Britain outside the EU

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

<SNIP>

This sovereignty which we’ve reclaimed. What practical changes & benefits have we actually utilised that we hadn’t whilst we were still an EU member ?

Sovereignty is a long term project and requires competent government that understands economics and business.

In terms of your question, I take the word "practical" to exclude "sovereignty". So, as yet, no "practical" benefits have occurred. As I've always said, sovereignty has been the driver for me on the basis that business, with (sadly missing) government help, would sort out our progress.

The one thing you Remainers dodge is the sovereignty question: Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels? Remember, we, the British, may look like them, but we don't think like them. Big difference and hence Brexit.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

1
This sovereignty which we’ve reclaimed. What practical changes & benefits have we actually utilised that we hadn’t whilst we were still an EU member ?

We've been able to take back control of our beaches and introduce our brown flag in place of the blue flag.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

as as we’re a smaller negotiating partner im not sure where we will be able to dictate terms with partners that really count.

Smaller than the EU, but not smaller than Canada. The UK economy is in fact substantially larger than Canada’s. As several of us have repeatedly stated, Brexit always was about regaining sovereign control so as to create opportunities, as well as political accountability for the way those opportunities are pursued.

Failure of trade negotiations with Canada is a political failure of the UK government, not a failure of Brexit. But thanks to Brexit, the present government can be held entirely responsible for that failure at the ballot box. No shuffling of EU commissioners, no rearranging of unwieldy rainbow coalitions in Strasbourg.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-gdp-levels/

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Sovereignty is a long term project and requires competent government that understands economics and business.

In terms of your question, I take the word "practical" to exclude "sovereignty". So, as yet, no "practical" benefits have occurred. As I've always said, sovereignty has been the driver for me on the basis that business, with (sadly missing) government help, would sort out our progress.

The one thing you Remainers dodge is the sovereignty question: Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels? Remember, we, the British, may look like them, but we don't think like them. Big difference and hence Brexit.

Honestly ? Considering the ineptitude of the recent Tory governments and the lack of future premise from any of the political parties, why not ?

Didn’t we also have a veto ? That could be used in rules and regulations ?

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Smaller than the EU, but not smaller than Canada. The UK economy is in fact substantially larger than Canada’s. As several of us have repeatedly stated, Brexit always was about regaining sovereign control so as to create opportunities, as well as political accountability for the way those opportunities are pursued.

Failure of trade negotiations with Canada is a political failure of the UK government, not a failure of Brexit. But thanks to Brexit, the present government can be held entirely responsible for that failure at the ballot box. No shuffling of EU commissioners, no rearranging of unwieldy rainbow coalitions in Strasbourg.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-gdp-levels/

I guess the question I want to ask is, what signs or evidence is there that any future government will be able to perform better in trade negotiations?

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Honestly ? Considering the ineptitude of the recent Tory governments and the lack of future premise from any of the political parties, why not ?

Didn’t we also have a veto ? That could be used in rules and regulations ?

I guess the question I want to ask is, what signs or evidence is there that any future government will be able to perform better in trade negotiations?

Well naturally, lurking behind a lot of Europhilia is a belief that we’re somehow not up to the task of governing ourselves and we need the EU to bypass our own second rate governments. It’s a self-defeating position I find impossible to get behind. We can govern ourselves well because we have done in the past. There is nothing in our national psyche that absolutely prevents it, except perhaps the lingering sense of dependency on the EU that should hopefully wane in time.

And no, we did not have a veto on EU trade negotiations. Most decisions are taken by QMV since Lisbon. Cameron’s exceptionally rare use of a veto in the Council was in the area of financial regulation, one of the few areas where the veto still exists.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Sovereignty is a long term project and requires competent government that understands economics and business.

In terms of your question, I take the word "practical" to exclude "sovereignty". So, as yet, no "practical" benefits have occurred. As I've always said, sovereignty has been the driver for me on the basis that business, with (sadly missing) government help, would sort out our progress.

