Brexit discussion thread II

blanch152 · 17-10-2017 06:05PM

First Up wrote: »

Do you think French culture or identity has been weakened by membership of the EU? Or German? Or Italian or Spanish?

Your fears for the British (or English) identity surviving among others in Europe demonstrates nothing other than insecurity and (subconcious) inferiority.

It is paradoxical watching this debate when the two sides of the North switch position with the DUP Brexiteers needing the special protection of Brexit to preserve their identity and the republicans rubbishing that, when if the debate switched to the Irish Language Act and the republicans' plea for special protection, they would both adopt the opposite position.

FrancieBrady · 17-10-2017 06:10PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It is paradoxical watching this debate when the two sides of the North switch position with the DUP Brexiteers needing the special protection of Brexit to preserve their identity and the republicans rubbishing that, when if the debate switched to the Irish Language Act and the republicans' plea for special protection, they would both adopt the opposite position.

The DUP didn't have to Brexit to preserve their identity, it is enshrined in an international agreement and respected by everyone else. Their own insecurities led them to support Brexit and then when it suprised them that it passed to water down what they wanted and look for 'special recognitions'

Republicans are looking for equal rights (for everyone). Quite simple and different.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-10-2017 07:13PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not to pick nits, but this week's 490 billion write-down is not the result of Brexit; it's just the recognition of an accounting stuff-up that would have had to have been recognised, Brexit or no Brexit.

It does mean that their financial and economic position is much more fragile than previously believed, however, and therefore they are less well-placed to deal with the stresses of Brexit than they thought.

It's down to two things, lack of inward investment and collapse in sterling.

Both were triggered by Brexit.

You can argue that the assets haven't changed.

But it's like arguing a house is still a house, and so it's just as valuable an asset. Any banker will set you straight on that if you go to re-mortgage it after the price has fallen 20%, hint - you won't be getting a preferential interest rate.

carrickbally · 17-10-2017 07:19PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unfollow the thread and follow it again but click "No email notifications".

Thanks. I hope it is fixed.

Capt'n Midnight · 17-10-2017 07:21PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Services covers such a multitude. Will we lose access to SKY TV services?

Would this be the same SKY that used to be resident in Luxembourg for tax purposes ?

Don't worry them boys don't miss a trick.

*hugs* Freesat box.

mountaintop · 17-10-2017 07:47PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

George Eliot and Bobby Sands? I'd like you to explain that one. As for all the rest, I won't try and convince you otherwise. But the founding fathers of Europe knew that countries that trade with each other don't go to war. It's obvious you'd be happy to return to the individualism of the nation state, and there are many people like you. The consequence of that, in time, is economic competition, nationalism and ultimately conflict. I'm not making that up. That's fact. I would have thought that a united Europe, despite its difficulties, would be better than that. But if you want to belong to, as you call it, a particular 'Homestead', then that's fine, go ahead. But if people like you get their way, Europe will unravel and return to the past. And then, when you see the ultimate consequences of what that means, what will you say, 'Sorry, I got that wrong'. Too late.

The Rape of Lucretia · 17-10-2017 08:28PM

murphaph wrote: »

Even on this thread there is a marked quietness from the few people prepared to defend Brexit as it becomes increasingly indefensible.

There being no true defence, its only in the interest of provoking some debate that some feel it incumbent upon themselves to bat for Brexit. soli deo gloria did some sterling work in that unfancied role for a while but time for a few others to take a turn or the thread will be dead. Willing to give it a go. So :

Britain must take back control - no true Englishman wants Slovenians, Latvians or Turks deciding its laws. Especially the Turks. Such an idea is clearly nonsense and the EEC went too far when it started letting in more than the original 9 that we were in 1973. Many of the people from those countries have never even set foot in the UK, so why should they have anything to do with making our laws ? British laws should be made in London, and I make no apology for thinking thus.
With the money we will save that is being squandered by fat French and German bureaucrats in Brussels on expense accounts, the trade deals we can make with countries all over the world without the deadweight of the EU, and being able to sell curved bananas again, we will be able to make Britain truly Great once more.

