Sal Paradise wrote:I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers.
This paranoia that we are being ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels would be laughable if the right hadn't turned it into a touchstone that has led to our current mess. Can you give us some examples of how "EU dictats" have affected your life? Please be extra careful to not confuse these "dictats" with UK law like Boris Johnson and so many Daily Mail headlines do.
Sal Paradise wrote:what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being?
If cost is the crux of your argument then it's a poor one - the cost of the EU is massively outweighed by the benefits it brings. Our contribution to the administration of the EU represents less than 0.1% of our GDP, a vanishingly tiny number.
Sal Paradise wrote:Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?
Again, you are tragically misinformed so I'm going to ask for examples please.
The most important parts of trade are distance and cost and the two are, unsurprisingly, linked. To support your apparent argument can you give us details of the "host" of countries which trade with the EU on WTO terms? And which of them are geographically close such that the EU is by default the primary export market? I can help out - your second list will be about as long as the list of Warrington Grand Final victories.
"Brian McDermott, with a wry smile, nods when asked if he remembers a specific incident which made him realise he was a prick. 'I do', he murmurs."
The Ghost of '99 wrote:This paranoia that we are being ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels would be laughable if the right hadn't turned it into a touchstone that has led to our current mess. Can you give us some examples of how "EU dictats" have affected your life? Please be extra careful to not confuse these "dictats" with UK law like Boris Johnson and so many Daily Mail headlines do.
If cost is the crux of your argument then it's a poor one - the cost of the EU is massively outweighed by the benefits it brings. Our contribution to the administration of the EU represents less than 0.1% of our GDP, a vanishingly tiny number.
Again, you are tragically misinformed so I'm going to ask for examples please.
The most important parts of trade are distance and cost and the two are, unsurprisingly, linked. To support your apparent argument can you give us details of the "host" of countries which trade with the EU on WTO terms? And which of them are geographically close such that the EU is by default the primary export market? I can help out - your second list will be about as long as the list of Warrington Grand Final victories.
Well said sir. Our friends on the "leave£ side of the argument are still, after 3+ years, hoping for a better future but, just like the solution to the Irish backstop, all they have is some thing scribbled on the back of a fag packet and the "dream" of a trade deal with Donald
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12646 Location: Leicestershire.
Sal Paradise wrote:I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers.
How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going?
I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so.
Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?
That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year. Now, i’m not down playing down a price of more than £500 per year for a mean average family of four. Especially as it is to be a member of a club most of them don’t like. But it is estimated to be more than offset in trade cost with the EU alone, by about £12.9 billion (£4 billion net) just on tariff changes, before considering logistical disruptions and the preferential deals we have elsewhere in the world through the EU that we haven’t managed to rollover yet.
Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.
It’s a cost-benefit thing, and it depends on how we each value the different costs and benefits. I’m not massively enthused by the EU, but it is not something that massively exercises me either - I just enjoy a good argument, as much as anything. Once we get into no-deal, disorderly exit territory though, for me it isn’t even close, and ‘not quite Armegeddon’ isn’t consoling me much.
Sal Paradise wrote:I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers.
How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going?
I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so.
Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?
That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year. Now, i’m not down playing down a price of more than £500 per year for a mean average family of four. Especially as it is to be a member of a club most of them don’t like. But it is estimated to be more than offset in trade cost with the EU alone, by about £12.9 billion (£4 billion net) just on tariff changes, before considering logistical disruptions and the preferential deals we have elsewhere in the world through the EU that we haven’t managed to rollover yet.
Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.
It’s a cost-benefit thing, and it depends on how we each value the different costs and benefits. I’m not massively enthused by the EU, but it is not something that massively exercises me either - I just enjoy a good argument, as much as anything. Once we get into no-deal, disorderly exit territory though, for me it isn’t even close, and ‘not quite Armegeddon’ isn’t consoling me much.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year.
Before someone tries to distract with the difference between MR's 0.4% and my "less than 0.1%" of GDP, I was quoting the administrative cost of the EU, not net contributions (admin cost is about 7% of the EU budget so it ends up a lot less than 0.1% on this metric).
Mild Rover wrote:Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.
