BREXIT and others

Sure enough, it isn’t race exactly. It’s nationality. Ultimately, it’s the same thing, though, isn’t it?

No, it is something completely different. But it seems to get confused quite regularly, which explains a lot about the lack of quality in many discussions.

But it seems to get confused quite regularly,

Is it a surprise?

Let’s express it as follows: Discrimination because <person> is not “one of us”.

As such, race and nationality are practically identical. Unwelcome.

I say the UK is a net contributor, and you reply with ‘bollocks’? Not sure what I can add to that. For what it’s worth, I would rather the government spent less (thus took less) so wouldn’t automatically wish to see all existing EU funded shenanigans continue. But the people who reside here, and that includes those in authority, can decide themselves.

I cannot take seriously any pro-EU (most of them) quangos. If these bodies genuinely believe their own PR piffle, then they private individuals and pension firms would be throwing cash at them. But it is all lies. These ‘investments’ are nothing of the sort.

Locally we have a huge quango that continually repeats the mantra that it is responsible for billions of pounds of wealth and thousands of jobs. It is nonsense. Look into their auditing – it doesn’t stand up. At least when this sort of nonsense is performed by charities or lottery funding parasites I can choose to not fund it (but this is tax).

And the supreme authority is not nonsense. The UK is bound to comply with EU and ECJ legislation, and the creators of that legislation are based outside of the UK, with no UK voter able to vote them out.

Net contributor, I don’t have a problem with.
I said bollocks to this:

so could have done it all ourselves, with cash left over

We all know the government won’t distribute the money in any sane manner, and will pretty much ignore rural areas completely. There’s a fine history of that.
Cash left over? You’ll find creative accounting helps the cash disappear. You know, the same rubbish that puts pensioners and public service employees on pay freezes while at the same time there’s enough to boost MPs basic pay.

It is nonsense. Look into their auditing – it doesn’t stand up.

While some such reports may be exaggerated (everybody has an agenda), the basic premise is quitting the EU will cost jobs. Things are uncertain right now as article 50 hasn’t been signed and the government is still coming up with rubbish and idiotic mantras, though even the Daily Mail has noticed how the Home Office is going after long-time non-native residents (though, being the Mail they think this is a good thing).
Unless, of course, you can indicate a credible source that states that things will be better outside the EU? Do you remember everybody anticipating the government’s meetings with the Aussies, Indians, Trump, all the Commonwealth fanfare? Where is it now? Oh, wait, that didn’t quite go as planned, did it?

The UK is bound to comply with EU and ECJ legislation,

The UK is also a fundamental part of the legislation making process. Fair enough, you might think it best to elect halfwits like Farage who actually has a rather poor record of attendance in the “boring stuff”, but that’s not the EUs fault.
I mean, you do know what MEPs are for, right?

and the creators of that legislation are based outside of the UK, with no UK voter able to vote them out.

The creators are not the implementers. You can vote out Juncker about as readily as you can vote out the many unnamed Whitehall civil servants. The people who actually pass the legislation are the elected MEPs, representatives from each country. Last year, as an EU resident in France, I was able to vote for who should represent France in the EU.

You realise, I hope, that after leaving the EU, you’ll still need to comply with all relevant directives for maintaining trade with the bloc, only this time you really won’t have any say in said directives and if such were considered detrimental (maybe “it’s forbidden to mark Imperial measurements on food products”), too bad. Use metric or stop trading will be your options.

I say the UK is a net contributor, and you reply with ‘bollocks’? Not sure what I can add to that.

Well I’d say you could have spent more effort on a reply to the content rather than an exclusive concentration on an expression of annoyance. It was UK derived business figures Rick quoted and you chose to ignore because:

1. He used a naughty word and you seized upon it
2. Those not european figures do rather more than shoot a hole or two in the leave argument.

What Rick presented was a loose cost-benefit-analysis. That’s money in for benefit out and it would appear that a recognised economic body in the UK see a positive financial aspect to EU membership that is a significant number more (I tend to use the word significant when the decimal point has shifted)

You’ll find creative accounting helps the cash disappear.

Hmmm, yes indeed, where has that extra cash for the NHS gone? Oh, vapourised the moment anyone tried to look for it.

You know, the same rubbish that puts pensioners and public service employees on pay freezes while at the same time there’s enough to boost MPs basic pay.

I need to declare an interest, I’m on that big payroll that the Tories keep seeking to reduce – mostly to put the cash into the pockets of their friends or themselves by “outsourcing” elements to companies that oh-so-coincidentally happen to owned by them.

The UK is also a fundamental part of the legislation making process.

In a similar vein, we’re also currently part of the process that defines the European Norms: the standards that BSI re-badge as BS EN … and sit behind the CE Mark. Things that I deal with on a daily basis.

