UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

No we are talking international WTO tarriffs

Many just fail to understand the complexity of dealing under WTO arrangements.

 

Will the UK have to re-join the WTO after Brexit?

No, it is already a member in its own right.

But it will have to agree a new list of tariff schedules once it is no longer part of the EU.

Like many other parts of the Brexit negotiations, that could be harder than it sounds.

The UK has already submitted documents to the WTO in Geneva, which say that it wants to make a few technical changes to its current commitments as an EU member but otherwise leave them unchanged.

But other countries will want to make sure they are no worse off than they are now after Brexit, while the UK is seeking the same schedules even though after leaving the EU it will represent a much smaller market.

One problem for both the UK and the EU surrounds proposals they have submitted for splitting up their current quotas after Brexit, for the import of sensitive agricultural products such as beef, lamb and sugar from elsewhere in the world. These proposals have already attracted complaints from other countries, including the United States.

And time is running rather short to complete what are always complex negotiations, in which every country will stick up for its own interests.

With a bit of goodwill, the UK hopes it will be able to resolve the debate about WTO schedules. But one of the dangers of a no deal Brexit is that there might not be much goodwill around, especially if it meant that the UK was refusing to pay the more than £39bn it has provisionally agreed it owes the EU as it leaves.

So this is a technical issue, but politics will also play a big role.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45112872

[My Thai Life]

@Bboy, this is what I wrote:

 

"But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and without EU non-tariff barriers."

 

For ease of understanding perhaps I should have written:

 

"But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and trade without EU non-tariff barriers."

 

Hope that helps, cheers.

 

The EU is regarded by some of the most well-informed commentators as being a protectionist cartel. And I can't say I disagree with them. Somehow it all went wrong, or maybe it just started wrong and got worse.

 

 

 

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

One of many arguments:

 

The U.K. is economically and politically stronger as s member of the EU than it will be as an individual nation.

Right, so as I suspected, you have no argument. Just warm fuzzy feelings feelings about a huge faceless bureaucracy that is becoming more militaristic and less democratic each passing week.

Federalist supranational bureaucracies belong in George Orwell novels or perhaps former Soviet states, not in Europe and we shouldn't remain part of one. Disband the whole thing and let the peoples of Europe get on with controlling our own national destinies from within. Just ask your average Greek, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian, Spaniard or (increasingly) Frenchman or German. The EU is on its way out, let's put it out of its misery.

[sandyf]

11 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

I would disagree, there are of course some underlying benefits, but they are outweighed by the net loss we incur from having to pay extortionate amounts to remain part of the EU and of course the reams of legislation that have been pushed down our throats since 1975. Again, I reiterate that its about loss of sovereignty, having to ask permission from Brussels/Strasbourg and having our own parliament have to go to the EP/EC and ECHR to have our own legislature ratified. If we had taken the advice of the EU supremos and joined the Eurozone, I think we would be as screwed as Spain/Portugal/Ireland/Italy or France's economy is now. The fiscal, customs and political union between industrially developed and populous countries (particularly in the north of Europe) and smaller less economically / industrially developed ones in the south was never going to work. If you think nations like Greece (now a debt colony), Portugal, Spain and Italy are enjoying all the benefits and glories of the EU and have prospered in recent years then you really do have that selective memory you mentioned. Without even touching on the so called 'refugee crisis' being enjoyed across the contintent, again, thanks EU / Ms. Merkel. Our own recent history has not been dictated solely by the EU either, both the benefits and the detriments, I would admit.

An emotional rant and you cannot argue with emotion.

I would  agree the EU has failings, they failed to kick Greece out when they admitted falsifying the accounts.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

@Bboy, this is what I wrote:

 

"But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and without EU non-tariff barriers."

 

For ease of understanding perhaps I should have written:

 

"But of course we would be free to import from other countries without EU bureaucracy and trade without EU non-tariff barriers."

 

Hope that helps, cheers.

 

The EU is regarded by some of the most well-informed commentators as being a protectionist cartel. And I can't say I disagree with them. Somehow it all went wrong, or maybe it just started wrong and got worse.

 

 

 

 

There was nothing difficult to understand about what you wrote. It was false. Whether through lack of knowledge or oversight, who can say?

Who are some of these well informed commentators?

[My Thai Life]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Who are some of these well informed commentators?

You want a well-informed commentator on the EU as a protectionist cartel? Here's one from The Guardian.