The great tragedy is that those with most to lose are most likely to suffer. We will battle through, no one said we wouldn't. But why should we, all to fix an ideological split in the Conservative party.
We'll be a little bit poorer, a little bit sadder, a little bit less trusting and with our bonds of affection stretched. We'll end up (already are) embittered, divided by geography and by class and by generation.
The only thing certain is that history will not be kind to the people who brought this division and destruction on our country.
That’s about 0.4% of UK GDP, if my maths is right. Or about £132 per uk citizen, per year.
Before someone tries to distract with the difference between MR's 0.4% and my "less than 0.1%" of GDP, I was quoting the administrative cost of the EU, not net contributions (admin cost is about 7% of the EU budget so it ends up a lot less than 0.1% on this metric).
Mild Rover wrote:Is it going to be economic Armageddon? Nope. Will we survive? Nearly everyone who would have done anyway, still will hopefully. But that seems to be setting the bar low to manufacture a win.
The great tragedy is that those with most to lose are most likely to suffer. We will battle through, no one said we wouldn't. But why should we, all to fix an ideological split in the Conservative party.
We'll be a little bit poorer, a little bit sadder, a little bit less trusting and with our bonds of affection stretched. We'll end up (already are) embittered, divided by geography and by class and by generation.
The only thing certain is that history will not be kind to the people who brought this division and destruction on our country.
"Brian McDermott, with a wry smile, nods when asked if he remembers a specific incident which made him realise he was a prick. 'I do', he murmurs."
The Ghost of '99 wrote: The only thing certain is that history will not be kind to the people who brought this division and destruction on our country.
Indeed, the MP's on all sides who ignored a DEMOCRATIC VOTE and the EU politicians that desparately want our money in their trough.
IR80 wrote:Indeed, the MP's on all sides who ignored a DEMOCRATIC VOTE and the EU politicians that desparately want our money in their trough.
It hasn't been ignored though, has it. They are working their way through, in the hope that a decent solution can be found.
Unfortunately, the whole Brexit issue isn't/wasn't quite as simple as certain politicians told us that it would be to gain a "free trade" deal and then take the advantages of being able to negotiate our own deals with the rest of the world. The whole issue has been driven by idealism on the right of the political spectrum, with some stalling techniques being used by some Tory members to fill their pockets with "anti Brexit gambling". I dont actually think that you can blame the EU negotiators, who gave Mrs May an offer of a deal that she was happy with.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12646 Location: Leicestershire.
To try to be fair to everybody, when you look at the motivations of all the key players, few of them have have behaved terribly.
Cameron was under enormous pressure to have a referendum to put the issue to bed for the sake of Conservative unity, and see off the threat to them of UKIP. He fought ineffectively for Remain, because he wanted his party to stay united after he’d won and didn’t want to upset MPs he’d still need to rely on.
Johnson just really, really, really want to be PM one day and would do anything to try to make that happen. He has to bear responsibility for his actions, but blaming him for putting his ambition first is like blaming a tiger for not being vegan.
Corbyn - he’s ambivalent about the EU at best, and why should he have expended political capital on a mess of the Tories making?
May, she could have tried to take a cross party approach, but she wanted to hold her own together and asking her to work hand in glove with Red Jez would have been a huge ask of both of them, and i’m pretty confident it wouldn’t have worked.
Our democratically elected parliamentarians can’t form a majority for any single course of action, but that reflects the will of the people pretty well. Most people voted Leave, but most people are against leaving without a deal and most people don’t like the deal on the table or any other realistic deal. Which is their right, but it demonstrates a limitation of claiming a democratic mandate for a course of action that needs external agreement. My wife and I could unanimously agree we want a new Ferrari for the price of a Ford but expecting it to happen would be daft.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
wrencat1873 wrote:It hasn't been ignored though, has it. They are working their way through, in the hope that a decent solution can be found.
You are, of course, having a giggle.
Aren't you?
The only "solution" most of those on the opposite benches want is to revoke Article 50, or at best, a second referendum, and to remove the government. Almost without exception, they've lied and lied that they will "honour and respect" the result of the referendum.
At the same time they inflict defeat after defeat in the Commons to damage the government. Can't blame them for that, but there are bigger things at play - such as honouring the referendum, which they all promised to respect. There's a word for behaviour like that.
