No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
What? You want censorship do you? The losers have to now shut up because they lost? I am pretty sure your rope idea won't work, but kudos to you for making your first suggestion.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
What? You want censorship do you? The losers have to now shut up because they lost?
I don't think Leavers have figgered it out yet Seth but they are staring down the barrel of about 15 years worth of "I told you so!" when/if it all goes tits up...
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
What? You want censorship do you? The losers have to now shut up because they lost?
I don't think Leavers have figgered it out yet Seth but they are staring down the barrel of about 15 years worth of "I told you so!" when/if it all goes tits up...
;-)
Nope, I think it will be 15 years of blaming remainers for sabotaging brexit. Anything but take responsibility for their vote.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
You really are a class act.
Thanks i know... But always honour a handshake... Do you.
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
What? You want censorship do you? The losers have to now shut up because they lost? I am pretty sure your rope idea won't work, but kudos to you for making your first suggestion.
No you said you have accepted it, and you haven't, no shame in saying so.
@PragueAddick finally got round to reading the entire 'Relaunching the EU paper' - thanks for linking it.
In addition to the extracts that I highlighted previously, the below are also very pertinent:
"Brexit is not a one-off problem, but the symptom of a wider disorder: in many countries, large numbers of people want to kick the establishments and elites which profit from and support economic and social openness and diversity. Since the UK referendum, anti-EU nativists have suffered reverses in the Netherlands and France, but they are currently polling well in Italy and may soon join the Austrian government. Right-wing populists with a eurosceptic bent are in power in Poland and Hungary. In countries such as France, Germany and Austria, only the bravest politicians are willing to argue the case for free trade, such is the hostility of many voters. The departure of the UK removes an influential voice in favour of extending the European single market and free trade. The negotiation of Brexit may end up creating bad blood among European leaders and divert them from tackling other pressing challenges. Moreover, Brexit is damaging the EU’s global standing. The remaining 27 members will find it harder to formulate credible foreign and defence policies without Britain’s global outlook (rivalled only by that of France); and to implement them without the UK’s diplomatic, development and defence capabilities. Meanwhile the crisis in Catalonia – exacerbated by both secessionists acting illegally and Madrid’s ham-fisted response – threatens to draw in the EU."
"Nearly eight years after the euro crisis began, the single currency’s problems have not been fixed. The pick-up in eurozone economic growth in 2016 and 2017, and the victory of the europhile Macron in France, are encouraging. However, the next recession will test the currency union’s half-built institutional structures. This is because debt levels remain high, the political and legal constraints on a relaxation of fiscal policy are powerful and the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) monetary policy is near the limits of what it can achieve. Italy, which suffers from high levels of public debt, a troubled banking system and a political class that struggles to overcome the vested interests opposed to reform, is a particular worry."
"The EU needs to become more flexible, so that its members need not sign up to all the same policies. The EU’s institutions have long opposed this principle, on the grounds that too much ‘variable geometry’ could boost ‘inter-governmentalism’ and undermine their own position. They have subscribed to the orthodoxy that almost all EU members will ultimately join the euro and the Schengen area. However, Britain’s vote to leave has helped some policy-makers to recognise that in an EU of 27 members, which have very different objectives, not everybody will be willing to sign up to everything. Indeed, some projects – such as co-operation on defence or a European Public Prosecutor – may work better with a smaller number of committed countries involved."
"A distinction needs to be made between ‘multi-speed’ Europe, the idea that all countries remain committed to the same objectives, but some travel quicker than others; and ‘multi-track Europe’, the idea that not every country has to sign up to the same objectives. During his renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s EU membership – which concluded in February 2016 – Prime Minister David Cameron pushed for the right to different destinations, not different speeds. Italy backed Cameron’s initiative. However, France, Germany and the Commission ensured that he did not achieve a great deal. What he did secure was a provision that the treaties’ commitment to “ever closer union” need not apply to the UK. He also obtained another change that applied to all members: “The references to ever closer union among the peoples are therefore compatible with different paths of integration being available for different member-states and do not compel all member-states to aim for a common destination.” Britain’s departure means that the document enshrining the results of the British renegotiation has no legal standing, but some of its ideas remain pertinent."
"The Commission white paper of March 2017 referred to neither multi- speed nor multi-track and blurred the distinction. It is time for EU leaders to state openly that the 27 do not and will not share all the same ambitions and objectives. President Macron seems willing to take the lead. He told his ambassadors that they “should contemplate a Europe based on several formats, go further with all those who want to move forward, without being held back by the states that want – and that is their right – to advance slowly or not as far.”"
"Such thinking has already encountered flak, from both traditional federalists and eurosceptic Central Europeans. The former see the departure of the UK as an opportunity to push for a more uniform and integrated Union. Thus in his State of the Union address in September 2017, Juncker argued that every member-state should join the euro, the banking union and the Schengen area."
And an extract to which I have referred previously from Nick Clegg's book: Nick Clegg, the former British deputy prime minister, makes a similar argument in his recent book: “The EU itself is not a fixed thing. It changes all the time.... It has an elastic capacity to accommodate huge differences between different countries under one roof. That versatility can help, once more, to reincorporate the UK within the EU, but on a more settled basis – not within the inner core of the EU, but not cast out to the political wilderness either. An accommodation, most especially on the vexed question of free movement, can be found as the EU develops into an ever more distinct union of ‘concentric circles’.”
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
Skimmed through a lot of this. Is there anything that is not just an opinion. Is there anything based on evidence, facts, data? What, if any, data models have been used? The government impact studies we have been told about all point to a negative impact in jobs, growth, food prices and prices in general. These studies were done using the immense data, financial and economic modelling tools and financial and economic data modelling and forecasting experts and specialist computers available to the government.
How about reading the preamble to my post?
No surprise that I see the prime benefit as being in a position for the UK to negotiate their own trade deals – however, I have been over that ad infinitum so you don’t need to hear me repeat it all again.
Accordingly, I looked elsewhere to see what others perceive as the potential benefits – note, I say ‘potential’ as no-one can be certain what will happen whether we leave or remain. I cannot prove the future so, whether the below comments are correct or not, is unknown – but the question was asked, so here we go.
As I stated I skimmed through most of the post. However, I read your post thinking it was a response to the question when are Brexiteers going to provide something other than hope and 'it will be alright on the night' type platitudes. I was looking for hard evidence and facts which I did not see when I skimmed through. But, I was wrong. On reading your post more closely I don't think you were attempting to answer the question I thought you were answering.
It does seem to get rather repetitive on here but ... "No-one can predict with absolute certainty the FUTURE benefits of leaving or staying."
The one thing I do enjoy about this thread is that it does, on occasion, send me into an interesting tangential direction ... on this occasion, on the philosophy of whether or not a statement about the future can be a fact.
There are lots of papers about this, but the one I found most useful states: "The concept ‘fact’ is often used in relation to events or states of affairs of the present or the past. Facts conceived of as the way things are in the present supports correspondence theory of truth and has no room for the future (often conceived as events or states of affairs yet to be present). Facts conceived as the way things were in the past cohere with the interpretations of states of affairs or events in the present. If any situation arises in the present that negates facts of the past, the facts in question that are negated by the present situation are considered as erroneous/false. Therefore, present states of affairs or events determine facts of the present or accepted facts of the past. We make propositions about the future. All our future events are couched in propositions about the future. Football matches, examinations, interviews, weddings, travels, etcetera are all planned against the future. But these programmed events about the future are not normally accepted as facts. It is often taken for granted that there are no future facts. The reasons for this lie squarely in the conceptions of facts and future. If facts are nothing more than the events or states of affairs present before us or that we have experienced in the past, then the events or states of affairs we are yet to experience cannot be facts. Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass. So it makes perfect sense in the case of contingency not to attribute fact to something that has the propensity to fail to become an event or state of affairs."
