To put it another way: if the Little Englanders say 'Unrestricted EU immigration has negative effects xyz', and the Remainers say 'No, xyz doesn't happen, and in fact it brings benefits abc', then that raises the question as to why abc doesn't apply to non-EU immigration too.
Some of us have been questioning why there are restrictions on non-EU immigrants for a lot longer than the Brexit debate (although, pre-2015 the immigration question was used as part of the anti-EU minority in their calls for leaving the EU). I can't remember whether it was 2014 or 15 that I put those arguments down in an OP for a thread in Purgatory on immigration, and had been saying much the same elsewhere for years.
Quite. It has, of course, escaped the notice of the Brexshiteers that one of the main reasons for the existence of the EU is to help avoid such conflicts.
IOW, as one commentator has said, the EU is about PEACE more than just trade...
That the EU seeks to prevent Germany and France from warring for control of the continent by simply giving them said control on a plate is hardly a compelling reason for Britain - which has been the country responsible for preventing both of them gaining said control in the past - to sign up.
Actually the UK leaving gives France and Germany more control.
Quite. It has, of course, escaped the notice of the Brexshiteers that one of the main reasons for the existence of the EU is to help avoid such conflicts.
IOW, as one commentator has said, the EU is about PEACE more than just trade...
That the EU seeks to prevent Germany and France from warring for control of the continent by simply giving them said control on a plate is hardly a compelling reason for Britain - which has been the country responsible for preventing both of them gaining said control in the past - to sign up.
Actually the UK leaving gives France and Germany more control.
Not over us, it doesn’t.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, given how little they had before.
If you want to know what the public think then there's no real alternative to a properly conducted referendum. Which we've not had on the issue of Europe since the 1970s.
The 1975 referendum was very simple. Stay or leave.
The modern form of the EU is more or less what we (the UK) wanted it to be, we persuaded France, Germany and all the others to go along with it. The single market was largely Margaret Thatcher's idea, she first floated it in 1984, won the other EU nations round and the single market came to be. It is perhaps her one uncontroversially great achievement.
Similarly, eastward expansion of the EU was something we pushed hard for, to bring in the former communist bloc to the single market and create huge new opportunities for trade - which have greatly benefited our manufacturers and services.
I think the EU are decidedly nonplussed, to say the least, that after them having done pretty much everything we wanted, we have flounced out spouting a load of petty nationalist guff.
The EU is not a neutral body. It has had values from the outset, which nations have signed up for on accession. That is why the new nations don't seem to have had much influence - they're not there to make those rules, they are there to live according to the values they signed up for. What is so difficult to understand about that? And what is so suspicious, bearing in mind that those values come from trying to prevent a further repetition of the internecine wars of the first half of the twentieth century, which are barely 100 years in our collective memory? Putting all of this constantly up for debate would seriously derail a project which is essential to our peace and security. And by the way it still is: we are now a satellite state of the EU because there is no way of opting out of geography.
I'm looking forward to the hail of spat dummies at this.
I was chatting with an engineer, who said that for him to export a rivet to the EU will require thick documentation, and liability on the importer. However, the rivet can be bought within the single market with minimal documentation, and no liability. I don't know if this is true, obviously, but he seemed shocked. He said the best thing would be to stop making rivets.
Over on the No-Deal Brexit Hell thread, which has inevitably been derailed by Telford, I asked whether he (or anyone else for that matter) could come up with some suggestions as to how Brexit might be a success, in tangible terms, for the average person (or The Man On The Clapham Omnibus).
I appreciate that there can be no definite answers, as it's early days, but there must be something to justify all the time and effort expended over the past four years.
Mind you, lamb is OK, also WINE (though I prefer French...), but yes, what British car?
Maybe the Austin Mini (the original version, that is)? It could become the English version of the Trabant or Wartburg of the late (not) lamented DDR.
(Actually, about 15 years ago I did have a vintage Mini. It was called *Min*. During a tanker drivers' strike, when fuel was scarce, I used up at least £5 worth of petrol in a fortnight...).
The policy of, we’ll negotiate a deal then offer you a vote on it where you can see what you are actually getting if we leave, is not what I would describe as incoherent.