My advice - tell the EU to go whistle for its 'divorce settlement' (cant ever remember marrying Europe do you ?), and just pull out of the Brexit negotiations right now (we voted out - not to negotiate about being out!). Its just a time wasting tactic by the EU to keep us in as long as possible. Leave in the morning, screw a 'deal', and TAKE BACK CONTROL !

Beechwoodspark · 17-10-2017 08:34PM

murphaph wrote: »

Even on this thread there is a marked quietness from the few people prepared to defend Brexit as it becomes increasingly indefensible. The fact the UK appears to be half a trillion pounds poorer than was thought up to last week has perhaps put a bit of a dampener on the whole going over the Brexit top with your chums.

Even That "good morning!!!! Much thanks(?!)" dude seems to have realised the crock that Brexit is

ancapailldorcha · 17-10-2017 08:37PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Even That "good morning!!!! Much thanks(?!)" dude seems to have realised the crock that Brexit is

Please post a bit more constructively than this and cut out the sniping.

ancapailldorcha · 17-10-2017 08:40PM

Post deleted. Up the standard please.

A Little Pony · 17-10-2017 09:27PM

mountaintop wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Utopia stuff. Europe is not a singular block. It has many different nationalities, traditions, cultures, certain countries with a strong self of belonging to a homestead. The Belgiums might not have that and many of the bureaucrats don't have a belonging but many of us do throughout Europe who disagree with the EU concept.

Reading George Eliot and Bobby Sands writings is the formation of my views on this issue.

George Eliot and Bobby Sands? I'd like you to explain that one. As for all the rest, I won't try and convince you otherwise. But the founding fathers of Europe knew that countries that trade with each other don't go to war. It's obvious you'd be happy to return to the individualism of the nation state, and there are many people like you. The consequence of that, in time, is economic competition, nationalism and ultimately conflict. I'm not making that up. That's fact. I would have thought that a united Europe, despite its difficulties, would be better than that. But if you want to belong to, as you call it, a particular 'Homestead', then that's fine, go ahead. But if people like you get their way, Europe will unravel and return to the past. And then, when you see the ultimate consequences of what that means, what will you say, 'Sorry, I got that wrong'. Too late.

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation. You are not going to get a nuclear war in Europe, certainly not involving the UK with France or Germany. Mainly because we have the bomb and it's not in anyone's interests for that.

Sam Russell · 17-10-2017 09:40PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation. You are not going to get a nuclear war in Europe, certainly not involving the UK with France or Germany. Mainly because we have the bomb and it's not in anyone's interests for that.

You do know that David Davis took the UK to the ECJ and won.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter

So we have the chief negotiator to take the UK ut of the jurisdiction of the ECJ actually used the ECJ to put manners on the UK Gov who were riding roughshod over the rights of UK citizens.

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

First Up · 17-10-2017 09:56PM

A Little Pony wrote:

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation.

Yes, we heard you already. I asked you before; are you against all cooperation between sovereign states or just when it happens in Europe?

A Little Pony · 17-10-2017 09:59PM

First Up wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote:

That is what I want, the people of the states ruling themselves, self governing it is called. Making our own laws, not part of the ECJ, control over borders. Being an independent nation.

Yes, we heard you already. I asked you before; are you against all cooperation between sovereign states or just when it happens in Europe?

Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.

First Up · 17-10-2017 10:02PM

A Little Pony wrote:

Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.

So what sort of cooperation do you approve of?

steddyeddy · 17-10-2017 10:42PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Cooperation is fine. We worked together to stop Napoleon. No issue with working together outside the EU.

You don't realise but without being in the largest free market in the world, no not the UK, there's zero chance the economy would be as good as it is. To be fair it's not great now.

