Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

schmoo2k

liamog wrote: »

I don't think anyone would design a national government where the finance minister is elected by popular vote. Democracy only goes so far.

Its a good point - the EU was extremely good at distributing funds to areas that needed it without political intervention (IOW making sure non Tory areas got funds).

And they are also very good at implementing unpopular (but needed) rules (CO2 emissions, septic tank rules, water meters???) - which allowed local politicians a convenient scape goat.

hotmail.com

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Many people have opinions that earth is flat, majority of world population believes in some sort of diety up in clouds

Doesn’t mean those beliefs are correct or true.

Hell for majority of human existence everyone thought sun orbits the earth, this “respect opinion of crowd” argument you make is nonsense, crowds regularly form opinions and act on anything but science and facts

Now that I think of it this Brexit shaded nationalism does have some characteristics of a cult

A bit dramatic?

You're comparing believing the world is flat with people who have a belief that Britain is better off outside of the EU.

Nody

hotmail.com wrote: »

A bit dramatic?

You're comparing believing the world is flat with people who have a belief that Britain is better off outside of the EU.

Seeing how they base that off ideas such as "350 million to NHS" or "Stop Turkish immigrants" not really; they contain about the same amount of facts and belief behind them.

hotmail.com

Nody wrote: »

Seeing how they base that off ideas such as "350 million to NHS" or "Stop Turkish immigrants" not really; they contain about the same amount of facts and belief behind them.

I'm referring specifically to the idea of Britain or any country being outside of the EU.

I don't regard this as a mad idea. I don't agree with it, but I don't feel it warrants such derision.

Padre_Pio

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Just like flat earthers the Brexit religion is not based on any science or facts.

A fact proven time and again when anyone asks of the benefits of Brexit.

"We can make our own laws!"
You could always make your own laws

"We don't have to follow EU laws!"
Well, you will with regards to any trade or dealings with the EU, and since EU laws have been adopted worldwide and are (usually) more progressive than other countries, adopting alternatives might be a step backwards.

"We have sovereignty"
What does that really mean?

"We control our own waters"
Great. Well done.

"We can enforce immigration restrictions"
You always could, except your govt didn't bother and just blamed the EU.

And so on and so forth, and we haven't even gotten to the negatives of Brexit.

hotmail.com

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Just like flat earthers the Brexit religion is not based on any science or facts.

My examples and challenge to your post stand, just because a bunch of people believe in something daft doesn’t make that something daft the truth or reality or worthy of respect, especially if those erroneous beliefs impact the more rational people negatively

You claimed that because a bunch of people believe in something strongly everyone should respect their beliefs, that’s nonsense imho. Beliefs and opinions do not merit respect as reality and facts do.

You are entitled to your beliefs, you also have free speech (tho not really in uk where Tories cancelled peaceful protest lately) but you can not expect/demand respect “because wisdom of crowds”

I never said anything about the wisdom of crowds.

I just said holding a view that Britain is better off outside of the EU is legitimate view to have.

Obviously you don't even agree with that.

I'm done.

And the protests which you refer to were also banned in Ireland.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm referring specifically to the idea of Britain or any country being outside of the EU.

I don't regard this as a mad idea. I don't agree with it, but I don't feel it warrants such derision.

You keep trying to divorce the context of the sentiment from the realities as to how it got there in the first place for 52% of a voting nation. Ignoring the context is just trite and meaningless. And, in the case of Britain, the context involved a LOT of misinformation or outright lies about either the benefits of leaving, or logic to do so. So yes, derision is understandable, albeit as a bedfellow of exasperation that a country implemented a thinly supported advisory referendum that had no clear or robust plan, based off of false information given by Bad Actors.

There's plenty of logical arguments that can be made for leaving the EU if you're just airily talking theoreticals; but you can't ignore the pragmatic reality that these arguments never entered the conversation for the public - or the politicians tasked with "getting Brexit done".

CelticRambler

hotmail.com wrote: »

I'm referring specifically to the idea of Britain or any country being outside of the EU.

I don't regard this as a mad idea. I don't agree with it, but I don't feel it warrants such derision.