It's just impossible. The EU had consistently maintained the position that it wouldn't enter into any negotiations about any future arrangement before the UK had enacted article 50. And why would it?
All these things may work out over time but if, say, British Lamb has a certain price when exported, will UK consumers pay more or will farmers have to take a loss and stop prodicing it? I like mackerel and I drink British wine - my own!
Morgan cars are made in Malvern, so yes, I guess they're still British (or English)! You can buy them on eBay...
As to British lamb, if it is all that is readily available, a higher price (if one can afford it) may have to be paid regardless. The Chumocrats won't care less, of course. *Let them eat Spam*, I hear them cry...
I like mackerel, and another poster (possibly @Arethosemyfeet) suggested eating them with oatcakes and mayonnaise, which sounds tasty. Now, the Co-Op sells ready-to-eat mackerel fillets, but are they better eaten cold, or heated up (which is AIUI quite OK)? These questions, given the circumstances of the times, are important.
Over on the No-Deal Brexit Hell thread, which has inevitably been derailed by Telford, I asked whether he (or anyone else for that matter) could come up with some suggestions as to how Brexit might be a success, in tangible terms, for the average person (or The Man On The Clapham Omnibus).
I appreciate that there can be no definite answers, as it's early days, but there must be something to justify all the time and effort expended over the past four years.
That's what we've been asking for five years. And, we get repetitive responses about "sovereignty" or "taking back control" but no detail. If exports to the EU fall by 10% how does the UK compensate for that loss? How do you increase trade with, say, the US by 30% to even come close to making up that loss? Detail like that has always been lacking from those advocating leaving the EU ... just waving of hands and saying things will be better without any details of how to get there.
Over on the No-Deal Brexit Hell thread, which has inevitably been derailed by Telford, I asked whether he (or anyone else for that matter) could come up with some suggestions as to how Brexit might be a success, in tangible terms, for the average person (or The Man On The Clapham Omnibus).
I appreciate that there can be no definite answers, as it's early days, but there must be something to justify all the time and effort expended over the past four years.
Mustn't there?
There is no answer to give. Nada. There is no upside to Brexit, just endless expense, inconvenience and red tape. I asked the same question of a leave-voting friend, and after thinking hard he came up with: Gregg's still being able to call their tubes of pink mush in flakey pastry "sausage rolls". Truly such a triumph is worth national economic suicide.
The only way to make Brexit pay economically would be to massively deregulate everything. Leaving aside the question of whether this would actually benefit the person in the street, the EU (and many other nations) would immediately, and quite rightly, impose massive tariffs on everything we make. We would then be so desperate we would sign up to any terms demanded by anyone willing to take our cheap carp.
@Eutychus - Morgans are Italian ? Bugger - and there was me about to support England by forking out about £30k for one (they are rather swish, though... ).
The whole Brexshit debacle is a complete and utter waste of time and effort, and even more disturbingly, will continue to be so for years to come. I'm 70 next year, and I doubt very much if I will see any improvement in my (admittedly limited by disability) lifetime. I hope to survive long enough to see the defeat of the Chumocrats, the independence of my ancestral country (Scotland) and at least a tentative move towards sanity and rejoining the EU.
@Eutychus - Morgans are Italian ? Bugger - and there was me about to support England by forking out about £30k for one (they are rather swish, though... ).
I once visited the factory in the days when you could simply wander up to the door and ask to look round.
It's a good example of the actual complicated interconnectedness of economic relations that Brexit simplicity is happy to gloss over.
By the way, I see that both Jersey and Guernsey appear to have signed up to the UK's FTA in the realm of fishing, which appears to grant (more or less) status quo to all parties for now. Perhaps one of the least disadvantageous aspects of the deal so far.
Well, they're based in Dartford - about 20 miles west of here! - but who knows? As @Eutychus says, so many things are inter-connected in far more complex ways than Brexshiteers imply (or even realise).
Given the choice, I'd rather have a Morgan...how disloyal and unEnglish of me is that?
The policy of, we’ll negotiate a deal then offer you a vote on it where you can see what you are actually getting if we leave, is not what I would describe as incoherent.
It's just impossible. The EU had consistently maintained the position that it wouldn't enter into any negotiations about any future arrangement before the UK had enacted article 50. And why would it?