The UK subsidise NI 20 billion a year. We just found out the UK has a 490 billion hole in their finances. Do you really think the NI economy can lose agricultural grants, EU grants and access to the single market?

Professor Moriarty · 17-10-2017 10:52PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You don't realise but without being in the largest free market in the world, no not the UK, there's zero chance the economy would be as good as it is. To be fair it's not great now.

The UK subsidise NI 20 billion a year. We just found out the UK has a 490 billion hole in their finances. Do you really think the NI economy can lose agricultural grants, EU grants and access to the single market?

You're talking to someone who stated that they would cut off their leg if it meant that Brexit would happen immediately, so I don't think pesky little matters like grants and the single market matter much to them.

Firblog · 17-10-2017 11:08PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

steddyeddy · 17-10-2017 11:32PM

Firblog wrote: »

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

The ECJ has the following responsibilities:

"It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union and of the provisions laid down by the competent Community institutions"

In other words they, a collection of 28 judges from each member state deal with laws relating to membership of the EU. It relates to EU law, I.E the set of rules that the EU is bound by. It's not as simple as Brexiters make out, but then again what is?

steddyeddy · 17-10-2017 11:35PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're talking to someone who stated that they would cut off their leg if it meant that Brexit would happen immediately, so I don't think pesky little matters like grants and the single market matter much to them.

True, but I don't know how unionists can vote for something that can weaken their union? This will do more damage to the North than the IRA did. I'm surprised Sinn Fein didn't campaign for it.

breatheme · 17-10-2017 11:35PM

Firblog wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

It's because the EU doesn't trust the UK courts with the rights of its citizens.

Professor Moriarty · 18-10-2017 12:02AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

True, but I don't know how unionists can vote for something that can weaken their union? This will do more damage to the North than the IRA did. I'm surprised Sinn Fein didn't campaign for it.

The DUP's Wiki page describes their ideology as:

British nationalism
British unionism
Conservatism
National conservatism
Right-wing populism
Social conservatism
Euroscepticism

So they're simply following their principles. Our mutual friend's wish to cut off his leg to achieve Brexit epitomises the DUP's willingness to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Firblog · 18-10-2017 12:13AM

breatheme wrote: »

It's because the EU doesn't trust the UK courts with the rights of its citizens.

Yet they don't look for the same rights for EU citizens in any other country? Russia, China, Saudi, Syria etc

They must really have a poor opinion of UK courts from some reason, even though the laws they adjudicate on have been enacted by a democratically elected parliament, unlike the countries mentioned above.

Seems like another indication of the EU's much noted love of democracy

FrancieBrady · 18-10-2017 12:24AM

Firblog wrote: »

Yet they don't look for the same rights for EU citizens in any other country? Russia, China, Saudi, Syria etc

They must really have a poor opinion of UK courts from some reason, even though the laws they adjudicate on have been enacted by a democratically elected parliament, unlike the countries mentioned above.

Seems like another indication of the EU's much noted love of democracy

They are negotiating a deal. The UK are looking for some things in that deal and the EU want some things in return. Simple really

Really Interested · 18-10-2017 12:26AM

Firblog wrote: »

Yet they don't look for the same rights for EU citizens in any other country? Russia, China, Saudi, Syria etc

They must really have a poor opinion of UK courts from some reason, even though the laws they adjudicate on have been enacted by a democratically elected parliament, unlike the countries mentioned above.

Seems like another indication of the EU's much noted love of democracy

But EU citizens did not move to Russia, China or Saudi under the rules set out in a treaty, hence why free movement is called treaty rights. If a citizen of the EU wishes to move outside the area that is covered by EU law that is their choice.

But as A France national who moved to the U.K. did so under the protection of the treaties and directives then it is not surprising that the EU wanted to make sure that persons rights are protected just like it wants to protect the EU/UK citizen who moved to Spain and expects to retain his property rights and right to draw his pension in Spain, the EU also wants to make sure spain does not use Spanish law to make political gain, so in such a case in the future the U.K. citizens rights in Spain will be protected by EU Courts even after the motherland has left the EU.

