Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Bordeauxclaret]

Don’t ruin it for him, his little face must light up like a beacon when he looks out of the window each morning.

[ClaretAndJew]

It's the same with how we know that we will die one day. Just because we haven't died doesn't mean that's not proof that we will die.

[TVC15]

As much as it irks me to say so Wrongo is kind of right in what he says - in so much at the moment it is opinions about what will happen post Brexit - albeit some of these opinions are based on evidence about what has happened to date and evidence based on what certain very influential business owners or industry leaders have said that they will do in a post Brexit scenario.

So whilst those pointing to a negative impact on terms of jobs, economic growth are basing this on actual job losses they have already seen and decisions already made to move business, offices etc abroad even in those cases in theory these same people could decide to take back those jobs or move back to the Uk - there is absolutely no logic or reason for them to do so but theoretically they could.

What i’m struggling to see on this thread from Ringo is why he thinks Brexit will have a positive impact on jobs / growth. Those who think it will have a negative impact have said why and provided “evidence” to back up their view (and I don’t mean forecasts which all of us should take with a massive punch of salt).
So if we are going to carry on debating this let’s move past the semantics and try and back up the opinions with something other than the obvious polarised views

[Greenmile]

Then you go down to streets, down to houses, down to the individual.
No man is an island, everybody relies on somebody for something from producing food to building maintaining roads. That's why we have governments and government departments. We are stronger for being together. Britain is stronger with Scotland as part of the Union. But it has to be a voluntary union, as soon as you impose the union then civil unrest follows as sure as night follows day.

The majority of the country now fear that they are going to have that union with the EU imposed on them. It doesn't matter which side of the fence you sit on, that isn't right. I disagree with people who want to stay in the EU, although I can understand their worries given the bias of the media, and the rhetoric coming from Brussels. It still doesn't justify, and nothing ever will, Anybody ignoring the result of the referendum.

So you admit we’re stronger together as part of a union (in certain circumstances, I presume) despite the loss of sovereignty that entails.

I’m reading between the lines here a little so please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you but you seem to be saying that it should be up to the people of any given unit to decide whether they want to be part of a larger union. I presume therefore, you would be happy for Cornwall to become independent from the UK if the majority of Cornish people voted for it. What if the majority of people in my street or house wanted to be independent of Westminster? Should we be allowed? I know I seem to be stretching a point here, but I’m genuinely interested where you would draw the line, or if there is even a line to be drawn. Say there are 5 adults in my house and three of them want to become an independent state (a larger margin percentage-wise than the referendum result), should they be able to drag the other two into a new independent state?

Your bit about the biased media is absolute horse **** btw. The best selling newspapers in the UK are the Sun and the Mail (even more so if you include the online versions). You can’t possibly be claiming that either of them is anti-Brexit.

[Greenmile]

...But is the uk leaving the EU a philosophical proposition?...

I don’t expect you to grasp this, Ringo, but everything is a philosophical proposition.

(apologies to TVC15 for dragging this back to semantics)

[Jakubclaret]

I don’t expect you to grasp this, Ringo, but everything is a philosophical proposition.

(apologies to TVC15 for dragging this back to semantics)

Are you sure it’s nothing to do with xenophobia? Just for a change.

[Greenmile]

Are you sure it’s nothing to do with xenophobia? Just for a change.

You're going to have to explain the relevance of your post to mine.

Xenophobia is a philosophical proposition (like everything is), if that's what you're driving at.

[aggi]

You're going to have to explain the relevance of your post to mine.

Xenophobia is a philosophical proposition (like everything is), if that's what you're driving at.

I think Jakub is referring to the posts from a few days back when a number of posters suggested that the reason they were pro-Brexit was that they didn't like foreigners messing up "British culture"

[Jakubclaret]

As much as it irks me to say so Wrongo is kind of right in what he says - in so much at the moment it is opinions about what will happen post Brexit - albeit some of these opinions are based on evidence about what has happened to date and evidence based on what certain very influential business owners or industry leaders have said that they will do in a post Brexit scenario.

So whilst those pointing to a negative impact on terms of jobs, economic growth are basing this on actual job losses they have already seen and decisions already made to move business, offices etc abroad even in those cases in theory these same people could decide to take back those jobs or move back to the Uk - there is absolutely no logic or reason for them to do so but theoretically they could.

What i’m struggling to see on this thread from Ringo is why he thinks Brexit will have a positive impact on jobs / growth. Those who think it will have a negative impact have said why and provided “evidence” to back up their view (and I don’t mean forecasts which all of us should take with a massive punch of salt).
So if we are going to carry on debating this let’s move past the semantics and try and back up the opinions with something other than the obvious polarised views

There’s a vast difference in this apocalyptic post brexit scenario from influential business owners saying what they will do & actually doing it, sometimes you can actually force change just by threatening something without even having the intentions to action, it would be a last resort to provoke upheaval in a volatile economic climate without assurances contrary.

