But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
Agreed, but these are exemptions that we obtained.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
So, it's not enough to get everything we want? Everyone else has to have everything we want them to have, too?
And, if not, we leave and lose everything?
Not what I am saying at all but can’t be bothered to repeat the points I have made so many times in the past.
If you think the EU is as it should be, that’s fine. I don’t.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. But I can't be bothered to repeat not suggesting it again.
If you think not being in the EU is better for the UK politically, financially and in terms of prestige and influence, that's weird. I don't.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
Rees-Mogg is a bit of a busted flush now though, isn’t he? He tried to start a leadership contest and seemingly got nowhere near the numbers that he needed to even initiate the process.
I certainly agree that his credibility has been seriously damaged since the vote of no confidence debacle but in relation to @MuttleyCAFC post regarding the very real possibility of May resigning should her plan be voted down, the eventual new PM and cabinet could easily consist of Johnson, Gove, IDS, Grayling, JCM, Hannan etc. I think it would almost certainly be very brexit top heavy. If that were to happen then all bets are off.
The consensus is that the WA will fail at the first attempt. May might resign but suspect she will stick it out for a second attempt. The ERG were spinning that they could gather their 48 letters after the WA goes down. If risk were not an issue then this could be the perfect cocktail to force a change. This through the 20+ Tory remainers finally walking out of the circus AND working with Umunna, Starmer and other opposition leaders to deliver either Norway + CU or a People's vote... or a combination.
The pressure is building for change, the WA is rubbish and "No Deal" is simply not going to happen since only 10% of MPs support such a ludicrous outcome. May is leveraging the threat of "no deal" to get her way and after refusing to involve anybody in her "strategy" for the last two years, does she expect others to now jump on board. The fact is that others can play that "no deal" leverage game too!
She has deliberately allowed the clock down and is now stating with some arrogance that her deal is the only option. It isn't and the time has arrived when the opposition can act. How ironic all this discussion about sovereignty and democracy when May has consistently failed to work with Parliament.
Meanwhile lifting the bonnet with Labour, there's a grassroots movement to call a special conference which can be done at a fortnight's notice. May might be doing her one woman tour but Labour activists are looking to mobilise delegates representing 550,000 members as well as x million trade unionists to discuss the drive for a People's Vote.
We cannot presume the outcome of this chapter in our history but the irony is that remainers are asking for more democracy. Keir Starmer explains some of the angles to Owen Jones in a video interview if people are interested. Labour know the path they are treading but are careful not to make predictions.
Latest poll data published the other day: Just over half of Britons (51%) said that staying in the EU would be best for the economy. Just 24% think a no-deal Brexit with only 17% supporting the government’s position.
And a great post @MuttleyCAFC but one question: Are we really governed by the EU or is it simply one big CU and SM to standardise commercial rules and tariffs? Let's not fall into the trap of deflecting from the reality that Westminster decision making covers the NHS, taxes, education, benefits, housing policy and defence. 99% of Government expenditure.
Ultimately austerity for six years was a policy pursued by Cameron and Osborne not Brussels. It was they who introduced the rediculous, pointless notion of paying down the national debt. And at the same time they forced through massive cuts, blaming Labour as well as a massive cut in Corporation tax rates.
Westminster, not Brussels is responsible for UK policy and it's the Government at Westminster which follows those Tony Benn tests. English nationalists would have us believe otherwise with all their talk of Turkey joining or the UK being forced to join the Euro. Somehow that jumped from being a 15-20% minority view to 52% that day back in June 2016.
It will take another vote to prove that 55% support for Remain is True. The question is when will that happen. And will Remain run a better campaign?
Remain has never stopped campaigning. A combination of worse case economic projections which bear little relationship to the actual economy+a constant barrage of insults against Brexiters for being ill informed, stupid and old. That is what will carry on through a referendum campaign. It will not change my mind.
Leave has been campaigning since 1973. I certainly think leavers are ill informed, many refused to even read the government leaflet that was sent to everyone. Some are certainly stupid - I have had first hand experience. Many were old (I fall into that category myself), but that is not something I hold against them in any way shape or form, what I hold against them is the combination of ill-informed and stupid that lead to them voting leave.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
Agreed, but these are exemptions that we obtained.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
So, it's not enough to get everything we want? Everyone else has to have everything we want them to have, too?
And, if not, we leave and lose everything?
Not what I am saying at all but can’t be bothered to repeat the points I have made so many times in the past.
If you think the EU is as it should be, that’s fine. I don’t.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. But I can't be bothered to repeat not suggesting it again.