 

"It [the EU] began life as a cartel of heavy industry (coal and steel, then car manufacturers, later co-opting farmers, hi-tech industries and others). Like all cartels, the idea was to manipulate prices and to redistribute the resulting profits through a purpose-built, Brussels-based bureaucracy.

 

This European cartel and the bureaucrats who administered it feared the demos and despised the idea of government by the people, just like the administrators of oil producers Opec, or indeed any corporation, does. Patiently and methodically, a process of depoliticising decision-making was put in place, the result a relentless drive towards taking the “demos” out of “democracy”, at least as far as the EU was concerned, and cloaking all policy-making in a pervasive pseudo-technocratic fatalism."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-people-europe-diem25

 

 

 

 

 

[sandyf]

Stalemate?

 

Both sides have little room for manoeuvre to change their positions, however: Ms May appears to believe she has already given more concessions to the EU than her party will allow her, while the European Commission negotiators have their mandate set by the EU27 nations, who say they are not prepared to change the nature of their union to accommodate Britain’s departure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-talks-latest-no-deal-michel-barnier-dominic-raab-uk-blame-game-a8501631.html

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

29 minutes ago, sandyf said:

An emotional rant and you cannot argue with emotion.

I would  agree the EU has failings, they failed to kick Greece out when they admitted falsifying the accounts.

Wow, you must be a fully paid up shill, right?

Identify where the 'emotion' is in my statement then please, besides a bit of good humour. I don't like the EU, I don't like what it stands for or the people who are behind it, but I don't butt-hurt about it and use ad homonym attacks or emotionally charged nonsense to make my points, that seems to be the preserve of neoliberal remainer types. I have argued legitimately against it (EU) and raised enough valid points that have not really been properly countered by anyone thus far, the fundamental issues don't seem to be registering with most. If you think Greece was deserving of what happened to it, go and have a look into the ECB's accounts before casting judgement. This was all premeditated. 

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

You want a well-informed commentator on the EU as a protectionist cartel? Here's one from The Guardian.

 

"It [the EU] began life as a cartel of heavy industry (coal and steel, then car manufacturers, later co-opting farmers, hi-tech industries and others). Like all cartels, the idea was to manipulate prices and to redistribute the resulting profits through a purpose-built, Brussels-based bureaucracy.

 

This European cartel and the bureaucrats who administered it feared the demos and despised the idea of government by the people, just like the administrators of oil producers Opec, or indeed any corporation, does. Patiently and methodically, a process of depoliticising decision-making was put in place, the result a relentless drive towards taking the “demos” out of “democracy”, at least as far as the EU was concerned, and cloaking all policy-making in a pervasive pseudo-technocratic fatalism."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-people-europe-diem25

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, Varoufakis wrote that in the middle of the Greek crisis. So, as events proved, he was being somewhat hyperobolic.

Just recently, he said this:

 I fear very much the terrible consequences of a hard Brexit. The only way to find stability is for May to apply for a Norway-style agreement for a five-year period after March 2019.

https://www.politico.eu/blogs/playbook-plus/2017/09/yanis-varoufakis-eu-at-risk-of-disintegration/

[mommysboy]

Both parties would have to impose WTO tariffs.

 

Neither party would be happy with  no deal, yet there is an inevitably to it.

 

The EU appears to have red lines that are not up for negotiation: essentially, you are either in the single market or out.  So no deal is really the only eventuality, and really we just need to smooth things out as much as possible.

 

As to a 40 billion payment.....as if!  As the EU will understand, you are either in the club or out. 

 

Remainers need to understand that Brexit will happen, and it does little good to dream of second referendums, or changes of mind, the latter being the stuff of pure fantasy really.

 

The best deal at this stage would be to exit without a deal, on a gradual basis perhaps staged over a few years in key areas where there would be enormous disruption for both parties.

 

I do think EU has yet to face reality too over Brexit.  I don't think there can ever be much of a free trade deal since the EU really wants it all its own way, whereas UK has already showed willingness to be flexible. over flexible in my view.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

 

I just think people are sadly mistaken to think Brexit will be called off, even if it makes good sense- that quality being sadly lacking in politics, as well as TV forums.  

 

There isn't much opposition to Brexit considering the enormity of the omni-shambles; it's possible to conclude that the majority for leave still exists, and I'm beginning to wonder if there are a fair few 'passive leavers too'.

 

 

The problem is the leave most people voted for, the easy and prosperous one, does not exist. Will those leave voters be happy with the one they get? 