The key words are: "Also, our conception of the future is one that is bedeviled with contingency, that is, it may come to pass or it may not come to pass." - which is exactly what I have been saying.
I think I can safely state, based on previous data and scientific evidence and probabilities, if I go to the roof of the nearest 10 storey building and jump off it, it is a future fact that I will die.
In the coin flipping heads or tails scenario it is not ultimately 50/50 because there will be a rare occasion the coin will land on it's edge. Maybe that is what brexit voters were hoping for, the equivalent of the coin landing on it's edge.
If it landed 52 times on heads and 48 times on tails based on a 100 flips, would you ask for a re-match assuming you were tails. Or would you accept the decision.
Point out one single occasion where I have said I don't accept the referendum decision. Far from it, I see my job now as to hold brexiters feet to the fire to make whatever the decision amounts to happen. The problem still seems to me that the brexiters have no practical answers or even a realistic direction of travel. I know you secretly want me to ask you this, have you sorted a solution to the Irish border yet? :-)
Yes put a massive rope around the whole island and drag it out to the mid atlantic. And forget about it. Well you did ask. When i get paid to sort it i will.
And you haven't accepted it otherwise you would not keep going on about it.
What? You want censorship do you? The losers have to now shut up because they lost? I am pretty sure your rope idea won't work, but kudos to you for making your first suggestion.
No you said you have accepted it, and you haven't, no shame in saying so.
Let’s be honest, sadly, most Brexiters don’t give a shit what they say. I’m sure they will do the honourable thing though and fall on their sword when job losses are announced at their places of work.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the door to giving Britain a unique, tailor-made trade deal after Brexit, pushing back at the rhetoric from the European Commission that Theresa May has to choose between existing models.
The Commission accuses May of trying to cherry-pick whenever the U.K. suggests it wants a ”bespoke" deal after the divorce. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says the options are a trade deal like Canada has -- a big downgrade from EU membership -- or an arrangement like Norway’s, which would leave the U.K. taking orders from the bloc.
At a joint news conference in Berlin, Merkel encouraged May to aim for something in between. Asked by a U.K. reporter if she could accept anything that is “bespoke,” the German leader came to May’s defense: "It’s not necessarily the case that a situation that is neither already known nor a classic free trade deal, that this situation is cherry-picking."
“In the end, there has to be a fair balance, of variations, on the single market, for example," she said. “We as the 27 will ensure that it’s as close as possible, but that there’s a difference from current membership."
While France has taken a more uncompromising stance, Germany has appeared more open minded in extending May a hand. At a key summit last year, it was Merkel who offered May some political cover when she was under pressure to agree on a financial settlement.
The German leader hasn’t had much time to zero in on Brexit. She’s just concluded four months of gruelling coalition talks that have left her weakened with the loss of key ministries for the sake of being able to stitch together government.
Speaking in Berlin after meeting Theresa May, the German chancellor insisted she is not “frustrated” by the U.K.’s failure so far to give a detailed account of its goals in the future economic relationship with the EU — “just curious.”
Merkel’s characterization of her post-Brexit preferred trade deal as one that is “as close as possible but … different to what Britain currently has as a member,” will be welcomed by U.K. officials pursuing a middle way between full participation in the single market and a limited free-trade agreement that would be unlikely to provide deep trade ties for British financial services firms.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the door to giving Britain a unique, tailor-made trade deal after Brexit, pushing back at the rhetoric from the European Commission that Theresa May has to choose between existing models.
The Commission accuses May of trying to cherry-pick whenever the U.K. suggests it wants a ”bespoke" deal after the divorce. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says the options are a trade deal like Canada has -- a big downgrade from EU membership -- or an arrangement like Norway’s, which would leave the U.K. taking orders from the bloc.
At a joint news conference in Berlin, Merkel encouraged May to aim for something in between. Asked by a U.K. reporter if she could accept anything that is “bespoke,” the German leader came to May’s defense: "It’s not necessarily the case that a situation that is neither already known nor a classic free trade deal, that this situation is cherry-picking."
“In the end, there has to be a fair balance, of variations, on the single market, for example," she said. “We as the 27 will ensure that it’s as close as possible, but that there’s a difference from current membership."
While France has taken a more uncompromising stance, Germany has appeared more open minded in extending May a hand. At a key summit last year, it was Merkel who offered May some political cover when she was under pressure to agree on a financial settlement.
The German leader hasn’t had much time to zero in on Brexit. She’s just concluded four months of gruelling coalition talks that have left her weakened with the loss of key ministries for the sake of being able to stitch together government.
Speaking in Berlin after meeting Theresa May, the German chancellor insisted she is not “frustrated” by the U.K.’s failure so far to give a detailed account of its goals in the future economic relationship with the EU — “just curious.”
Merkel’s characterization of her post-Brexit preferred trade deal as one that is “as close as possible but … different to what Britain currently has as a member,” will be welcomed by U.K. officials pursuing a middle way between full participation in the single market and a limited free-trade agreement that would be unlikely to provide deep trade ties for British financial services firms.
Having to work in Germany and luckily only occasionally in France, Germans always have been the sensible ones. Having to do deals with German companies is always a lot easier as they always try and find the middle ground rather than the french who don't know the meaning of the word.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the door to giving Britain a unique, tailor-made trade deal after Brexit, pushing back at the rhetoric from the European Commission that Theresa May has to choose between existing models.
The Commission accuses May of trying to cherry-pick whenever the U.K. suggests it wants a ”bespoke" deal after the divorce. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says the options are a trade deal like Canada has -- a big downgrade from EU membership -- or an arrangement like Norway’s, which would leave the U.K. taking orders from the bloc.
At a joint news conference in Berlin, Merkel encouraged May to aim for something in between. Asked by a U.K. reporter if she could accept anything that is “bespoke,” the German leader came to May’s defense: "It’s not necessarily the case that a situation that is neither already known nor a classic free trade deal, that this situation is cherry-picking."
“In the end, there has to be a fair balance, of variations, on the single market, for example," she said. “We as the 27 will ensure that it’s as close as possible, but that there’s a difference from current membership."
While France has taken a more uncompromising stance, Germany has appeared more open minded in extending May a hand. At a key summit last year, it was Merkel who offered May some political cover when she was under pressure to agree on a financial settlement.
The German leader hasn’t had much time to zero in on Brexit. She’s just concluded four months of gruelling coalition talks that have left her weakened with the loss of key ministries for the sake of being able to stitch together government.
Speaking in Berlin after meeting Theresa May, the German chancellor insisted she is not “frustrated” by the U.K.’s failure so far to give a detailed account of its goals in the future economic relationship with the EU — “just curious.”
Merkel’s characterization of her post-Brexit preferred trade deal as one that is “as close as possible but … different to what Britain currently has as a member,” will be welcomed by U.K. officials pursuing a middle way between full participation in the single market and a limited free-trade agreement that would be unlikely to provide deep trade ties for British financial services firms.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the door to giving Britain a unique, tailor-made trade deal after Brexit, pushing back at the rhetoric from the European Commission that Theresa May has to choose between existing models.
The Commission accuses May of trying to cherry-pick whenever the U.K. suggests it wants a ”bespoke" deal after the divorce. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says the options are a trade deal like Canada has -- a big downgrade from EU membership -- or an arrangement like Norway’s, which would leave the U.K. taking orders from the bloc.
At a joint news conference in Berlin, Merkel encouraged May to aim for something in between. Asked by a U.K. reporter if she could accept anything that is “bespoke,” the German leader came to May’s defense: "It’s not necessarily the case that a situation that is neither already known nor a classic free trade deal, that this situation is cherry-picking."
“In the end, there has to be a fair balance, of variations, on the single market, for example," she said. “We as the 27 will ensure that it’s as close as possible, but that there’s a difference from current membership."