If you think not being in the EU is better for the UK politically, financially and in terms of prestige and influence, that's weird. I don't.
Obviously you have never bothered reading my comments on leaving/remaining.
Rees-Mogg is a bit of a busted flush now though, isn’t he? He tried to start a leadership contest and seemingly got nowhere near the numbers that he needed to even initiate the process.
I certainly agree that his credibility has been seriously damaged since the vote of no confidence debacle but in relation to @MuttleyCAFC post regarding the very real possibility of May resigning should her plan be voted down, the eventual new PM and cabinet could easily consist of Johnson, Gove, IDS, Grayling, JCM, Hannan etc. I think it would almost certainly be very brexit top heavy. If that were to happen then all bets are off.
The consensus is that the WA will fail at the first attempt. May might resign but suspect she will stick it out for a second attempt. The ERG were spinning that they could gather their 48 letters after the WA goes down. If risk were not an issue then this could be the perfect cocktail to force a change. This through the 20+ Tory remainers finally walking out of the circus AND working with Umunna, Starmer and other opposition leaders to deliver either Norway + CU or a People's vote... or a combination.
The pressure is building for change, the WA is rubbish and "No Deal" is simply not going to happen since only 10% of MPs support such a ludicrous outcome. May is leveraging the threat of "no deal" to get her way and after refusing to involve anybody in her "strategy" for the last two years, does she expect others to now jump on board. The fact is that others can play that "no deal" leverage game too!
She has deliberately allowed the clock down and is now stating with some arrogance that her deal is the only option. It isn't and the time has arrived when the opposition can act. How ironic all this discussion about sovereignty and democracy when May has consistently failed to work with Parliament.
Meanwhile lifting the bonnet with Labour, there's a grassroots movement to call a special conference which can be done at a fortnight's notice. May might be doing her one woman tour but Labour activists are looking to mobilise delegates representing 550,000 members as well as x million trade unionists to discuss the drive for a People's Vote.
We cannot presume the outcome of this chapter in our history but the irony is that remainers are asking for more democracy. Keir Starmer explains some of the angles to Owen Jones in a video interview if people are interested. Labour know the path they are treading but are careful not to make predictions.
Latest poll data published the other day: Just over half of Britons (51%) said that staying in the EU would be best for the economy. Just 24% think a no-deal Brexit with only 17% supporting the government’s position.
And a great post @MuttleyCAFC but one question: Are we really governed by the EU or is it simply one big CU and SM to standardise commercial rules and tariffs? Let's not fall into the trap of deflecting from the reality that Westminster decision making covers the NHS, taxes, education, benefits, housing policy and defence. 99% of Government expenditure.
Ultimately austerity for six years was a policy pursued by Cameron and Osborne not Brussels. It was they who introduced the rediculous, pointless notion of paying down the national debt. And at the same time they forced through massive cuts, blaming Labour as well as a massive cut in Corporation tax rates.
Westminster, not Brussels is responsible for UK policy and it's the Government at Westminster which follows those Tony Benn tests. English nationalists would have us believe otherwise with all their talk of Turkey joining or the UK being forced to join the Euro. Somehow that jumped from being a 15-20% minority view to 52% that day back in June 2016.
It will take another vote to prove that 55% support for Remain is True. The question is when will that happen. And will Remain run a better campaign?
Remain has never stopped campaigning. A combination of worse case economic projections which bear little relationship to the actual economy+a constant barrage of insults against Brexiters for being ill informed, stupid and old. That is what will carry on through a referendum campaign. It will not change my mind.
Leave has been campaigning since 1973. I certainly think leavers are ill informed, many refused to even read the government leaflet that was sent to everyone. Some are certainly stupid - I have had first hand experience. Many were old (I fall into that category myself), but that is not something I hold against them in any way shape or form, what I hold against them is the combination of ill-informed and stupid that lead to them voting leave.
As I was saying, no change there
And every word is true. They change - I change, it's not rocket science.
For those still minded to leave after contemplating events, is the default setting to leave the details to the politicians, if not what solution to the Irish border have you come up with?
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
NI thing is pure politics, unavoidable someone will be unhappy but reality is there are already ‘checks’ in the Irish Sea so a few more won’t hurt. The deal still sucks tho and is not worth losing the other benefits for.
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society...
'We have that'. Have, as in present tense? Fantastic there's no need to change anything then.
...China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
What a marvellous piece of joined up thinking. China is undemocratic, therefore we should leave the EU. This whole Brexit nonsense is nothing but flim flam.