[TVC15]

There’s a vast difference in this apocalyptic post brexit scenario from influential business owners saying what they will do & actually doing it, sometimes you can actually force change just by threatening something without even having the intentions to action, it would be a last resort to provoke upheaval in a volatile economic climate without assurances contrary.

Yep but lots have already done it....that’s a little bit more than an empty threat !

The only ones I know using words like apocalyptic are the brexiteers who seem to think that’s the description remainers are using - there’s probably a clever term for it - reverse psychology are something....or maybe just “lying” !!

[Jakubclaret]

Yep but lots have already done it....that’s a little bit more than an empty threat !

The only ones I know using words like apocalyptic are the brexiteers who seem to think that’s the description remainers are using - there’s probably a clever term for it - reverse psychology are something....or maybe just “lying” !!

You seem to attach too much credence to what you are desperate to believe in on your side of the fence, without thinking outside of the box & unable to recognise the future vision that brexit could potentially offer.

[Jakubclaret]

I think Jakub is referring to the posts from a few days back when a number of posters suggested that the reason they were pro-Brexit was that they didn't like foreigners messing up "British culture"

Yep cracked it, just the 1 in particular.

[Lancasterclaret]

This thread is full of posts (or at least it was) in which Xenophobia is the politest term for what was going on.

[aggi]

Yep cracked it, just the 1 in particular.

It would be a struggle to narrow it down to one of the posters.

[Lord Beamish]

Ringo, of course leaving the EU is not an abstract concept, but nonetheless the idea that there can only be evidence if it provides incontrovertible proof is unsustainable. It is the evidence based on inference which can indeed be surmised rather than conclusively proved. It is not that we know that leaving the EU will harm the country economically, but based on inference there is certainly a possibility that it will be the case. So it is taking a risk with our national welfare and I can't see what it is that we will gain even if the risk produces no adverse results.

The problem with all these debates is that remainers are generally basing their arguments on pragmatic reasoning, whilst leavers base their ideas on ideological considerations, particularly those related to nationalism. So the arguments tend to get nowhere as there is that fundamental divide in the reasoning. Personally, I am very much of a pragmatist as I regard ideology and nationalism as having value only in terms of the tangible results they produce in relation to the well being of the population, and particularly the less well off sections of that population.

Sorry, Erasmus. You’d have lost Wrongo by ‘abstract concept’.

[Greenmile]

I think Jakub is referring to the posts from a few days back when a number of posters suggested that the reason they were pro-Brexit was that they didn't like foreigners messing up "British culture"

I've attributed xenophobia to Jakub in the past, I think, and I stand by it.

I still don't see the relevance of his post to the one of mine he quoted though - it's a compete non-sequitur.

[TVC15]

You seem to attach too much credence to what you are desperate to believe in on your side of the fence, without thinking outside of the box & unable to recognise the future vision that brexit could potentially offer.

House on Bullsh-it Bingo.....well done - "thinking outside of the box"....were you a Yuppie in the eighties ?

You have absolutely know idea what I believe in - but why don't you amuse us all and tell us about this Brexit future vision that you have recognised yourself. It sounds like you have some very clear thoughts about how it will work out - personally I aint got a clue what is going to happen so it would be great to see this vision and all the potential it could offer.

I have an open mind....you might win me over.

[Jakubclaret]

I've attributed xenophobia to Jakub in the past, I think, and I stand by it.

I still don't see the relevance of his post to the one of mine he quoted though - it's a compete non-sequitur.

Yes, but in my opinion without foundation. Both positivity & negativity regarding immigration I personally believe negativity outweighs positivity, that's always been unwavering stance.

[martin_p]

You seem to attach too much credence to what you are desperate to believe in on your side of the fence, without thinking outside of the box & unable to recognise the future vision that brexit could potentially offer.

I’ve yet to see anyone outline what this future vision is.

[Jakubclaret]

House on Bullsh-it Bingo.....well done - "thinking outside of the box"....were you a Yuppie in the eighties ?

You have absolutely know idea what I believe in - but why don't you amuse us all and tell us about this Brexit future vision that you have recognised yourself. It sounds like you have some very clear thoughts about how it will work out - personally I aint got a clue what is going to happen so it would be great to see this vision and all the potential it could offer.

I have an open mind....you might win me over.

If you haven't got a clue about what is going to happen you sure do give off the impression of having a pretty good idea about life post Brexit! I also think it's reasonable for me to have a pretty good idea about your beliefs on the basis of your posts, assuming of course you are being sincere & not just trying to wind ringo up which I often suspect could be the case but not entirely 100% on that.

[Colburn_Claret]

So you admit we’re stronger together as part of a union (in certain circumstances, I presume) despite the loss of sovereignty that entails.

I’m reading between the lines here a little so please correct me if I’m misinterpreting you but you seem to be saying that it should be up to the people of any given unit to decide whether they want to be part of a larger union. I presume therefore, you would be happy for Cornwall to become independent from the UK if the majority of Cornish people voted for it. What if the majority of people in my street or house wanted to be independent of Westminster? Should we be allowed? I know I seem to be stretching a point here, but I’m genuinely interested where you would draw the line, or if there is even a line to be drawn. Say there are 5 adults in my house and three of them want to become an independent state (a larger margin percentage-wise than the referendum result), should they be able to drag the other two into a new independent state?