While France has taken a more uncompromising stance, Germany has appeared more open minded in extending May a hand. At a key summit last year, it was Merkel who offered May some political cover when she was under pressure to agree on a financial settlement.
The German leader hasn’t had much time to zero in on Brexit. She’s just concluded four months of gruelling coalition talks that have left her weakened with the loss of key ministries for the sake of being able to stitch together government.
Speaking in Berlin after meeting Theresa May, the German chancellor insisted she is not “frustrated” by the U.K.’s failure so far to give a detailed account of its goals in the future economic relationship with the EU — “just curious.”
Merkel’s characterization of her post-Brexit preferred trade deal as one that is “as close as possible but … different to what Britain currently has as a member,” will be welcomed by U.K. officials pursuing a middle way between full participation in the single market and a limited free-trade agreement that would be unlikely to provide deep trade ties for British financial services firms.
Having to work in Germany and luckily only occasionally in France, Germans always have been the sensible ones. Having to do deals with German companies is always a lot easier as they always try and find the middle ground rather than the french who don't know the meaning of the word.
Which word don’t the French know the meaning of. Middle or ground ?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the door to giving Britain a unique, tailor-made trade deal after Brexit, pushing back at the rhetoric from the European Commission that Theresa May has to choose between existing models.
The Commission accuses May of trying to cherry-pick whenever the U.K. suggests it wants a ”bespoke" deal after the divorce. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says the options are a trade deal like Canada has -- a big downgrade from EU membership -- or an arrangement like Norway’s, which would leave the U.K. taking orders from the bloc.
At a joint news conference in Berlin, Merkel encouraged May to aim for something in between. Asked by a U.K. reporter if she could accept anything that is “bespoke,” the German leader came to May’s defense: "It’s not necessarily the case that a situation that is neither already known nor a classic free trade deal, that this situation is cherry-picking."
“In the end, there has to be a fair balance, of variations, on the single market, for example," she said. “We as the 27 will ensure that it’s as close as possible, but that there’s a difference from current membership."
While France has taken a more uncompromising stance, Germany has appeared more open minded in extending May a hand. At a key summit last year, it was Merkel who offered May some political cover when she was under pressure to agree on a financial settlement.
The German leader hasn’t had much time to zero in on Brexit. She’s just concluded four months of gruelling coalition talks that have left her weakened with the loss of key ministries for the sake of being able to stitch together government.
Speaking in Berlin after meeting Theresa May, the German chancellor insisted she is not “frustrated” by the U.K.’s failure so far to give a detailed account of its goals in the future economic relationship with the EU — “just curious.”
Merkel’s characterization of her post-Brexit preferred trade deal as one that is “as close as possible but … different to what Britain currently has as a member,” will be welcomed by U.K. officials pursuing a middle way between full participation in the single market and a limited free-trade agreement that would be unlikely to provide deep trade ties for British financial services firms.
Having to work in Germany and luckily only occasionally in France, Germans always have been the sensible ones. Having to do deals with German companies is always a lot easier as they always try and find the middle ground rather than the french who don't know the meaning of the word.
Which word don’t the French know the meaning of. Middle or ground ?
At least a consensus is developing that the EU is dysfunctional. I guess the myth can be dropped that the EU can continue to operate effectively without reform.
One could argue the only issues to consider now is whether you believe the EU is able to reform itself, and if so, whether the outcome will be better than Brexit.
Instead of obsessing on the risks of Brexit, how about some balance. What are the risks of the EU not being reformed, and what is reform? What are the risks of the wrong reforms being put through?
For Macron I assume it is more integration and removal of the anachronisms of a political union without a financial union. Can Remain voters explain what are the economic effects of this on Europe, and why, if it is good, why those who suggest it will happen are called "scaremongers".
If reform is not economic integration, what are the reforms being alluded to and how would each of them improve UK GDP per capita compared to GDP per capita under Brexit? Or is voting Remain a leap in the dark.
Read an essay by a German think tank written in 2010 that chimes with the context of Macron's comments . It concluded that throughout Europe the majority of the people in most nations are negative about the EU, implying many would vote to leave. Ireland's first referendum on the new Treaty could be used to support this view. The reason the EU sticks together is because the politicians, apart from those of the UK, are positive on the EU.
If the EU cannot demonstrate how it is aligned with the interests of the citizens it cannot survive indefinitely. Given the disparate aspirations and interests of different citizens throughout the EU it will not, in my view, be attained. But Brexit could just be the wake up call. Otherwise the EU will simply make increasingly ineffective compromises that dilute it's raison d'être.
A two speed Europe is admission it has lost its way trying to apply a 20th century creation to a rapidly evolving 21st century world, but it could work and will have the UK to thank.
Macron, Merkel and many others admit the EU is a mess and needs reform quickly. In his book 'Révolution' and in his speech at the Sorbonne on 26 September 2017, Macron described the EU as suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. The EU, he says, is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
What do the remainers want? Brexiters are continually being asked, what are you seeking?
Well, what are you, the remainers, seeking, based upon the fact that the EU is far from being usefully functional?
A paper I read recently put it succinctly: "What will the EU have become in five or ten years’ time? What exactly is it that remainers want to bind us to? They are fond of challenging supporters of Brexit to predict the future. Let them take up the challenge themselves. Do they want Britain to adopt the Euro and cede democratic powers to Macron’s ‘Sovereign Europe’? Or would they be happy to keep Britain in an outer circle, as a follower of decisions made by others to determine our prosperity, social cohesion and security? Or would they try to block reform, and let the EU gradually disintegrate? Or don’t they know what they want? One of the most striking features of the long and wearisome debate we have been gripped with is how rarely it has been about Europe, and how little Remainers seem to know about the institution they are so desperate to cling on to."
You don't say who wrote that paper but whoever wrote it is a ****. He arrogantly asserts that because he has never listened to any Remainers talking about their aspirations for the EU, that we don't have any. In fact you have read and quoted from a body I recommended to you, which does just that. The difficulty we have is that there was never the environment in the UK where a sober discussion like that could take place. I am more than happy to put forward my own view now. It will be long, and I know what is going to happen. The likes of @Dippenhall will seize on every element and say "oh so and so countries will never agree to that". Well so what? If I put forward my views on various aspects of what's dysfunctional about the UK, such as tax avoidance, the elderly care system, university fees, the structure of English football, I don't expect anything like a majority vote of approval on here, so why should anyone expect a single citizen to have all the answers on " a better Europe". But I will give it a go, just to show that bloke you quoted what a **** he is.
At least a consensus is developing that the EU is dysfunctional. I guess the myth can be dropped that the EU can continue to operate effectively without reform.
One could argue the only issues to consider now is whether you believe the EU is able to reform itself, and if so, whether the outcome will be better than Brexit.
Instead of obsessing on the risks of Brexit, how about some balance. What are the risks of the EU not being reformed, and what is reform? What are the risks of the wrong reforms being put through?
For Macron I assume it is more integration and removal of the anachronisms of a political union without a financial union. Can Remain voters explain what are the economic effects of this on Europe, and why, if it is good, why those who suggest it will happen are called "scaremongers".
If reform is not economic integration, what are the reforms being alluded to and how would each of them improve UK GDP per capita compared to GDP per capita under Brexit? Or is voting Remain a leap in the dark.
Read an essay by a German think tank written in 2010 that chimes with the context of Macron's comments . It concluded that throughout Europe the majority of the people in most nations are negative about the EU, implying many would vote to leave. Ireland's first referendum on the new Treaty could be used to support this view. The reason the EU sticks together is because the politicians, apart from those of the UK, are positive on the EU.
If the EU cannot demonstrate how it is aligned with the interests of the citizens it cannot survive indefinitely. Given the disparate aspirations and interests of different citizens throughout the EU it will not, in my view, be attained. But Brexit could just be the wake up call. Otherwise the EU will simply make increasingly ineffective compromises that dilute it's raison d'être.