 

We either end up with a rebelion when we cancel leave or when we get it.

[melvinmelvin]

 

what do you actually mean when you say no deal/hard Brexit?

 

sure it means;

no deal on 4 freedoms

no deal on the single market

no deal on trade - export - import

 

but does it also imply no deal on UK citizens living in EU

and no deal on EU citizens living in UK?

(thought that one was almost sorted)

 

what about the high number of EU agencies that lubes the wheels in EU - including the UK

police coop

spook coop

research coop

nuclear coop

air transport

rail transport

road transport

maritime transport

you name it - the list is looooong and quite central for many activities in UK 

no deal here either?

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Of course, Varoufakis wrote that in the middle of the Greek crisis. So, as events proved, he was being somewhat hyperobolic.

Just recently, he said this:

 I fear very much the terrible consequences of a hard Brexit. The only way to find stability is for May to apply for a Norway-style agreement for a five-year period after March 2019.

https://www.politico.eu/blogs/playbook-plus/2017/09/yanis-varoufakis-eu-at-risk-of-disintegration/

 

think I would dislike seeing UK in EFTA

 

I also think that the Swiss arrangement would suit the UK much better

 

the Commission would probably not be happy with either.

(yes, I know that Barnier has aired the EEA solution several times, but he is not the Commission and not doing the necessary work)

 

[tebee]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Tebee, I agree with many of the things you say as usual. I am a Brit, I didn't vote, wasn't offered a vote, and didn't want a vote. Had I voted, I would have voted Leave for political reasons, and Remain for national economic self interest. But to respond to your points.

 

> Asking for consensus when there is none is just wishful thinking and not going to help.

> If anything is going to cause a breakdown of the political system, it would be a 2nd referendum.

> History has taken a dim view of most PMs, depending on whose version of history you read. I am by no means a supporter of May, but really I can't see how any politician could have done much better in the circumstances. The country and the parties are genuinely split, fragmented, over this issue. And I don't want to be drawn into a discussion about the minutiae.

> "Two years and no plan?" That's right, because there is no consensus (and there never will be, even years after the deed is done). You know this as well as I or anyone else.

> Re your last point. I don't think the choice is going to be that stark. I feel that the discussion around the UK budget is going to take us in a direction acceptable to most people other than hard leavers.

 

I think we are both mature enough to know that no-one is going to get exactly what they want out of this mess. And a degree of compromise and acceptance is going to be required of all of us. I see precious little of that on this forum.

 

 

When there is no consensus of what to do surly the best thing is to stay as we are until some sort of consensus emerges ?

 

Trying to forge ahead when we have neither an idea of where we are going or how to get there is never going to work - would you invest in a company that said it had a wonderful new product, but had no idea what it was or how to make it?

 

I don't see  where a workable compromise is going to come from in the available time . Checkers is dead in the water as neither side are supporting it. We were supposed to have a workable plan by the October meeting - that now 2 months away....

 

If we have no plan the two alternatives are rescind art 50 or a hard no deal brexit. As you say there is no consensus for any of the current possible plans - there is not that much time for someone to pull a hitherto unknown rabbit out of the hat.  

 

An art 50 extension might be the only other alternative, but that's politically difficult and really just can kicking down the road.  

 

I disagree with your assertion " If anything is going to cause a breakdown of the political system, it would be a 2nd referendum." I think it much more likely to come post a hard no deal brexit in the ensuing chaos.  

 

 

 

 

[rixalex]

The problem is the leave most people voted for, the easy and prosperous one, does not exist. Will those leave voters be happy with the one they get? 
 
We either end up with a rebelion when we cancel leave or when we get it.

You're right, an easy and prosperous Brexit didn't exist (I don't think any voter was naive enough to believe it would be easy or would result in instant prosperity); however, an EASIER Brexit DID exist. It didn't have to be THIS difficult. If everyone had accepted the result and got on with delivering it, as was promised prior to the vote, the country wouldn't be in the mess that it is, having spent two years getting nowhere fast.

It would have also been much EASIER had the person leading the country been a passionate supporter of Brexit who believed in what they were trying to achieve. Had remain won it's unthinkable to imagine a leave supporter succeeding Cameron. It would never have happened. May was therefore completely the wrong choice, and not just because she's a remainer, but because she has all the charm and charisma of a common warthog, at a time when the country most needed a talisman (or taliswoman[emoji16]).