The one thing you Remainers dodge is the sovereignty question: Do you want to be part of a single European state with rules made in Brussels? Remember, we, the British, may look like them, but we don't think like them. Big difference and hence Brexit.

You are asking a childish question. There was no aim to be part of a single European state. Get a grip.

You constantly obsess about soverinty and yet ignore the extreme damage done to the country. This is the real question here: the cult-like obsession with soverinty, literally at all costs but no contrition, or even acceptance, about the massive cost involved.

[Sephiroth]

I have never shied away from criticising the damage done to the country by the incompetent government.

But sovereignty is very important. We fought for it against Germany and now we've broken away from the next iteration of European domination (admittedly not fascist).

All we need is a competent government to support the business environment.

Btw, what "massive cost"? Someone earlier mentioned a cost to consumers of £200 million/year arising from the import controls. What's that? £6/year per consumer? The cost of Covid support is what's hitting us hard financially.

I ask again: Do you want Brussels to make our laws?

Got to love subliminal typos…

Do want Brussels to make our laws

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Got to love subliminal typos…

Edited thanks.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Smaller than the EU, but not smaller than Canada. The UK economy is in fact substantially larger than Canada’s. As several of us have repeatedly stated, Brexit always was about regaining sovereign control so as to create opportunities, as well as political accountability for the way those opportunities are pursued.

Failure of trade negotiations with Canada is a political failure of the UK government, not a failure of Brexit. But thanks to Brexit, the present government can be held entirely responsible for that failure at the ballot box. No shuffling of EU commissioners, no rearranging of unwieldy rainbow coalitions in Strasbourg.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-gdp-levels/

At the ballot box where you can get 5 million votes and not return a single MP, where the majority of votes are meaningless and the government formed with 100% of the power for 35% of the vote makes changes to peoples lives for the better (chums and donors) or worse (everyone else) with impunity for 5 years and it's dismissed with a glib we can vote them out

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

At the ballot box where you can get 5 million votes and not return a single MP, where the majority of votes are meaningless and the government formed with 100% of the power for 35% of the vote makes changes to peoples lives for the better (chums and donors) or worse (everyone else) with impunity for 5 years and it's dismissed with a glib we can vote them out

Will you say the same if Labour get "100% of the power for 35% of the vote"?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Will you say the same if Labour get "100% of the power for 35% of the vote"?

I would. It results in a political duopoly. Parties like UKIP and the LibDems don't get the representation in Parliament related to their share of the vote. Some reform is overdue but it's not in the interests of the big two parties to do so.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Will you say the same if Labour get "100% of the power for 35% of the vote"?

Yes, firstly because I've never even voted labour let alone been a member of the party and secondly because unlike you I put what's best for the people of this country first, I'd go further and say brexit was worth it if the country gets proper representation out of it

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yes, firstly because I've never even voted labour let alone been a member of the party and secondly because unlike you I put what's best for the people of this country first, I'd go further and say brexit was worth it if the country gets proper representation out of it

I am 100% for what's best for our people. We might differ on the detail of what's best for our people. However, a competent government sits on top of all that, imo.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well naturally, lurking behind a lot of Europhilia is a belief that we’re somehow not up to the task of governing ourselves and we need the EU to bypass our own second rate governments. It’s a self-defeating position I find impossible to get behind. We can govern ourselves well because we have done in the past. There is nothing in our national psyche that absolutely prevents it, except perhaps the lingering sense of dependency on the EU that should hopefully wane in time.

And no, we did not have a veto on EU trade negotiations. Most decisions are taken by QMV since Lisbon. Cameron’s exceptionally rare use of a veto in the Council was in the area of financial regulation, one of the few areas where the veto still exists.

When was the last time we had a government that did ‘well’ I’m struggling to remember ? And in your opinion what does a government that would do well look like ? It’s not going to be the tories , it won’t be Labour so I’m not sure where a competent government is going to come from?

I wasn’t aware of what the veto allowed us to veto against so thanks for the clarification