A two speed Europe is admission it has lost its way trying to apply a 20th century creation to a rapidly evolving 21st century world, but it could work and will have the UK to thank.
Macron, Merkel and many others admit the EU is a mess and needs reform quickly. In his book 'Révolution' and in his speech at the Sorbonne on 26 September 2017, Macron described the EU as suffering an existential crisis, unable to remedy its glaring policy failures and in danger of losing the support of its peoples. The EU, he says, is ‘too weak, too slow, too ineffective’.
What do the remainers want? Brexiters are continually being asked, what are you seeking?
Well, what are you, the remainers, seeking, based upon the fact that the EU is far from being usefully functional?
A paper I read recently put it succinctly: "What will the EU have become in five or ten years’ time? What exactly is it that remainers want to bind us to? They are fond of challenging supporters of Brexit to predict the future. Let them take up the challenge themselves. Do they want Britain to adopt the Euro and cede democratic powers to Macron’s ‘Sovereign Europe’? Or would they be happy to keep Britain in an outer circle, as a follower of decisions made by others to determine our prosperity, social cohesion and security? Or would they try to block reform, and let the EU gradually disintegrate? Or don’t they know what they want? One of the most striking features of the long and wearisome debate we have been gripped with is how rarely it has been about Europe, and how little Remainers seem to know about the institution they are so desperate to cling on to."
You don't say who wrote that paper but whoever wrote it is a ****. He arrogantly asserts that because he has never listened to any Remainers talking about their aspirations for the EU, that we don't have any. In fact you have read and quoted from a body I recommended to you, which does just that. The difficulty we have is that there was never the environment in the UK where a sober discussion like that could take place. I am more than happy to put forward my own view now. It will be long, and I know what is going to happen. The likes of @Dippenhall will seize on every element and say "oh so and so countries will never agree to that". Well so what? If I put forward my views on various aspects of what's dysfunctional about the UK, such as tax avoidance, the elderly care system, university fees, the structure of English football, I don't expect anything like a majority vote of approval on here, so why should anyone expect a single citizen to have all the answers on " a better Europe". But I will give it a go, just to show that bloke you quoted what a **** he is.
I am pleased that one of the remainers is prepared to give his vision of the EU, for the basic reason that I have been asked to justify my stance on many occasions.
I guessed it would be one of two people who would be prepared to do so - you were one of them so thanks for justifying my trust
So ... What will the EU have become in five or ten years’ time? What exactly is it that you want to bind us to?
I wonder if it will not be far removed from what I would like to see in a multi track EU.
And you certainly shouldn’t worry about anyone ‘seizing on every element’ ... that happens to me virtually every time I post!
Before I do my thing, I see that by coincidence Gideon Rachman in the FT has decided to write an excellent article about the CL Brexit thread. As its behind a paywall, I paste the whole thing.
Brexit has had the unfortunate effect of turning British political analysts into football fans. The issue is so divisive that the two camps — Leave and Remain — are no longer capable of dispassionate analysis. Instead, they react to news from Europe like football supporters; cheering anything that seems to confirm their prejudices — and dismissing any discordant information, with the partisan certainty of a fan disputing an offside call against his team.
Any new development — viewed from Britain — now goes through the distorting mirror of confirmation bias. So Leavers saw the recent crisis in Catalonia, as confirmation of their belief that the EU is falling apart and is, besides, an anti-democratic project. They were also delighted by the struggles of Angela Merkel to form a coalition government; further evidence, as they saw it, that the EU is collapsing. By contrast, Ms Merkel’s apparent success in forming a coalition government and the easing of the Catalan crisis is interpreted by Remainers as confirmation of the innate stability of the European project.
The truth is more nuanced and more interesting. After a lousy half decade, the EU has had a very good year. Fears of a populist surge were beaten back in France and the Netherlands in 2017.
In Emmanuel Macron, the French president, the EU has found a new and charismatic champion. Economic growth is reviving — undermining the Leavers’ claim that being a member of the EU is liked “being shackled to a corpse”.
Leavers are so desperate for confirmation that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe
But it is also true that the long-term questions facing the European project have not been answered. The pro-EU centre is shrinking and political developments that would once have seemed shocking are now greeted with a shrug.
A decade ago, the powers-that-be in Brussels regarded Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, as a dangerous populist and Eurosceptic. But the rise of more radical populists is now so pronounced that the EU is left hoping that Mr Berlusconi will emerge as the kingmaker, after next month’s Italian election. In 2000, the presence of the nationalist Freedom party in the Austrian government was shocking enough to provoke the rest of the EU to shun the country. But when the Freedom party rejoined the government in Vienna a few months ago, there was little reaction from Brussels.
This lack of comment reflects the fact that the EU now faces even more troubling political challenges in central Europe — where both the Hungarian and Polish governments have moved in an increasingly illiberal direction. And even if the “grand coalition” goes through in Germany, the political centre is likely to continue to shrink — as the venerable, centre-left Social Democrat party loses support to the far-right and the far-left.
The danger for Britain’s Remainers, (and I am one of them), is that they are so determined to prove the idiocy of leaving the EU, that they endorse a one-sided narrative, in which everything is rosy in the Brussels garden. When bad news from Europe comes along — and there will be plenty — Remainers will be in danger of looking loftily out of touch.
Leavers have the opposite problem. Their difficulty is being the “boy who cries wolf” — forever proclaiming the imminent collapse of the EU, and then looking petulant and dishonest when the much-anticipated crisis fizzles out.
Britain’s anti-EU forces already have a record of consistently underestimating the resilience of the European project. This analytical flaw stems partly from a failure to understand the utter determination of the European elite to preserve the bloc’s integrity.
The Brexit process is also underlining another important point — the extent to which the EU underpins what businesses and ordinary citizens now regard as normal life in Europe. Breaking up the EU — by reimposing border controls and tariffs and restrictions on freedom of movement — would have a disastrous effect on the operations of businesses and a hugely disruptive impact on the lives of millions of people.
Ideology aside, Brexit is illustrating that the EU now provides the framework of laws and regulations that keep goods and people moving. The EU undoubtedly faces serious problems and — after a good patch — these may worsen again. But as long as the single market exists and the EU hangs together, the UK will still clearly suffer economically from leaving.
And then there is a moral question, as well as a practical one. Britain’s Leavers are so desperate for confirmation of their view that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe; tacitly supporting every nationalist movement, from Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France to Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in Hungary.
In that sense, the current problems of the EU actually support the case for remaining — not leaving. When faced with problems such as supporting liberal values in Hungary, dealing with the refugee crisis or preserving financial stability in Europe, there is no substitute for the EU. For all its flaws, it is the only real mechanism for trying to find solutions to pan-European problems that are legal, humane and equitable, and that prevent Europe sliding backwards into beggar-thy-neighbour nationalistic antagonisms. Britain should be part of the effort to find those solutions. Instead, through Brexit, it has become part of the problem.
and the FT picked out this reader's comment, and for very good reason. Different class, the FT.
Gideon Rachman makes excellent points in this article. I would only add that Brexit, however narrow the margin at the referendum, is evidence of a national character that responds to the psychoses of an island nation. Exceptionalism, xenophobia, strict self-interest are all traits that make themselves evident repeatedly throughout British and especially English history. International engagements have either had imperialistic or strict national interest at the core. This is not a criticism nor is Britain alone in this. However, others have swallowed hard and sought a better way.
It may be that civilisation develops to the extent of giving priority to wider interests rather than those of the narrow nation state. The European Union and its underlying principles are an attempt. The attempt may well be ahead of its time. Europe has made a start and Britain has chosen to stay behind. The results may not become evident quickly, and evidence will continue to give solace both to Brexiters and Remainers. However, history's winners are seldom those who cling to narrow positions or to the patterns of the past.