So much of the blame for the difficult Brexit lies not with Brexit itself, but with the Tories who have made a hash of it. It also lies with remainers in the establishment at large who spend all their time and effort putting obstacles in the way of a successful Brexit and generally trying to derail it, and then sagely and smugly declare, "see, we told you how difficult Brexit would be".

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[jak2002003]

19 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

You sound like a typical 'woke' remainer to me, white man's burden weighing heavy on your misinformed shoulders. Perhaps you're unaware (or too coy to be proud of) the many notable contributions the UK and the commonwealth have made to the modern world? Yet you sound ever so knowledgeable and apologetic for it's manifold transgressions. 

 

And if you think liberty, as in our ability to govern our own destiny free from all forms of control or manipulation, is not important then I think you've probably lead a very comfortable life without paying enough attention to recent history, how nice for you! Most of the last few generations in the UK have lived in ignorance of the effects that a true lack of liberty can induce (myself included) - ironically at the expense of others lives and liberties. However, more and more people are slowly waking up to the increasing impingement on our civil freedoms. To my mind, and to many others', the EU is at the heart of much of the over-regulation we experience and the restricting of our national and personal autonomy. It is easily quantified too. 

All this has nothing to do with looking down on other European nations, it's about understanding our place among them and working with them in trusted partnership, whilst simultaneously being free to fulfill our destiny - of our own making. If you think for one moment the EU has created some kind of Utopia where its constituent states all work together amicably and everyone benefits equally, the many nationalities all prospering uniformly whilst singing kum-bay-ar and embracing, then, well you have been living in a cave for the last 2 decades and more, be it real or cognitive. At the moment opposite is true and it's slowly becoming overwhelmingly obvious! One failed socio-political experiment after another. People have had enough and should be allowed to exercise their own democratic right to choose, as we have done.

 

'Working together is much better than working alone', agreed, but being forced together is never acceptable and who's to say we won't work together with our European neighbours once we leave the political federation that we never signed off on, anyway? No one. We could do so better, that's the point.  The nation states of Europe would do far better business and be far less vulnerable to division, the creation of mutual animosity and economic ruin if they returned to independently and democratically governed nations and whatever you may think about 'lies' we were fed, by both sides I'd like to remind you, the dye has been cast. We've made our decision and it's bigger, more important and more fundamental than economic opt-outs, currency fluctuations, customs unions, trade blocs or import/export tariffs. These things pale in comparison with our nation's sovereignty and total independence ... and that's the point here, that's (for myself and many others) what this is really all about! The economic aspects can be worked out in due course. 

 

Finally, when I say national or civic pride it seems you jump to the misconceived conclusion that these are pseudonyms for nationalism, fascism or the like. In reality, they are not the same thing at all. What is wrong with feeling pride for your friend or loved one when they have done something of worth? Achievement should be commended and prized. National and civic pride is simply an extension of this very everyday impulse. It doesn't need to be remotely exclusionary or xenophobic. Having pride in the worthy aspects of our history (which are numerous and all too obvious if you bother to learn about them) and pride in your surroundings / community is something that benefits all involved and is sorely lacking from our society today. Celebrating others' achievements, inspires achievement in ourselves. This concept rests on the fact that having taken pride in what deserves it, we also acknowledge the transgressions and evils of our own history too, which we do - and to a some extent, always have. If you disagree, you're welcome to, but I'd say you're misinformed and receiving that wisdom passed down from on high just a little too eagerly ? 

 

 

What makes you proud of your country to want to separate and isolate it from all others?

 

The EU have given us a lot more right and freedoms that our British government did, from human right, workers conditions, gay rights, minority rights, food standards, health and safety standards, environmental protection for our beautiful countryside and wildlife, etc, etc, etc.

 

I have not receive much if any info from up on high.  I am not crazy into this situation and don't read too much about it... as it depresses me too much, and I am really worried about my future finances, work, etc.

 

In the EU we have the freedom to travel, work, live, anywhere in Europe.  That is going to be taken away form me now... and ruined my plans for the future.  Now out currency is in a downward slop... my finances and standard of life are going to go down also.  

 

I don't see how you can think isolating ourselves, ruining our economy, throwing out EU laws and good regulations for people, can be a good thing?  Seems we are cutting off our noses to spite our face.

 

I think some people would be happy to have no money left, live on the streets, with no human rights or protection.... sitting there in the rain alone... saying something like  ''I am so proud to be British and not have to be told what to do''.  

