Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Professor Moriarty

biko wrote: »

I'm not sure why you number your guesses like they were facts.

Ireland joined EEC in 1973, was it 1950s during the 60s too?
If EU is so good, why did it take 20 years until the 90 for things to change?

Right now, Ireland is among the four worst EU countries for increased rates of poverty or social exclusion, according to a study looking at developments in all 28 member states.
EU didn't lift Ireland. Ireland lifted itself.

Anyway, this thread is about UK.

I made it easier for you to understand. Obviously, that didn't work. Also, you brought Ireland into the discussion by talking about 'our children' having to pay future debt. Furthermore, Ireland's future is will be greatly influenced by Brexit and that influence is reciprocal. So it is perfectly reasonable to include Ireland in the discussion.

Frankly, if you think that the EU didn't cause profound and positive economic and social change in Ireland then I'm afraid we inhabit different planets.

davedanon

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I made it easier for you to understand. Obviously, that didn't work. Also, you brought Ireland into the discussion by talking about 'our children' having to pay future debt. Furthermore, Ireland's future is will be greatly influenced by Brexit and that influence is reciprocal. So it is perfectly reasonable to include Ireland in the discussion.

Frankly, if you think that the EU didn't cause profound and positive economic and social change in Ireland then I'm afraid we inhabit different planets.

He thinks the EU is just a cash cow for us. Great when Charlie came back from Europe cock-a-hoop, crowing that "IT'S 7 BILLION", but not so great when we become net contributors.

Professor Moriarty

davedanon wrote: »

He thinks the EU is just a cash cow for us. Great when Charlie came back from Europe cock-a-hoop, crowing that "IT'S 7 BILLION", but not so great when we become net contributors.

Not to be too pedantic but that was actually Albert Reynolds. He got us billions in cohesion and infrastructure funds - but we might have been getting them anyway. It really is a shallow take on the EU to think that it's good for us only as long as we are getting bags of money from it. It's a kind of Brexiteerish perspective. I don't think it's worth trying to explain the myriad benefits of EU membership to people with a myopic mindset.

davedanon

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not to be too pedantic but that was actually Albert Reynolds. He got us billions in cohesion and infrastructure funds - but we might have been getting them anyway. It really is a shallow take on the EU to think that it's good for us only as long as we are getting bags of money from it. It's a kind of Brexiteerish perspective. I don't think it's worth trying to explain the myriad benefits of EU membership to people with a myopic mindset.

No such thing as 'too pedantic' in my book.

davedanon

Chris Grey today:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2020/07/a-new-start-built-on-old-lies.html

One short paragraph which jumped out at me. Bolding mine. No-one from 'the other side' has ever commented on these links I've been putting up, incidentally. One wonders if they're even reading them.

"But even if all the necessary preparations had been or come to be made for this ‘new start’ what they would be preparation for is invariably something unpleasant. It is to be hoped that the sense of sovereignty will be satisfying, because according to the government website every practical impact of Brexit is going to be negative. There is not one single thing listed which will make anyone’s life easier or better."

Donald Trump

davedanon wrote: »

No There is no such thing as 'too pedantic' in my book.

Had to fix your post there

davedanon

Among the points made this week, Grey notes that the UK govt.'s "Shock & Awe" media blitz has been distinctly underwhelming, with British citizens left to discover for themselves the myriad ways in which life is going to get harder or more unpleasant - all sorts of things associated with the EU, and beyond, both big and small, are going to become more difficult: going on holiday, buying a home, purchasing goods online, accessing drugs and healthcare, insurance.

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

Among the points made this week, Grey notes that the UK govt.'s "Shock & Awe" media blitz has been distinctly underwhelming, with British citizens left to discover for themselves the myriad ways in which life is going to get harder or more unpleasant - all sorts of things associated with the EU, and beyond, both big and small, are going to become more difficult: going on holiday, buying a home, purchasing goods online, accessing drugs and healthcare, insurance.

Why are they?

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

Why are they?

Why are they what? More difficult?

Have a look at the governments own website which acknowledges the issues and the extra costs.

And still we awaiting any actual benefit, beyond a catchphrase.

The weird thing is the UK government are now busy selling the great benefits of a union with seamless trade to the Scots, whilst of course in the full knowledge that they (the English) have the sort on control that they complained the EU had.

So even their own ideology doesn't stand up.

At this point, Brexit is nothing more than a person storming off in a huff because they don't always get what they wanted and had to clean their room.

davedanon

Aegir wrote: »

Why are they?

And I think my point about people not even bothering to read the blog post is made.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are they what? More difficult?

Have a look at the governments own website which acknowledges the issues and the extra costs.

I have. So you will need a passport and travel insurance.

Wow, the change is devastating.

davedanon

Aegir wrote: »

I have. So you will need a passport and travel insurance.

Wow, the change is devastating.

Not the point being made, but do carry on being intellectually dishonest. It is your MO, after all.

davedanon

davedanon wrote: »

Not the point being made, but do carry on being intellectually dishonest. It is your MO, after all.

I’m not being intellectually dishonest, I’m trying to gauge whether or not the people just posting rhetoric they found on the web have the intellectual capacity to assess it.

I remember the times before the Eu made travelling so easy and to be brutally honest, there is **** all difference, certainly not for me anyway.

I live in a global world though, not one that starts and ends in Europe.

ohnonotgmail

Aegir wrote: »

I’m not being intellectually dishonest, I’m trying to gauge whether or not the people just posting rhetoric they found on the web have the intellectual capacity to assess it.

I remember the times before the Eu made travelling so easy and to be brutally honest, there is **** all difference, certainly not for me anyway.