Right then. How to reform the EU? Well I would go back to the basics of my marketing training. Never, ever be arrogant enough to assume you know what your customer (citizen) thinks, especially when you live such a different life to many of them. Go out and ask them. Listen!!
The EU should embark on the biggest public research exercise seen anywhere, ever. It has, in Eurostat, the framework with which to conduct it, although i would bring in some of the big market research firms to ensure it is cutting edge work.
One wave would target the Eurosceptics in all countries (sadly not the UK I suppose) but voters of the AfD, Le Pen, Wilders, the Austrian mob, etc. Ask them a series of questions to determine exactly what it is that makes them anti EU. Include a question which asks them to name the three most important changes they think are needed in their own country, and then why in each case the EU stops their country from doing it.
The other wave targets people like me. What do we value about EU membership? And how would we change it?
The samples would be big enough to show differences in each country between big city dwellers and villagers, old, young, earnings etc. As well as the battery of quantitative research, focus groups would be held in each country. They help you understand not just what, but why. Feelings, emotions.
Separately but alongside it, run Macron's idea of local consultations among citizens run by town halls, asking many of the same questions in open meetings. (BTW these sort of meetings, on lower level issues, seem to already take place regularly in my borough in Prague, but I never see them in Greenwich...). these consultation results presented separately.
The results of course would all be public, easily accessible on a website (thats why i would get the MR pros in, Eurostat is rubbish in presenting its excellent work online).
Imagine what this would give us. Instead of constantly putting their own spin on things, politicians and Commission bigwigs, not to mention the media, would be confronted with the reality of what people actually think. The MR professionals could be retained to adjudicate on whether politicians are interpreting the results correctly. We would know what the common strands are across Europe which bind the Europhobes together. We would know what is really valued by pro -EU citizens, and what even they think is wrong. We would also see what kind of shit is assumed to be the EU's fault when in fact it is all in the gift of national politics to freely address.
That's where I'd start. The biggest listening project the world has ever seen.
Now, before you say I am copping out, far from it. But I want to say that whatever I come out with next could easily be changed after I had read and digested the results of this listening project; because even I don't get enough chances to test my Britcentric ideas of the EU with reasonable citizens from the other member States...
Right then. How to reform the EU? Well I would go back to the basics of my marketing training. Never, ever be arrogant enough to assume you know what your customer (citizen) thinks, especially when you live such a different life to many of them. Go out and ask them. Listen!!
The EU should embark on the biggest public research exercise seen anywhere, ever. It has, in Eurostat, the framework with which to conduct it, although i would bring in some of the big market research firms to ensure it is cutting edge work.
One wave would target the Eurosceptics in all countries (sadly not the UK I suppose) but voters of the AfD, Le Pen, Wilders, the Austrian mob, etc. Ask them a series of questions to determine exactly what it is that makes them anti EU. Include a question which asks them to name the three most important changes they think are needed in their own country, and then why in each case the EU stops their country from doing it.
The other wave targets people like me. What do we value about EU membership? And how would we change it?
The samples would be big enough to show differences in each country between big city dwellers and villagers, old, young, earnings etc. As well as the battery of quantitative research, focus groups would be held in each country. They help you understand not just what, but why. Feelings, emotions.
Separately but alongside it, run Macron's idea of local consultations among citizens run by town halls, asking many of the same questions in open meetings. (BTW these sort of meetings, on lower level issues, seem to already take place regularly in my borough in Prague, but I never see them in Greenwich...). these consultation results presented separately.
The results of course would all be public, easily accessible on a website (thats why i would get the MR pros in, Eurostat is rubbish in presenting its excellent work online).
Imagine what this would give us. Instead of constantly putting their own spin on things, politicians and Commission bigwigs, not to mention the media, would be confronted with the reality of what people actually think. The MR professionals could be retained to adjudicate on whether politicians are interpreting the results correctly. We would know what the common strands are across Europe which bind the Europhobes together. We would know what is really valued by pro -EU citizens, and what even they think is wrong. We would also see what kind of shit is assumed to be the EU's fault when in fact it is all in the gift of national politics to freely address.
That's where I'd start. The biggest listening project the world has ever seen.
Now, before you say I am copping out, far from it. But I want to say that whatever I come out with next could easily be changed after I had read and digested the results of this listening project; because even I don't get enough chances to test my Britcentric ideas of the EU with reasonable citizens from the other member States...
Shame Cameron never run a campaign like you are suggesting instead of project fear. Remain might well have won.
Ok. Pending the results of the listening project, here is what I would wish to see, to reform the EU. Not in any particular order.
- Rethink how the European Parliament is voted in. I think MEPs should be voted in/out during national elections. They might actually be designated national MPs, taking a year off each to do an MEP spell, or MEPs for whom you vote separately within your national election vote. This would strengthen the democratic link, and encourage people to bloody well cast their vote. This system would probably reduce the number of extremists like Farage who get in just to cause trouble.
- Make the European Commission more directly accountable to the MEPs and thus directly to citizens. More like the UK Civil Service than it is now. I remember when the EC got involved in football in the 90s, making big mistakes IMO, and there was no way to communicate with them. My idea is that, say Clive Efford would be doing his MEP gig, and I would be able to communicate with him about some EC issue in the same way as I might do about the Olympic Stadium.
- Do visible things to show citizens that waste is being addressed. Brussels or Strasbourg? Choose one or the other. Eight weeks' holiday for EC employees? Bring it into line with ordinary public service citizens.
- Make it possible for citizens to ask for direct EC reviews of complaints about suspected incompetent or corrupt deployment of funds. I'm talking about beneficiary countries like CZ. My wife is frustrated that we can often see a EU funded project is being mishandled, and we cannot go direct to the EC and say "take a look at this shit in Prague, and sort them out". Make it possible for the EC to directly initiate legal proceedings regarding misuse of funds.
- The EC, via the new version of MEPs would be proactively involved in national discussions about policies which are -allegedly - the "work of Brussels". Make it more clear to citizens what is really EU driven, and what is national politics looking for cover. Have an office of the Commission in every capital city holding regular public meetings.
Think I should pause here. I am sure we have reached "peak Prague" already...
Right then. How to reform the EU? Well I would go back to the basics of my marketing training. Never, ever be arrogant enough to assume you know what your customer (citizen) thinks, especially when you live such a different life to many of them. Go out and ask them. Listen!!
The EU should embark on the biggest public research exercise seen anywhere, ever. It has, in Eurostat, the framework with which to conduct it, although i would bring in some of the big market research firms to ensure it is cutting edge work.
One wave would target the Eurosceptics in all countries (sadly not the UK I suppose) but voters of the AfD, Le Pen, Wilders, the Austrian mob, etc. Ask them a series of questions to determine exactly what it is that makes them anti EU. Include a question which asks them to name the three most important changes they think are needed in their own country, and then why in each case the EU stops their country from doing it.
The other wave targets people like me. What do we value about EU membership? And how would we change it?
The samples would be big enough to show differences in each country between big city dwellers and villagers, old, young, earnings etc. As well as the battery of quantitative research, focus groups would be held in each country. They help you understand not just what, but why. Feelings, emotions.
Separately but alongside it, run Macron's idea of local consultations among citizens run by town halls, asking many of the same questions in open meetings. (BTW these sort of meetings, on lower level issues, seem to already take place regularly in my borough in Prague, but I never see them in Greenwich...). these consultation results presented separately.
The results of course would all be public, easily accessible on a website (thats why i would get the MR pros in, Eurostat is rubbish in presenting its excellent work online).