As was established in court, the U.K. had the power to retract its article 50 notification upto the point at which it left.
The policy of, we’ll negotiate a deal then offer you a vote on it where you can see what you are actually getting if we leave, is not what I would describe as incoherent.
It's just impossible. The EU had consistently maintained the position that it wouldn't enter into any negotiations about any future arrangement before the UK had enacted article 50. And why would it?
Morgan cars are made in Malvern, so yes, I guess they're still British (or English)! You can buy them on eBay...
As to British lamb, if it is all that is readily available, a higher price (if one can afford it) may have to be paid regardless. The Chumocrats won't care less, of course. *Let them eat Spam*, I hear them cry...
I like mackerel, and another poster (possibly @Arethosemyfeet) suggested eating them with oatcakes and mayonnaise, which sounds tasty. Now, the Co-Op sells ready-to-eat mackerel fillets, but are they better eaten cold, or heated up (which is AIUI quite OK)? These questions, given the circumstances of the times, are important.
I tend to have the co-op mackerel fillets cold, though I've also happily shredded them into a kedgeree-type affair. You can also get them tinned, and treat them as tuna's more flavoursome cousin.
In case anyone were thinking of buying a Bentley, they're owned by VAG and about to become a increasingly small subsidiary of the 'A' in that acronym. 'We' may still assemble such cars as are destined for this market, I guess.
At what point does the balance of payments f***-up mean the currency devalues? Just about all the engineering companies I used to visit over the last 25 years have gone. And the mid '90s were not a golden age in the first place.
I think it risks a mentality of 'Yes, the people in charge of that institution are awful, but we have to stick with that institution, because it is the Ark of Salvation / guarantor of peace in Europe'.
Ironically this argument with an economic twist is the one trotted out for the Union.
2. I think it can just end up replacing a British or French nationalism with a European nationalism.
Though in the specific case of Erasmus, the replacement Turing programme will do this crassly and in spades at best. Still, i hear Singapore is nice this time of year.
One of the paradoxes of EU freedom of movement rules was that they are de facto extremely racist - you can come to the UK with few restrictions if you are European, and therefore likely to be white and Christian.
I suspect things are unlikely to be improved off the back of a campaign that featured imagery that would not have been out of place in the 30s and screams of “The Turks are coming!!!!1111!,,,,”.
If you want to know what the public think then there's no real alternative to a properly conducted referendum. Which we've not had on the issue of Europe since the 1970s.
The 1975 referendum was very simple. Stay or leave.
I thought 1975 referendum was about join or stay out??????
The policy of, we’ll negotiate a deal then offer you a vote on it where you can see what you are actually getting if we leave, is not what I would describe as incoherent.
It's just impossible. The EU had consistently maintained the position that it wouldn't enter into any negotiations about any future arrangement before the UK had enacted article 50. And why would it?
As was established in court, the U.K. had the power to retract its article 50 notification upto the point at which it left.
I'd missed that. Was it a UK court, or a European one please?
If you want to know what the public think then there's no real alternative to a properly conducted referendum. Which we've not had on the issue of Europe since the 1970s.
The 1975 referendum was very simple. Stay or leave.
I thought 1975 referendum was about join or stay out??????
If you want to know what the public think then there's no real alternative to a properly conducted referendum. Which we've not had on the issue of Europe since the 1970s.
The 1975 referendum was very simple. Stay or leave.
I thought 1975 referendum was about join or stay out??????
I think it risks a mentality of 'Yes, the people in charge of that institution are awful, but we have to stick with that institution, because it is the Ark of Salvation / guarantor of peace in Europe'.
Ironically this argument with an economic twist is the one trotted out for the Union.
As so often, Ursula Le Guin nails it:
"The dream of the Ekumen, then, is to restore that truly ancient commonality; to gather all the peoples of all the worlds at one hearth?" Axt nodded, chewing bread-apple. "To weave some harmony among them, at least. Life loves to know itself, out to its furthest limits; to embrace complexity is its delight. Our difference is our beauty. All these worlds and the various forms and ways of the minds and lives and bodies on them - together they would make a splendid harmony".
“No harmony endures,” said the young king. “None has ever been achieved,” said the Plenipotentiary. “The pleasure is in trying.”
