Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:58 am  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

*Bangs head on desk*

You still think the EU is some monster. They aren't interested in "teaching us a lesson" FFS. They will collaterally be affected by our chaos, especially the Republic of Ireland, whose interests have been paramount from their position throughout this mess.

And honestly, your whataboutism is staggering. Brexiteers come up with all sorts of pseudo-racist, mostly outlandish, generally tremendously unpleasant comments about EU and EU leaders but as soon as Tusk makes a little joke or makes a very reasonable prediction of the likely future you are into full on snowflake mode and crying like Robert Hicks has just ruled out a try without checking with the video ref. It's unbelievable, staggering hypocrisy.

As for "the money". You really think EU leaders are hooked up to British money like a drip. It's just such a total misunderstanding of the situation, of how politics works and of how small an amount of money it is in the overall scheme of things that I don't think there's much hope for you.

So why are they so keen for us to stay - something you have yet to address - and yes you are not the only one banging their head on the desk - your complete adoration for the EU has blinded you views your comments and most of your logic which simply doesn’t add up. As you say there is simply no hope for you

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:13 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The deal failed because hundreds of Labour MPs voted en-mass to reject it - if they had supported the deal as they said they would then the deal would have flown through despite the ERG

Nope, it failed because the Tories couldn't get their house in order.

They had a majority in the house, thanks to the D.U.P. bribe, they shouldn't have to rely on the opposition to get it over the line.

Why should opposition M.P's. who were given no input into said deal, bail out a fractured Government?

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:22 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So why are they so keen for us to stay - something you have yet to address -

Well as I mentioned they would receive be collateral damage, especially ROI, from our departure. There is going to be economic harm on all sides from Britain leaving, especially without a deal. But the intransigent approach of the current government has made negotiating very difficult.

But moreover they view us as obvious trading partners, fellow democracies, keepers of the European peace and neighbours who by any sense would be, and are, part of the same trading bloc. We also bring more scale to the EU which helps us project on a world stage beyond what we could do alone or incrementally what they will be able to do without us.

We have been behind most of the EU's strategic decisions in the past couple of decades, from having a twin track approach in certain areas to embedding free market ideology at the heart of the EU to, most of all, EU expansion which was triumphed by Thatcher and Major. In other words, Britain is one of the leaders so of course they are sad to see us go.

Sal Paradise wrote:

and yes you are not the only one banging their head on the desk - your complete adoration for the EU has blinded you views your comments and most of your logic which simply doesn’t add up. As you say there is simply no hope for you

I'm not in thrall to the EU. I just understand how the modern world works, which is a series of huge trading blocs. Being outside one, least of all being outside one on WTO terms which is preposterous and hugely damaging economically.

The UK has prospered so much since it entered and has steered the EU in a positive way for our country. There are things which can be done better, much as there are in any democracy and any bureaucracy, but chucking it all away for totally spurious reasons is the height of irresponsibility. And every reason I've seen has been spurious, from the money on the bus to foreign workers taking benefits to lies about EU regulations right down to "Tusk was rude about us".

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:24 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So why are they so keen for us to stay - something you have yet to address - and yes you are not the only one banging their head on the desk - your complete adoration for the EU has blinded you views your comments and most of your logic which simply doesn’t add up. As you say there is simply no hope for you

I just don't understand where some people get the "love in" with Europe. I voted remain because I thought it better for us at the time, seeing how the EU has behaved has made me reconsider that. The EU are desparate for our money, it greases the wheels of the gravy train!

[Mild Rover]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:41 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

What I don’t understand is if being a member of the EU is great why don’t the EU teach us a short sharp lesson. Let us go with no deal and then we will surely encounter the Armageddon you so confidently predict and we will then coming running back with our tails between our legs on a deal much more preferable to the EU?

Always a negative to break a deal up on bad terms. A lot of people are not happy with comments like Tusk’s hell etc and if we do leave there will need to be another vote to go back in?

Could it be the EU really needs our money and that is the bottom line here

Trying not to cover the same ground as ‘99 too much, this question leads to different answers depending on your view of the EU, and so for those of us with a less negative or even borderline positive attitude to it, this isn’t a powerful point.

Framing it along the lines of ‘Given that the EU is a malign adversary that wishes to grind the UK beneath its Federalist jackboot, surely they’d chuck us out with no deal if that was really so bad.’ hits the problem that many of us find that characterisation of the EU a bit ridiculous.

For me the EU’s key objectives in managing Brexit from their side are:

1. Protect the interests of the remaining members, by minimising disruption
2. Be fair to other nations outside the EU by ensuring the new relationship is consistent with what has been done elsewhere, based on how close the UK decides that new relationship should be
3. Maintain as positive a relationship with the UK as possible to allow partnerships where desired by both parties in the future, smoothing the way for a trade deal of some sort etc.
4. Linking back to points 1 and 3, offer a deal to the UK that doesn’t damage it unnecessarily, but which is (a little, but clearly) worse than membership of the EU to discourage other members from following its path - not as punishment, but to protect its own integrity.

Based on those assumptions, I find it very easy to understand the EU’s position.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:47 am  

IR80 wrote:

I just don't understand where some people get the "love in" with Europe. I voted remain because I thought it better for us at the time, seeing how the EU has behaved has made me reconsider that. The EU are desparate for our money, it greases the wheels of the gravy train!

Which EU actions have surprised or disappointed you?

There have been a couple of presentational things, but in terms of the deal offered, surely that was utterly predictable in light of the UK’s position to almost everybody... except David Davis perhaps.

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:21 pm  

I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:53 pm  

Lilfatman wrote: I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive. I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Lilfatman wrote: I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive. I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:54 pm  

Lilfatman wrote: I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive. Sigh. Euromyths: British apple trees facing the chop

Lilfatman wrote: I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive. Sigh. Euromyths: British apple trees facing the chop

Re: Brexit Anyone? (part 4) : Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:44 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

Well as I mentioned they would receive be collateral damage, especially ROI, from our departure. There is going to be economic harm on all sides from Britain leaving, especially without a deal. But the intransigent approach of the current government has made negotiating very difficult.

But moreover they view us as obvious trading partners, fellow democracies, keepers of the European peace and neighbours who by any sense would be, and are, part of the same trading bloc. We also bring more scale to the EU which helps us project on a world stage beyond what we could do alone or incrementally what they will be able to do without us.

We have been behind most of the EU's strategic decisions in the past couple of decades, from having a twin track approach in certain areas to embedding free market ideology at the heart of the EU to, most of all, EU expansion which was triumphed by Thatcher and Major. In other words, Britain is one of the leaders so of course they are sad to see us go.

I'm not in thrall to the EU. I just understand how the modern world works, which is a series of huge trading blocs. Being outside one, least of all being outside one on WTO terms which is preposterous and hugely damaging economically.

The UK has prospered so much since it entered and has steered the EU in a positive way for our country. There are things which can be done better, much as there are in any democracy and any bureaucracy, but chucking it all away for totally spurious reasons is the height of irresponsibility. And every reason I've seen has been spurious, from the money on the bus to foreign workers taking benefits to lies about EU regulations right down to "Tusk was rude about us".

I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers.

How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going?

I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so.

Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?