Once we’re out, even if we retain access to the Single Market, we’ll have to design the products that we sell to standards that we have no say in the creation of if we wish to retain the level of exports that we currently enjoy. Plus whatever BSI decide to require for stuff sold in the UK post-Brexit, if we wish to sell at home.

Or we could go looking for other markets, as the Brexiteers suggest. However, that introduces a new set of standards approvals for each country, which are costly to apply for and costly to maintain year on year. They’re also tricky to design for and, as they’re all subtly different, that adds complexity to products.

Or we could just give up exporting stuff.

I say the UK is a net contributor, and you reply with ‘bollocks’? Not sure what I can add to that.

You could have read the rest of his post, where he explained.

You have to look at the benefits to the economy of companies locating here because we’re part of Europe, and then manufacturing goods here for sale across the Single Market. They employ people, and their exports contribute to the country’s GDP.

Examples include the car manufacturers, including the likes of Nissan, Toyota, BMW Mini and Vauxhall. Nissan are already making noises, and the others are likely to follow: there’s no point making things here and then paying hefty export tariffs for most of the product when you can simply make it somewhere on mainland Europe. We won’t see those changes overnight: it will probably take place over five or so years, as plants and equipment are run down across the life cycles of the products they manufacture.

What about Airbus, and Rolls Royce Aero? Both have close ties to mainland operations, and both employ many people and export high-value goods.

What about the many smaller manufacturing operations which are effectively manufacturing sites for European firms? The industrial area I work in is littered with them. Or those who are the European manufacturing sites of non-EU multinationals? They’re all going to want to re-locate to where they pay import tariffs on the least volume of goods.

All of this contributes to our economy, and is an indirect benefit of us being part of the EU.

Ah, this will be the same EU that wants to create an “associate membership” to allow British citizens in the EU to continue being European, something that got shouted down by British MEPs claiming it was somehow “unfair” on British citizens in the UK?

Are you sure?

I thought that the idea being floated¹ was an “associate membership” which any Brit who had once been European (even if they had never left UK soil) could apply for on exit. They would then continue to hold the personal benefits of being European.

The Brexiteers were unhappy, because this would apparently have “conferred an unfair advantage on those who applied for and held this status, compared to other Brits”.

Just take a moment to marvel at that objection: it truly is a thing of beauty, and sums up everything that you need to know about the Brexit argument in one neat statement.

¹ I don’t think it had got to the stage of being called a “plan”.

A tree has fallen across our access road. Friendly farmer dealt with that but the phone line to the house is history.
Look at it like this – you’ll get some peace and quiet. :-P

So today is the big day.

And to be fair, almost the entirety of the forthcoming social and economic disaster is not down to us leaving the EU (which I think is a dumb idea) but down to the Government’s decision that a slim vote to leave the EU gives them a mandate to also leave the EEA. (Which had we never joined the EU and remained in the EFTA we would still be a part of, had everything else proceeded the same).

It will certainly be interesting to what happens when we take back control of our borders, because there is only one border we don’t have full control of, and exerting control is certain to cause Troubles.

I’m also guessing technical removal firms are going to be very busy.

Problem is, the big publicity drive behind “the democratic will of the people” (otherwise known as clever blame assignment) concentrated hard on immigration and all the money that could be tossed into the NHS.
Both of which would remain largely as they were as a part of EFTA.

That said, I have absolutely no idea where the hell that idiot in charge got the idea that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.

Soon you’re going to realise hard that Britain was important, once. Not so much these days. Your negotiating power? Well…

“no deal is better than a bad deal”

I think that is a negotiating stance which I can see some sense in and could be beneficial to the UK in the negotiations (or at least I hope so). It is also a sop to the Hard Brexiteers not the they deserve it.

I can only see one possible trade deal that isn’t continuing either our Single Market or Customs Union membership.

That would be paying a fee for Bank Passporting. I suspect the fee would be 40-50% of our current contribution (I base this on comparing the Swiss and Norway arrangements.)

Anything else would undercut existing members and destroy the EU/EEA.

I suspect the choices we will have are:

Soft Brexit (I’d be happy with that one)
Customs Union.
Bank Passporting
Customs Union & Bank Passporting.
WTO for everything.

They might allow a trivial bit of face saving in the way free movement works to allow a soft brexit,

Of course the ‘Will of the people’ is complete BS. With a 2% margin you can know nothing other than people voted to leave just the EU.

That would be paying a fee for Bank Passporting.

Good for the banks. For everything else? British people living abroad? Companies importing from the EU or exporting to the EU? Students (Erasmus)? Twin towns and exchange trips? Going on holiday to Spain without visas, passport control queues, and all the stuff applied to non-EU citizens? The ability to say “stuff this weather, I’m moving to Spain”?

