The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
There is only so much shit I can digest at one time...;-)
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I distance myself from homophobia; racism; non-democratic behaviour; playing party politics with issues important for the whole of Europe and name-calling to replace empathy and reasoned debate.
There shouldn't have to be a choice between hard and soft Brexit. We have a choice because comments from the EU are forcing us down a binary route: a cowardly weasely tactic for their own purposes and ignoring what is best for Europe. "No we won't reform, even though it's obviously for the best and so we have to punish everyone in Europe to make an ill-conceived and hard-line dictatorial point.". Personally I want no part in an organisation that behaves like that.
And anyone saying "The people voted on issue X in the referendum" is a liar. Every single person voted for their own reasons and to pretend that it was on one or two issues collectively is disingenuous.
I'd like to see a cross-party committee of adults come up with a proposal and for parliament to debate it like adults without giving away too much on the negotiation points. Actually, I'd like to be open about those too, because ideally the Europe representatives would behave like adults too. Sadly neither will happen because our "leaders" are all self-interested weasels.
There shouldn't have to be a choice between hard and soft Brexit. We have a choice because comments from the EU are forcing us down a binary route: a cowardly weasely tactic for their own purposes and ignoring what is best for Europe. "No we won't reform, even though it's obviously for the best and so we have to punish everyone in Europe to make an ill-conceived and hard-line dictatorial point.". Personally I want no part in an organisation that behaves like that.
And anyone saying "The people voted on issue X in the referendum" is a liar. Every single person voted for their own reasons and to pretend that it was on one or two issues collectively is disingenuous.
I'd like to see a cross-party committee of adults come up with a proposal and for parliament to debate it like adults without giving away too much on the negotiation points. Actually, I'd like to be open about those too, because ideally the Europe representatives would behave like adults too. Sadly neither will happen because our "leaders" are all self-interested weasels.
We are not being forced down a binary route. The EU has laid down the rules to stay in the Single Market. They apply to all members. The problem is that we want to be in, but want the EU to change the rules. The rules were in place before Brexit. We are not being forced to accept them. Those are the rules, if we don't like them, then we don't stay in the single market, but you can hardly blame the other 27 members for our predicament.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
We are only in a predicament in the opinion of remainers. Why these seemingly unrelated rules? I have an opinion, which I've already shared. What reason do you give for them?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
think a lot of it's posturing to be honest.
For example, the banks, in this country the car manufacturers in Germany will have a massive say in how their respective governments handle the process.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
They are not related, don't be embarrassed. It's still the right decision IMO but there will be unpleasant people who reach the right decision for the wrong reasons.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
I hope you are right.
We are in a predicament because of a split advisory referendum based on either yes or no, but without considering the various possibilities of the terms of leaving.
There was no plan for leave winning.
We now have one party invoking royal prerogative and another party using the unelected House of Lords to block Brexit. Middle Ages lawmaking.
Labour may rise from the grave because they have recognized the law decision and want to have a say in how Brexit is carried out. Sensible in comparison to trying to blag article 50 through by bypassing parliament and the reaction of the disgusting newspapers.
I don't have to give a reason for the rules of the Single Market, you have to give a reason for being excepted from them when 27 other countries are not.
We don't like them is not a sufficient answer.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Fair play to you for saying that. I think if more leavers came out and condemned the far right rhetoric then we might be able to start building some middle ground again.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Again, I am English. I know you're probably one of those fools who bang on about local people and a dog being born in a stable is not a horse etc, so you're probably going to struggle to understand.
Believe it not but a lot of anger actually comes of, believe it or not, seeing the country of my birth go down the toilet. The idea that I am anti-English because I don't share your twisted view is bizarre.
Last edited:
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
The fantasies about the UK getting access to the single market without freedom of movement because we buy cars and cheese will be shown to have been lies.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
OK, so this is what I think; which I have stated before so you may recall.
The EU wanted to be a economic superpower. And it decided to do that it needed a single currency. It implemented that without thinking through the consequences and so now the entirely predictable outcomes are very visible: greater poverty and unemployment in the less wealthy countries.
How can we help with that without giving up our white elephant currency they ask themselves? I know, let's have free movement of people, so that the people in these regions can move elsewhere to get a job. But of course that leads to some areas of Europe becoming even poorer and like ghost towns. In these places, all the clubs are being closed down due to too much fighting on the dance floor. And other areas of Europe become over-populated; causing wage deflation for the least capable, lack of housing and slum conditions.
But this is not important to the elite. What's important is they are heads of a superpower; one where they can spend the poor man's taxes with fantastically expensive hotels and meals and moving parliament regularly so they can build up air miles (for last point I have my tongue in my cheek). If they were concerned about Europe they would dismantle the single currency or put the infrastructure in place to help these places (not the pennies they are throwing there now - billions and billions). The latter isn't politically possible so they should do the former. And start focusing on what's best for the people of Europe rather than what stokes their inflated egos most.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Free movement of people - 1957
The Euro - 2002
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
It always seemed backwards logic to me, to say that Europe needed us because they sell lots to us.
Well... they only sell lots to us because we've eroded our own manufacturing base.
Now, as it happens, I can actually see a logic to import tariffs in order to make goods we make more competitive in price, that's a way to re-build a manufacturing sector, and is similar to how Japan built up *their* base. Offer a stable internal market, you provide a base to then export.
