Brexit and the Consequences

[tomorton]

This is the point.
Every day I am using boxes standardized by UN, barrels bottles...
Much about safety and transportation is regulated by UN.
I dont' feel governed by UN neither by EU but I feel the positive impact of both in my life.
If you commit a crime you are arrested and judged by UK officials not by EU.
Controversial political matters like health, education, taxes are decided on national level.
The EU gives me a more efficient currency, a more efficient market, a more efficient passport and id card.
It makes the difference every time you travel/buy/sell/send.
A pretty significant benefit.

Granted, we could gift away the authority to make increasing numbers of decisions on increasing numbers of topics to a foreign government. Which is great for Britain. Until it isn't.

At which point we find the EU has taken authority from us but they are not responsible to us.

If you would say that Britain is rather well governed by Brussels then you must surely think that the EU should expand its areas of benevolent and effective governance. This must surely include expansion both geographically and topically. Surely you would not say that the EU is great at dealing with issuing passports but not competent to deal with policing?

We have to remember that the objective of the EU, like its predecessor organisations, is the elimination of European nation states.

For us today therefore, the issue is not how well do certain people govern the country of Britain but whether they are democratically responsible to the British people.

No British government has the right to gift away the governing of Britain to any body, no matter how competent and well intentioned they might seem right now.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

a foreign government.

It is not foreign, we are part of it.

We have to remember that the objective of the EU, like its predecessor organisations, is the elimination of European nation states.

It is like saying that UK has the objective of eliminating Scotland.

 

[Atilla]

We have to remember that the objective of the EU, like its predecessor organisations, is the elimination of European nation states.

Technically, this is not a true statement.

The founding objectives and primary motivation of the EEC was to standardise and facilitate a common market for all members to participate in.

Especially even more so after 2 WWs.

The other additions such as harmonisation of taxation, Treaty of Rome on competition, government deficits, labour policy, ECJ, a single currency and perhaps more controversially a common army are because they make good sense.

Tom, sounds like you have been absorbed by project fear and looks like we have lost you to the dark side.

The British Isles once had 8 Kingdoms. We now have just our Queen Elizabeth. Life ain't that bad. Northerners still grumpy but hey some things don't change.

 

[tomorton]

It is not foreign, we are part of it.

It is like saying that UK has the objective of eliminating Scotland.

We're not part of it now, but in any case, the nation of the UK is not within the gift of any transient administration to simply do with as they please. If they wanted to do something quite outside their current powers it would have to be decided democratically, taking into account the will of the country. I recall that's what David Cameron did - he put up a referendum in order to take account of the democratic will of the country and the reply was, shove it.

Its not like saying the UK has the objective of eliminating Scotland because that is pure fantasy, the UK has no such objective. The devolution initiative, disastrous as I think it has been for the unity of Britain, effectively scuppers that idea. It also underlines that neither major party wants any drastic change in the relationships between the four constituted UK countries and the UK government.

On the other hand, the EU is very proud that it hopes to achieve a continental super-state without nation state membership at all, in the sprit of its founding fathers and earliest supporters. This is not my theory that they want this, nor is it their dream, it is their fiercely cherished aim. EU membership would always have become a decision between losing British citizenship or remaining British.

 

[tomorton]

Technically, this is not a true statement.

The founding objectives and primary motivation of the EEC was to standardise and facilitate a common market for all members to participate in.

Especially even more so after 2 WWs.

The other additions such as harmonisation of taxation, Treaty of Rome on competition, government deficits, labour policy, ECJ, a single currency and perhaps more controversially a common army are because they make good sense.

Tom, sounds like you have been absorbed by project fear and looks like we have lost you to the dark side.

The British Isles once had 8 Kingdoms. We now have just our Queen Elizabeth. Life ain't that bad. Northerners still grumpy but hey some things don't change.

This is just wilful denial. The foundation of the EU's predecessor organisations was the unification of the continent of Europe. This remains the objective of the EU.

 

[Atilla]

We're not part of it now, but in any case, the nation of the UK is not within the gift of any transient administration to simply do with as they please. If they wanted to do something quite outside their current powers it would have to be decided democratically, taking into account the will of the country. I recall that's what David Cameron did - he put up a referendum in order to take account of the democratic will of the country and the reply was, shove it.

Its not like saying the UK has the objective of eliminating Scotland because that is pure fantasy, the UK has no such objective. The devolution initiative, disastrous as I think it has been for the unity of Britain, effectively scuppers that idea. It also underlines that neither major party wants any drastic change in the relationships between the four constituted UK countries and the UK government.