 

 

[tebee]

26 minutes ago, rixalex said:

You're right, an easy and prosperous Brexit didn't exist (I don't think any voter was naive enough to believe it would be easy or would result in instant prosperity); however, an EASIER Brexit DID exist. It didn't have to be THIS difficult. If everyone had accepted the result and got on with delivering it, as was promised prior to the vote, the country wouldn't be in the mess that it is, having spent two years getting nowhere fast.

 

And what good will it do me, and the rest of my kind,  getting behind bad plan that was never going to work  anyway ?

 

It's no good wishing that reality is different to the way it is - even if we all wish for what you want it to be, it's not going to change. 

 

The leavers were put in charge of government - they haven't been able to come up with a workable plan that has any benefits yet  - does that suggest to you that one does not exist ?

 

I don't see any brexit on the horizon that will bring any benefits  even in the long term.  Even the much vaunted gains in sovereignty are mostly illusional.  

[Grouse]

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s a curious post.

 

Having identifies failures of the political parties to address the ‘best interests of their constituents and the country’ you then spil your bile on Corbyn who has presented policies addressing the best interests of the many (not just the few)  and for the country.

We differ on this point Chomper.

 

Labour has a clear route to power if they just were clear about at least remaining in the CU and SM. Corbyn is stopping this because of his Trotskyist stance. He particulary wishes to massively increase state intervention. I agree with reorganising the railways with nationalised infrastructure and real competition for services. I would re-nationalise water companies.

 

No, I don't buy that Corbyn is for the national good. His political views rule.

 

And his dress sense is embarrassing. Somebody should take him to Savile Row for a fitting.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

The pigs have been refuelled, BF'd and ready to fly.

 

Count the wings and kick the tyres,

 

Strap yourself in and light the fires

 

and awaaaaaay we go up to the wide blue yonder.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

what do you actually mean when you say no deal/hard Brexit?

 

sure it means;

no deal on 4 freedoms

no deal on the single market

no deal on trade - export - import

 

but does it also imply no deal on UK citizens living in EU

and no deal on EU citizens living in UK?

(thought that one was almost sorted)

 

what about the high number of EU agencies that lubes the wheels in EU - including the UK

police coop

spook coop

research coop

nuclear coop

air transport

rail transport

road transport

maritime transport

you name it - the list is looooong and quite central for many activities in UK 

no deal here either?

 

 

 

From the BBC News online this morning

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45258343

 

The UK will "move swiftly" to safeguard the future of EU citizens in the event of no deal being agreed, Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has said.

After talks in Brussels, he told the BBC the UK had a "moral obligation" to people and it was "inconceivable" they would be "turfed out".

The EU, he said, must match the UK's "ambition and pragmatism" if the gaps between them were to be overcome.

Counterpart Michel Barnier warned of a "blame game" over a no deal outcome.

Mr Barnier said fundamental disagreements remained on future economic issues and the EU would not abandon its principles when it came to the integrity of the single market.

The two sides have agreed that talks will continue without interruption to try to secure a deal in advance of the UK's departure on 29 March 2019.

[Grouse]

21 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Born and bred. What makes you question that? The history of our continent should guide me into believing that being forcibly governed from an increasingly centralised hub of control is the best course of action? Having less say in our own affairs and less control from our age-old parliament is the right thing for us, as a nation? Fewer and fewer Italians, French, Germans, Spaniards, Hungarians, Poles and many many more would disagree. Homogenisation, centralised consolidation of power and demagoguery have been tried and tested, under a few different guises. The result has been invariably bad. Surely, the history of our continent shows us this more than anything else? Why would you want to repeat it?

Obfuscation! Cantab or not Cantab; that is the question.

 

The EU is far from perfect but much maybe resolved from within. Sadly, we we have too few Cantab (or Oxon or Dunelm [like me!])people in the foreign office and civil service.

 

The EU has limited demagoguery thank goodness. I welcome coalition governments because it locks extremists into unelectable parties with no chance of actual control.

 

I am certainly not homogenised  though increasingly "incompetent" due to old age ?

 

Finally, the history of Europe strongly indicates that having everyone in a club is a good idea.

 

I think free movement can be limited by controlling the numbers per annum by country. Say, no more than 5,000 per annum from a particular country. Also limit total numbers according to population density. That would actually give U.K., Belgium and Netherlands an opt out. Who is negotiating any of this? Not our top minds for sure!  