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society...
'We have that'. Have, as in present tense? Fantastic there's no need to change anything then.
...China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
What a marvellous piece of joined up thinking. China is undemocratic, therefore we should leave the EU. This whole Brexit nonsense is nothing but flim flam.
And Southbank is the king of the flam flingers...
And another made up tabloid stylee statement: "Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route."
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
Why do you assume that the statement that people are "seemingly voting against their own interests" relates solely to the economic arena?
The European Union has been responsible for a wide range of social and cultural initiatives that have, I would contend, improved our lives. Those who have voted to withdraw from the EU, particularly those outside the Leave side's metropolitan elite, have voted for a new dispensation under which their rights and protections may well be curtailed by neo-liberal policies favoured by many leading Brexiters.
Contrary to your assertion about the good fortune that we have in the UK's political system, in both General Elections (and by-elections) the majority of UK constituencies are not genuinely up for grabs; in effect, a relatively small minority of constituencies determine who will be the Party of Government - so that the political stake that each voter has in the UK system is neither certain nor uniform.
Frankly, your comparison with China demonstrates a lack of understanding of bureaucrats/bureaucracy, of the EU, and probably China as well. All bureaucrats are, by definition, "technical managerialists", because that's what civil servants do, they manage the technical detail of what the elected politicians require (in the EU case both within the Council of Ministers, who determine policy direction on behalf of the EU, and the EU Parliament - all of whom are elected by citizens of the member states to do their will).
And, for what it is worth, the EU Commission regularly treats non-economic issues as being of the greatest importance - if I might direct you to the Commission's efforts, which so irritate (in my view) extreme right wing politicians in countries like Hungary, Poland, Italy, etc., it is the policies that relate to refugees, the independence of the judiciary and wider support for democratic checks and balances, not the economy, that are most central to the disputes.
I understand that you have an emotional attachment to your view of Brexit, but a critique of the EU institutions or its ethos might be slightly more convincing if it was based on more than mere soundbites.
Why do you assume that the statement that people are "seemingly voting against their own interests" relates solely to the economic arena?...
This is a very good question (not that the rest of your post isn't equally as good). For me personally I'd think that the overall economy probably comes in at about 4th in terms of most most powerful reasons for me wanting to stay. Ahead of it are:
1. Freedom of movement: I love the fact that I can go where I want when I want. I might not do that very much at the moment because I cannot afford to, but I hope to in the future. And it's not just the right to roam around a bit. The right to choose which of 28 different countries I live, work and own property in is a massive thing. And knowing that if I don't like it, I'm free to move back or elsewhere without hindrance. I will absolutely hate it if Brexit goes ahead and my dream to retire to sunnier climes is crushed.
2. Employment rights: Much of our protection at work comes directly from EU law. Frankly I do not trust those right wing politicians calling for Brexit, because they are precisely the sort of people who want to take workers rights away. I envisage that it wouldn't be long after Brexit that we saw longer hours, worse conditions and little concern for workers' welfare.
3. Consumer rights: I don't want to eat chlorinated chicken. I don't want to revert to exorbitant data roaming charges. I like the fact that all types of consumer goods have to meet strict standards and that the EU is not afraid to take on the big boys like Microsoft. Again, I fear that those peddling Brexit are those with a vested interest in curtailing our rights so that they and their ilk can make bigger profits at our expense.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the economy isn't important to me. It's just that the above feel more personal, whereas tanking the economy is something that would effect all.
Why do you assume that the statement that people are "seemingly voting against their own interests" relates solely to the economic arena?...
This is a very good question (not that the rest of your post isn't equally as good). For me personally I'd think that the overall economy probably comes in at about 4th in terms of most most powerful reasons for me wanting to stay. Ahead of it are:
1. Freedom of movement: I love the fact that I can go where I want when I want. I might not do that very much at the moment because I cannot afford to, but I hope to in the future. And it's not just the right to roam around a bit. The right to choose which of 28 different countries I live, work and own property in is a massive thing. And knowing that if I don't like it, I'm free to move back or elsewhere without hindrance. I will absolutely hate it if Brexit goes ahead and my dream to retire to sunnier climes is crushed.
2. Employment rights: Much of our protection at work comes directly from EU law. Frankly I do not trust those right wing politicians calling for Brexit, because they are precisely the sort of people who want to take workers rights away. I envisage that it wouldn't be long after Brexit that we saw longer hours, worse conditions and little concern for workers' welfare.