Imagine what this would give us. Instead of constantly putting their own spin on things, politicians and Commission bigwigs, not to mention the media, would be confronted with the reality of what people actually think. The MR professionals could be retained to adjudicate on whether politicians are interpreting the results correctly. We would know what the common strands are across Europe which bind the Europhobes together. We would know what is really valued by pro -EU citizens, and what even they think is wrong. We would also see what kind of shit is assumed to be the EU's fault when in fact it is all in the gift of national politics to freely address.
That's where I'd start. The biggest listening project the world has ever seen.
Now, before you say I am copping out, far from it. But I want to say that whatever I come out with next could easily be changed after I had read and digested the results of this listening project; because even I don't get enough chances to test my Britcentric ideas of the EU with reasonable citizens from the other member States...
Agree with most of that. But, I think one the biggest failings of the EU over the last 20 years has been how it has failed to communicate in simple and clear terms the purpose of the EU and the many many ways each citizen and business and member country benefit enormously from the single market, the customs union, EU grants, EU projects, EU rules and regulations etc. My understanding of what the EU is and how it benefits all its members was fairly patchy when the whole Brexit debate began. Now, after two years my knowledge of what the EU is and how it works has grown exponentially. And, as a result, I am a much more passionate supporter of the EU than I was at the beginning. I think post Brexit when the rest of the EU looks at the impact that leaving the EU is having on the UK it will be very easy for EU citizens to see the benefits of being in the EU. However, I think it should learn from its mistakes and devote a much bigger chunk of its budget marketing, explaining and promoting the benefits of the EU particularly in countries which have populist anti EU media and political parties as has existed in the UK for the last 20 years.
Right then. How to reform the EU? Well I would go back to the basics of my marketing training. Never, ever be arrogant enough to assume you know what your customer (citizen) thinks, especially when you live such a different life to many of them. Go out and ask them. Listen!!
The EU should embark on the biggest public research exercise seen anywhere, ever. It has, in Eurostat, the framework with which to conduct it, although i would bring in some of the big market research firms to ensure it is cutting edge work.
One wave would target the Eurosceptics in all countries (sadly not the UK I suppose) but voters of the AfD, Le Pen, Wilders, the Austrian mob, etc. Ask them a series of questions to determine exactly what it is that makes them anti EU. Include a question which asks them to name the three most important changes they think are needed in their own country, and then why in each case the EU stops their country from doing it.
The other wave targets people like me. What do we value about EU membership? And how would we change it?
The samples would be big enough to show differences in each country between big city dwellers and villagers, old, young, earnings etc. As well as the battery of quantitative research, focus groups would be held in each country. They help you understand not just what, but why. Feelings, emotions.
Separately but alongside it, run Macron's idea of local consultations among citizens run by town halls, asking many of the same questions in open meetings. (BTW these sort of meetings, on lower level issues, seem to already take place regularly in my borough in Prague, but I never see them in Greenwich...). these consultation results presented separately.
The results of course would all be public, easily accessible on a website (thats why i would get the MR pros in, Eurostat is rubbish in presenting its excellent work online).
Imagine what this would give us. Instead of constantly putting their own spin on things, politicians and Commission bigwigs, not to mention the media, would be confronted with the reality of what people actually think. The MR professionals could be retained to adjudicate on whether politicians are interpreting the results correctly. We would know what the common strands are across Europe which bind the Europhobes together. We would know what is really valued by pro -EU citizens, and what even they think is wrong. We would also see what kind of shit is assumed to be the EU's fault when in fact it is all in the gift of national politics to freely address.
That's where I'd start. The biggest listening project the world has ever seen.
Now, before you say I am copping out, far from it. But I want to say that whatever I come out with next could easily be changed after I had read and digested the results of this listening project; because even I don't get enough chances to test my Britcentric ideas of the EU with reasonable citizens from the other member States...
Shame Cameron never run a campaign like you are suggesting instead of project fear. Remain might well have won.
Well it's not even a campaign, more like the groundwork on which we could have built a decent campaign, once everyone understood what citizens actually thought.
Sure, never going to happen in a million years with Cameron and Osborne in charge.
Need a bit more time to think about the rest. Multi-track yes, but what tracks exactly?....
Right then. How to reform the EU? Well I would go back to the basics of my marketing training. Never, ever be arrogant enough to assume you know what your customer (citizen) thinks, especially when you live such a different life to many of them. Go out and ask them. Listen!!
The EU should embark on the biggest public research exercise seen anywhere, ever. It has, in Eurostat, the framework with which to conduct it, although i would bring in some of the big market research firms to ensure it is cutting edge work.
One wave would target the Eurosceptics in all countries (sadly not the UK I suppose) but voters of the AfD, Le Pen, Wilders, the Austrian mob, etc. Ask them a series of questions to determine exactly what it is that makes them anti EU. Include a question which asks them to name the three most important changes they think are needed in their own country, and then why in each case the EU stops their country from doing it.
The other wave targets people like me. What do we value about EU membership? And how would we change it?
The samples would be big enough to show differences in each country between big city dwellers and villagers, old, young, earnings etc. As well as the battery of quantitative research, focus groups would be held in each country. They help you understand not just what, but why. Feelings, emotions.
Separately but alongside it, run Macron's idea of local consultations among citizens run by town halls, asking many of the same questions in open meetings. (BTW these sort of meetings, on lower level issues, seem to already take place regularly in my borough in Prague, but I never see them in Greenwich...). these consultation results presented separately.
The results of course would all be public, easily accessible on a website (thats why i would get the MR pros in, Eurostat is rubbish in presenting its excellent work online).
Imagine what this would give us. Instead of constantly putting their own spin on things, politicians and Commission bigwigs, not to mention the media, would be confronted with the reality of what people actually think. The MR professionals could be retained to adjudicate on whether politicians are interpreting the results correctly. We would know what the common strands are across Europe which bind the Europhobes together. We would know what is really valued by pro -EU citizens, and what even they think is wrong. We would also see what kind of shit is assumed to be the EU's fault when in fact it is all in the gift of national politics to freely address.
That's where I'd start. The biggest listening project the world has ever seen.
Now, before you say I am copping out, far from it. But I want to say that whatever I come out with next could easily be changed after I had read and digested the results of this listening project; because even I don't get enough chances to test my Britcentric ideas of the EU with reasonable citizens from the other member States...
Shame Cameron never run a campaign like you are suggesting instead of project fear. Remain might well have won.
Well it's not even a campaign, more like the groundwork on which we could have built a decent campaign, once everyone understood what citizens actually thought.
Sure, never going to happen in a million years with Cameron and Osborne in charge.
Need a bit more time to think about the rest. Multi-track yes, but what tracks exactly?....
Thinking about which ‘tracks’ is a very intriguing and interesting proposition - hence the reason I look forward to your response to see how much we, from either side of the fence, overlap.
I think you are right about the failure to communicate. I just had a little look at their Europa website and there's some really good stuff on there. But it's not all easy to find and it does't leap and and grab you attention.
Below are some very good documents about the benefits of The EU, but they are buried away and well out of date. It's almost as if they don't feel the need to put a lot of effort into this. This is a great shame because the EU does a wonderful job, but it's hard as a supporter to make a compelling case when their own publications on the subject are years old. I'd like to think that if there was one benefit of Brexit it would be that the EU started to take its PR a little more seriously. That the referendum was over 18 month ago though, it doesn't look it. I guess we're stuck with most people getting their views from Her Majesty's Gutter Press.
Comments
I am pretty sure your rope idea won't work, but kudos to you for making your first suggestion.