[Orac]

We differ on this point Chomper.
 
Labour has a clear route to power if they just were clear about at least remaining in the CU and SM. Corbyn is stopping this because of his Trotskyist stance. He particulary wishes to massively increase state intervention. I agree with reorganising the railways with nationalised infrastructure and real competition for services. I would re-nationalise water companies.
 
No, I don't buy that Corbyn is for the national good. His political views rule.
 
And his dress sense is embarrassing. Somebody should take him to Savile Row for a fitting.

Could be Corbyn is steering clear of remaining in CU/SM for ideological reasons or he is clever enough to be acting tactically in ‘not interrupting your enemy when they are making a mistake’.

Sadly I don’t think he is clever enough for tactics which would make him a poor PM if he ever got the chance.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[adammike]

3 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Right, so as I suspected, you have no argument. Just warm fuzzy feelings feelings about a huge faceless bureaucracy that is becoming more militaristic and less democratic each passing week.

Federalist supranational bureaucracies belong in George Orwell novels or perhaps former Soviet states, not in Europe and we shouldn't remain part of one. Disband the whole thing and let the peoples of Europe get on with controlling our own national destinies from within. Just ask your average Greek, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian, Spaniard or (increasingly) Frenchman or German. The EU is on its way out, let's put it out of its misery.

When the question of ditching the euro and returning to the Lira/Drachma/Franc/peseta etc is given to the population of euro land none seem to be in favour of reverting back.you are peddling fake news.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

7 minutes ago, adammike said:

When the question of ditching the euro and returning to the Lira/Drachma/Franc/peseta etc is given to the population of euro land none seem to be in favour of reverting back.you are peddling fake news.

Who says none are in favour of a return to a national currency - or at the very least a break from the fetid Euro!?  I think that the majority of people in certain countries are very much in favour of that. Living outside the UK in an international city I meet enough Europeans to tell you that 9/10 I have met are exasperated with the effects the EU and Euro have had on their countries and economies in particular. What are your cast-iron sources that prove I'm peddling fake news, exactly? Don't accuse me of something and then engage in it yourself please, you are being a hypocrite!  

 

 

[tebee]

44 minutes ago, Grouse said:

We differ on this point Chomper.

 

Labour has a clear route to power if they just were clear about at least remaining in the CU and SM. Corbyn is stopping this because of his Trotskyist stance. He particulary wishes to massively increase state intervention. I agree with reorganising the railways with nationalised infrastructure and real competition for services. I would re-nationalise water companies.

 

No, I don't buy that Corbyn is for the national good. His political views rule.

 

And his dress sense is embarrassing. Somebody should take him to Savile Row for a fitting.

If you ever think your life is futile, just remember there are people lobbying Labour to come up with a coherent Brexit policy....

[melvinmelvin]

32 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

From the BBC News online this morning

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45258343

 

The UK will "move swiftly" to safeguard the future of EU citizens in the event of no deal being agreed, Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has said.

After talks in Brussels, he told the BBC the UK had a "moral obligation" to people and it was "inconceivable" they would be "turfed out".

The EU, he said, must match the UK's "ambition and pragmatism" if the gaps between them were to be overcome.

Counterpart Michel Barnier warned of a "blame game" over a no deal outcome.

Mr Barnier said fundamental disagreements remained on future economic issues and the EU would not abandon its principles when it came to the integrity of the single market.

The two sides have agreed that talks will continue without interruption to try to secure a deal in advance of the UK's departure on 29 March 2019.

ok, ta

so in case hard Brexit UK plans a unilateral hack

and hope that EU will follow suit

 

but what about the very long list of "agencies" that oil the modern society?

 

[rixalex]

And what good will it do me, and the rest of my kind,  getting behind bad plan that was never going to work  anyway ?
 
It's no good wishing that reality is different to the way it is - even if we all wish for what you want it to be, it's not going to change. 
 
The leavers were put in charge of government - they haven't been able to come up with a workable plan that has any benefits yet  - does that suggest to you that one does not exist ?
 
I don't see any brexit on the horizon that will bring any benefits  even in the long term.  Even the much vaunted gains in sovereignty are mostly illusional.  

What good it would do you and "your kind", to get behind Brexit, is that this is the direction the people decided to move in, and if democracy is to be respected, that is what will happen... one way or another. Time to get on board and make the most of things. Either you'll be proven wrong and the country will do just fine outside of the EU, or you'll be proven right, and the country will have to strike off in yet another new direction. Either way, we'll survive. Enough with the defeatist moaning. It's so depressing.


Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

16 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Obfuscation! Cantab or not Cantab; that is the question.

 

The EU is far from perfect but much maybe resolved from within. Sadly, we we have to few Cantab people in the foreign office and civil service.

 

The EU has limited demagoguery thank goodness. I welcome coalition governments because it locks extremists into unelectable parties with no chance of control.

 

I am certainly not homogenised  though increasingly "incompetent" due to old age ?

 

Finally, the history of Europe strongly indicates that having everyone in a club is a good idea.

 

I think free movement can be limited by controlling the numbers per annum by country. Say no more than 5,000 per annum from a particular country. Also limit total numbers according to population density. That would actually give U.K., Belgium and Netherlands an opt out. Who is negotiating any of this? Not our top minds for sure!  

 

'Obfuscation!' - Sorry that my reply puzzled you so, good sir.

 

'Cantab or not Cantab; that is the question'. - asked and answered matey.

 

'The EU has limited demagoguery thank goodness' - hahaha, like the masters of the art Schultz, Juncker, Baroso or Verhofstadt to name but a few, you mean? And also, one man's extreme is another man's sensible. Depends totally on your viewpoint, millions would have called even considering to leave the EU extreme 10+ years ago, by 2016 it had become a national mandate. A coalition can certainly have its downsides too, as we all know, and doesn't always serve the common good as you say, just look at the Tories and DUP c.2017 as a recent example of many.

 

'I am certainly not homogenised  though increasingly "incompetent" due to old age' - I admire your honesty and while you yourself may not be homogenised, I would argue that Europe stands a greater and greater chance of losing it's uniquely national and regional customs, traditions, flavours and ethnic groups if we are all cajoled into one mass and encouraged to act and think as one superstate rather than respecting historic, inherent and national differences that are unlikely to just go away because certain people want them to to suit their own agendas. Variety is the spice of life, and conglomerations tend to favour homogenisation in the long run - you can see it happening in Europe in slow motion - a good recent example would be Catalonia.

 

'Finally, the history of Europe strongly indicates that having everyone in a club is a good idea' - I wouldn't entirely disagree, but very importantly only when the constituent parties vote to be in said club and it benefits every member equally, without hierarchy or hegemony. Can you honestly say that is the case within the EU!?

 

and lastly, and most baffling to me... 

 

'I think free movement can be limited by controlling the numbers per annum by country. Say no more than 5,000 per annum from a particular country. Also limit total numbers according to population density. That would actually give U.K., Belgium and Netherlands an opt out. Who is negotiating any of this? Not our top minds for sure!'  - Why do you think that we have any real power over this fact of life in the EU? It has been argued again and again. If we stay we can reform and veto this , opt out of that. Really!? Like Ireland did or Portugal did or Greece did!? Haha, it's patently absurd. When have these glorious rights of ours ever been exercised (and listened to) over any important issue? David Cameron did a fine job didn't he ? !

 

We have no control over the amount of people that come flooding in (from the EU) across our borders. Seems to be simple as that. A cursory glimpse at cold stats will tell you that.

Has this population density opt out arrangement ever been tabled or trialed before I wonder? And what is the likelihood it would ever be enacted? The EU is an autocracy, the sooner everyone realises that the better.

 

 

[tebee]

Just now, rixalex said:

What good it would do you and "your kind", to get behind Brexit, is that this is the direction the people decided to move in, and if democracy is to be respected, that is what will happen... one way or another. Time to get on board and make the most of things. Either you'll be proven wrong and the country will do just fine outside of the EU, or you'll be proven right, and the country will have to strike off in yet another new direction. Either way, we'll survive. Enough with the defeatist moaning. It's so depressing.


Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You seem to have mistaken democracy for totalitarianism - in a democracy it's possible  for people to hold opposing views and espouse those views in public, even if they are different to the government of the day.

 

Surviving is not the same as prospering and I'd prefer to do the latter.

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, tebee said:

The problem is the leave most people voted for, the easy and prosperous one, does not exist. Will those leave voters be happy with the one they get? 

 

We either end up with a rebelion when we cancel leave or when we get it.

I find it quite surprising there has been so little public unrest; perhaps the conclusion is that a majority still want Brexit no matter what.  Insane in my view, and yours, but there we are!