Your bit about the biased media is absolute horse **** btw. The best selling newspapers in the UK are the Sun and the Mail (even more so if you include the online versions). You can’t possibly be claiming that either of them is anti-Brexit.

By media I meant the BBC as much as the press, who daren't even show the riots in Paris or dwell on the financial problems of Italy etc. It's all glossed over, even though these things are relevant to what's going on in Brussels and Westminster.
As for Cornwall of course I wouldn't want them to go independent, but if that's what they wanted, and that's what they voted for , then I have no right to stop them. It might be stupid, it might be financial suicide, but the definition of democracy should be the people have the right to be wrong. If you wish to avoid that situation, then you make sure that you take Cornwalls opinion into debates, in Westminster or wherever. The reason so many Scots were unhappy, is because they felt Westminster wasn't listening to them, and the same reason that the people voted for Brexit is because the majority think that Brussels isn't listening to us.
Thatcher, Major, Cameron, a succession of PMs have been to Brussels, asking them to slow down to take into account our genuine concerns of the cost and the direction the EU was going. They really don't care, as shown by all the messages coming out of Brussels even today. They don't want to give us an inch, they want ever closer Union regardless of the consequences, and if we don't like it, tough. There really is no option but to quit, whatever the deal.

[Greenmile]

Yes, but in my opinion without foundation.

That's fair enough. We're all entitled to our own opinions, and I'm not that interested in arguing that point again.

You've only addressed the first part of the post you quoted there, though. Would you mind answering the second? - here it is again :-

I still don't see the relevance of his post to the one of mine he quoted though - it's a compete non-sequitur.

I can't help feeling I'm missing some wider significance behind your first reply to me on this page. Like I shouldn't be philosophical (flippant??) about xenophobia and make accusations. Am I getting close??

Maybe I'm overthinking things and it was just an unprompted irrelevant dig (which is fine by me by the way - I can see why my opinion may offend or upset you to cause you to have a go at me) but can you let me know either way, please - it's really bugging me.

[TVC15]

If you haven't got a clue about what is going to happen you sure do give off the impression of having a pretty good idea about life post Brexit! I also think it's reasonable for me to have a pretty good idea about your beliefs on the basis of your posts, assuming of course you are being sincere & not just trying to wind ringo up which I often suspect could be the case but not entirely 100% on that.

Are you mistaking me for someone else ? Or just making sh- it up again ?
I have never posted one single sentence on what I think I might happen post Brexit.
Yes I voted remain - well deduced Sherlock.

The reason I call out Wrongo and people like you is that when it comes to job losses and economic growth it’s seems pretty f-ucked up logic to blame the EU for the decline of manufacturing sectors that had been in decline decades before the EU was even formed. It’s also strange logic to think that companies who have already moved overseas and made job losses that they are making empty threats and trying to call somebodies bluff - when they have actually already done what they said they will do.

As for the rest of it - who knows ? I don’t believe forecasts on either side but I do at least understand some of the logic on the remain side when it comes to estimating redundancies in financial services etc. As for the rest of it I have no idea how the country will be post Brexit - other than not surprisingly it will be very divided for a good number of years. How that manifests itself in our daily lives I doubt many of us know.

Anyway - rather than jump to ridiculous conclusions about me based on f-uck knows what why don’t you actually share this post Brexit vision of yours and why you think it will be great for the UK.

[Greenmile]

By media I meant the BBC as much as the press, who daren't even show the riots in Paris or dwell on the financial problems of Italy etc. It's all glossed over, even though these things are relevant to what's going on in Brussels and Westminster.
As for Cornwall of course I wouldn't want them to go independent, but if that's what they wanted, and that's what they voted for , then I have no right to stop them. It might be stupid, it might be financial suicide, but the definition of democracy should be the people have the right to be wrong. If you wish to avoid that situation, then you make sure that you take Cornwalls opinion into debates, in Westminster or wherever. The reason so many Scots were unhappy, is because they felt Westminster wasn't listening to them, and the same reason that the people voted for Brexit is because the majority think that Brussels isn't listening to us.
Thatcher, Major, Cameron, a succession of PMs have been to Brussels, asking them to slow down to take into account our genuine concerns of the cost and the direction the EU was going. They really don't care, as shown by all the messages coming out of Brussels even today. They don't want to give us an inch, they want ever closer Union regardless of the consequences, and if we don't like it, tough. There really is no option but to quit, whatever the deal.

So we've got it down to Cornwall.

What I'm really trying to find out from you, is what is the smallest constituent part of a union that you think should be able to break away for reasons of sovereignty (by way of a democratic decision of its people)? Surely you can't agree with my hypothetical household going it alone on a 3-2 democratic vote - that's absurd, right? (even when we ignore logistical issues as it's just a thought experiment).

