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

davedanon

The 'benefits' are solely psychological, emotional and.....almost spiritual, if that last doesn't sound too ludicrous a concept to attribute to the Gammon horde. It's all about the idea of being free and sovereign. The actual reality is going to be too grim to contemplate. The likes of crypto and his absent sidekick will experience none of that, of course. They'll be nestled safely here, in the bosom of the EU, while the UK slides inexorably beneath the waves like the Titanic.

cryptocurrency

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're missing the point, old bean. The Americans could cut off Britain's access to its F35 if Britain did something the US didn't like - in many ways that demonstrates the limits of 'sovereignty' in a globalised world.

That's not gonna happen.

davedanon

cryptocurrency wrote: »

That's not gonna happen.

Yeah, because Donald's a reasonable man, and not at all the type to take umbrage at the drop of a hat. And the military are totally independent anyway, and haven't been compromised in any way by the 3 years and counting of Il Douche's reign.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

For a single country, it is a big share. And given that the world's population stands at 7.7bn the UK's population is less than 1%. That's punching above its weight. It remains one of the biggest economies in the world with this aside.

You do understand the history of the UK? That they took over vast areas, stole their resources and tilted the world to suit their view? Even now, they hold a permanent seat at the UN, meaning they effectively get a vote on everything major in the world.

So yes it is impressive that the UK, based solely on population, does to rather well. But there are a huge number of factors in that. It isn't simply because the UK is great.

theological wrote: »

The arguments for leaving and taking back control are stronger to me than the arguments for staying in at this stage on pretty much every angle from political to economic.

I have asked you to back up any benefits numerous times, and you always fail to give anything other than hope and wishful thinking. Even the recent report from the UK government, now completely controlled by Brexiteers, listing the benefits of a FTA with the US as a mighty .16% over 15 years!

theological wrote: »

The only real reason I voted to remain in the EU in 2016 was that I believed the fear-mongering in the lead up to the referendum. So far the fear-mongering was unfounded, particularly the treasury forecasts about an emergency budget and an economic shock and a recession within weeks!

So far it has wasted nearly 4 years of political life, close to 200bn in lost GDP, investment is way down, you are about to lose FoM from 27 countries, the UK union is shakier than ever.

So whilst one can argue that the remain side over egged the negative, in large part they were right. Not one, not even one of the lies told by the leave side has turned out to be even remotely correct.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

That's not gonna happen.

Why, because you say so? Another 4 years of Trump, when he get aggitated that the UK won't follow him into a war with Iran? Or maybe Johnson actually stands up to the US over 5G, or Assange or the sending back to the UK of that woman who killed the motorbiker.

We would have said 10 years ago that the UK would never leave the EU, and now look where we are.

Peregrinus

cryptocurrency wrote: »

That's not gonna happen.

Because the British will never, ever do anything the Americans don't like because they are totally sovereign and independent? Right, got it.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

For a single country, it is a big share. And given that the world's population stands at 7.7bn the UK's population is less than 1%. That's punching above its weight.

Well, yes, but that's not actually saying very much. All first-world countries punch above their weight by this metric, many to a greater extent than the UK. In fact, if we rank countries by ratio of GPD to population like this, the UK comes behind France, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Israel, Iceland, Canada and many other countries; they all punch still more above their weight than the UK does.

theological wrote: »

It remains one of the biggest economies in the world with this aside.

Yes. In absolute terms it is among the largest economies in the world. This is a product of (a) the fact already noted that it is a first-world country, and (b) the fact that it has a relatively large population. This makes it an attractive trade partner for other countries - but not an unusually attractive one. It would be ranked in the same league as other large economies like, say, Japan, India, Brazil, Canada. The first division of trade powers contains three members - USA, EU, China - and the UK would be somewhere in the middle of the second division - not in immediate danger of relegation, but no chance of promotion.

theological wrote: »

GDP willy waving aside, I question the real benefit of EU membership to the UK in the current decade. I could see that in the 1970's the world was a different place and more economic activity was confined in Europe, but I don't see the benefit of EU membership to the UK today particularly as it was a net contributor and the money that came back to it from the EU was effectively UK money anyway.

The arguments for leaving and taking back control are stronger to me than the arguments for staying in at this stage on pretty much every angle from political to economic.

