Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

As Mick has requested, we all need to calm down a bit. Please no more "my credibility is worthless" remarks? I may well be but it does not help the debate

Yes I am real but the isn't the point here. What I trying (and failing) to say is that some of the people who voted Leave did so in the belief, mistaken in my opinion, that the UK's role & place in the world is larger than it patently is. This, I believe, comes from the days when the UK did indeed have an Empire and we had a "natural" right to position & power due to our imperial past.

I was pointing out the irony in seeing no problem with retaining these "relics" of Empire.

Anyway, let's drop this as we can agree to differ?

Happy New Year to you!

That is a huge reach and cannot be verified.

Of course, the very best for you in 2019.

[Sephiroth]

Here's another of my well balanced arguments based on something I read in yesterday's Torygraph.

There would seem to be two views of democracy for the purposes of Brexit (and prolly nothing else):

Leavers view democracy in two ways: (1) Sovereignty for the UK as distinct from being subject to laws made elsewhere; (2) Execution of the June 2016 Referendum result. Economic questions are not really matters for democracy save that the Customs Union prevents the UK from forging its own trade path (I confess that if the EU is negotiating deals with the likes of Canada and Japan then that is good for us).

Remainers[ also view democracy in two ways: (1) The nice wrap of European protection for workers' rights, human rights and a whole raft of benign directives and cooperation institutions; (2) The right to have as many referendums on any topic, especially Brexit, on the basis that no referendum can be anti-democratic. Economic questions are wrapped up in the nice comfortable European Single Market and Customs Union.

The above is the classic irreconcilable stand-off.

Now I'll inject my own views.

I've argued before, and the Remainers have not addressed this point, that had the Referendum result been the other way round, there would have been no basis for the Leavers demanding a "people's vote" to overturn the first result. This makes the Remainers' call for another referendum a one sided matter - as in - 'they would, wouldn't they'. I find that to be undemocratic. Carry out the result of the first referendum rather than keep on voting till you get the result required by the Remainers.

The reason why the Remainers won't stop pressing is that the economic question is embraced by their view of democracy, whereas the Leavers believe that WTO terms can be utilised to our advantage especially if we divest ourselves of a lot EU anti-competitive constraints. The Torygraph article also points out that the additional revenues obtained by Government from import duties could be offset for UK residents by a corresponding reduction in VAT, so keeping prices steady or even reduced in cases where we can import food without tariff from countries with lower production costs than the EU.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Here's another of my well balanced arguments based on something I read in yesterday's Torygraph.

There would seem to be two views of democracy for the purposes of Brexit (and prolly nothing else):

Leavers view democracy in two ways: (1) Sovereignty for the UK as distinct from being subject to laws made elsewhere; (2) Execution of the June 2016 Referendum result. Economic questions are not really matters for democracy save that the Customs Union prevents the UK from forging its own trade path (I confess that if the EU is negotiating deals with the likes of Canada and Japan then that is good for us).

Remainers[ also view democracy in two ways: (1) The nice wrap of European protection for workers' rights, human rights and a whole raft of benign directives and cooperation institutions; (2) The right to have as many referendums on any topic, especially Brexit, on the basis that no referendum can be anti-democratic. Economic questions are wrapped up in the nice comfortable European Single Market and Customs Union.

The above is the classic irreconcilable stand-off.

Now I'll inject my own views.

I've argued before, and the Remainers have not addressed this point, that had the Referendum result been the other way round, there would have been no basis for the Leavers demanding a "people's vote" to overturn the first result. This makes the Remainers' call for another referendum a one sided matter - as in - 'they would, wouldn't they'. I find that to be undemocratic. Carry out the result of the first referendum rather than keep on voting till you get the result required by the Remainers.

The reason why the Remainers won't stop pressing is that the economic question is embraced by their view of democracy, whereas the Leavers believe that WTO terms can be utilised to our advantage especially if we divest ourselves of a lot EU anti-competitive constraints. The Torygraph article also points out that the additional revenues obtained by Government from import duties could be offset for UK residents by a corresponding reduction in VAT, so keeping prices steady or even reduced in cases where we can import food without tariff from countries with lower production costs than the EU.

Lots of assumptions here, I'm not sure where to begin and this has to be a short reply. A few points:
- It's too simplistic to split everyone into two camps. We need to focus on the issues, not someone's vote from 2016. For example, not everyone who voted leave is against a second vote nor everyone who voted remain in favour.
- Nigel Farage has said he would campaign for another vote if it was 52-48 against Leave. It's the 4% difference that drives this behaviour, not a non-belief in democracy.
- In a world where many standards are set globally and trade deals and membership of NATO, the UN etc impact the laws of sovereign states, sovereignty is not binary.
- Many of those who voted leave do not favour legislation to get rid of labour rights etc. That may sit well in parts of the home counties but not north of Milton Keynes.