3. Consumer rights: I don't want to eat chlorinated chicken. I don't want to revert to exorbitant data roaming charges. I like the fact that all types of consumer goods have to meet strict standards and that the EU is not afraid to take on the big boys like Microsoft. Again, I fear that those peddling Brexit are those with a vested interest in curtailing our rights so that they and their ilk can make bigger profits at our expense.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the economy isn't important to me. It's just that the above feel more personal, whereas tanking the economy is something that would effect all.
Just add the requirement for a collective approach to the environment and you have the full set! Another area where the right and certain business interests might wish to see standards and commitments reduced.
It's only now that we have the WA on the table that people can see that we are at a decision point regarding freedom of movement, consumer rights, workers and the environment. Some might want to "take back control" but let us put the WA to the House, and then the people if that's the path chosen by MPs.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
Agreed, but these are exemptions that we obtained.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
So, it's not enough to get everything we want? Everyone else has to have everything we want them to have, too?
And, if not, we leave and lose everything?
Not what I am saying at all but can’t be bothered to repeat the points I have made so many times in the past.
If you think the EU is as it should be, that’s fine. I don’t.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. But I can't be bothered to repeat not suggesting it again.
If you think not being in the EU is better for the UK politically, financially and in terms of prestige and influence, that's weird. I don't.
Obviously you have never bothered reading my comments on leaving/remaining.
Fair enough, they weren't that interesting.
There have been 16.5K comments on this thread, so the chances of people recalling your position on Brexit in any detail are small, unless you've been doing a Seth and repeating it on every other page. If people are misunderstanding your views, then it makes more sense to explain them, as it helps those who missed them the first time round to understand where you're coming from too.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
By people are 'seemingly voting against their own interests' it is meant economic interests only. Fortunately we have a political system which gives people something more than money-a vote and thereby a political stake in their society.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy. I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will. Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
China is an autocratic police state that is incredibly intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
Agreed, but these are exemptions that we obtained.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
So, it's not enough to get everything we want? Everyone else has to have everything we want them to have, too?
And, if not, we leave and lose everything?
Not what I am saying at all but can’t be bothered to repeat the points I have made so many times in the past.
If you think the EU is as it should be, that’s fine. I don’t.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested that. But I can't be bothered to repeat not suggesting it again.
If you think not being in the EU is better for the UK politically, financially and in terms of prestige and influence, that's weird. I don't.
Obviously you have never bothered reading my comments on leaving/remaining.
Fair enough, they weren't that interesting.
There have been 16.5K comments on this thread, so the chances of people recalling your position on Brexit in any detail are small, unless you've been doing a Seth and repeating it on every other page. If people are misunderstanding your views, then it makes more sense to explain them, as it helps those who missed them the first time round to understand where you're coming from too.
It will get very boring if I have to repeat my rationale every time I post. I have posted them numerous times not just once.
Plus my comment was tongue in cheek as I know Chizz had read my views as he had previously responded to them.
Still find it hard to see how the average Briton will benefit in any way from Brexit apart from this completely intangible concept of 'sovereignty' being won which I am sure until the whole Brexit debate people never even thought they had lost. No one on here, or in the general debate, has ever been able to clearly articulate why the UK will be better off outside the EU beyond an emotive, gut level emotion.
The economic aspect of leaving seems suicidal and the logistical part will be painfully complicated to unravel, costing billions to organise, leaving the only thing for Leavers to focus on being this vague concept of sovereignty which is not going to make the slightest difference in their day to day life.
Four yours ago, nobody ever used the word sovereignty and I'm pretty sure that if you said it, people would have asked what you meant - or not (they probably wouldn't have cared).
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
As you know, my suggested approach has never been to pick up the ball and walk away.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
You voted Leave...that is exactly what you instructed your Government to do.
Who are the "Institute of Economic Affairs" anyway?
They seem to be like one of those self titled trade organisations, to allow businesses to put stickers on their vans, and a logo on their notepaper.
The IEA are political commentators (oh yeah) who probably only get any exposure because of which media person any of them went to university with. The have absolutely no substance at all, yet get recognition because they have a fancy name.
I have to reveal to you all that I am now head of the Lee Analysts of UK and World Events. I expect the media to be falling over themselves to hear what I have to say now I've let that particular cat out of the bag.
Why do you assume that the statement that people are "seemingly voting against their own interests" relates solely to the economic arena?...