No, no, no. This is a complete misunderstanding. The benefits of EU membership don't consist only or mainly in the payments a member state gets from the EU budget; valuing membership in this way is like valuing your residence in the UK on the basis of the social security benefits that you receive. Participation in the Single Market has increased the GDP of each member state by between 4% and 6% of GDP; that dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, the net budget contributions that any of them pays. It is to be expected that withdrawal from the Single Market will have the reverse effect, reducing GDP year-on-year below what it would otherwise have been.

Which means that the economic impact of hard Brexit will certainly be negative, and significantly so. There may be political advantages which make it worthwhile to bear this cost, but it is simply delusional to deny that there will be a cost. Not even the hard-Brexit focussed current UK government denies this.

theological wrote: »

The only real reason I voted to remain in the EU in 2016 was that I believed the fear-mongering in the lead up to the referendum. So far the fear-mongering was unfounded, particularly the treasury forecasts about an emergency budget and an economic shock and a recession within weeks!

As a sharp-eyed analyst of events you'll have noticed, of course, that those projections nodelled what would happen if the UK immediately served Art 50 notice, which didn't happen. So we can't say that the projections were wrong; just that they were never tested. You may have been entirely correct to believe them at the time; certainly, you have no reason now to think that they were wrong.

First Up

RobMc59 wrote: »

I believe this line of discussion arose with davedanon saying the UK was weak militarily.

Yes, I know; I am asking why anyone thinks this is relevant to Brexit.

davedanon

RobMc59 wrote: »

I believe this line of discussion arose with davedanon saying the UK was weak militarily.

Actually no, you are mistaken, once again. This line of discussion arose with crypto banging on about 'tinpot' EU countries and the UK possibly threatening to withhold military assistance as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the EU. Again, hope this helps.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Are there people here who expect military strength to be a factor in the UK's trade negotiations with the EU?

Yes, one. Cryptocurrency, quoting Douglas Carswell.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, one. Cryptocurrency, quoting Douglas Carswell.

Oh right; the deluded quoting the delusional.

Seth Brundle

Seems that Boris has gone off the idea of a bridge between Ireland and Britain and now wants a tunnel :rolleyes:
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/johnson-now-plans-a-tunnel-not-a-bridge-to-join-the-north-with-scotland-39020292.html

threeball

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Seems that Boris has gone off the idea of a bridge between Ireland and Britain and now wants a tunnel :rolleyes:
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/johnson-now-plans-a-tunnel-not-a-bridge-to-join-the-north-with-scotland-39020292.html

Expensive infrastructure to link two places that won't be in the UK by the time its finished :pac:

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Seems that Boris has gone off the idea of a bridge between Ireland and Britain and now wants a tunnel :rolleyes:
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/johnson-now-plans-a-tunnel-not-a-bridge-to-join-the-north-with-scotland-39020292.html

I think it could be a good idea to connect Ireland and Britain actually. I agree the bridge was probably unfeasible given dumped bombs from the war are on the sea bed. If a tunnel can achieve the same goal more cheaply then I'd say it's a good idea. It would be shorter than the Channel Tunnel.

Leroy42

A tunnel, a bridge or leave it with just ships. It doesn't matter. Whichever they still need custom checks and paperwork.

And that is the main problem here, don't be fooled into thinking a bridge or tunnel is what people were calling for.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, one. Cryptocurrency, quoting Douglas Carswell.

It's increasingly obvious that we and the EU are better off without Britain.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

I agree the bridge was probably unfeasible given dumped bombs from the war are on the sea bed. If a tunnel can achieve the same goal more cheaply then I'd say it's a good idea. It would be shorter than the Channel Tunnel.

Shorter under water, maybe, but at three times the depth, it'd need to be a heck of a lot longer on both sides to enable road or rail traffic to get down. I seem to remember reading on another forum (where a crowd of engineers laid out all the degrees of tolerance) that the access point would have to be somewhere around Rush or Santry. :pac:

And all those explosives in Beaufort's Dyke are just as much of a problem if you're going to tunnel underneath - not to mention the fact that it doubles the depth of any tunnel.

Oh, and then there's the problem of what you'd be tunnelling trough: proper rock, rather than the soft marl that lines the bottom of the Straits of Dover. It'd be cheaper to buy a dozen new ferries ... or maybe a defunct airline, if you found one going cheap. :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's increasingly obvious that we and the EU are better off without Britain.