;-)
In addition to the extracts that I highlighted previously, the below are also very pertinent:
"Brexit is not a one-off problem, but the symptom of a wider disorder: in many countries, large numbers of people want to kick the establishments and elites which profit from and support economic and social openness and diversity. Since the UK referendum, anti-EU nativists have suffered reverses in the Netherlands and France, but they are currently polling well in Italy and may soon join the Austrian government. Right-wing populists with a eurosceptic bent are in power in Poland and Hungary. In countries such as France, Germany and Austria, only the bravest politicians are willing to argue the case for free trade, such is the hostility of many voters. The departure of the UK removes an influential voice in favour of extending the European single market and free trade. The negotiation of Brexit may end up creating bad blood among European leaders and divert them from tackling other pressing challenges. Moreover, Brexit is damaging the EU’s global standing. The remaining 27 members will find it harder to formulate credible foreign and defence policies without Britain’s global outlook (rivalled only by that of France); and to implement them without the UK’s diplomatic, development and defence capabilities. Meanwhile the crisis in Catalonia – exacerbated by both secessionists acting illegally and Madrid’s ham-fisted response – threatens to draw in the EU."
"Nearly eight years after the euro crisis began, the single currency’s problems have not been fixed. The pick-up in eurozone economic growth in 2016 and 2017, and the victory of the europhile Macron in France, are encouraging. However, the next recession will test the currency union’s half-built institutional structures. This is because debt levels remain high, the political and legal constraints on a relaxation
of fiscal policy are powerful and the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) monetary policy is near the limits of what it can achieve. Italy, which suffers from high levels of public debt, a troubled banking system and a political class that struggles to overcome the vested interests opposed to reform, is a particular worry."
"The EU needs to become more flexible, so that its members need not sign up to all the same policies. The EU’s institutions have long opposed this principle, on the grounds that too much ‘variable geometry’ could boost ‘inter-governmentalism’ and undermine their own position. They have subscribed to the orthodoxy that almost all EU members will ultimately join the euro and the Schengen area. However, Britain’s vote to leave has helped some policy-makers to recognise that in an EU of 27 members, which have very different objectives, not everybody will be willing to sign up to everything. Indeed, some projects – such as co-operation on defence or a European Public Prosecutor – may work better with a smaller number of committed countries involved."
"A distinction needs to be made between ‘multi-speed’ Europe, the idea that all countries remain committed to the same objectives, but some travel quicker than others; and ‘multi-track Europe’, the idea that not every country has to sign up to the same objectives. During his renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s EU membership – which concluded in February 2016 – Prime Minister David Cameron pushed for the right to different destinations, not different speeds. Italy backed Cameron’s initiative. However, France, Germany and the Commission ensured that he did not achieve a great deal. What he did secure was a provision that the treaties’ commitment to “ever closer union” need not apply to the UK. He also obtained another change that applied to all members: “The references to ever closer union among the peoples are therefore compatible with different paths of integration being available for different member-states and do not compel all member-states to aim for a common destination.” Britain’s departure means that the document enshrining the results of the British renegotiation has no legal standing, but some of its ideas remain pertinent."
"The Commission white paper of March 2017 referred to neither multi- speed nor multi-track and blurred the distinction. It is time for EU leaders to state openly that the 27 do not and will not share all the same ambitions and objectives. President Macron seems willing to
take the lead. He told his ambassadors that they “should contemplate a Europe based on several formats, go further with all those who want to move forward, without being held back by the states that want – and that is their right – to advance slowly or not as far.”"
"Such thinking has already encountered flak, from both traditional federalists and eurosceptic Central Europeans. The former see the departure of the UK as an opportunity to push for a more uniform and integrated Union. Thus in his State of the Union address in September 2017, Juncker argued that every member-state should join the euro, the banking union and the Schengen area."
And an extract to which I have referred previously from Nick Clegg's book:
Nick Clegg, the former British deputy prime minister, makes a similar argument in his recent book:
“The EU itself is not a fixed thing. It changes all the time.... It has an elastic capacity to accommodate huge differences between different countries under one roof. That versatility can help, once more, to reincorporate the UK within the EU, but on a more settled basis – not within the inner core of the EU, but not cast out to the political wilderness either. An accommodation, most especially on the vexed question of free movement, can be found as the EU develops into an ever more distinct union of ‘concentric circles’.”
You won, get on with it.
''I don't think Leavers have figgered it out.''
I think Leavers have figured out you can't spell mate!
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/merkel-says-it-s-not-cherry-picking-to-want-unique-brexit-deal
German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the door to giving Britain a unique, tailor-made trade deal after Brexit, pushing back at the rhetoric from the European Commission that Theresa May has to choose between existing models.
The Commission accuses May of trying to cherry-pick whenever the U.K. suggests it wants a ”bespoke" deal after the divorce. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says the options are a trade deal like Canada has -- a big downgrade from EU membership -- or an arrangement like Norway’s, which would leave the U.K. taking orders from the bloc.
At a joint news conference in Berlin, Merkel encouraged May to aim for something in between. Asked by a U.K. reporter if she could accept anything that is “bespoke,” the German leader came to May’s defense: "It’s not necessarily the case that a situation that is neither already known nor a classic free trade deal, that this situation is cherry-picking."
“In the end, there has to be a fair balance, of variations, on the single market, for example," she said. “We as the 27 will ensure that it’s as close as possible, but that there’s a difference from current membership."
While France has taken a more uncompromising stance, Germany has appeared more open minded in extending May a hand. At a key summit last year, it was Merkel who offered May some political cover when she was under pressure to agree on a financial settlement.
The German leader hasn’t had much time to zero in on Brexit. She’s just concluded four months of gruelling coalition talks that have left her weakened with the loss of key ministries for the sake of being able to stitch together government.
Speaking in Berlin after meeting Theresa May, the German chancellor insisted she is not “frustrated” by the U.K.’s failure so far to give a detailed account of its goals in the future economic relationship with the EU — “just curious.”
Merkel’s characterization of her post-Brexit preferred trade deal as one that is “as close as possible but … different to what Britain currently has as a member,” will be welcomed by U.K. officials pursuing a middle way between full participation in the single market and a limited free-trade agreement that would be unlikely to provide deep trade ties for British financial services firms.
I guessed it would be one of two people who would be prepared to do so - you were one of them so thanks for justifying my trust
So ...
What will the EU have become in five or ten years’ time?
What exactly is it that you want to bind us to?
I wonder if it will not be far removed from what I would like to see in a multi track EU.
And you certainly shouldn’t worry about anyone ‘seizing on every element’ ... that happens to me virtually every time I post!
I can use the quote button though mate!
Brexit has had the unfortunate effect of turning British political analysts into football fans. The issue is so divisive that the two camps — Leave and Remain — are no longer capable of dispassionate analysis. Instead, they react to news from Europe like football supporters; cheering anything that seems to confirm their prejudices — and dismissing any discordant information, with the partisan certainty of a fan disputing an offside call against his team.
Any new development — viewed from Britain — now goes through the distorting mirror of confirmation bias. So Leavers saw the recent crisis in Catalonia, as confirmation of their belief that the EU is falling apart and is, besides, an anti-democratic project. They were also delighted by the struggles of Angela Merkel to form a coalition government; further evidence, as they saw it, that the EU is collapsing. By contrast, Ms Merkel’s apparent success in forming a coalition government and the easing of the Catalan crisis is interpreted by Remainers as confirmation of the innate stability of the European project.
The truth is more nuanced and more interesting. After a lousy half decade, the EU has had a very good year. Fears of a populist surge were beaten back in France and the Netherlands in 2017.
In Emmanuel Macron, the French president, the EU has found a new and charismatic champion. Economic growth is reviving — undermining the Leavers’ claim that being a member of the EU is liked “being shackled to a corpse”.
Leavers are so desperate for confirmation that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe
But it is also true that the long-term questions facing the European project have not been answered. The pro-EU centre is shrinking and political developments that would once have seemed shocking are now greeted with a shrug.