So somewhere between Cornwall and a household is the smallest unit that should be able to vote on whether giving up their sovereignty to the EU / UK / Cornish govt etc is worth the benefits that the union brings. What is that unit, in your opinion? A town? A county? "the North / South"?

Of course, even if it were possible most of these units would vote to remain in a union, I'm sure, but the question is, should they be allowed to make that decision on potentially a close binary vote (like the referendum was)

My answer, by the way, is "a country", so I'd support Scotland going their own way, if that's what they want, but not Cornwall. I'm not entirely sure why, if I'm honest.

This also means I support the UK's right to decide to leave the EU, of course. But that doesn't stop me thinking it's a terrible idea and being happy to explain why I think that and pull up some of the lies and misconceptions you get from brexiters. Nor does it stop me supporting a second referendum.

I realise this doesn't relate to specifically to the wider debate, but I'm interested in folks' views on sovereignty (I'm still waiting for Ringo to tell me what he thinks it is, but I think someone bought him a dictionary and thesaurus for Xmas, so I'm not asking him again), and exactly what is and isn't worth giving up for it.

A lot of brexiters seem to think sovereignty is a binary thing that you either have or you don't, but we all trade bits of it off in all sorts of ways, no matter who we are, unless you live in a hut in the woods hunting for your food, I suppose.

[Colburn_Claret]

So we've got it down to Cornwall.

What I'm really trying to find out from you, is what is the smallest constituent part of a union that you think should be able to break away for reasons of sovereignty (by way of a democratic decision of its people)? Surely you can't agree with my hypothetical household going it alone on a 3-2 democratic vote - that's absurd, right? (even when we ignore logistical issues as it's just a thought experiment).

So somewhere between Cornwall and a household is the smallest unit that should be able to vote on whether giving up their sovereignty to the EU / UK / Cornish govt etc is worth the benefits that the union brings. What is that unit, in your opinion? A town? A county? "the North / South"?

Of course, even if it were possible most of these units would vote to remain in a union, I'm sure, but the question is, should they be allowed to make that decision on potentially a close binary vote (like the referendum was)

My answer, by the way, is "a country", so I'd support Scotland going their own way, if that's what they want, but not Cornwall. I'm not entirely sure why, if I'm honest.

This also means I support the UK's right to decide to leave the EU, of course. But that doesn't stop me thinking it's a terrible idea and being happy to explain why I think that and pull up some of the lies and misconceptions you get from brexiters. Nor does it stop me supporting a second referendum.

I realise this doesn't relate to specifically to the wider debate, but I'm interested in folks' views on sovereignty (I'm still waiting for Ringo to tell me what he thinks it is, but I think someone bought him a dictionary and thesaurus for Xmas, so I'm not asking him again), and exactly what is and isn't worth giving up for it.

A lot of brexiters seem to think sovereignty is a binary thing that you either have or you don't, but we all trade bits of it off in all sorts of ways, no matter who we are, unless you live in a hut in the woods hunting for your food, I suppose.

I haven't mentioned any size, you keep doing that. I don't have any opinion on what the smallest unit should be, that would be up to the people deciding they want independence. I'm not suggesting units should be big or small, what I am suggesting is that people have the right to choose for themselves. Unless you're living a life of self sufficiency on an allotment somewhere, you are always reliant on others. How many others would depend on what you want from life and the life style you want to have. The more you want from life, the more people you are dependent on. No one could afford to build the M1....., but if everyone who wants to use it chips in.........
In relation to the thread, we aren't dependant on being members of the EU for anything that can't be filled from elsewhere once we are gone, we've survived on our own since 1066. It doesnt mean we have nothing to do with Europe, they are still neighbours, and as neighbours we have many things in common, many things where cooperating with each other makes us stronger. But it doesn't mean we have to be joined at the hip or married.

[Lancasterclaret]

Be interesting if we could turn the UK into a federal state.

Maybe split England and Wales up with the old British and Saxon Kingdoms.

Wessex, Cornwall, Gwent, Powys, Mercia, Elmet, Northumbria etc etc

[Jakubclaret]

Are you mistaking me for someone else ? Or just making sh- it up again ?
I have never posted one single sentence on what I think I might happen post Brexit.
Yes I voted remain - well deduced Sherlock.

The reason I call out Wrongo and people like you is that when it comes to job losses and economic growth it’s seems pretty f-ucked up logic to blame the EU for the decline of manufacturing sectors that had been in decline decades before the EU was even formed. It’s also strange logic to think that companies who have already moved overseas and made job losses that they are making empty threats and trying to call somebodies bluff - when they have actually already done what they said they will do.

As for the rest of it - who knows ? I don’t believe forecasts on either side but I do at least understand some of the logic on the remain side when it comes to estimating redundancies in financial services etc. As for the rest of it I have no idea how the country will be post Brexit - other than not surprisingly it will be very divided for a good number of years. How that manifests itself in our daily lives I doubt many of us know.

Anyway - rather than jump to ridiculous conclusions about me based on f-uck knows what why don’t you actually share this post Brexit vision of yours and why you think it will be great for the UK.