I live in a global world though, not one that starts and ends in Europe.

Brexit affects more than just you. But i am not really surprised that selfishness is at the heart of Brexit.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Brexit affects more than just you. But i am not really surprised that selfishness is at the heart of Brexit.

You don’t say.

I’m not a believer in Brexit, I’ve made that clear many times.

I don’t care for the silly scaremongering that goes on though.

First Up

Aegir wrote:

I remember the times before the Eu made travelling so easy and to be brutally honest, there is **** all difference, certainly not for me anyway.

Travel is the least of it. Have you started or bought into a business, formed a joint venture, bought or sold property in the EU?

Try doing it as a non EU member and spot the difference.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Travel is the least of it. Have you started or bought into a business, formed a joint venture, bought or sold property in the EU?

Try doing it as a non EU member and spot the difference.

Please explain how.

First Up

Aegir wrote:

Please explain how.

What part would you like me to explain?

First Up

First Up wrote: »

What part would you like me to explain?

All of it.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

All of it.

Will a UK citizen be able to set up a company in France the same as they could now?

fash

Aegir wrote: »

I live in a global world though, not one that starts and ends in Europe.

You clearly don't if you don't have any concept of visas for work, carnets for musicians, roaming charges for phones, international driving licences, traveling with pets, traveling with chronically ill dependents or retiring.

First Up

Aegir wrote:

All of it.

Sounds like I'd need to set the bar pretty low.

Leroy42

Aegir, It was said it would be more difficult.

You agreed that things would be more difficult, but apparently not difficult enough to count as more difficult.

Do you think having to arrange insurance, new pet passports etc are easier than now?

So it’s going to be difficult, but no one can actually give a solid example of how?

fash

fash wrote: »

You clearly don't if you don't have any concept of visas for work, carnets for musicians, roaming charges for phones, international driving licences, traveling with pets, traveling with chronically ill dependents or retiring.

You have to wonder how all those American multinational organizations manage to achieve it, it must be nigh on impossible.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

So it’s going to be difficult, but no one can actually give a solid example of how?

Stop being silly.

You said you read the UJ government website which lists numerous examples of things being more difficult.

Pet passports for eg. Health insurance and the issue of existing conditions.

Even the Brexiteers admit things will be more difficult but in their view it will all be worth it.

Are you honestly trying to claim that you see nothing being more difficult after the transition ends?

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

You have to wonder how all those American multinational organizations manage to achieve it, it must be nigh on impossible.

So you try to shift from more difficult to nigh on impossible.

theological

I'm playing a bit of catchup here.

davedanon wrote: »

So you think EU membership can be summed up as a zero-sum game. A simple binary.

Net recipient = good

Net contributor = bad

My God, that is incredibly revealing. Do you think that countries want to join the EU because they just think there's a few quid in it?

Many do want to join the EU because of surplus structural funds. That's a key reason for many countries to join. The UK was never a net beneficiary so never benefited in this regard.

The answer to all of the problems seem to be always "more Europe" where actually maybe "less Europe" could be also a legitimate answer.

If the EU hadn't become a political union people could probably see the strong merits of being a free trading bloc. It is precisely because the EU continues arguing for a bigger and bigger and bigger remit over the domestic policy of member states that the UK had to leave. The aims of the never defined and ever expanding EU project was incompatible with Britain's political aims.

The only reason I started discussing about net contributions is because Seth Brundle was arguing that the EU payments to the UK were oh so brilliant. It is only when you realise that the UK would be just getting back its own money and borrowing extra for other member states that you realise that this isn't as great as it is cracked up to be.

Donald Trump wrote: »

UK will spend hundreds of millions putting up customs and border infrastructure that was not previously needed. Paying money to change to a system that will hurt both them and their potential trading partners. This is scenario 1.

A far better investment might be to give say half of that money to a weaker trading partner and not put up the barriers.

Compared to scenario 1, the UK spends half as much cash. Trade is increased rather than decreases. And for the trading partner, not only do they have more trade now, they can invest the grant money to improve themselves so that in the future they have even more money to buy nice things from the UK!

This is entirely speculative. There's nothing to suggest that the UK would spend only half as much cash, particularly if it was involved in this €750bn EU coronavirus fund.

volchitsa wrote: »

Have you looked at how much the UK has borrowed due to first, Brexit, and then the SARS-Covid-19 virus?

No deal Brexit to push UK debt to 50-year high

UK borrowing surged to record £128 billion during lockdown

What makes you think that's any less of a problem for future generations of British children?

Precisely the reason why the UK should not borrow any more money for other EU countries, and precisely why biko's argument holds up.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

If the EU hadn't become a political union people could probably see the strong merits of being a free trading bloc. It is precisely because the EU continues arguing for a bigger and bigger and bigger remit over the domestic policy of member states that the UK had to leave. The aims of the never defined and ever expanding EU project was incompatible with Britain's political aims.

Wait until you hear about this United Kingdom Johnson is in favour of. EU on steroids in terms of remit.

The only logical destination for Brexiteers is the breakup of the union.

Otherwise all it appears to be is that far from having an issue with pooling sovereignty and collectively agreeing policies and standards, all it is really about is that they want to be the ones in charge.

First Up

Aegir wrote:

So it’s going to be difficult, but no one can actually give a solid example of how?

Well you could expand your horizons beyond holidaymakers but here's two to get you thinking (as if).

All EU citizens and entities have the same access to all services as local citizens across all member states. Non EU citizens and entities don't.

EU citizens can start or participate in a business anywhere in the EU. Non EU citizens can only do so if they are granted residency in the EU member state concerned - and that ain't easy.

There's lots more but let's see if you can understand the importance of those two first.