Soft Brexit (I’d be happy with that one)

Define “soft Brexit”. The EU has been pretty clear that The Four Freedoms are the defining principle of what the entire thing is about, I can’t see them deciding “oh, well, we can forget about one or two”. It is the UK being rather unreasonable thinking that it can enter into this great trade arrangement where goods can flow but not people and, oh, by the way, it’ll cost nothing.

They might allow a trivial bit of face saving in the way free movement works to allow a soft brexit,

I think it’s been pretty clear and obvious and applied equally to all. Given that the British government also doesn’t want to pay, explain to me what benefit such a deal would bring to the EU? I believe self-harm is a Tory speciality…

Note also the comments recently made regarding Scotland. :-)

Of course the ‘Will of the people’ is complete BS.

Sadly the more times she says it, the more times the retards will assimilate it as truth. And yes, you’d call them retards too if you heard the shower of Sunderlonians that keep getting interviewed on the radio. Some are actually upset that it is only just happening, as if “we voted out, why aren’t we out yet”?
If I facepalmed every time I heard stuff like that, I’d be in hospital…

With a 2% margin you can know nothing other than people voted to leave just the EU.

Are we sure we even know that much? I’d say “a minor majority of active voters were deluded (tricked/hookwinked) into voting to leave the EU”. After all, remind me which Leave pledges have stood the test of time and which collapsed the day of the result announcement? As for the pledge by David Davis that no EU right, protection or advantage enjoyed by British citizens now will be diminished. As I look toward a soon-future as a non-EU citizen, how the hell does he think I will retain all of my current rights? As a government who wishes to withdraw from the ECHR (and pretty much anything else with “Europe” in the title), how does he think that will go without a severe diminishment of rights? EU citizens have a charter of “human rights”. Will these be retained? You and I know the answer. David Davis, clearly, doesn’t.

Define “soft Brexit”.

Either EEA membership, or EEA membership plus customs union membership. (I said what we’d be offered, not what we’d accept)

trivial bit of face saving

I mean a minor tweak to the way it works that doesn’t change much, but can be trumpeted by the UK as a huge victory. The 3 month rule, perhaps. Rather than chuck out or treat as your own, there is a set of criteria to treat as your own. (e.g. Only automatic if working for 6 months). Require ECHI or insurance for entry. No serious change to it, but easily put to the press EU backs down on health tourism and benefit scroungers.

“we voted out, why aren’t we out yet”?

I think the EU will be better off without England, to be honest. Especially if they enable the 48% to obtain lifetime visas to retain their rights.

With a 2% margin you can know nothing other than people voted to leave just the EU.

I think you may have missed my point. My point is pretty much what you say.

We know what people voted, but there is no way of knowing precisely why they voted.

Many voted leave as a protest vote.
Many voted based on lies.
Many voted based on a soft brexit.

The result is one of those perfect storm, type events.

Though, to be fair, were Scotland and NI to quit the UK, the remainder’s vote is much more arguably a valid mandate.

I’ve struggled to persuade myself that May, Davis and hangers-on are not quite so inept as they appear. If you are willing to accept this argument, their goal and the problems they face can be described as follows:

Goal: to maintaintain the unity of the Conservative party and see off the threat of the UKIPpers (this is actually why the referendum stratagem was used).
Secondary goal: to keep hold of power within the Conservative party. By implication, this means keeping power in the country, as there is no effective opposition.

Problems
1. Brexit makes no sense whatsoever to commerce and industry, diplomacy, scientific collaboration, internal and international security. In fact to nothing and nobody except a relatively small group of vociferous right-wing isolationists and the right-wing media.
2. To appease the hard right-wing Brexiters, and assuage those who voted Leave, Brexit must be seen to happen.
3. 1 and 2 are not compatible outcomes.
4. A more convoluted process is required. We’ve already seen quite a lot of this, for example the initial promise that immigration from the EU would be strictly controlled, that EU citizens living here might be deported – which now has morphed into a stance which will condone EU immigration in order to support agriculture, construction, the NHS, in fact anyone and everyone who wants it, as much as they want. But, Brexiters are assured, we will retain control of our borders (a much simpler matter, as we already do).
5. Some of the sharper right-wing elements are going to see 4 as backsliding. They will need someone to shoulder the blame. So this is the next problem: where to park the blame. This is much easier for May & Co to tackle, as they are used to doing it – have in fact done it all their political lives. May lined up scapegoats – Johnson, Davis and Fox – when she became PM. It was an automatic precaution. Those who supported May’s election have her in the frame for the same reason. She knows this, and it’s why things get very nasty at times.
6. Shutting up the hard right-wing. There are 3 approaches: persuade them that they are getting what they wanted (Brexit) – job done; blame them for anything that goes wrong – job done; smear them as eternal troublemakers to be shunned or ignored by the rest of the party – job done.