This is a very good question (not that the rest of your post isn't equally as good). For me personally I'd think that the overall economy probably comes in at about 4th in terms of most most powerful reasons for me wanting to stay. Ahead of it are:
1. Freedom of movement: I love the fact that I can go where I want when I want. I might not do that very much at the moment because I cannot afford to, but I hope to in the future. And it's not just the right to roam around a bit. The right to choose which of 28 different countries I live, work and own property in is a massive thing. And knowing that if I don't like it, I'm free to move back or elsewhere without hindrance. I will absolutely hate it if Brexit goes ahead and my dream to retire to sunnier climes is crushed.
2. Employment rights: Much of our protection at work comes directly from EU law. Frankly I do not trust those right wing politicians calling for Brexit, because they are precisely the sort of people who want to take workers rights away. I envisage that it wouldn't be long after Brexit that we saw longer hours, worse conditions and little concern for workers' welfare.
3. Consumer rights: I don't want to eat chlorinated chicken. I don't want to revert to exorbitant data roaming charges. I like the fact that all types of consumer goods have to meet strict standards and that the EU is not afraid to take on the big boys like Microsoft. Again, I fear that those peddling Brexit are those with a vested interest in curtailing our rights so that they and their ilk can make bigger profits at our expense.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the economy isn't important to me. It's just that the above feel more personal, whereas tanking the economy is something that would effect all.
I couldn't have put it better myself @Stig . For me this was always about more than the hit to the economy, although that alone should have be enough to knock the suggestion on the head.
Most people, even Remainers tbh, have no idea how beneficial our EU membership has been to us as consumers alone and how far the bar's been raised. All of that's up for grabs now and when you have the likes of Liam Fox having those discussions with the US government, or the Chinese or the Indians I have precisely zero confidence he will put our consumer rights and safety before his need to make himself and the Tories look good by signing any old deal and junking years worth of progress.
This is the way people like him think and its coming.
"...Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards..."
Does anyone on here want their childrens toys made to Indian safety standards? Do we really want to relax the laws on importing soft drinks from the States full of banned additives? Is that really what Leavers meant when they voted to take back control?
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
As you know, my suggested approach has never been to pick up the ball and walk away.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
You voted Leave...that is exactly what you instructed your Government to do.
Here we go again.
No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
As you know, my suggested approach has never been to pick up the ball and walk away.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
You voted Leave...that is exactly what you instructed your Government to do.
Here we go again.
No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
I've got to admit I thought exactly the same. In what way is voting for Brexit not about picking up the ball and walking away? I genuinely don't get it.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
As you know, my suggested approach has never been to pick up the ball and walk away.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
You voted Leave...that is exactly what you instructed your Government to do.
Here we go again.
No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
Bollocks.
You voted Leave. Leave means Leave. You cannot change a club by flouncing out and shouting through the window about how they should change things.
There's one thing I learnt really well at the ad agency that helped get us back to the Valley: if you think you put across a brilliant argument to your audience, only to find that your audience was mystified and rejected it, it is not the fault of the audience. It is your fault.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
As you know, my suggested approach has never been to pick up the ball and walk away.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
You voted Leave...that is exactly what you instructed your Government to do.
Here we go again.
No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
I've got to admit I thought exactly the same. In what way is voting for Brexit not about picking up the ball and walking away? I genuinely don't get it.
While I disagree with @stonemuse about voting to leave, and we have quibbled a fair amount on this thread and others about the details of both of our positions, I do think that that is being unfair to him to suggest that he simply instructed the Government to walk away from the EU. He has always taken a nuanced approach to Brexit and the UK's relationship with the EU, and has argued consistently against knee-jerk hard/clean/incredibly stupid Brexit ideas.
IMHO, other than in voting as he did in the referendum (but, then, I am biased), his only real mistake was to believe that the politicians that supposedly represent this country, and claim both the right and ability to govern, were capable of taking a grown-up and thoughtful approach to Brexit (or even had the faintest idea of a plan). And, in fairness, quite a few people would have argued before the referendum that David Davis was both a principled and thoughtful politician - he has incredibly successfully managed to disabuse the population of that notion since 2016. I'd hazard a guess that if Theresa May had begun her tenure by setting as her only red line the need to come up with a future relationship that sought to represent the whole country, not just the victorious voters, things might look different today, and there would be greater buy-in for a deal.
Mind you, I still think voting to leave was a wrong-headed decision (just as not bothering to vote at all in the referendum was).
You can try and paint the picture any way you like but leaving the EU was only ever going to be “no deal” or “worse deal”.
That is the simple unequivocal truth. Really everything else is just noise.