No-one on these threads has ever derided the suggestion that not being a member of the EU is a mad idea. Indeed, it was frequently indicated that countries such as Norway and Switzerland had a perfectly reasonable attitude in not seeking membership.

The point that you're missing is that you're doing the Brexiter thing and cherry-picking only half the statement. The concept of Brexit - as sold to the public and endlessly repeated during the post-referendum period - is not simply being outside the EU, but also benefitting from all the benefits of membership. That blinkered idiocy is what is derided. Remember there were individuals who had a place at the negotiating table who proclaimed that there would be no downsides, that nothing would change, that there would be no borders ...

You cannot separate the desire to be an independent, non-aligned state from socio-economic reality. Anyone who argues for the former without taking account of the latter does not deserve respect for position until they've completed the equation.

ancapailldorcha

hotmail.com wrote: »

I never said anything about the wisdom of crowds.

I just said holding a view that Britain is better off outside of the EU is legitimate view to have.

Obviously you don't even agree with that.

I'm done.

And the protests which you refer to were also banned in Ireland.

Please try and post a bit more constructively instead of making the same point over and over again.

fash

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just said holding a view that Britain is better off outside of the EU is legitimate view to have.

Why is it any more legitimate than believing the world is flat? Nobody murdered anyone based on their opposition to the world being flat (or certainly not in the last 500 years) - and less economic damage and curtailing of people's freedoms has been done in the name a flat earth than in the name of Brexit.

Seth Brundle

Sigh

NI protocol ‘not sustainable for long’, says UK cabinet minister
David Frost, who negotiated the protocol, says UK will ‘consider all options’

David Frost, the British cabinet minister in charge of relations with the European Union, has warned that the current operation of the Northern Ireland protocol is not sustainable for long. And in a hint at further unilateral action, he said Britain would “continue to consider all our options”.

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sigh

NI protocol ‘not sustainable for long’, says UK cabinet minister
David Frost, who negotiated the protocol, says UK will ‘consider all options’

As the old saying goes, what would you expect from a donkey but a kick.

BonnieSituation

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sigh

NI protocol ‘not sustainable for long’, says UK cabinet minister
David Frost, who negotiated the protocol, says UK will ‘consider all options’

So nothing new there.

Maybe the unilateral action is a border poll?

CelticRambler

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sigh

NI protocol ‘not sustainable for long’, says UK cabinet minister
David Frost, who negotiated the protocol, says UK will ‘consider all options’

Translation: if ever you spend four years negotiating an agreement with the UK, don't expect them to know what they want; and if ever you get a signature on a deal, don't expect them to understand the implications of what they signed.

Leroy42

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sigh

NI protocol ‘not sustainable for long’, says UK cabinet minister
David Frost, who negotiated the protocol, says UK will ‘consider all options’

He must be mistaken. Brexit is done, Johnson delivered Brexit just like he said he would. Labour should stop moaning and start loving Brexit, isn;t that what Liam Fix said yesterday.

And when Frost said this, surely the very next question was would he be resigning for negotiating such a terrible deal?

joeysoap

Wouldn’t ‘they’ just love to have Trump in the White House at a time like this?

joeysoap

joeysoap wrote: »

Wouldn’t ‘they’ just love to have Trump in the White House at a time like this?

Why? A deal was very unlikely to happen anyway.

Biden's America first is just as impactful as Trump's when it comes to vaccines and more impactful when it comes to the tax stuff and the possibility of American companies leaving places like Ireland. He is actually a dream for Johnson because he couldn't be attacked for vaccine nationalism because that would also mean attacking Biden, and it's way too soon after Trump for that to happen in any meaningful way.

Akrasia

hotmail.com wrote: »

No they don't have to understand what it is they are leaving.

If they want to leave, even for bonkers reasons not based on fact, they can leave.

People have to respect this.

This has been an interesting discussion about the nature of opinion, belief, political position, respect and obligations on others to change their opinion in order to 'respect' the opinion of another but I think you need to go back and consider whether your position is internally consistent

There are a couple of distinct categories that are being jumbled up here

1. Fact
It is generally considered that people are not entitled to either make up their own facts, or falsify facts. Facts are generally either True or False, or partially true/False and it is perfectly legitimate to question facts
It is not a valid position to say "I am entitled to my own facts".