You inferred it, call it what you want. Since the referendum vote, I daresay lots of leavers on this forum have all weighed in at some stage & stated there reasons for voting out & have also stated the myriad positives surrounding Brexit (some posters more than others) but yet the same questions get asked when the same answers have already been delivered, yes it tedious for us leavers. The only logical conclusion to be reached is that you are unhappy about the outcome & refuse to accept it, but won't readily admit it, some of us are compelled to go through a guise of fault finding about the slightest thing regarding brexit.

[TVC15]

You inferred it, call it what you want. Since the referendum vote, I daresay lots of leavers on this forum have all weighed in at some stage & stated there reasons for voting out & have also stated the myriad positives surrounding Brexit (some posters more than others) but yet the same questions get asked when the same answers have already been delivered, yes it tedious for us leavers. The only logical conclusion to be reached is that you are unhappy about the outcome & refuse to accept it, but won't readily admit it, some of us are compelled to go through a guise of fault finding about the slightest thing regarding brexit.

You’d make a fantastic politician i’ll give you that ! Completely avoiding the question and making some big assumptions about people you have no clue about.

I inferred what ? My only posts on Brexit have been about the ridiculous stuff said about the decline in manufacturing in Sunderland and attributing that to the EU....if you want to put up a view on that and question anything I have said as incorrect feel free.

But don’t come on here saying I refuse to accept the result when I have up until tonight hardly referenced it or my views. All this about people refusing to accept Brexit - i’m unsure as to what that evens means other than its more of the apocalypse type diatribe you lot come out with.

But back to the question - 3rd time of asking. Tell us about this vision of yours.

[Greenmile]

I haven't mentioned any size, you keep doing that.

I know

I don't have any opinion on what the smallest unit should be

I’m asking you to think about it and come up with an opinion. You don’t have to justify it - I couldn’t really justify mine.

that would be up to the people deciding they want independence. I'm not suggesting units should be big or small, what I am suggesting is that people have the right to choose for themselves.

If you think (all) people should have the right to decide for themselves, it appears you would be ok with a household or an individual declaring themselves an independent state, following a vote to do so. If that’s your opinion, that’s fair enough.

The rest of your post seems to suggest that it’s all about the benefits that the unit obtains from being in a union (eg public highways etc) though. Again, this is a reasonable position to take (although I would suggest that would prevent Cornwall from becoming independent). We disagree about how much being part of the EU benefits the UK, of course, but we both knew that already.

My wider point is that the price of those benefits (the M1, being part of a larger trading bloc etc) is some of our sovereignty. I started down this road after you said ”sovereignty is all important” and “the very fact that we can’t get our way vexes me”. I’m just trying to find out how small you think that “we” can get before it all breaks down (eg no M1, diminished trading power / influence on the world stage etc), because as you say...

Unless you're living a life of self sufficiency on an allotment somewhere, you are always reliant on others.

..so you accept that we all have to give up some all important sovereignty in return for the benefits of being part of something bigger (I think this is what Hobbes’ “social contract” theory is about, but I’m probably wrong). I think that for the whole thing to work, there has to be a minimum amount of sovereignty which we all have to trade in. I’m not sure if you agree or not.

[AndrewJB]

The sovereignty argument around the EU always swirls around the negative - what we hand over, as though it's a giveaway of our sovereignty, and we get nothing back. Firstly we have to consider where this sovereignty goes. It's not simply given "upwards" to a level of government over which we have no control to be used as "it" wishes. The sovereignty is pooled together with sovereignty from the other member states, and this allows the EU to speak with one voice on the world stage. This is quite important, because taken individually, most EU countries are just too small to make a real impact, but collectively we are match in terms of trade and soft diplomacy for any other nation. This is the plus side.

Any real consideration or accounting of what we've actually given up, compared to what we've got out of it would have to consider the reality of the seventy-three (I think) EU laws passed in the face of Britain's resistance, out of the four-odd thousand that we've otherwise supported. That is a "failure rate" by Britain of less than two percent, and when we look at these laws in more detail, I would argue Britain's opposition to them was nothing less than small minded and petty.

If we could simply put aside the argument of sovereignty - that would really be best, because although we want to make our own laws, and govern ourselves, we largely already do. We've engaged in military activity while in the EU, and there's no higher indication of a country's independence than that. We want to strike up trade deals with other parts of the world - well, we're already doing that as part of the EU, and because we're doing it as part of a big player, we're probably getting more advantageous deals than we would doing it alone.

Pooled sovereignty - the strength in collective action.

[Colburn_Claret]

I know



I’m asking you to think about it and come up with an opinion. You don’t have to justify it - I couldn’t really justify mine.



If you think (all) people should have the right to decide for themselves, it appears you would be ok with a household or an individual declaring themselves an independent state, following a vote to do so. If that’s your opinion, that’s fair enough.

The rest of your post seems to suggest that it’s all about the benefits that the unit obtains from being in a union (eg public highways etc) though. Again, this is a reasonable position to take (although I would suggest that would prevent Cornwall from becoming independent). We disagree about how much being part of the EU benefits the UK, of course, but we both knew that already.