Regardless of what the brexiters on this thread say I don’t believe that the majority who voted leave realised that simple truth. No deal or worse deal makes us all poorer. Fact. If you actually did understand that simple truth and still voted leave then the insults about being stupid are fully justified.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
As you know, my suggested approach has never been to pick up the ball and walk away.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
You voted Leave...that is exactly what you instructed your Government to do.
Here we go again.
No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
I've got to admit I thought exactly the same. In what way is voting for Brexit not about picking up the ball and walking away? I genuinely don't get it.
While I disagree with @stonemuse about voting to leave, and we have quibbled a fair amount on this thread and others about the details of both of our positions, I do think that that is being unfair to him to suggest that he simply instructed the Government to walk away from the EU. He has always taken a nuanced approach to Brexit and the UK's relationship with the EU, and has argued consistently against knee-jerk hard/clean/incredibly stupid Brexit ideas.
IMHO, other than in voting as he did in the referendum (but, then, I am biased), his only real mistake was to believe that the politicians that supposedly represent this country, and claim both the right and ability to govern, were capable of taking a grown-up and thoughtful approach to Brexit (or even had the faintest idea of a plan). And, in fairness, quite a few people would have argued before the referendum that David Davis was both a principled and thoughtful politician - he has incredibly successfully managed to disabuse the population of that notion since 2016. I'd hazard a guess that if Theresa May had begun her tenure by setting as her only red line the need to come up with a future relationship that sought to represent the whole country, not just the victorious voters, things might look different today, and there would be greater buy-in for a deal.
Mind you, I still think voting to leave was a wrong-headed decision (just as not bothering to vote at all in the referendum was).
I agree with a lot of that but it was a binary choice.
There was no option on the ballot requesting the government go back to the EU and try to implement a multispeed organisation based on concentric circles, which I believe is @stonemuse preferred option. The obvious choice for someone wanting that was Remain and renegotiation but, and I'm paraphrasing, some Leavers, and my interpretation is Stoney is one of them but there are others, thought our hand would be stronger with a Leave vote in our back pocket.
The fact of the matter is we never even tried that tactic and the advisory vote went straight to the policy we see now.
That is a typically thoughtful and generous post. It is certainly true that @stonemuse is one of the more thoughtful pro-Brexit posters on here, and as such deserves thoughtful responses.
However, sometimes I have tried to explore whether he and I are getting closer to a consensus, and have always come away disappointed because he has never swayed from his his view that he was right to vote Brexit. Its all very well for someone to say "well I might have voted remain if only the EU would reform itself" followed by the individual's theory about the nature of that reform. In his case it's the concentric circles theory. But the trouble is that it is presented in the typical old British way that has given us a bad reputation abroad for centuries. "This is how you should do it, why do you stupid foreigners not see that?". That leads to the victim story, " the EU is trying to punish us"," the EU wants to become a federal superstate". From the continent these noises from the island are simply perplexing. It's a club of 27 different opinions. On the concentric circles theory, I used to think it might be the way to go, however I discovered that in the country I call home, which from the UK might be seen as welcoming it, they have a visceral aversion to it. They see it as a sign that they and other newer members are seen as second-class by the original members. To some extent it's over-sensitive but the only way to address it is through dialogue and the willingness to understand where the other side is coming from - including the history that brought that side to the current position. Those intelligent but obdurate Brits who still stick to their Brexit choice in the face of mounting evidence of its absurdity, seem unable to see Brexit from the other side of the channel. That itself is tragic because there are many countries, especially in the North who are led by politicians who have clear proposals for reform, but respect that they need to build support across the E27, because that's how it works, and how it should work. You can, if you listen, hear them saying in Polite language, but with unmistakeable meaning how sad they are that the U.K. chose instead to pick up its ball and walk away.
Comments
If you think not being in the EU is better for the UK politically, financially and in terms of prestige and influence, that's weird. I don't.
Fintan O'Toole has another comment piece out today, timed to coincide with his book, of which today's piece is an extract (some writing in response seem to feel that he shouldn't be allowed do such a thing, but if that was the case we should do away with things like syndication too).
As ever, it's well-written and scathing, I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to sado-populism (a notion which does seem to make sense of people seemingly voting against what one would imagine would be their interests in elections across the World).
In other news, preparations for a failure to get Parliamentary approval of the Agreement have been ramped up, and the possibility of the PM not achieving her aim seems high, leading to dangerous levels of uncertainty. Pat Leahy's article is interesting, in part, because it refers to the Statute of Westminster, a decision in which, yet again, Ireland loomed large and where the UK's influence in international politics was diminished (albeit slightly, with powers being lost by Westminster to the likes of Canada, IFS et al).
