[erm]

Because they aren't Tories.

Weak response and certainly no reason to vote to submit to continued membership.

I don't know where you live pete, but up here in Scotland there is a strong concern that British politics is dominated by southern England and therefore by the Conservative party.

The EU, with worker protections and other such rules, is then viewed as inhibiting the Conservatives from remaking the UK in their preferred image. Now, of course, we finder ourselves with no effective opposition and a Conservative government turning this fear into a reality.

In other words you're concerned by a remote government that doesn't represent you? Sounds familiar to me.

If the opposition is weak then who's going to fix that? The only people who can fix that are the people. Seems to be a lot of people looking beyond our shores to an institution that has it's own protection at heart, for a solution to problems entirely of our own making.

I didn't say it was my concern. Furthermore, it is weakness of our, UK, political and constitutional settlement which creates this problem.

[tomtom]

I think we have far more to gain through being a country open to trade with who we choose on terms we a free to negotiate than by not being. Likewise freedom of movement - better to be free to choose who to negotiate with and not be constrained to just a largely white European population to the detriment of someone better qualified from somewhere else in the world.

For your first point - we are super easy to trade with (at the moment) because we are part of the EU. If someone wants to trade something with us - its the same rules as for all the EU countries. Miles easier than having to go through UK's own bespoke paperwork/customs etc...

For your second point - why are we constrained to being a largely white European population? As a nation we can let in as many people from anywhere as we like! Its the government thats been imposing rules on non EU immigration not the EU!

Anyway we've argued all this in the past (except the second point which I'll put down to being a mistype/understanding) during the run up to the vote...

[petejh]

point 2. A net migration of a third of a million people per annum from the eu hardly leave much scope for anyone else.

point 1. The EU can't hope to best represent every one of it's members interests and circumstances regards trade. Yes it makes trade very easy, on its terms. I'm not against a European trade agreement . I am against a government - see NAFTA as an example of a free trade agreement set up without a central government or central currency. It doesn't have to be like the EU is.

[Fultonius]

Can you name any instances where you didn't like something the EU has done and would wish for them to be ousted?

And how about the irony of the fact we're now removing  ourselves from the EU but will most likely still need to abide by rules that we will have no influence over to keep trading?

How bad will the plan need to look before you start to feel that a maybe it's just a very shit deal where we will lose far far more than we could "gain"  (the reason I put gain in inverted commas is that I don't believe there is much to be gained anyway,  but I think we can agree to disagree on that)

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

That's hardly a worthwhile point is it? You may as well accept governance by a bloke on a laptop in Nigeria if the only requirement is it doesn't do anything you don't like.

I think we have far more to gain through being a country open to trade with who we choose on terms we a free to negotiate than by not being. Likewise freedom of movement - better to be free to choose who to negotiate with and not be constrained to just a largely white European population to the detriment of someone better qualified from somewhere else in the world.

Any chance you could link to those articles then? Assuming you don't wholeheartedly agree with everything the Spectator publishes on the subject...

JB - if any one article best articulates my own feelings about the EU then it's this one: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/out-and-into-the-world-why-the-spectator-is-for-leave/

I think that the common market is a great idea in theory. But not central european governance and ever closer union.

It's a very worthwhile point IMO. Why? Well,  if,  on the whole,  the EU provides benefits and one of your main motivations for ditching it is "because it's easier to get rid of those in power in Westminster than Brussels" but you can't name an instance when you would have *used* that ability... Then...Well... It's lot of upheaval for precisely nada!

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

[jfdm]

But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted',  in any way a better situation than a government that can be?

That's the thing though Pete, Britshitters just walk away from problems.
The whole issue is a catalogue of failures.
It's not remote EU government we have been let down by governments here.
Government hasn't been proactive enough in helping people here and used EU, Jonny foreigner as a scape goats, easy to do.

If there are issues with EU policies shouldn't various governments here battled a bit harder on our behalf and you know actually tried to influence things? That's the grown up thing to do. Give and take. Shock horror compromise.

I still don't get the goons in the Tory party saying they are carrying out the will of the people.

Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things. For something of this magnitude I want 100% of the country to vote, the same in elections etc.

The official opposition supports the gov.
It's not democracy it's tyranny.
It's happening here not in the EU.

Pete keep defending the indefensible.

[petejh]

But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted',  in any way a better situation than a government that can be?