I know that was little more than a bit of childish bravado, but there is no way the EU, the UK and especially Ireland are better off with the UK outside of the EU.

davedanon

CelticRambler wrote: »

Shorter under water, maybe, but at three times the depth, it'd need to be a heck of a lot longer on both sides to enable road or rail traffic to get down. I seem to remember reading on another forum (where a crowd of engineers laid out all the degrees of tolerance) that the access point would have to be somewhere around Rush or Santry. :pac:

And all those explosives in Beaufort's Dyke are just as much of a problem if you're going to tunnel underneath - not to mention the fact that it doubles the depth of any tunnel.

Oh, and then there's the problem of what you'd be tunnelling trough: proper rock, rather than the soft marl that lines the bottom of the Straits of Dover. It'd be cheaper to buy a dozen new ferries ... or maybe a defunct airline, if you found one going cheap. :rolleyes:

Ah, don't be spoiling things with your pesky facts

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

I know that was little more than a bit of childish bravado, but there is no way the EU, the UK and especially Ireland are better off with the UK outside of the EU.

I know that was little more than a bit of shallow and misinformed bias, but there is no way the EU and Ireland are not better off without a failed democracy led by authoritarian and populist nationalists whose greatest wet dream is to destroy the EU.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I know that was little more than a bit of shallow and misinformed bias, but there is no way the EU and Ireland are not better off without a failed democracy led by authoritarian and populist nationalists whose greatest wet dream is to destroy the EU.

I think both sides are better off for the record. The EU can continue without a reluctant member state holding back their ambitions and the UK can chart its own course with the additional control it'll have over its own affairs.

A failed democracy is a bit much though. In December the people voted and the Conservatives got into government on the mandate of delivering Brexit. So far so good actually. This year is their big test for them.

I personally have no wish to destroy the EU. I simply think the UK is right to leave it.

eagle eye

Professor Moriarty wrote:

I know that was little more than a bit of shallow and misinformed bias, but there is no way the EU and Ireland are not better off without a failed democracy led by authoritarian and populist nationalists whose greatest wet dream is to destroy the EU.

This attitude is so prevalent in anti Brexiteers. It's like you believe that anybody who disagrees is beneath you.
It's not surprising that people voted for Brexit given the spoilt child like attitude shown by so many remainers.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

I think both sides are better off for the record. The EU can continue without a reluctant member state holding back their ambitions and the UK can chart its own course with the additional control it'll have over its own affairs.

A failed democracy is a bit much though. In December the people voted and the Conservatives got into government on the mandate of delivering Brexit. So far so good actually. This year is their big test for them.

I personally have no wish to destroy the EU. I simply think the UK is right to leave it.

An electoral system where a party can be elected into power with a majority of seats having gained 37% of the votes is not democratic. The 2016 referendum was a shameful shambles won by liars. It's a shining example of how not to run a vital referendum.

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

This attitude is so prevalent in anti Brexiteers. It's like you believe that anybody who disagrees is beneath you.

You obviously didn't read the post I was responding to. Or chose to ignore its sentiment and tone.

It's not surprising that people voted for Brexit given the spoilt child like attitude shown by so many remainers.

Agreed, many people voted for Brexit for idiotic reasons.

wexfordman2

eagle eye wrote: »

This attitude is so prevalent in anti Brexiteers. It's like you believe that anybody who disagrees is beneath you.
It's not surprising that people voted for Brexit given the spoilt child like attitude shown by so many remainers.

Anyone who voted for or against.brexit in the basis of a perceived insult by the other side is an idiot .

Grow up for God's.sake, you vote and decide on an issue based on its merits, not on some perceived slight from a proponent.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

An electoral system where a party can be elected into power with a majority of seats having gained 37% of the votes is not democratic. The 2016 referendum was a shameful shambles won by liars. It's a shining example of how not to run a vital referendum.

Versus a political system where until very recently there were two main parties that differed in no way at all apart from some people's grandfathers or great-grandfathers fought in a civil war?

The referendum was won based on a majority. Crying over it is too late. The UK is officially out. The question is about how to make the best of it. Being a sore loser isn't going to win anyone the next election either.

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

Versus a political system where until very recently there were two main parties that differed in no way at all apart from some people's grandfathers or great-grandfathers fought in a civil war?

The referendum was won based on a majority. Crying over it is too late. The UK is officially out. The question is about how to make the best of it. Being a sore loser isn't going to win anyone the next election either.