Fair enough, they weren't that interesting.
China is an increasingly successful economy. The people who run it have a lot in common with the EU bureaucracy. They too are narrow technical managerialists who say the economy is more important than democracy.
I do not share that view and neither do many other Brexit voters. Democracy is the only way that most people have any control at all over economic policies, through their ability to vote for Governments to do their will.
Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route.
And another made up tabloid stylee statement: "Apparently there are Remainers who would rather go down the Chinese route."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/07/britains-brexit-trade-deal-beijing-put-risk-south-china-sea/
The European Union has been responsible for a wide range of social and cultural initiatives that have, I would contend, improved our lives. Those who have voted to withdraw from the EU, particularly those outside the Leave side's metropolitan elite, have voted for a new dispensation under which their rights and protections may well be curtailed by neo-liberal policies favoured by many leading Brexiters.
Contrary to your assertion about the good fortune that we have in the UK's political system, in both General Elections (and by-elections) the majority of UK constituencies are not genuinely up for grabs; in effect, a relatively small minority of constituencies determine who will be the Party of Government - so that the political stake that each voter has in the UK system is neither certain nor uniform.
Frankly, your comparison with China demonstrates a lack of understanding of bureaucrats/bureaucracy, of the EU, and probably China as well. All bureaucrats are, by definition, "technical managerialists", because that's what civil servants do, they manage the technical detail of what the elected politicians require (in the EU case both within the Council of Ministers, who determine policy direction on behalf of the EU, and the EU Parliament - all of whom are elected by citizens of the member states to do their will).
And, for what it is worth, the EU Commission regularly treats non-economic issues as being of the greatest importance - if I might direct you to the Commission's efforts, which so irritate (in my view) extreme right wing politicians in countries like Hungary, Poland, Italy, etc., it is the policies that relate to refugees, the independence of the judiciary and wider support for democratic checks and balances, not the economy, that are most central to the disputes.
I understand that you have an emotional attachment to your view of Brexit, but a critique of the EU institutions or its ethos might be slightly more convincing if it was based on more than mere soundbites.
1. Freedom of movement: I love the fact that I can go where I want when I want. I might not do that very much at the moment because I cannot afford to, but I hope to in the future. And it's not just the right to roam around a bit. The right to choose which of 28 different countries I live, work and own property in is a massive thing. And knowing that if I don't like it, I'm free to move back or elsewhere without hindrance. I will absolutely hate it if Brexit goes ahead and my dream to retire to sunnier climes is crushed.
2. Employment rights: Much of our protection at work comes directly from EU law. Frankly I do not trust those right wing politicians calling for Brexit, because they are precisely the sort of people who want to take workers rights away. I envisage that it wouldn't be long after Brexit that we saw longer hours, worse conditions and little concern for workers' welfare.
3. Consumer rights: I don't want to eat chlorinated chicken. I don't want to revert to exorbitant data roaming charges. I like the fact that all types of consumer goods have to meet strict standards and that the EU is not afraid to take on the big boys like Microsoft. Again, I fear that those peddling Brexit are those with a vested interest in curtailing our rights so that they and their ilk can make bigger profits at our expense.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the economy isn't important to me. It's just that the above feel more personal, whereas tanking the economy is something that would effect all.
It's only now that we have the WA on the table that people can see that we are at a decision point regarding freedom of movement, consumer rights, workers and the environment. Some might want to "take back control" but let us put the WA to the House, and then the people if that's the path chosen by MPs.
The EU is a collection of countries working together across economic and legal spheres, where each country remains fully sovereign, and 99% of the citizens living in the EU will never have any meaningful interaction with the EU-level authorities as all of their interactions will be at most at a national level.
I am a Remain voter, I have a far better understanding of our relationship with the EU than you will ever have and I can say without a doubt my democratic rights are in no way lessened by our EU membership.
Plus my comment was tongue in cheek as I know Chizz had read my views as he had previously responded to them.
The economic aspect of leaving seems suicidal and the logistical part will be painfully complicated to unravel, costing billions to organise, leaving the only thing for Leavers to focus on being this vague concept of sovereignty which is not going to make the slightest difference in their day to day life.
They seem to be like one of those self titled trade organisations, to allow businesses to put stickers on their vans, and a logo on their notepaper.