That's the thing though Pete, Britshitters just walk away from problems.
The whole issue is a catalogue of failures.
It's not remote EU government we have been let down by governments here.
Government hasn't been proactive enough in helping people here and used EU, Jonny foreigner as a scape goats, easy to do.

If there are issues with EU policies shouldn't various governments here battled a bit harder on our behalf and you know actually tried to influence things? That's the grown up thing to do. Give and take. Shock horror compromise.

I still don't get the goons in the Tory party saying they are carrying out the will of the people.

Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things. For something of this magnitude I want 100% of the country to vote, the same in elections etc.

The official opposition supports the gov.
It's not democracy it's tyranny.
It's happening here not in the EU.

Pete keep defending the indefensible.

jfdm I stopped reading your post at 'britshitters walk away from problems'. No idea what the rest of your post says. If you want to make points that anyone else can be bothered to listen to then make them civil and avoid ridiculous mass generalistion/sweeping stereotypes.

[Oldmanmatt]

Nothing new.

Ain't happened yet.

If the bugger existed, God might have a clue what the outcome will be. Other than omnipotent imaginary super-beings, no one really knows.

The balance of prediction seems to be in the negative, much of the "positive" seems neutral at best. I'd love to be convinced of the merits, and shall joyfully buy Pete et al, a pint or six if they're right.

And quoting the Spectator is as valid/biased/pointless as me quoting the New Statesman (I know, I do often, doesn't mean I don't realise).

Me:
I find it hard to see much benefit.
I find it hard to imagine us re-shaping our economy to suit.
If (IF) the financial service industry largely deserts us for the mainland, we might be screwed.
I am completely unconvinced by the unelected/big brother/remote argument (read so much now, I realise it's far more about us failing to engage).

I really hope I'm wrong. Let's face it, we better all hope that each and every remainer is wrong, 'cos it ain't gonna change now.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[jfdm]

But infinitely harder still to oust 'Brussels'. Why is this remote governance, which can't be 'ousted',  in any way a better situation than a government that can be?

That's the thing though Pete, Britshitters just walk away from problems.
The whole issue is a catalogue of failures.
It's not remote EU government we have been let down by governments here.
Government hasn't been proactive enough in helping people here and used EU, Jonny foreigner as a scape goats, easy to do.

If there are issues with EU policies shouldn't various governments here battled a bit harder on our behalf and you know actually tried to influence things? That's the grown up thing to do. Give and take. Shock horror compromise.

I still don't get the goons in the Tory party saying they are carrying out the will of the people.

Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things. For something of this magnitude I want 100% of the country to vote, the same in elections etc.

The official opposition supports the gov.
It's not democracy it's tyranny.
It's happening here not in the EU.

Pete keep defending the indefensible.

jfdm I stopped reading your post at 'britshitters walk away from problems'. No idea what the rest of your post says. If you want to make points that anyone else can be bothered to listen to then make them civil and avoid ridiculous mass generalistion/sweeping stereotypes.

Touchy, must of hit a raw nerve.
I voted remain and now classed as a remoaner.
I just ran with that and call a brexiter Britshitter.
Shame that you didn't read the post fully but thanks for reposting it anyway.
I enjoy read your musings about the great Brexit utopia we are going to live in.
Keep defending the indefensible.

[petejh]

I didn't. It isn't worth reading anyone who characterises others in such a closed-minded way, whatever side of the vote they were on.

No-one least of all me believes in a utopia after brexit, nor after a remain vote had there been one. It's easier for you to attack my point of view (and easier to ignore any failings of your own) by believing I'm saying that.

Cheers for contributing.

 

[seankenny]

I'd love to be convinced of the merits

You asked, felt I ought to deliver.

We're going to get less red tape. Look at what I found, from the well-respected (in policy wonk circles) blogger Rick:
"They [Leavers] claim to be able to save £33 billion* by removing EU red-tape but look at the second most expensive regulation on that list. It’s the CRD IV package, which apparently costs £4.6 billion a year."

Rock and roll, £4.6 billion! It's like a merit, but bigger, better, shinnier, Britisher.

 


Just ignore this bit: "I have been hoping that, at some point during the campaign, when a Leave advocate mentioned the £33 billion in red tape, an interviewer would say, “So you want to go back to the pre-2008 banking system that led to the crash do you?” Because that’s the implication of removing the regulation. CRD IV is one piece of red-tape that makes us all a lot safer."