2. Belief
It is generally considered that people are entitled to hold whatever belief they like, but are all beliefs equally valid?
No, A belief that is entirely based on a false facts is a false belief. If I believe I can survive entirely on sunlight without ever having to eat food, It is an entirely false belief because it is a fact that humans need food to survive
While people can hold any belief they like, there is absolutely no obligation on anyone else to accept someone's belief as true, or even respectable. If you want others to respect your belief, you should present an argument that supports that belief which is supported by sound logic and/or true/justifiable facts.

3. Belief Versus Knowledge.
Knowledge is often defined as 'Justified True Belief'. It is different from coincidentally believing something that happens to be true. Knowledge is only considered knowledge when your belief is true, and you can justify it with valid arguments based on established facts

4. Opinion
Opinion is much more complex compared to belief, facts or knowledge, It encompases a wide variety of beliefs, facts and knowledge, analysis of complex theoretical positions, projections about future events given weighted scenarios that can not be proven with certainty, biases formed due to culture, personal experiences, personal circumstances, economic position as well as hopes and attitudes, emotions, aesthetics, sexuality, personal health, physical factors etc etc. Therefore, it is often considered rude to disparage someone's opinion because there is often no objectively true opinion on as they are based on assumptions and un-provable beliefs

There are two types of opinion, Private Opinion, and Public opinion
It is generally considered that everyone is entitled to hold their own private opinion and is not under any obligation to defend it, or even to reveal what it is to another person.

Public opinion is different, when you voice your opinion in public you are opening it up to be judged by others. You may be asked to support your opinion and your choice whether to support it, or declare it, will influence how other people perceive that opinion. Refusal to support an opinion stated in public means other people can fill in the gaps with their own beliefs.
If you do not want people to judge you on your opinions, then keep them private.

Other people are perfectly entitled to judge your opinion against their own standards/world view/ accumulated knowledge and either hold a private opinion that the other persons opinion is nonsense, or holds merit, or they can publically challenge the other person to justify their opinion with the underlying beliefs knowledge or facts that caused them to arrive at that opinion.

Points to Note
Almost all debate exists to change other people's opinions Therefore it is nonsense to say that opinions should be 'respected' as equally valid. Some opinions are completely wrong if they are based on fundamentally wrong beliefs/Untrue Facts

Example, If I am of the opinion that the Nissan Micra is the greatest ever car to have been manufactured, this is an interesting opinion that could easily be justified based on personal preferences, but if someone asks me why I think this, and I say "Because the Nissan Micra can out accelerate a McLaren F1, has a higher top speed than a Veyron, and is more fuel efficient than a Toyota Yaris" then my opinion is clearly based on false information and if someone corrects this information and demonstrates those facts to be false, if I still hold the belief that the Micra is the greatest ever car and I still quote those demonstrably false facts to justify it, then others are perfectly justified in dismissing my opinion as nonsense

People are perfectly entitled to judge other people by their opinions if other people express those opinions. (that judgement is itself an opinion, and falls under the same rules as any other opinion)

People are under absolutely no obligation to respect another person's public opinion. But we should respect other people's right to hold any opinion they like (this includes not respecting other people's opinion)

10000maniacs

Padre_Pio wrote: »

A fact proven time and again when anyone asks of the benefits of Brexit.

"We can make our own laws!"
You could always make your own laws

"We don't have to follow EU laws!"
Well, you will with regards to any trade or dealings with the EU, and since EU laws have been adopted worldwide and are (usually) more progressive than other countries, adopting alternatives might be a step backwards.

"We have sovereignty"
What does that really mean?

"We control our own waters"
Great. Well done.

"We can enforce immigration restrictions"
You always could, except your govt didn't bother and just blamed the EU.

And so on and so forth, and we haven't even gotten to the negatives of Brexit.

That's James O'Brien's "how to school a bozo Brexit caller" checklist.

Infini

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sigh

NI protocol ‘not sustainable for long’, says UK cabinet minister
David Frost, who negotiated the protocol, says UK will ‘consider all options’

Its the only game in town unless they decide to sign up to EU standards on quality and standards. Its their choice to have this and no amount of whinging and petty moaning will change this. They can put up or shut up.