A decade ago, the powers-that-be in Brussels regarded Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, as a dangerous populist and Eurosceptic. But the rise of more radical populists is now so pronounced that the EU is left hoping that Mr Berlusconi will emerge as the kingmaker, after next month’s Italian election. In 2000, the presence of the nationalist Freedom party in the Austrian government was shocking enough to provoke the rest of the EU to shun the country. But when the Freedom party rejoined the government in Vienna a few months ago, there was little reaction from Brussels.
This lack of comment reflects the fact that the EU now faces even more troubling political challenges in central Europe — where both the Hungarian and Polish governments have moved in an increasingly illiberal direction. And even if the “grand coalition” goes through in Germany, the political centre is likely to continue to shrink — as the venerable, centre-left Social Democrat party loses support to the far-right and the far-left.
The danger for Britain’s Remainers, (and I am one of them), is that they are so determined to prove the idiocy of leaving the EU, that they endorse a one-sided narrative, in which everything is rosy in the Brussels garden. When bad news from Europe comes along — and there will be plenty — Remainers will be in danger of looking loftily out of touch.
Leavers have the opposite problem. Their difficulty is being the “boy who cries wolf” — forever proclaiming the imminent collapse of the EU, and then looking petulant and dishonest when the much-anticipated crisis fizzles out.
Britain’s anti-EU forces already have a record of consistently underestimating the resilience of the European project. This analytical flaw stems partly from a failure to understand the utter determination of the European elite to preserve the bloc’s integrity.
The Brexit process is also underlining another important point — the extent to which the EU underpins what businesses and ordinary citizens now regard as normal life in Europe. Breaking up the EU — by reimposing border controls and tariffs and restrictions on freedom of movement — would have a disastrous effect on the operations of businesses and a hugely disruptive impact on the lives of millions of people.
Ideology aside, Brexit is illustrating that the EU now provides the framework of laws and regulations that keep goods and people moving. The EU undoubtedly faces serious problems and — after a good patch — these may worsen again. But as long as the single market exists and the EU hangs together, the UK will still clearly suffer economically from leaving.
And then there is a moral question, as well as a practical one. Britain’s Leavers are so desperate for confirmation of their view that the EU is heading for disaster, that they often slide into quietly cheering on some of the darkest forces in Europe; tacitly supporting every nationalist movement, from Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France to Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in Hungary.
In that sense, the current problems of the EU actually support the case for remaining — not leaving. When faced with problems such as supporting liberal values in Hungary, dealing with the refugee crisis or preserving financial stability in Europe, there is no substitute for the EU. For all its flaws, it is the only real mechanism for trying to find solutions to pan-European problems that are legal, humane and equitable, and that prevent Europe sliding backwards into beggar-thy-neighbour nationalistic antagonisms. Britain should be part of the effort to find those solutions. Instead, through Brexit, it has become part of the problem.
Gideon Rachman makes excellent points in this article. I would only add that Brexit, however narrow the margin at the referendum, is evidence of a national character that responds to the psychoses of an island nation. Exceptionalism, xenophobia, strict self-interest are all traits that make themselves evident repeatedly throughout British and especially English history. International engagements have either had imperialistic or strict national interest at the core. This is not a criticism nor is Britain alone in this. However, others have swallowed hard and sought a better way.
It may be that civilisation develops to the extent of giving priority to wider interests rather than those of the narrow nation state. The European Union and its underlying principles are an attempt. The attempt may well be ahead of its time. Europe has made a start and Britain has chosen to stay behind. The results may not become evident quickly, and evidence will continue to give solace both to Brexiters and Remainers. However, history's winners are seldom those who cling to narrow positions or to the patterns of the past.
The EU should embark on the biggest public research exercise seen anywhere, ever. It has, in Eurostat, the framework with which to conduct it, although i would bring in some of the big market research firms to ensure it is cutting edge work.
One wave would target the Eurosceptics in all countries (sadly not the UK I suppose) but voters of the AfD, Le Pen, Wilders, the Austrian mob, etc. Ask them a series of questions to determine exactly what it is that makes them anti EU. Include a question which asks them to name the three most important changes they think are needed in their own country, and then why in each case the EU stops their country from doing it.
The other wave targets people like me. What do we value about EU membership? And how would we change it?
The samples would be big enough to show differences in each country between big city dwellers and villagers, old, young, earnings etc. As well as the battery of quantitative research, focus groups would be held in each country. They help you understand not just what, but why. Feelings, emotions.
Separately but alongside it, run Macron's idea of local consultations among citizens run by town halls, asking many of the same questions in open meetings. (BTW these sort of meetings, on lower level issues, seem to already take place regularly in my borough in Prague, but I never see them in Greenwich...). these consultation results presented separately.
The results of course would all be public, easily accessible on a website (thats why i would get the MR pros in, Eurostat is rubbish in presenting its excellent work online).
Imagine what this would give us. Instead of constantly putting their own spin on things, politicians and Commission bigwigs, not to mention the media, would be confronted with the reality of what people actually think. The MR professionals could be retained to adjudicate on whether politicians are interpreting the results correctly. We would know what the common strands are across Europe which bind the Europhobes together. We would know what is really valued by pro -EU citizens, and what even they think is wrong. We would also see what kind of shit is assumed to be the EU's fault when in fact it is all in the gift of national politics to freely address.
That's where I'd start. The biggest listening project the world has ever seen.
Now, before you say I am copping out, far from it. But I want to say that whatever I come out with next could easily be changed after I had read and digested the results of this listening project; because even I don't get enough chances to test my Britcentric ideas of the EU with reasonable citizens from the other member States...
Remain might well have won.
- Rethink how the European Parliament is voted in. I think MEPs should be voted in/out during national elections. They might actually be designated national MPs, taking a year off each to do an MEP spell, or MEPs for whom you vote separately within your national election vote. This would strengthen the democratic link, and encourage people to bloody well cast their vote. This system would probably reduce the number of extremists like Farage who get in just to cause trouble.
- Make the European Commission more directly accountable to the MEPs and thus directly to citizens. More like the UK Civil Service than it is now. I remember when the EC got involved in football in the 90s, making big mistakes IMO, and there was no way to communicate with them. My idea is that, say Clive Efford would be doing his MEP gig, and I would be able to communicate with him about some EC issue in the same way as I might do about the Olympic Stadium.
- Do visible things to show citizens that waste is being addressed. Brussels or Strasbourg? Choose one or the other. Eight weeks' holiday for EC employees? Bring it into line with ordinary public service citizens.
- Make it possible for citizens to ask for direct EC reviews of complaints about suspected incompetent or corrupt deployment of funds. I'm talking about beneficiary countries like CZ. My wife is frustrated that we can often see a EU funded project is being mishandled, and we cannot go direct to the EC and say "take a look at this shit in Prague, and sort them out". Make it possible for the EC to directly initiate legal proceedings regarding misuse of funds.
- The EC, via the new version of MEPs would be proactively involved in national discussions about policies which are -allegedly - the "work of Brussels". Make it more clear to citizens what is really EU driven, and what is national politics looking for cover. Have an office of the Commission in every capital city holding regular public meetings.
Think I should pause here. I am sure we have reached "peak Prague" already...
Sure, never going to happen in a million years with Cameron and Osborne in charge.
Need a bit more time to think about the rest. Multi-track yes, but what tracks exactly?....
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en
Below are some very good documents about the benefits of The EU, but they are buried away and well out of date. It's almost as if they don't feel the need to put a lot of effort into this. This is a great shame because the EU does a wonderful job, but it's hard as a supporter to make a compelling case when their own publications on the subject are years old. I'd like to think that if there was one benefit of Brexit it would be that the EU started to take its PR a little more seriously. That the referendum was over 18 month ago though, it doesn't look it. I guess we're stuck with most people getting their views from Her Majesty's Gutter Press.
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a6de55a6-c623-45d6-8731-b7601b15caa0
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7aab79a4-0a9f-400a-8ae1-8ab4e2c2a865