Quite. It has, of course, escaped the notice of the Brexshiteers that one of the main reasons for the existence of the EU is to help avoid such conflicts.
IOW, as one commentator has said, the EU is about PEACE more than just trade...
That the EU seeks to prevent Germany and France from warring for control of the continent by simply giving them said control on a plate is hardly a compelling reason for Britain - which has been the country responsible for preventing both of them gaining said control in the past - to sign up.
Actually the UK leaving gives France and Germany more control.
The policy of, we’ll negotiate a deal then offer you a vote on it where you can see what you are actually getting if we leave, is not what I would describe as incoherent.
It's just impossible. The EU had consistently maintained the position that it wouldn't enter into any negotiations about any future arrangement before the UK had enacted article 50. And why would it?
As was established in court, the U.K. had the power to retract its article 50 notification upto the point at which it left.
I'd missed that. Was it a UK court, or a European one please?
Both, effectively. But the important one was the EJC ruling that made it clear that a member state that had enacted Article 50 could withdraw it unilaterally which is why we could have reversed the Brexit fiasco right up to 11pm on 31st January 2020.
Apologies for triple post, was just catching up... but I wanted to ask this question:
Should Labour vote for the deal?
Kier Starmer has indicated that he will instruct Labour MPs to vote for it.
This has generated a lot of criticism in the anti-Brexit social media groups I follow. But I am not so sure it's a simple decision.
Starmer's position is that to vote against it is to risk No Deal which would be reckless. The counter argument is that voting for it gives Johnson a 'get out of jail free card' to share the blame for the disaster that is coming. This argument goes that Johnson's majority is so big, Labour can afford to take the principled stand.
I honestly don't know how to weigh those two. What say you?
Apologies for triple post, was just catching up... but I wanted to ask this question:
Should Labour vote for the deal?
I think Labour should abstain. Yes, voting against would be reckless, but this is Johnson's mess and he must be made to own it. If the deal is voted down by his own berserkers, he should resign. He wouldn't, of course.
Yes, Labour should abstain. There are plenty of Tories to win the vote and avoid No Deal and they can carry the blame for generations for their despicable behaviour.
Politically, the Opposition voting against or abstaining makes sense - voting against gives the chance of enough Tories to rebel to defeat the government which should lead to a resignation from high office, potentially building the case for no confidence in the government (though the Tory MPs won't rebel on that as it risks their high salary job for the next few years).
But, practically it's a very high risk strategy - the political win could easily result in plunging the country into a no-deal situation, with catastrophic effects. Is playing politics with the welfare of the nation that good an idea? The politicians and their party activists might find it a useful ploy to get their views effected ... but, will the general public agree that the price is worth it?
It depends on how you view the specific vote in question. If you view it as a choice between deal or no deal then they should quite obviously vote in favour. If you see it as expressing approval of the Brexit project as a whole than they should vote against.
The problem for Labour is that the first option is the truth, but the second is how it will be perceived/spun.
In my opinion they should vote in favour, on the grounds that an average deal is better for the country than the bad of no deal, and I don’t believe that seeking perfection should be the enemy of achieving what good you can. I suspect there are many on the left who would rather they vote against, risking a no deal disaster, because while that would be manifestly worse for the country it would at least be blameable on the Tories.
So will they vote in the interests of the country or of the party?
Remember that undoing Brexit or getting a better deal simply aren’t options any more. Voting down this deal won’t - can’t - achieve either of them, and doing so for that reason at this stage would be nothing more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Politically, the Opposition voting against or abstaining makes sense - voting against gives the chance of enough Tories to rebel to defeat the government which should lead to a resignation from high office, potentially building the case for no confidence in the government (though the Tory MPs won't rebel on that as it risks their high salary job for the next few years).
But, practically it's a very high risk strategy - the political win could easily result in plunging the country into a no-deal situation, with catastrophic effects. Is playing politics with the welfare of the nation that good an idea? The politicians and their party activists might find it a useful ploy to get their views effected ... but, will the general public agree that the price is worth it?
The policy of, we’ll negotiate a deal then offer you a vote on it where you can see what you are actually getting if we leave, is not what I would describe as incoherent.
