a couple of boxes to tick, you have to make the best choice you can. I don't think it unreasonable at all that someone would prioritise their self interest.

Whichever way you vote someones coming to harm, you can even pull that down to any election really. Vote one way, the poors getting taxed, vote the other way, lower taxes but healthcares getting cut... okay these aren't as exciting examples but the gist is there. someones always going to argue your choices are going to hurt them

Nah you have to go with your interest.

Your examples are a bit on the unrealistic side?

But self-evidently, most people do not vote in pure alignment with their self interest. It's an extreme example because it's an illustration, but if you would like another example, how about wealthy people voting for the Labour Party, counter to their own ruthless self interest? Perhaps they would prefer to live in a fairer and more equal society, or one where they feel minority rights are respected. Many people feel that uplifting others is equal to or superior to sheer self-interest. I am very sceptical about the EU but voted to stay in, against most of my instincts, because I felt that there was a good risk that others might be harmed. I personally have barely been harmed by Brexit; I'm comfortable, have EU citizenship anyway, not feeling cost of living like others, etc - but I felt maintaining the status quo was the right thing to do at that time.

Why do you think gay marriage referendums pass? It's not because a majority of people are gay and will avail of that right, is it? Where's the self interest there, for so many voters?

The idea that elections and politics are purely transactional and all about transferring as much ruthless self-benefit to a majority of voters is a simplistic, and wrong, way to look at things. Indeed your own post shows that political choices are a balancing act.

 

[class ep-09]

Well said, I hold the same views, Membership of the EU and the creation of a Federal European State by various means represents a weakening of democracy in our country

Country with unelected head of state , unelected second chamber and voting system that allows one party, which gets far less then half of the votes during general elections , to have 100% of power , while over half of voters have no representation at all ?

That country ?

By your definition, other EU countries willingly allow for their democracies to be weakened too .

What a nonsense .

 

[A0wen]

Country with unelected head of state , unelected second chamber and voting system that allows one party, which gets far less then half of the votes during general elections , to have 100% of power , while over half of voters have no representation at all ?

That country ?

By your definition, other EU countries willingly allow for their democracies to be weakened too .

What a nonsense .

Let's deal with each of those - the monarch's role is mainly ceremonial now. The monarch cannot dictate to parliament, instead the monarch is the final sign off on whatever parliament votes for.

The House of Lords is similarly limited, it cannot create legislation, it can only revise legislation. And it cannot indefinitely block or overturn the wishes of an elected House of Commons, unlike, say, the US Senate which *can and does* do this to the President and House of Representatives.

On First Past The Post (FPTP) - no system is perfect, is a Proportional Representation result which leads to a "coalition of the losers" democratic when it means the biggest single block of voters aren't considered really a better outcome ? FPTP also has the benefit it has managed to prevent extremists from gaining a foothold in parliament - should a party which achieved 2 or 3 % have the power to hold a government to ransom with the threat of bringing it down if its demands aren't met ? Think of how the SNP or Plaid would behave given such power.

Many countries have found, to their cost, that PR brings political instability - Italy and Israel beimg the main examples. Italy has recently diluted its PR system in an attempt to bring some stability.