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/post-brexit-britain-a-deregulated-pariah-state/

[SA Chris]

It’s the CRD IV package, which apparently costs £4.6 billion a year."

I'm confused. I'd not heard of this before, but it looks like a financial regulatory framework? How does it cost £4.6 billion? By stopping banks doing stupid risky things that might make them a lot of money but might also cause financial collapse?

Edit - just noted the footnote.

[chris j]

Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things.

So by your thinking we shouldn't have the Scottish or Welsh assemblies and devolution?

[Oldmanmatt]

Only 70% voted in the ref. and of that 52% voted out.
So basically just over a third are influencing what happens to the remaining two thirds. That is a shit way to run things.

So by your thinking we shouldn't have the Scottish or Welsh assemblies and devolution?

Democracy sucks.

At least, people do, anyway.

George Carlin, I think, said something like:
"Imagine how stupid the average person is, how dumb you can be; now remember half the population are even dumber than that."

All hail the rise of the machines!


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[erm]

point 2. A net migration of a third of a million people per annum from the eu hardly leave much scope for anyone else.

I believe you will find that is a third of a million net per annum of EU and non-EU citizens. But that's just like objective fact my opinion.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199)

[erm]

It isn't worth reading anyone who characterises others in such a closed-minded way, whatever side of the vote they were on.

As opposed to you, who labelled others as neurotic a page or so back because they wanted details on the Government's plans.

[slackline]

Its ok calling people neurotic though. 

[Oldmanmatt]

All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[petejh]

Saying a person, group or institution are acting neurotically actually means something. It isn't an insult. Britshitter means nothing and is just an insult.

Surprised I need to explain that.

It's not like calling someone a twat or a cunt is it Slackers.

[slackline]

Saying a person, group or institution are acting neurotically actually means something. It isn't an insult. Britshitter means nothing and is just an insult.

Believe it or not people might be insulted by suggesting they are, individually or collectively, acting neurotically, after all it is ultimately just your opinion of how they are behaving.  You might not be offended by such a reference, I'm not, but some might.

Surprised I need to explain that.

It's not like calling someone a twat or a cunt is it Slackers.

As I explained to Doylo, I do not use the word 'cunt' when I wish to insult someone.  Shark edited my original posts, but Jaspers response indicates that I used 'twat' and not 'cunt' and in the direct messages I exchanged with Shark in light of Lee reporting me it is also documented  that I did not use 'cunt' so Lee, Doylo and yourself are putting words in my mouth and I would be grateful if you stopped doing this.

I didn't wish to drag the discussion out or further off-topic the other day by quoting these but since you are repeating Doylo's false attribution here are the quotes from the direct messages I had with Shark.  Obviously you will be unable to view the rest of these since they are Direct Messages, but contact Shark if you wish to check their veracity.

I could have easily made the same point without calling him a "fucking twat"

...to call someone a "fucking twat"...

That Lee is happy tell me to "Fuck off" but doesn't like it when the tables are turned and I call him a "Fucking twat" is in my opinion a case of double standards.

[petejh]

People can be as insulted by all sorts of things, as the internet has made us all more than aware. Someone feeling insulated in and of itself is not good reason for censoring whatever it was that insulated them, or we'd have no discourse as you know. There are meaningless insults ('britshitter') and there is meaningful language ('acting neurotically'). Both can insult someone but both aren't equally valid in a debate.

Surprised etc.

[slackline]

Sorry for cocking up the quoting in my last post.  Thank you for not falsely attributing insults I did not make to me this time.

[seankenny]

It’s the CRD IV package, which apparently costs £4.6 billion a year."

Edit - just noted the footnote.

Don't go doing silly things like that. Just relax and enjoy the sovereignty- and dont worry, interconnected global financial system. Britain's got this!

[Johnny Brown]

Good piece here: http://indyref2.scot/uk-not-likely-to-survive-brexit-article-50-decision

I am consistently amazed that this aspect keeps getting forgotten/ ignored. If it happens, it will be Engexit not Brexit. Scotland will leave the UK, and the only logical course for N Ireland will be to reunify with Eire.

[SA Chris]

Eng&WalExit I think.

[dave]

For the above reason alone I think it will never happen.