It's just impossible. The EU had consistently maintained the position that it wouldn't enter into any negotiations about any future arrangement before the UK had enacted article 50. And why would it?
As was established in court, the U.K. had the power to retract its article 50 notification upto the point at which it left.
I'd missed that. Was it a UK court, or a European one please?
Both, effectively. But the important one was the EJC ruling that made it clear that a member state that had enacted Article 50 could withdraw it unilaterally which is why we could have reversed the Brexit fiasco right up to 11pm on 31st January 2020.
Although as noted if Labour (and other parties) abstain the Conservatives will vote in favour and the deal is accepted while the other parties stand clear of the mess. It might also encourage those Tories who really are opposed to the mess the government has created to join them without risking the same disaster of no-deal.
Comments
Not over us, it doesn’t.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, given how little they had before.
The 1975 referendum was very simple. Stay or leave.
Similarly, eastward expansion of the EU was something we pushed hard for, to bring in the former communist bloc to the single market and create huge new opportunities for trade - which have greatly benefited our manufacturers and services.
I think the EU are decidedly nonplussed, to say the least, that after them having done pretty much everything we wanted, we have flounced out spouting a load of petty nationalist guff.
It was also a deliberate attempt to re-align the EU in a more Atlanticist direction.
I'm looking forward to the hail of spat dummies at this.
Effigies of Boris.
That smacks of desperation...
Over on the No-Deal Brexit Hell thread, which has inevitably been derailed by Telford, I asked whether he (or anyone else for that matter) could come up with some suggestions as to how Brexit might be a success, in tangible terms, for the average person (or The Man On The Clapham Omnibus).
I appreciate that there can be no definite answers, as it's early days, but there must be something to justify all the time and effort expended over the past four years.
Mustn't there?
Mind you, lamb is OK, also WINE (though I prefer French...), but yes, what British car?
Maybe the Austin Mini (the original version, that is)? It could become the English version of the Trabant or Wartburg of the late (not) lamented DDR.
(Actually, about 15 years ago I did have a vintage Mini. It was called *Min*. During a tanker drivers' strike, when fuel was scarce, I used up at least £5 worth of petrol in a fortnight...).
It's just impossible. The EU had consistently maintained the position that it wouldn't enter into any negotiations about any future arrangement before the UK had enacted article 50. And why would it?
PS Is Morgan still British?
As to British lamb, if it is all that is readily available, a higher price (if one can afford it) may have to be paid regardless. The Chumocrats won't care less, of course. *Let them eat Spam*, I hear them cry...
I like mackerel, and another poster (possibly @Arethosemyfeet) suggested eating them with oatcakes and mayonnaise, which sounds tasty. Now, the Co-Op sells ready-to-eat mackerel fillets, but are they better eaten cold, or heated up (which is AIUI quite OK)? These questions, given the circumstances of the times, are important.
No, it's Italian.
There is no answer to give. Nada. There is no upside to Brexit, just endless expense, inconvenience and red tape. I asked the same question of a leave-voting friend, and after thinking hard he came up with: Gregg's still being able to call their tubes of pink mush in flakey pastry "sausage rolls". Truly such a triumph is worth national economic suicide.
The only way to make Brexit pay economically would be to massively deregulate everything. Leaving aside the question of whether this would actually benefit the person in the street, the EU (and many other nations) would immediately, and quite rightly, impose massive tariffs on everything we make. We would then be so desperate we would sign up to any terms demanded by anyone willing to take our cheap carp.
@Alan Cresswell and @Rocinante - those are indeed the answers I feared.
The whole Brexshit debacle is a complete and utter waste of time and effort, and even more disturbingly, will continue to be so for years to come. I'm 70 next year, and I doubt very much if I will see any improvement in my (admittedly limited by disability) lifetime. I hope to survive long enough to see the defeat of the Chumocrats, the independence of my ancestral country (Scotland) and at least a tentative move towards sanity and rejoining the EU.
I once visited the factory in the days when you could simply wander up to the door and ask to look round.
It's a good example of the actual complicated interconnectedness of economic relations that Brexit simplicity is happy to gloss over.
By the way, I see that both Jersey and Guernsey appear to have signed up to the UK's FTA in the realm of fishing, which appears to grant (more or less) status quo to all parties for now. Perhaps one of the least disadvantageous aspects of the deal so far.