None of this is pretty. Alternatively you can believe that they’re all completely mad. That people should behave in the manner I’ve outlined may well be thought madness, but it has gone on happening down the centuries in much the same ways. Perhaps it’s a catching madness.

I think part of their approach is to try and make the EU stop acting reasonably. If they goad the EU into tit-for-tat then they can blame it all on them.

However if they continue to keep being reasonable and politely reject our unreasonable demands, this all falls apart.

Tactical voting for those who don’t want a hard brexit

In my opinion that Tactical voting site seems to be getting people to vote Lib Dem and Green which in my opinion is most likely to increase the chances of a Tory victory (or another Con Dem coalition which would be almost the same thing).

A Labour victory wouldn’t be so bad for Brexit, in comparison. JC certainly doesn’t want a “hard brexit” and he’s a good, reasonable, diplomat who can negotiate for a fair deal. Aside from that, JC can save the NHS, fix the overpriced trains and stop the stagnating wages, zero hours contracts and insane housing bubble. All those problems hurt the middle classes just as much as the working class in the long run.

Oh and I think the Tories are a disaster for internet security, privacy and free speech as well.

Gah, I can’t believe I got drawn into discussing politics. : (

Aside from that, JC can save the NHS, fix the overpriced trains and stop the stagnating wages, zero hours contracts and insane housing bubble.

….? If by JC you mean Jesus Christ, then perhaps. If the other JC wants to stop the country flushing itself into oblivion, then maybe not going the Brexit route would be a start.

I am more a natural Tory/Lib Dem by inclination (I actually finally joined a Party this year – Lib Dem). But the more I see of JC, the more impressed I am by him (and the reverse with TM). And the Tories seem to have hired the Chuckle Brothers to run their election campaign this year….

Of course the site will encourage green and lib dem votes in non marginals, because they have the brexit policies that the site advocates.

In a marginal they advocate tactically voting to replace eurosceptics (mostly tories, obviously).

The aim of the site is to get a non hard brexit supporting government, not a particular party.

I was impressed by its logic.

The aim of the site is to get a non hard brexit supporting government, not a particular party.

This is the problem that I have with the More United campaign. May has been seen to can voices of dissent, and we’ve also seen that the various MPs and Lords are more likely to vote against their personal opinion in order to [ keep their jobs | not get slandered in the Daily Mail (etc) | offend the radical minority who are very pro-brexit ] (delete as applicable)

Such is “democracy” in the UK.

This is one of the things I find interesting about (France’s) Macron. He wants to limit high level politicians to three terms maximum, to remove the problem of “entrenched politicians” who consider it a lifelong career and do things in favour of their future rather than the future of the country. It should also help to reduce corruption for much the same reason. I don’t know if it will come to pass (I can’t see hundreds of politicians voting themselves out of a job), but it’s a far cry from the recent Brexit bill in the Lords where “here are a load of amendments, but we won’t argue if you ignore them all as we don’t want to be disbanded”. May, accordingly, ignored it all, plus all the commentary and requests from Wales and Scotland…

Such is “democracy” in the UK.

If I could vote (but I cannot), I would be quite likely to vote Labour. Politically, I would identify as a LibDem, I think Corbyn is a dick, but voting Labour is the best option for displacing the Tories. Because whoever the people elect, whoever may or may not be pro-EU, if May is in power, she and her little fervent entourage are going to plough ahead with the insane idea of quitting one of the largest trading unions in the world…only to rejoin said union with lesser terms and access. Maybe. Because even worse than that, they’re back to the idea that no deal at all is better than a bad deal (who defines what is or is not a bad deal).

Mark my words – if May is negotiating Brexit, it will be what May thinks and what May wants. The entire rest of the government will be little more than inconvenient marrionettes.

Such is “democracy” in the UK.

He wants to limit high level politicians to three terms maximum, to remove the problem of “entrenched politicians” who consider it a lifelong career and do things in favour of their future rather than the future of the country.

That’s a noble intention, but I struggle to see why shorter terms don’t result in greater short-termism which seems to be a widespread problem. Surely selecting for policies that make voters (or, let’s be honest, the politicians themselves and corporate lobbyists and donors) happiest in the very short term over policies that benefit the nation (and the wider universe) in the much longer term is just as damaging. Lots of people have very short careers these days and I think if anything it can make them more self-serving, not less.

Politically, I would identify as a LibDem, I think Corbyn is a dick, but voting Labour is the best option for displacing the Tories.

I broadly agree with most of the things in your post, but why do you think he’s a dick, Rick? I’m just curious. In my opinion the title fits Blair and Brown but I’ve seen nothing yet myself of Corbyn that would warrant that description, for me.