Brexit mega thread part 15a - looking forwards

[Talkinpeace]

Just rebooting the most recent thread

At the moment the UKs issues are rather over shadowed by events elsewhere
but maybe that is a good thing.

The German election on Sunday is worth watching
Right wing European politicians pulling out of CPAC speeches because they realise its not a good look
Farage floundering to stay relevant

and the possibility of the return of free movement for our kids if not us

Relations between mainland Europe and the UK remain a worthy topic for discussion

@LouiseCollins28
Reform are doing so well because since Brexit LEGAL immigration has rocketed.
Ukranians, Hong Kongers, Indians etc
And the point of visa qualifying immigrants is that they STAY
and bring their dependants

whereas under Free movement, they left their mums and aunties at home in Bulgaria and went home when they were not working.

Brexit caused the small boat crisis by turning the Channel into a non-return valve

Allowing people to come and go would allow many to leave without risk

An element of logic would suffice. This bizarre hatred is just so beyond irrational that there's nothing to be argued. You hate the EU for your spurious illogical reasons, and nothing anyone can say will change your religious fervour.

What's the point?

You called me "a mental health problem". I don't hate the E.U. hate isn't a word I would use in reference to it.

I am trying to have a conversation with you. You claimed that my viewpoint wasn't a viewpoint and was illogical and irrational. So I'm asking you what do you think reasonable criticism of the E.U. looks and sounds like?

If all I'm allowed to be, in your view, is supportive of the E.U. otherwise I'm "a mental health problem" then what's the point of the board/thread? Some examples:

• can I reasonably say that I think the EU is too powerful, and I'd rather it had less power? OK? or "mental health problem?"
• can I reasonably say that I think countries should be able to set their own trade policies in bilateral agreements? OK or "a mental health problem?"
• can I reasonably say that I think that our EU membership (net contributor remember) cost the UK too much money? OK, or "mental health problem?"
• can I reasonably say that I want my own national government to decide who has a right to come and live in the country I live in? OK, or "a mental health problem?"

IMO those are 4 pretty mild criticisms of the EU. Am I allowed to make even those, without being labelled as "mental" to use your words?

Under EU free movment people could bring their dependents.

"Brexit caused the small boats crisis" erm no, UK govt failure to adequately secure our boarders causes the small boat occupants to arrive in the UK.

Failure of the French government to prevent them leaving France (totally understandable from the French viewpoint btw) is the proximate cause of the 'small boats' crisis in the Channel.

You can say what you like. It doesn't matter to you that you're talking rubbish, but we don't have to treat it like it's an intelligent argument...

Who is this "we" you speak for?

You apparently believe that a logical argument on these issues could only lead to someone agreeing with the conclusions you have reached. Sadly, for you, the history of human thought isn't like that. People look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions, they just do.

I've tried to explain how I reached the conclusions I have. I've tried to be open to discussion. Hell, I'm even open to persuasion, if anyone could convince me of the merits of restoring EU membership in future, surely it's one of the powerful advocates for it on these threads, right? Yet they don't even try, they persist in telling me I'm wrong without offering me a reason why I should change my mind.

There seems to be nothing I can say here that doesn't result in dismissive retorts from you, rather than engagement with the point I'm making and I just don't understand why?

The way I was taught is that you listen to the other person's POV and engage with them honestly. That simply doesn't seem to happen here. You're barely making making an argument of your own; you're not engaging with mine, you just say, "rubbish", "irrational" and "mental health problem" and often start talking about Donald Trump for some reason.

A logical argument, ipso facto, has to have some logic in it.

I could respect an argument that disagrees with me, as I have on many occasions. Your "arguments" however, seem to be that you hate the letters "E" and "U". You really haven't come up with anything more convincing than that.

You are entitled to say that countries should be able to decide their own trade policies. What you will find difficult to argue is that doing so is a better option for the UK because there is no evidence that it does. The power of the EU comes from 27 small- and medium-sized countries acting together.

You can say that EU membership 'cost the UK too much money' because you misunderstand national contributions as transactional fees. In addition to paying for money-saving initiatives such as joint regulatory bodies, they mean that companies save on the red tape that you (presumably inadvertently) voted for. So in reality EU membership saved money and generated growth through frictionless trade.

The problem is, @LouiseCollins28 that you ignore facts in favour of ideology. You prefer ideology to pragmatism. On these threads, you have said that you want all EU laws still in use in the UK repealed and replaced with UK legistlation - even if that legislation turns out to be to the letter identical, because the law in question works perfectly well. Just so that it would have your national flag on it. That is irrational, visceral hatred of the EU. And it will always be ridiculous.