On the other hand, the EU is very proud that it hopes to achieve a continental super-state without nation state membership at all, in the sprit of its founding fathers and earliest supporters. This is not my theory that they want this, nor is it their dream, it is their fiercely cherished aim. EU membership would always have become a decision between losing British citizenship or remaining British.

So in another 10 or 20 years' time if Parliament decides to join back in, will you respect the decision and merrily sing along?

 

[tomorton]

So in another 10 or 20 years' time if Parliament decides to join back in, will you respect the decision and merrily sing along?

I don't see an alternative, though singing is outside my remit.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

@tomorton
I respect a lot your point of view and you pride.

The point is that your wasn't the message of brexiteers.
It was something much more popular like "no money to EU , more money for UK".
It hasn't worked that way.

My opinion on Brexit is that it has been a populistic crusade, to boost the popularity of some politicians.
In politics you need an enemy, EU was the perfect enemy.

 

[tomorton]

@tomorton
I respect a lot your point of view and you pride.

The point is that your wasn't the message of brexiteers.
It was something much more popular like "no money to EU , more money for UK".
It hasn't worked that way.

My opinion on Brexit is that it has been a populistic crusade, to boost the popularity of some politicians.
In politics you need an enemy, EU was the perfect enemy.

The EU has been a fantastic scapegoat for decades for politicians on all sides. (Except maybe the LibDems but I don't seem to be able to bother listening to them.)

The decision to hold the Brexit referendum was a political manoeuvre to outflank UKIP and cut off desertion to Nigel Farage of otherwise Conservative voters. I suspect David Cameron couldn't have cared less whether we remained or left, as long as he came out on top.

The referendum was a free gift to discontented British-born and generally non-Degree graduate voters to object to the way they saw Britain evolving. Some of their grudges no doubt echoed right back to Tony Blair's term in office. No doubt some of them were off the mark. But they were not wild lunatic grudges or dreams.

There was also a nasty aroma of intellectual and cultural snobbery around the Remain alliance, openly accusing Leave voters of stupidity and racial prejudice. This raises the implication of socio-economic snobbery also, which feeds into political issues in this country as otherwise known as class.

Far as I could see, we were doing pretty well out of the EU economically. I thought a Conservative government would never risk that on the roll of the referendum dice. There's a lesson for me - never under-estimate the dangers from ambitious weak men.

 

[Inquisitor]

Cameron was a gambler and as is the case with all gamblers his luck ran out. He bet that when we had the 2015 election it would again result in a coalition. He didn't believe that he would have to deliver on promising a referendum on EU membership because he thought that as part of a coalition agreement it would be shelved.

He was right in that if the Tories didn't win a majority then the EU referendum would almost certainly not have happened. So when the Tories won a majority he had to deliver on the promise and that is a key trigger as to why we are no longer in the EU.

The day after the Tories won there was national surprise at the result, very few people thought that they were going to win and by a clear enough majority.

Based on this it is entirely down to Cameron that saw the sequence of events unfold the way they did. Although Blairs policy in the early 2000s lay the groundwork for the end result as well.

 

[counter_violent]

Cameron was a gambler and as is the case with all gamblers his luck ran out. He bet that when we had the 2015 election it would again result in a coalition. He didn't believe that he would have to deliver on promising a referendum on EU membership because he thought that as part of a coalition agreement it would be shelved.

He was right in that if the Tories didn't win a majority then the EU referendum would almost certainly not have happened. So when the Tories won a majority he had to deliver on the promise and that is a key trigger as to why we are no longer in the EU.

The day after the Tories won there was national surprise at the result, very few people thought that they were going to win and by a clear enough majority.

Based on this it is entirely down to Cameron that saw the sequence of events unfold the way they did. Although Blairs policy in the early 2000s lay the groundwork for the end result as well.

In other words.
People voted Cameron in to office because he was the only one who offered what they wanted, a referendum on EU membership.

So, the majority got what they wanted.

A rare bit of democracy. To be prized and cherished.

Note to politicians.
Never ask the people what they want. They might just tell you and make you deliver.

 

[timsk]

The reasons for not wanting to have anything to do with the EU are numerous, but these two are enough on their own \as far as I'm concerned . . .
EU COVID Certificate: MEPs and Council agree to extend rules for another year
"Parliament and EU member states’ negotiators have agreed to keep the EU Digital COVID Certificate framework in place for another year, until June 2023."