There are very rarely simple (binary yes/no) solutions to complex issues.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There would seem to be two views of democracy for the purposes of Brexit (and prolly nothing else):

Leavers view democracy in two ways: (1) Sovereignty for the UK as distinct from being subject to laws made elsewhere; (2) Execution of the June 2016 Referendum result. Economic questions are not really matters for democracy save that the Customs Union prevents the UK from forging its own trade path (I confess that if the EU is negotiating deals with the likes of Canada and Japan then that is good for us).

Remainers[ also view democracy in two ways: (1) The nice wrap of European protection for workers' rights, human rights and a whole raft of benign directives and cooperation institutions; (2) The right to have as many referendums on any topic, especially Brexit, on the basis that no referendum can be anti-democratic. Economic questions are wrapped up in the nice comfortable European Single Market and Customs Union.

Just to say another thing Remainers think, or some think, is that abdication of some policy to an another extranational institution or agreement is a unavoidable part of the modern world. The EU is the biggest example of that but it will apply to other trade deals we make in the future. So the idea we need to 'take back control' is pushing against the tide and ultimately harms us for little actually gain since, in the end, you're restricted by the rest of the world anyway.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

There are very rarely simple (binary yes/no) solutions to complex issues.

Indeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0QUygjr2w

Originally Posted by Hugh

There are very rarely simple (binary yes/no) solutions to complex issues.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Indeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0QUygjr2w

QED

[mrmistoffelees]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46735381

The man is a complete idiot, and obviously has very little knowledge/interest in the politics/economy of Singapore

Singapore - 5.6 million people, 721 square kilometres, One Party State

U.K. - 66 million people, 210,000 square kilometres, Parliamentary Democracy

Seems fairly similar...

If your country is half the size of London and you don’t have to worry about what your citizens think about where you build, it’s fairly easy to have an integrated infrastructure.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Lots of assumptions here, I'm not sure where to begin and this has to be a short reply. A few points:
- It's too simplistic to split everyone into two camps. We need to focus on the issues, not someone's vote from 2016. For example, not everyone who voted leave is against a second vote nor everyone who voted remain in favour.
- Nigel Farage has said he would campaign for another vote if it was 52-48 against Leave. It's the 4% difference that drives this behaviour, not a non-belief in democracy.
- In a world where many standards are set globally and trade deals and membership of NATO, the UN etc impact the laws of sovereign states, sovereignty is not binary.
- Many of those who voted leave do not favour legislation to get rid of labour rights etc. That may sit well in parts of the home counties but not north of Milton Keynes.

Oddly, the Home Counties Thames Valley corridor seemed more in favour of remain.

The divide seems to be split along many different lines. Older vs Younger, poor vs rich, University educated vs straight into work. Science vs Farming and so on. Take a random selection from each group and even they will have areas of disagreement.

Pinning people who voted leave down to a single reason for doing so is even more odd. Assuming they made that choice on the binary option on the ballot even more so.

I voted leave because politic parties have stopped listening to the electorate, but would love the chance to vote remain given the option, because they are still not listening.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46743164

Mr Gove, a leading figure in the 2016 Leave campaign, rejected suggestions that warnings about the economic impact of a no-deal exit were being over-stated and another example of "Project Fear".

"No-one can be blithe or blase about the real impact on food producers in this country of leaving without a deal," he said.

It was a "grim and inescapable fact", he said, that beef and lamb exports could face export tariffs of at least 40% if the UK defaulted to World Trade Organization rules, while standard tariffs of 11% could be levied on a host of agricultural products.

"The combination of significant tariffs, where none exist now, friction and checks at the border, where none exist now, and the requirements to re-route or pay more for transport when current arrangements are frictionless, will all add to costs for producers," he said.

[jfman]

Nah. The EU will blink at the last minute. They desperately need us.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46743164

Gove is a May deal supporter, which makes him now a quasi-remainer.

I.e we now have project fear to support the May deal.........fffff’n laughable.........

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Gove is a May deal supporter, which makes him now a quasi-remainer.

I.e we now have project fear to support the May deal.........fffff’n laughable.........

It is quite amusing how the arch Brexiteers Fox, Gove, are now championing a deal that is basically remain. Career and power first methinks. When it fails they can always say they were loyal to the last, but now will answer the countries call to get out of the resulting mess ..

[Angua]

Looks like Brits in Italy will be okay.