My wider point is that the price of those benefits (the M1, being part of a larger trading bloc etc) is some of our sovereignty. I started down this road after you said ”sovereignty is all important” and “the very fact that we can’t get our way vexes me”. I’m just trying to find out how small you think that “we” can get before it all breaks down (eg no M1, diminished trading power / influence on the world stage etc), because as you say...



..so you accept that we all have to give up some all important sovereignty in return for the benefits of being part of something bigger (I think this is what Hobbes’ “social contract” theory is about, but I’m probably wrong). I think that for the whole thing to work, there has to be a minimum amount of sovereignty which we all have to trade in. I’m not sure if you agree or not.

I know what you are saying, and I do agree with the premise, BUT we don't need to be a part of the EU in order to function.
We functioned pre EU, we'll function post Brexit. There are many countries all over the world that function without being part of the EU. It's why all the scare mongering is laughable. It might be a bumpy road, but it isn't anywhere near the end of the world. Things will be different of course, so what, we'll still function, and when the dust has settled I'm sure we'll benefit from being out.

[Spiral]

I know what you are saying, and I do agree with the premise, BUT we don't need to be a part of the EU in order to function.
We functioned pre EU, we'll function post Brexit. There are many countries all over the world that function without being part of the EU. It's why all the scare mongering is laughable. It might be a bumpy road, but it isn't anywhere near the end of the world. Things will be different of course, so what, we'll still function, and when the dust has settled I'm sure we'll benefit from being out.

You don't unravel four decades of integration with the flick of a switch, that's the point. There's a way of doing this without bumps in the road or dust kicking up. It means the process is a little more prolonged but that's the more sensible way of doing it, and the way most of us concerned with no-deal are advocating. You just want your champagne moment which is a frankly ridiculous way for a country to operate, least of all when the country imposes this impact upon itself to satisfy the whims of a loud-mouthed fringe element.

[LeuvenClaret]

It’s the “so what” that’s the concern. For the hard line the cost is irrelevant. To the rest it is important. But ur right of course things will be different.

But also consider this, in a lot of ways it will still be the same, the UK has had the power to fix a lot of things the EU has not had control of and never has. So for me there is a blind ideology here that leaving the EU also fixes everything and of course it won’t. But that’s OK because then it’s ours to fix right? ... which of course we won’t.

[CombatClaret]

By media I meant the BBC as much as the press, who daren't even show the riots in Paris or dwell on the financial problems of Italy etc. It's all glossed over, even though these things are relevant to what's going on in Brussels and Westminster.

This is a typical modern alt-right tactic claiming the press doesn't cover the things that fit their agenda. I've seen countless reports on both things you mention. At the time of posting the fourth article on the BBC News apps is "France-Italy diplomatic spat deepens"
Domestic news will always take the headlines but it's all in there, "World News" is what you're looking for.
In fact the BBC is almost your ally, how many minutes of time has been given to JRM and Boris by the Beeb looking for a soundbite, whats more they are obliged to air them.
Where as Daily Mail, Sky News, Breitbart, InfoWars etc can peddle whatever agenda they like without reply, the BBC is bound to equal weight, so when 99% of people say the earth is round they will dig up someone who says otherwise and put them on the same sofa as an astronaut.

[CrosspoolClarets]

The sovereignty argument around the EU always swirls around the negative - what we hand over, as though it's a giveaway of our sovereignty, and we get nothing back. Firstly we have to consider where this sovereignty goes. It's not simply given "upwards" to a level of government over which we have no control to be used as "it" wishes. The sovereignty is pooled together with sovereignty from the other member states, and this allows the EU to speak with one voice on the world stage. This is quite important, because taken individually, most EU countries are just too small to make a real impact, but collectively we are match in terms of trade and soft diplomacy for any other nation. This is the plus side.

Any real consideration or accounting of what we've actually given up, compared to what we've got out of it would have to consider the reality of the seventy-three (I think) EU laws passed in the face of Britain's resistance, out of the four-odd thousand that we've otherwise supported. That is a "failure rate" by Britain of less than two percent, and when we look at these laws in more detail, I would argue Britain's opposition to them was nothing less than small minded and petty.

If we could simply put aside the argument of sovereignty - that would really be best, because although we want to make our own laws, and govern ourselves, we largely already do. We've engaged in military activity while in the EU, and there's no higher indication of a country's independence than that. We want to strike up trade deals with other parts of the world - well, we're already doing that as part of the EU, and because we're doing it as part of a big player, we're probably getting more advantageous deals than we would doing it alone.

Pooled sovereignty - the strength in collective action.

I greatly admire this post. It is reasoned, well thought out, not simply putting fingers in ears and singing a song about xenophobia like most of the hyper-liberals, who refuse to listen let alone get it, which makes these threads a bit boring.

I tend to agree but disagree when considered alongside other points. I think that the poor person in the street doesn’t care about our worldwide impact, they care about their dignity, their happiness, the respect they get, and, yes, their income. I think the laws that get passed may well usually get approved by our MEPs but I would wager that if we held a poll on each one with members of the public, the view would often be different. Trade deals, yes, we get some economies of scale advantages, but we get disadvantages too by not being able to set tariffs to reflect the goods we produce here or don’t.