Strazdas

Padre_Pio wrote: »

A fact proven time and again when anyone asks of the benefits of Brexit.

"We can make our own laws!"
You could always make your own laws

"We don't have to follow EU laws!"
Well, you will with regards to any trade or dealings with the EU, and since EU laws have been adopted worldwide and are (usually) more progressive than other countries, adopting alternatives might be a step backwards.

"We have sovereignty"
What does that really mean?

"We control our own waters"
Great. Well done.

"We can enforce immigration restrictions"
You always could, except your govt didn't bother and just blamed the EU.

And so on and so forth, and we haven't even gotten to the negatives of Brexit.

Yes, it's like claiming you are being "oppressed" by the golf club or gym of which you are a member because you have to follow their rules and you have no choice but to leave it.

The truth being that they (Brexiteers) have an irrational hatred of the other golf club or gym members (but can't admit to this).

Detritus70

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, it's like claiming you are being "oppressed" by the golf club or gym of which you are a member because you have to follow their rules and you have no choice but to leave it.

The truth being that they (Brexiteers) have an irrational hatred of the other golf club or gym members (but can't admit to this).

I always compared the UK's attitude towards Europe to a buffet.
They always liked to pick and choose, always complained about everything and always haggled on the price.
They're like that regular that keeps whinging but keeps coming back and in the end you don't know why he's coming back or what on earth possessed you to give him a special price years ago.
He's finally flipped, thrown a tantrum and a few food items around the place and he stormed off in a huff.
Problem is, he told his entire family that they can get the same deal, but for half-price or even free.
So he still keeps coming back asking to speak to the manager and keeps making the same ridiculous demands.

joeysoap

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? A deal was very unlikely to happen anyway.

Biden's America first is just as impactful as Trump's when it comes to vaccines and more impactful when it comes to the tax stuff and the possibility of American companies leaving places like Ireland. He is actually a dream for Johnson because he couldn't be attacked for vaccine nationalism because that would also mean attacking Biden, and it's way too soon after Trump for that to happen in any meaningful way.

When Frost threatens to tear a done deal - Trump would have his back- Biden won’t,

joeysoap

joeysoap wrote: »

When Frost threatens to tear a done deal - Trump would have his back- Biden won’t,

Trump was president for four years during the negotiations and didn't do anything to suggest he's have the UK's back. Trump was America first, not right wing nationalism first. His envoy to NI even issued warnings about the GFA.

If there had been any meaningful cooperation between the two countries, leaving wouldn't have been extended to just beyond the US election. There would have been more obvious signals that something would play out in the UK's favour. It's just people conflating Trump with Brexit.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump was president for four years during the negotiations and didn't do anything to suggest he's have the UK's back. Trump was America first, not right wing nationalism first. His envoy to NI even issued warnings about the GFA.

If there had been any meaningful cooperation between the two countries, leaving wouldn't have been extended to just beyond the US election. There would have been more obvious signals that something would play out in the UK's favour. It's just people conflating Trump with Brexit.

This is true.

But, precisely because Trump was "American first", if the UK had violated the Withdrawal Agreement, Trump wouldn't let that stop him signing a US:UK trade deal that he thought was advantageous to the US. He wouldn't have cared enough about the Withdrawal Agreement or about NI, one way or the other, to let the violation affect his policy.

Whereas if the UK does violate the WA, that will be a real obstacle to a US:UK trade deal under Biden.

So, yeah, it does make a difference to the Vote Leave government that Biden is in power, rather than Trump. Strategies which might have been open to them for the achievement of their goals under Trump are not open to them under Biden.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is true.

But, precisely because Trump was "American first", if the UK had violated the Withdrawal Agreement, Trump wouldn't let that stop him signing a US:UK trade deal that he thought was advantageous to the US. He wouldn't have cared enough about the Withdrawal Agreement or about NI, one way or the other, to let the violation affect his policy.

Whereas if the UK does violate the WA, that will be a real obstacle to a US:UK trade deal under Biden.