Well, they're based in Dartford - about 20 miles west of here! - but who knows? As @Eutychus says, so many things are inter-connected in far more complex ways than Brexshiteers imply (or even realise).
Given the choice, I'd rather have a Morgan...how disloyal and unEnglish of me is that?
Wikipedia says the company is incorporated in the UK and owned by Malaysians. Not sure whether that qualifies for Brexiteer standards.
Malaysians are surely *Brown Skinned People Not Like Us*...!!!!!!!
*swoons*
As was established in court, the U.K. had the power to retract its article 50 notification upto the point at which it left.
* OK, Singapore isn't exactly Malaysia ... but close enough
OK, Dyson is 'British' - but probably owned by a Brit plus international shareholders and manufactured in Malaysia amongst others.
Which, in a way, reinforces the inter-connectivity point made by Eutychus...
I tend to have the co-op mackerel fillets cold, though I've also happily shredded them into a kedgeree-type affair. You can also get them tinned, and treat them as tuna's more flavoursome cousin.
At what point does the balance of payments f***-up mean the currency devalues? Just about all the engineering companies I used to visit over the last 25 years have gone. And the mid '90s were not a golden age in the first place.
Ironically this argument with an economic twist is the one trotted out for the Union.
Though in the specific case of Erasmus, the replacement Turing programme will do this crassly and in spades at best. Still, i hear Singapore is nice this time of year.
I suspect things are unlikely to be improved off the back of a campaign that featured imagery that would not have been out of place in the 30s and screams of “The Turks are coming!!!!1111!,,,,”.
I thought 1975 referendum was about join or stay out??????
I'd missed that. Was it a UK court, or a European one please?
"Keep Britain in Europe" was the 'yes' slogan.
(And had a dove as its symbol... maybe some people did remember WW2 after all back then...)
Thank you - I was forgetting that the UK had joined a couple of years before the referendum.
As so often, Ursula Le Guin nails it: (The Wind's Twelve Quarters).
Oh yes it does. Much more.
AFZ
Both, effectively. But the important one was the EJC ruling that made it clear that a member state that had enacted Article 50 could withdraw it unilaterally which is why we could have reversed the Brexit fiasco right up to 11pm on 31st January 2020.
AFZ
Should Labour vote for the deal?
Kier Starmer has indicated that he will instruct Labour MPs to vote for it.
This has generated a lot of criticism in the anti-Brexit social media groups I follow. But I am not so sure it's a simple decision.
Starmer's position is that to vote against it is to risk No Deal which would be reckless. The counter argument is that voting for it gives Johnson a 'get out of jail free card' to share the blame for the disaster that is coming. This argument goes that Johnson's majority is so big, Labour can afford to take the principled stand.
I honestly don't know how to weigh those two. What say you?
AFZ
I think Labour should abstain. Yes, voting against would be reckless, but this is Johnson's mess and he must be made to own it. If the deal is voted down by his own berserkers, he should resign. He wouldn't, of course.
But, practically it's a very high risk strategy - the political win could easily result in plunging the country into a no-deal situation, with catastrophic effects. Is playing politics with the welfare of the nation that good an idea? The politicians and their party activists might find it a useful ploy to get their views effected ... but, will the general public agree that the price is worth it?
It depends on how you view the specific vote in question. If you view it as a choice between deal or no deal then they should quite obviously vote in favour. If you see it as expressing approval of the Brexit project as a whole than they should vote against.
The problem for Labour is that the first option is the truth, but the second is how it will be perceived/spun.
In my opinion they should vote in favour, on the grounds that an average deal is better for the country than the bad of no deal, and I don’t believe that seeking perfection should be the enemy of achieving what good you can. I suspect there are many on the left who would rather they vote against, risking a no deal disaster, because while that would be manifestly worse for the country it would at least be blameable on the Tories.
So will they vote in the interests of the country or of the party?
Remember that undoing Brexit or getting a better deal simply aren’t options any more. Voting down this deal won’t - can’t - achieve either of them, and doing so for that reason at this stage would be nothing more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think this is where I am.
Thanks
There’s no “could easily” about it. That’s the only other option available.