But yes, I accept the above is one good side of the argument and I agree with all the points, I simply think there are counter points.

[CombatClaret]

The sovereignty argument around the EU always swirls around the negative - what we hand over, as though it's a giveaway of our sovereignty, and we get nothing back. Firstly we have to consider where this sovereignty goes. It's not simply given "upwards" to a level of government over which we have no control to be used as "it" wishes. The sovereignty is pooled together with sovereignty from the other member states, and this allows the EU to speak with one voice on the world stage. This is quite important, because taken individually, most EU countries are just too small to make a real impact, but collectively we are match in terms of trade and soft diplomacy for any other nation. This is the plus side.

Any real consideration or accounting of what we've actually given up, compared to what we've got out of it would have to consider the reality of the seventy-three (I think) EU laws passed in the face of Britain's resistance, out of the four-odd thousand that we've otherwise supported. That is a "failure rate" by Britain of less than two percent, and when we look at these laws in more detail, I would argue Britain's opposition to them was nothing less than small minded and petty.

If we could simply put aside the argument of sovereignty - that would really be best, because although we want to make our own laws, and govern ourselves, we largely already do. We've engaged in military activity while in the EU, and there's no higher indication of a country's independence than that. We want to strike up trade deals with other parts of the world - well, we're already doing that as part of the EU, and because we're doing it as part of a big player, we're probably getting more advantageous deals than we would doing it alone.

Pooled sovereignty - the strength in collective action.

Lntd5Z.gif (931.16 KiB) Viewed 2684 times

[LeuvenClaret]

Love the point - Pooled sovereignty - the strength in collective action

After the EU we should consider withdrawal from NATO after all it costs us over $55billion a year to be part of and they command our troops and take us to wars we don’t want to be part of. Ffs they are worse than the EU!

[Colburn_Claret]

You don't unravel four decades of integration with the flick of a switch, that's the point. There's a way of doing this without bumps in the road or dust kicking up. It means the process is a little more prolonged but that's the more sensible way of doing it, and the way most of us concerned with no-deal are advocating. You just want your champagne moment which is a frankly ridiculous way for a country to operate, least of all when the country imposes this impact upon itself to satisfy the whims of a loud-mouthed fringe element.

You're wrong I want a deal, but that takes 2 parties to agree. You can't unravel any of it if one of the parties in intransigent. The EU have offered us NOTHING , and they are determined to give us NOTHING.
Not because a deal would be bad for them, it wouldn't, but they're scared shitless that Brexit might be a success. If that happens their days are numbered and they know it. The countries that do well out of Brussels, the Germans and French basically are happy, but all the countries struggling to hang on to their coat tails have new right wing parties, rising in the polls on an anti EU agenda. Italy, Spain, Greece are all unhappy.
So yes it's a lot to unravel but they have no intention of doing it. That leaves the only democratic, and feasible option is to leave on WTO terms.
It's not what I want, it's not what you want but they're leaving no other option.

[nil_desperandum]

You're wrong I want a deal, but that takes 2 parties to agree. You can't unravel any of it if one of the parties in intransigent. The EU have offered us NOTHING , and they are determined to give us NOTHING.
.

The majority of MPs seem to think they have. The general consensus in the past week or so is that if - following Brady's amendment, May could do something about the Irish backstop then her "deal" may well pass through the Commons, with support from all parties.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Very odd list
Recognition - you could substitute "London / Westminster" for "Brussels", and at least Brussels has sent a lot of money back to Burnley.
Solidarity - don't understand that point tbh, but it's clear that brexit has opened a worrying massive division between young and old.
Belonging - in what sense will brexit improve local government and increase it's funding thus increasing its ability to make decisions and put them into practice. (Less funding basically means less local power to influence you local community. We'll be losing millions in funding)
Tradition, Identity, Culture - that's very odd. Most Europeans share and embrace our culture, whereas the inevitable increase in immigration from outside the EU does bring multiculturism, (though I must stress that I don't consider multiculturalism to be a negative).

I’ll pick this one of the ten replies to my post yesterday evening.

The list wasn’t mine, it was in the article I quoted, by Professor Goodwin. He has been on Newsnight several times recently and is quite a calm, reflective observer on this subject.

The replies, predictably, proved his point which was that Remainers tend to feel deeply uncomfortable talking about those topics because they tend to be about the group rather than the individual. Concerns are very valid, and the debate is only starting. I feel certain that we are entering a post-liberal generation because things have swung too far and there is some evidence that 14-18 year olds are more authoritarian than their predecessors. We no longer value community spirit, family and friends in the same way we used to. It has all become very fragmented and people don’t like it.

[Spiral]

Well I have some bad news for you, leaving the EU won't stop folks from living in social media bubbles.

I'd love to see that evidence of 14-year old authoritarians, or even a 14 year old who can convincingly define post-liberalism.