If, however, the logic is that we can ask what we want because we buy a lot from others then... the question would be can we replace what we import, internally? Currently the answer to that is no, and to my mind that's the most savage indictment of a free trade policy. If, however, that's your view... it seems madness to try and replace one free trade offer with an identikit version.
If we're going to leave the EU, it should have been done accepting some consequences in order to rebuild a manufacturing base, and ensure inward investment. That, then, should have been scrutinised wrt any payoffs.
It's either naive or disengenuous to suggest we can have everything we want, without suffering a consequence somewhere in return...
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
OK, some poetic license with the dates. That's not important; people didn't move in their hundreds of thousands in 1957 because they didn't need to. They need to now because of the poverty imposed by EMU.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
A free market would of course allow movement of people, because once it got too much then people would move elsewhere...
I always find it slightly ironic that the party generally considered to be more laissez faire in our country is usually more disposed to control of im/emigration, whilst that traditionally associated with state control is more likely to embrace it,
So, if we're accepting a logic that movement of people is bad (I do this for the sake of argument!) then we have to accept tariffs too, and the potential consequence of certain multi-nationals pulling out of this country.
The question, which I leave open, is whether the pay-off is worth having.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
There was still a lot of poverty in these countries before the EU as well though. I very much appreciate what you say in your other post but EU membership has also benefitted the poorer regions of Europe.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Free movement isn't bad in its own right; it's bad in the context of a currency that fails most of Europe.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Of course it isn't.
The country will have to live with the consequences though if it goes ahead and learn the hard way. The falling £ and anti-EU sentiment is already putting people off coming hereally and choosing Germany instead.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
The benefits of investment are dwarfed by the economic impact of EMU. Yes, they were poor before, but they could cope because they could control their own fx rate. Now they cannot. It's similar to me to the ERM debacle and GBP. It will all come crashing down in the same way IMO.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Wage growth in the UK is exactly the same as it is in Greece, poverty is real in this country and has been imposed by ideological zealot tory government. Leaving the EU and putting more power in the hands of the same government that has inflicted misery on millions is not the answer.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...eece-at-bottom-of-wage-growth-league-tuc-oecd
Mainly speculation. I think the aim should be to alleviate poverty.
Free movement was denied to millions and led to two halves of Europe developing at different speeds. In the end the East was bankrupt and the people had food, a pointless job in many cases and security - but no wealth.
To create a stable Europe you need people to be closer in terms of wealth. Rebuilding the East should help the West economically and has to a certain extent.
Free movement has led to people working in wealthier countries and sending some of their earnings home, thus creating demand in their home economy.
Unfortunately it has distorted economies. The old and unproductive part of the population stayed home and the young ambitious part of the population left the East.
The demand in their home countries was filled by multinationals and not enough by entrepreneurs in their home countries.
There are problems to be dealt with in the EU, but we have opted out of any responsibility we may have had as Europeans and will have little say in the future of Europe.
You think that is good, whilst I am convinced that the referendum was a huge mistake and will split our country for years to come.
And yes we are in a predicament as the latest farcical situation has shown.
I question the motives of the gutter press. Why the outcry over a decision which was entirely predictable and seemingly correct?
This shows deliberate and scrupulous disinformation and rabble rousing. We should all be looking into that - remainers and leavers alike. We should also be worried about the people on UKIP sites coming out of the woodwork with their hatred and bile.
mrtrench
Well-Known Member
Some good points Mart; I'd forgotten about Communism. Many of your points are similar to mine - how free movement is killing poorer countries: we need people to stay to become entrepreneurs in their native countries but it's much easier to move away.
The gutter press is called the gutter press for a reason. Whilst I accept it will influence some I have absolutely no interest in what it has to say and tbh I only ever hear about what it writes from here.
The gutter press is called the gutter press for a reason. Whilst I accept it will influence some I have absolutely no interest in what it has to say and tbh I only ever hear about what it writes from here.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
It's a really worrying trend though, you might be intelligent enough to formulate your own arguments but many aren't and take what is printed in these rags as gospel. I have no idea what can be done but there should be more concerted effort from both sides of the debate to condemn this type of journalism in the strongest terms. I feel at the moment the government is burying it's head in the sand because, while they don't agree with what's written, the papers are whipping people up in a way that is useful to their cause.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Yep, this will be the trade off.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
If that's the case, and I think it is, then there can be no argument made for us all pulling together to make brexit work. If the leave side can't get there house in order to the point of not even condemning far right rhetoric akin to the 1930s then remainders should have no qualms about being on the other side of the debate, to the point of being vescerally opossed.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Fully agree and it our right to oppose it as well, especially considering the fact that it something that is putting the economic and social well being in severe danger. Being guided by the likes of Davis, Fox and Johnson is very concerning.
The Mail supported the Nazis up until the outbreak of WW2, says it all really.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
This was the crux of the vote for me. Too many people voted based on taglines of let's take back control and let's spend it on the NHS instead thinking by voting out they'd get their cake and eat it. There's always a payoff and alot of people are going to be disappointed as I truly believe that they didn't understand what they were voting for. I'd be flabbergasted if we left the single market for the sake of free movement of people and question the sanity and intellect of anyone proposing it. If we can stay in the single market without free movement of people fine but to come out based on this one clause. Madness.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The fact is that we as a country are nett importers. That means tariffs do more harm than good to us.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
In the short term yes. In the long term, maybe not.
But as this argument wasn't made during the referendum, I couldn't vote for the state influenced economy I wanted...