EU Goes All-In on mRNA Vaccines, Reserves Capacity for Next Pandemic
A announcement on tendering shows that for the EU mRNA vaccines are the future, writes Robert Kogon at Brownstone.

 

[Atilla]

‘What have we done?’: six years on, UK counts the cost of Brexit

Sectors from fishing to aviation, farming to science report being bogged down in red tape, struggling to recruit staff and racking up losses for the first time

www.theguardian.com

Very grim reading. I urge Brexiteers who are not spineless to read it if you dare.

 

[tomorton]

‘What have we done?’: six years on, UK counts the cost of Brexit

Sectors from fishing to aviation, farming to science report being bogged down in red tape, struggling to recruit staff and racking up losses for the first time

www.theguardian.com

Very grim reading. I urge Brexiteers who are not spineless to read it if you dare.

View attachment 319428

Actually, we're only 2 years on from leaving the EU. This is too short a time period to gauge whether anything so radical and complex has been a success. So its only possible at this point to count off the areas still in negotiation.

For myself, it was evident that the UK was doing so well economically during its EU membership that we were obviously and inevitably going to take some immediate financial damage if we left the EU. I never thought the EU was making us poorer, the statistics said the exact opposite.

But if I had ever wanted to live in a European province with laws made in another country, I would have done so before 2016.

 

[Atilla]

Yes quite right about the short time frame since Jan 2021 - Hard Brexit. However, all the broken promises about the easiest this and that coming home to roost. Don't forget we still paid our contributions up to 2021 which many people baulked at but it was only £39bn or something around that for the 4 or 5 years since leaving. It pails into insignificance after reading about potential drop in GDP at £100bn and counting upwards.

I listened to Radio 4 about the Horizon science funding and some of the scientists were heart broken. Universities really struggling.

We decided to join in 1961 precisely because we were failing to compete with the EU countries who, post-war developed and increased living standards much faster than the UK.

Sadly, the only place for the UK to go is to become like US leading to reduced standards and a wide disparity in the distribution of income.

 

[tomorton]

Yes quite right about the short time frame since Jan 2021 - Hard Brexit. However, all the broken promises about the easiest this and that coming home to roost. Don't forget we still paid our contributions up to 2021 which many people baulked at but it was only £39bn or something around that for the 4 or 5 years since leaving. It pails into insignificance after reading about potential drop in GDP at £100bn and counting upwards.

I listened to Radio 4 about the Horizon science funding and some of the scientists were heart broken. Universities really struggling.

We decided to join in 1961 precisely because we were failing to compete with the EU countries who, post-war developed and increased living standards much faster than the UK.

Sadly, the only place for the UK to go is to become like US leading to reduced standards and a wide disparity in the distribution of income.

In many city centres in recent years the biggest and highest quality developments have been student accommodation. Its hard to see that universities are struggling. Though I guess the jumped-up polytechnics and tech colleges with "university" undeservedly in their title might be. Anyway, should we seriously let the economic requirements of universities lead the country's future?

As for where we go, that's an open question, but not an argument for not setting out on the road.

 

[Atilla]

Another one to the list...

'Every barrier in the world went up overnight': Some bands are skipping the UK because of Brexit

After years of cancellations thanks to COVID, this summer sees the return of music festivals to the UK - but after leaving the EU, those involved with British events are facing challenges and calling for support.

news.sky.com

 

[tomorton]

Another one to the list...

'Every barrier in the world went up overnight': Some bands are skipping the UK because of Brexit

After years of cancellations thanks to COVID, this summer sees the return of music festivals to the UK - but after leaving the EU, those involved with British events are facing challenges and calling for support.

news.sky.com

I'm not sure that barriers to cross-border travel of musical acts is a really convincing argument against Brexit.

 

[Atilla]

I'm not sure that barriers to cross-border travel of musical acts is a really convincing argument against Brexit.

Well it certainly is a consequence. Thus, it should be noted.

Music industry taking a hit. This was raised prior to the vote if I recall correctly.

 

[tomorton]

Well it certainly is a consequence. Thus, it should be noted.

Music industry taking a hit. This was raised prior to the vote if I recall correctly.

Yes, I seem to remember that. Its definitely a consequence. At least for now. But as we've only been out of the EU for 2 years, for most of which time political decision-making has been paralysed by covid, I am hopeful for a resolution.

However, the EU has consistently shown itself to be unwilling to do anything towards harmonious post-Brexit relations between the Union and the UK so I wouldn't expect progress to be rapid.