[Lancasterclaret]

I simply think there are counter points.

And we wait for them. But they have to be realistic. And they never are.

I'd rather we remained, but we are not going to.

So I want us to leave in a realistic way, at a realistic timescale and with realistic aspirations.

At this moment in time, none of that is happening and there doesn't appear to be any chance of any of it happening.

When we point this stuff out, we get called every name under the sun (though Hyper liberals is a new one!).

I want to see a plan that works, with a future map that is feasible. In two and half years, I've not seen any on here and crucially, not seen any in the actual real world either.

And that is because we are not ready for this. Not ready politically, not ready socially, not ready economically, not ready on every level you can imagine

APART from the one that all the Brexiteers are sticking to

"We've had forty years of being dragged back by the corrupt EUSSR"
"They need us more than we need them"
"We fought the war to free them, they owe us"
"How dare they stick to their guns when we demand stuff that is rightfully ours because we are British" etc etc etc

This need to be done correctly, or it will be a massive clusterfuck that will hurt the country we all love, and cause problem that are entirely self inflicted.

[Spiral]

You're wrong I want a deal, but that takes 2 parties to agree. You can't unravel any of it if one of the parties in intransigent. The EU have offered us NOTHING , and they are determined to give us NOTHING.

Just the one party, eh?

They've offered us about as good a WA and political declaration as any reasonable brexiteer could have hoped for without violating the GFA.

[RingoMcCartney]

You accept that evidence is “the available body of facts indicating whether a belief is true”. Let’s break it down into little steps -

1. Is there an “available body of facts” - yes, the sun has risen ever day

2. Does that available body of facts indicate (be a sign of or strongly suggest) that the “BELIEF” that the sun will rise tomorrow “is true” - Yes

Ergo that is EVIDENCE that the sun will rise tomorrow.

What’s your explanation?

That your making a prediction based on past evidence, and, in your own words, a "belief".


Remoaners believing, what could turn out to be short term or reversible, business decisions, as evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk could be proven wrong. And what they claimed as evidence, could turn out to be just their misplaced opinion/belief. 

You cannot provide EVIDENCE from an event, until it has actually happened.

The invitation for you to take a photo of tomorrow mornings sunrise and post the evidence that it's going to happen on here.




Today.





Is still open for you.

[RingoMcCartney]

It is not that we know that leaving the EU will harm the country economically, but based on inference there is certainly a possibility that it will be the case.

Your agreeing with me.

"It's is NOT that we KNOW"

"Based on inference there is certainly a POSSIBILITY "

But no definites. Certainly no evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk. Only opinions and predictions.

As I've repeatedly said. There is no precedent for a country leaving the EU.

Only when we've left will we be able to judge whether or not the predictions or opinions that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk were accurate or not.

You cannot produce evidence from an event that has not happened.

[RingoMcCartney]

Sorry, Erasmus. You’d have lost Wrongo by ‘abstract concept’.

And you'd be wrong.

[LeuvenClaret]

Based on Brexit Barclays have already moved 116 bil out of the Uk.
Nissan is not making a car in n the uk because of brexit uncertainty,
To me this is the same as the sun rising yesterday.

Does it mean that it the sun will rise tomorrow probably based the evidence of previous days.

So based on economic evidence we are probably expecting a down turn after Brexit
But we might not, just as the sun might not rise ...but it’s a certainty... that’s what u mean right?

[RingoMcCartney]

A

[dsr]

Based on Brexit Barclays have already moved 116 bil out of the Uk.
Nissan is not making a car in n the uk because of brexit uncertainty,
To me this is the same as the sun rising yesterday.

Does it mean that it the sun will rise tomorrow probably based the evidence of previous days.

So based on economic evidence we are probably expecting a down turn after Brexit
But we might not, just as the sun might not rise ...but it’s a certainty... that’s what u mean right?

The decline in diesel sales in Europe, the decline in the world market for new cars, and the levy that diesel cars face if (like this one) they don't meet emissions standards. All those were mentioned in the Nissan letter. But if it's easier to blame Brexit, then go for it.

[RingoMcCartney]

Based on Brexit Barclays have already moved 116 bil out of the Uk.
Nissan is not making a car in n the uk because of brexit uncertainty,
To me this is the same as the sun rising yesterday.

Does it mean that it the sun will rise tomorrow probably based the evidence of previous days.

So based on economic evidence we are probably expecting a down turn after Brexit
But we might not, just as the sun might not rise ...but it’s a certainty... that’s what u mean right?

"So based on economic evidence we are PROBABLY EXPECTING a down turn after Brexit"

Till it ACTUALLY happens, what could turn out to be short term or reversible, business decisions, as evidence that brexit will have a negative impact on the uk could be proven wrong. And what they claimed as evidence was just their misplaced opinion or belief.

Given the sun has risen in the morning, for time immemorial. You and I could predict that it will rise tomorrow morning.

Till it does actually happen, we cannot prove that it did.

Nobody has ever left the EU before.

Till it actually happens, nobody will be able to prove whether or not brexit had a negative or a positive impact on the uk.