Labour have simply monitored the polls and public opinion and changed their policy with 2 goals: 1 - damage the government, and 2 - get a shot at No.10 (until the last few weeks, of course).
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
The Ghost of '99 wrote:Honestly, you Brexiteers never cease to amaze. You think you're being insulted because you read some propaganda in the hard right press and decide it's worth destroying our economy for. What a total and utter snowflake.
Oh look, the remainer conflates a leaver with the hard right. Wrong. I don't, and never have, read 'hard right press'. I form my own judgements. I listen to the words of the EU leaders and read their social media posts. Even in the Paxman documentary I mentioned earlier, one of the EU execs speaks of the UK as the naughty member of the family who should be taught a lesson.
Snowflake? Pal, you're seriously on the wrong track there. But don't melt about it.
Quote:They'll probably continue to tweak rules so that trade becomes even more barrier free, continue to do trade deals with other large blocs. But here's the problem with conspiracy-ridden Brexiteers: you just paranoidly assume this monolithic monster is out to destroy Britondom on some pre-determined plan. You just can't see that the EU is a collection of member states behind which sit the governments and behind which sit the people. Everything depends on how politics moves.
Over the past 20 years, pushed ironically enough by Britain, the EU has become rather right wing in lots of ways with the application of British-style free markets into lots of areas which probably aren't appropriate. Hence for example other countries have split up their railways into track owning and operational entities, just like us, because it lets companies from across Europe to be able to freely bid on operations.
But there's now a general move to the left in politics amongst younger people so the EU will probably reflect that a bit more. It won't change the fundamentals, which are a trading bloc where goods can move quickly and easily for mutual benefit to all members, because, you know, that's a foundation stone upon which our and their prosperity is built and it would be insane to fundamentally tamper with, or leave, it. But it may instead focus on, for example, more help for the poorest areas or encouraging greater collaboration on climate change etc. But forgive me if I guess what your views on the last two topics are.
Again, you're wrong. I don't view the EU as a monster, nor - from your previous posts - am I scared of them. Quite simply, I don't agree with them or the direction in which they are inevitably heading, which is a gradual weakening of the nation state and increasingly centralised power.
As a trading bloc - wonderful concept, all for it. But as you claim to be an expert on the EU, please explain why a trading bloc requires ever encroaching closer political union, and why membership of this trading bloc is dependant on accepting ideological core values? Why should membership of a trading bloc necessitate accepting freedom of movement, for example. Where else in the world is this necessary?
Go on, guess my views on helping the poor and climate change. I bet you get it wrong.
But on another point I agree with you. The fundamental values of the EU will not change. Hence I want to leave.
Cronus wrote:Oh look, the remainer conflates a leaver with the hard right. Wrong. I don't, and never have, read 'hard right press'. I form my own judgements. I listen to the words of the EU leaders and read their social media posts. Even in the Paxman documentary I mentioned earlier, one of the EU execs speaks of the UK as the naughty member of the family who should be taught a lesson.
Snowflake? Pal, you're seriously on the wrong track there. But don't melt about it.
Again, you're wrong. I don't view the EU as a monster, nor - from your previous posts - am I scared of them. Quite simply, I don't agree with them or the direction in which they are inevitably heading, which is a gradual weakening of the nation state and increasingly centralised power.
As a trading bloc - wonderful concept, all for it. But as you claim to be an expert on the EU, please explain why a trading bloc requires ever encroaching closer political union, and why membership of this trading bloc is dependant on accepting ideological core values? Why should membership of a trading bloc necessitate accepting freedom of movement, for example. Where else in the world is this necessary?
Go on, guess my views on helping the poor and climate change. I bet you get it wrong.
But on another point I agree with you. The fundamental values of the EU will not change. Hence I want to leave.
You have to start from the base understanding that Mr Whippy doesn't like anyone who disagrees, he lurves the EU and anyone who doesn't is a jack boot wearing skin headed racist with Mam 'n' Dad tattooed on their neck, love and hate on their knuckles (such as you can see from them being bruised and cut from dragging along the ground) and is incapable of forming their own opinion and simply follows any media that has the temerity to not suck up to liberal left leaning opinion.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
You are, of course, having a giggle.