The IEA are political commentators (oh yeah) who probably only get any exposure because of which media person any of them went to university with. The have absolutely no substance at all, yet get recognition because they have a fancy name.
I have to reveal to you all that I am now head of the Lee Analysts of UK and World Events. I expect the media to be falling over themselves to hear what I have to say now I've let that particular cat out of the bag.
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/12/01/institute-of-economic-affairs-charity-commission-brexit/
Most people, even Remainers tbh, have no idea how beneficial our EU membership has been to us as consumers alone and how far the bar's been raised. All of that's up for grabs now and when you have the likes of Liam Fox having those discussions with the US government, or the Chinese or the Indians I have precisely zero confidence he will put our consumer rights and safety before his need to make himself and the Tories look good by signing any old deal and junking years worth of progress.
This is the way people like him think and its coming.
"...Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards..."
https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-standards-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html
Does anyone on here want their childrens toys made to Indian safety standards? Do we really want to relax the laws on importing soft drinks from the States full of banned additives? Is that really what Leavers meant when they voted to take back control?
No point in debating on here really. In the end, no one listens.
You voted Leave. Leave means Leave. You cannot change a club by flouncing out and shouting through the window about how they should change things.
There's one thing I learnt really well at the ad agency that helped get us back to the Valley: if you think you put across a brilliant argument to your audience, only to find that your audience was mystified and rejected it, it is not the fault of the audience. It is your fault.
IMHO, other than in voting as he did in the referendum (but, then, I am biased), his only real mistake was to believe that the politicians that supposedly represent this country, and claim both the right and ability to govern, were capable of taking a grown-up and thoughtful approach to Brexit (or even had the faintest idea of a plan). And, in fairness, quite a few people would have argued before the referendum that David Davis was both a principled and thoughtful politician - he has incredibly successfully managed to disabuse the population of that notion since 2016. I'd hazard a guess that if Theresa May had begun her tenure by setting as her only red line the need to come up with a future relationship that sought to represent the whole country, not just the victorious voters, things might look different today, and there would be greater buy-in for a deal.
Mind you, I still think voting to leave was a wrong-headed decision (just as not bothering to vote at all in the referendum was).
That is the simple unequivocal truth. Really everything else is just noise.
Regardless of what the brexiters on this thread say I don’t believe that the majority who voted leave realised that simple truth. No deal or worse deal makes us all poorer. Fact. If you actually did understand that simple truth and still voted leave then the insults about being stupid are fully justified.
There was no option on the ballot requesting the government go back to the EU and try to implement a multispeed organisation based on concentric circles, which I believe is @stonemuse preferred option. The obvious choice for someone wanting that was Remain and renegotiation but, and I'm paraphrasing, some Leavers, and my interpretation is Stoney is one of them but there are others, thought our hand would be stronger with a Leave vote in our back pocket.
The fact of the matter is we never even tried that tactic and the advisory vote went straight to the policy we see now.
That is a typically thoughtful and generous post. It is certainly true that @stonemuse is one of the more thoughtful pro-Brexit posters on here, and as such deserves thoughtful responses.
However, sometimes I have tried to explore whether he and I are getting closer to a consensus, and have always come away disappointed because he has never swayed from his his view that he was right to vote Brexit. Its all very well for someone to say "well I might have voted remain if only the EU would reform itself" followed by the individual's theory about the nature of that reform. In his case it's the concentric circles theory. But the trouble is that it is presented in the typical old British way that has given us a bad reputation abroad for centuries. "This is how you should do it, why do you stupid foreigners not see that?". That leads to the victim story, " the EU is trying to punish us"," the EU wants to become a federal superstate". From the continent these noises from the island are simply perplexing. It's a club of 27 different opinions. On the concentric circles theory, I used to think it might be the way to go, however I discovered that in the country I call home, which from the UK might be seen as welcoming it, they have a visceral aversion to it. They see it as a sign that they and other newer members are seen as second-class by the original members. To some extent it's over-sensitive but the only way to address it is through dialogue and the willingness to understand where the other side is coming from - including the history that brought that side to the current position. Those intelligent but obdurate Brits who still stick to their Brexit choice in the face of mounting evidence of its absurdity, seem unable to see Brexit from the other side of the channel. That itself is tragic because there are many countries, especially in the North who are led by politicians who have clear proposals for reform, but respect that they need to build support across the E27, because that's how it works, and how it should work. You can, if you listen, hear them saying in Polite language, but with unmistakeable meaning how sad they are that the U.K. chose instead to pick up its ball and walk away.