I presume by Louise’s logic we should also:

• Leave the UN - pesky United supra-national body

• Leave the World Health Organisation - pesky World organisation trying to help nations across the world (including pesky things like global pandemics)

• Leave Interpol : pesky international organisation trying to help cross border law enforcement

• Leave NATO : after all, we, the public, never agreed to the commitment required by Article 5

.

Or as others have suggested, is it just the word “European” that’s the problem?

I know, I know, I’m trying to apply logical thinking but it doesn’t apply. So I really should stop trying

See, I won't find it difficult to argue that a country deciding it's own trade policy is better than it being done on the country's behalf by a block. The argument is a simple one, that a country doing it for itself prioritizes its own interests and those it shares with the partner it's negotiating with.

If a supra-national body is negotiating on behalf of all members, it takes (supposedly) all member's interests into the negotiations. You say that's good because a block has more leverage, I say its not good because an individual nation's interests can get downplayed or ignored.

Both of those things can be true at the same time (IMO they are) it's a matter of which somebody prioritises. It's not the case that one is supported by facts and the other isn't.

Also, if a voter doesn't like the outcome they can remove the government that negotiated it. With EU negotiatiors no such power existed. That may not matter to you, it does matter to me.

Pointythings makes a good point later on. If that point about EU law were the only one I'd made in favour of staying out then yes, I'd look ridiculous, but it isn't, see above.

As for the rest where I "misunderstand" or that I "hate" the EU, well we're back to the same bind as before.

You are assuming that both parties in a negotiation are equally powerful. The UK's negotiations with the EU and the USA have proved otherwise.

All EU members have to agree to a trade deal. I have seen the argument that the UK's interests were downplayed - it is a claim often made by Brexiters - yet I have never seen a solid example. Be different.

In all those cases the internaional co-operation enabled by membership of those bodies is clearly in the UK national interest. So no, we shouldn't leave them.

Tell you what, change of pace, here's an EU I'd be much keener on...

The EU as I perceive it has been set up to be economically closed (e.g. it levies common external tarriffs on non-EU producers) and socially open (it welcomes people in from all over the world and once inside it allows them to move freely between member states)

I don't want to be a member citizen of an EU like that, I don't really want one at all but that's partly because of my above perception of it's purpose.

Were the EU economically open (e.g. it welcomes products and services from the world over with no barriers) and socially closed (it's international and national borders were a fortress and free movement into and out of the territory and between member countries wasn't allowed) then I'd be much keener on the idea.

The UK was powerful within the EU.

But it just comes down to immigration, doesn't it.

Every country or bloc has barriers to trade. That's why they sign trade deals - to reduce them.

The EU has trade deals with dozens of countries, fortunately for the UK which was able to roll over most of them (albeit on worse terms).

The EU also allows tariff- and quota-free access for goods from the world's Least developed Countries under its Everything But Arms programme.

I don't think you can make an argument for the EU not being 'economically open'.

Countries that cannot grow enough food for their own people DO NOT
get to choose their trading partners
they take the terms of the providers

how hard is that to understand ?

Countries should have trade deals, it's a good thing that they do.

The Everything But Arms programme appears to grand access to EU markets, tariff free and quote free, for just 45 countries. When that's every country, and the EU's Common External Tarriff is history, then come back and tell me the EU is economically open.

On Talkinpeaces point. Great point, so we need a lot more domestic food production and/or a lot fewer people depending on it. Self-sufficiency appears to be 60% ish. So maybe a 20% production uplift and a 20% population reduction, yes please I'll take that deal.

Louise

The UK has NEVER EVER been self sufficient in food.
How hard is that for you to comprehend.

Not hard at all.

Best in recent times appears to be around 80%, good, lets aim to get back towards that and import the rest, as we've seemingly always done. There's no necessity for those imports to be from EU member states. They could be, I'm not picky, but there's no reason to give EU nations preferential treatment compared to RoW.

Let them eat swedes turnips

I worked with a lady who grew up on the Hebrides.
Cabbage, potatoes, kale, carrots, lamb, turnips
that is what she ate for the first ten years of her life.
No other options.

No thank you.

@LouiseCollins28 "The Everything But Arms programme appears to grand access to EU markets, tariff free and quote free, for just 45 countries. When that's every country, and the EU's Common External Tarriff is history, then come back and tell me the EU is economically open."

The UK has tariffs as well you know, as well as other barriers to trade.

Of course it does, it should. The UK is country. The EU isn't a country. IMO, what is acceptable for a nation-state shouldn't be acceptable for a superstate.

Well, you know what they say about opinions...

Meanwhile tariffs and barriers to trade are part of living in the real world. And the EU is no more guilty of using them than other countries; no more and no less.

@LouiseCollins28
So you'll be against the UK joining any multilateral trade agreements
like the Pacific one ?