Hmmm. I'd definitely rather live in a PR system than FPTP. No brainer. The referendum was a pathetic disaster for a variety of reasons. Why it was called, how it was run, how people were informed etc. I'm not crying over it and I'm not a sore loser - lose the ad hominems. I'm explaining why I believe that the UK is a very undemocratic country, i.e. a failed democracy now run by authoritarian, populist nationalists who were not voted in by a majority of the people. 1. An electoral system that can allow a party with as little as 37% of the vote to gain power. 2. A clusterfúck of a referendum won by liars.

eagle eye

wexfordman2 wrote:

Anyone who voted for or against.brexit in the basis of a perceived insult by the other side is an idiot .

You don't understand the electorate.
Again I'm 99.9% certain that you were pro remain based off of the attitude in your post.

theological

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. I'd definitely rather live in a PR system than FPTP. No brainer. The referendum was a pathetic disaster for a variety of reasons. Why it was called, how it was run, how people were informed etc. I'm not crying over it and I'm not a sore loser. I'm explaining why I believe that the UK is a very undemocratic country, i.e. a failed democracy now run by authoritarian, populist nationalists who were not voted in by a majority of the people. 1. An electoral system that can allow a party with as little as 37% of the vote to gain power. 2. A clusterfúck of a referendum won by liars.

The people elected them under the rules of the system which are fair. The person with the most votes gets the seat. It is worth pointing out that in the AV referendum the people democratically assented to maintaining this system by 67%. The 2016 referendum was won by a majority do there's no point sulking over it. You might think the electorate were stupid and dumb but your patronising will make no difference. I say this as one of the 48% in 2016.

You might think everyone just needs a scholarly philosopher king to sort everything out but that is actually authoritarian as opposed to what you criticise as being authoritarian.

For the record. I think a first past the post system with actual policy differences including a decent left right divide is better than a PR system with effectively no policy differences or very little. A left right divide doesn't really exist in Irish politics.

Now - where I might be able to meet you half way is saying that there are issues with the British constitution and referendums. Either the UK is strong on representative democracy or it is strong on direct democracy. That is a decision that needs to be made. The two conflict awkwardly with one another. That was only sorted out in December where we got a strong government aligned to the referendum outcome. That cannot continue and desperately needs reform. Either there should be no referenda or they should be legally binding on parliament.

The House of Lords also needs reform. Similar to America with the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives is population based but the Senate is based on the states. The House of Lords should be a chamber where the regions of the UK are more balanced to the South East to provide genuine scrutiny to legislation.

This may be waffling but perhaps some useful common ground can be found between us despite Brexit.

markest

Where does the 37% figure come from?

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

The people elected them under the rules of the system which are fair. The person with the most votes gets the seat. It is worth pointing out that in the AV referendum the people democratically assented to maintaining this system by 67%. The 2016 referendum was won by a majority do there's no point sulking over it. You might think the electorate were stupid and dumb but your patronising will make no difference. I say this as one of the 48% in 2016.

You might think everyone just needs a scholarly philosopher king to sort everything out but that is actually authoritarian as opposed to what you criticise as being authoritarian.

For the record. I think a first past the post system with actual policy differences including a decent left right divide is better than a PR system with effectively no policy differences or very little. A left right divide doesn't really exist in Irish politics.

Now - where I might be able to meet you half way is saying that there are issues with the British constitution and referendums. Either the UK is strong on representative democracy or it is strong on direct democracy. That is a decision that needs to be made. The two conflict awkwardly with one another. That was only sorted out in December where we got a strong government aligned to the referendum outcome. That cannot continue and desperately needs reform. Either there should be no referenda or they should be legally binding on parliament.

The House of Lords also needs reform. Similar to America with the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives is population based but the Senate is based on the states. The House of Lords should be a chamber where the regions of the UK are more balanced to the South East to provide genuine scrutiny to legislation.

This may be waffling but perhaps some useful common ground can be found between us despite Brexit.

Again with the ad hominems. No, there is no middle ground here. Firstly, Irish politics is now moving towards a left/right divide having had very centrist parties and governments for unique historical reasons. FPTP would not have solved this historical shadow. It was our history that was the 'problem' not our electoral system. A country with PR and left/right parties is where we are going and that will be a good thing.

A system where a party with 37% of the vote can gain power is in danger and is not democratic. That's a fact. And, no matter how much you ignore the fact, the referendum was a clusterfúck won by liars.