So, yeah, it does make a difference to the Vote Leave government that Biden is in power, rather than Trump. Strategies which might have been open to them for the achievement of their goals under Trump are not open to them under Biden.

Well the president can't sign trade deals I thought? It's a particular senate committee whose name escapes me and my Googling skills.

It's hard to know how it would have played out but I don't think Trump would have gone against bipartisan support of Ireland to try and get a trade deal signed, when he hadn't put any particular effort into it over those years in power. Similarly, I don't think the people on the committee it has to go through would do it just because he was president. A US-UK deal isn't that big of a deal to the US. The benefits to the country don't outweigh the costs to the individual politicians supporting something that breaks the GFA.


The big difference between Trump and the conservatives is that the former was one man, and now he's gone, whereas the Tories as a whole swung to the right with a cabinet filled with one ideology.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the president can't sign trade deals I thought? It's a particular senate committee whose name escapes me and my Googling skills.

Oh, yes, the President can't sign them unilaterally. They need the approval of the House and the Senate. But the President (or the US Trade Representative, who is appointed by the President and is accountable th him) negotiates them, and presents them for approval. Plus Trump was not without influence in a Congress, both of whose houses had Republican majorities.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hard to know how it would have played out but I don't think Trump would have gone against bipartisan support of Ireland to try and get a trade deal signed, when he hadn't put any particular effort into it over those years in power. Similarly, I don't think the people on the committee it has to go through would do it just because he was president. A US-UK deal isn't that big of a deal to the US. The benefits to the country don't outweigh the costs to the individual politicians supporting something that breaks the GFA.

Trump doesn't care about Ireland; America first, remember? And, while the Irish-American lobby is fairly influential, there are more powerful lobbies who would have welcomed a US/UK trade deal, especially a Trumpy one. Their strategy would undoubtedly have been to say "yes, the situation in NI is appalling and the UK has not handled it well, but Trade Is A Different Matter" - to put distance between the UK's failure to operate the NI Protocol as agreed, and the negotiation of the trade deal.

I'm not saying that this strategy would have been a triumphant success. There'd have been a hell of a fight. But those in the UK hoping to make a trade deal with the US would have been vastly, vastly better situated in this
scenario than they would in the scenario involving UK violation of the NI Protocol and a Biden presidency.

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well the president can't sign trade deals I thought? It's a particular senate committee whose name escapes me and my Googling skills.

It's hard to know how it would have played out but I don't think Trump would have gone against bipartisan support of Ireland to try and get a trade deal signed, when he hadn't put any particular effort into it over those years in power. .

The president can't sign trade deals but can do certain things which can be presented as trade deals to a gullible public- such as dropping the tariffs that existed on Scottish whisky. Trump also hated the EU and would, I believe, have been happy to make a pro US "deal" with the UK dropping such tariffs to sell to his followers and to rub in the face of the EU. (As it turned out the US has dropped the relevant Trump tariffs on UK and EU anyway).


.

The big difference between Trump and the conservatives is that the former was one man, and now he's gone, whereas the Tories as a whole swung to the right with a cabinet filled with one ideology.

I would have said that the biggest difference is that the Tories have hit upon a repeatable winning strategy - Trump didn't really.
The Tories have crushed those to their right, purged their party of opposition, managed to blame the opposition for Tory actions over the last 10 years and have left their opposition in England in disarray.

J Mysterio

It's the Ways and Means Committee.

ilovesmybrick

EU citizens arriving in UK being locked up and expelled

This just strikes me as ridiculously over the top from the UK government. I know it doesn't apply to me as an Irish citizen, but I looked at their points system a few months ago and would probably come out 10 points short, since my PhD isn't in STEM. It is an incredibly high bar to entry and is bound to exclude the majority of EU workers in the UK that keep their economy ticking over. I'm presuming that Nurses would be on the shortage list so would qualify, but I'm going to presume that care workers and a wide variety of other critical, yet under appreciated (and under paid) rolls that are being propped up by non UK workers are not included.

I'm going to presume that the numbers currently being caught up in this reactoin are quite low due to travel restrictions, but once everything begins to return to normalcy I can see a massive row developing between the EU and UK over such treatment of EU nationals, especially when it seems to be one way.