Turkey is an example where by agreement with the EU certain movement rights are protected not by day UK or Irish law or Turkish law but by EU law.

Charles Babbage · 18-10-2017 12:28AM

Firblog wrote: »

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

That's the basis on which these people came to England, the "contract" can be changed for new arrivals, but not for people already there.

View · 18-10-2017 12:46AM

Firblog wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

He is also trying to remove the ECJ from oversight of the rights of EU citizens left in the UK after Brexit.

I think that is called hypocrisy.

No that's called not wanting to discriminate and defending sovereignty , why should a European court have oversight of the rights of EU Citizens in the UK? Why should EU citizens be treated any differently to anyone else when UK leaves the EU? Can you imagine if the US wanted their courts to adjudicate on their citizens' rights in the EU?

I really cannot understand how anyone in the EU can believe that this is anything other than a red line for the UK; that their courts/laws - in an independent country - can be over ruled by a foreign court, whose laws the UK have no part in drafting.

The U.K. is asking for a deal so that ITS citizens continue to be treated as EU citizens with all associated rights AFTER the U.K. leaves the EU and they are no longer EU citizens. One of those rights would be that their (U.K.) citizens, who are living in EU countries, would be able to take any legal complaints to the ECJ.

The quid pro quo of that is the EU also wants its citizens, who are living in the U.K., to also be able to take any of their legal complaints to the ECJ.

Since the ECJ is the final audicator of the rights of EU citizens that position is reasonable. What would not be reasonable would be a deal where one group of citizens has access to the ECJ but the other is denied it. Such a deal basically amount to a proposal by the U.K. to treat EU citizens like all other non-EU ones.

Or, of course, we just forego such an agreement and have the UK process EU citizens - all 3 million + - as foreign nationals, and have the EU process all U.K. citizens as “third country nationals” - after giving preference to EU citizens first - and then give them no more preference than the citizens of Brazil or Burkina Faso.

sink · 18-10-2017 12:47AM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Britain must take back control - no true Englishman wants Slovenians, Latvians or Turks deciding its laws. Especially the Turks. Such an idea is clearly nonsense and the EEC went too far when it started letting in more than the original 9 that we were in 1973.

Nationalists such as yourself have completely different first principles to my own and other internationalists.

Nations, culture and ethnicity are transient, existing only momentarily and forever changing and evolving. Your parents and grandparents had different cultural beliefs and practices to your own and the further you go back in time the farther culturally removed your ancestors are from you. In fact you share far more culture with your present day European neighbours than you do with your own ancestors only 3 generations back. There was once a time when the concept of Irish, British etc, didn't exist and eventually they will cease to exist. Even the landmasses we call homelands will one day sink under the sea. So your objective of preserving a national identity is as certain of defeat as death itself.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Many of the people from those countries have never even set foot in the UK, so why should they have anything to do with making our laws ? British laws should be made in London, and I make no apology for thinking thus.

Have you visited Cornwall, Yorkshire, the Outer Hebridies? Why should you have anything to do with making the laws of anywhere you have not visited?

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

With the money we will save that is being squandered by fat French and German bureaucrats in Brussels on expense accounts, the trade deals we can make with countries all over the world without the deadweight of the EU, and being able to sell curved bananas again, we will be able to make Britain truly Great once more.

And what the parliamentary expense scandals? One could argue that that is a common cultural trait! The EU has more free trade deals in place and being negotiated than any other nation/trade block. Both those arguments fall flat under any scrutiny.

Really any of these 'technical' arguments that you put forward are just a smokescreen for what at heart is your desire to live in a culturally homogeneous state where you hope to feel a sense of inclusion. Nationalism is one of those dangerous beliefs that seek inclusion through exclusion, by dividing people along arbitrary lines and kicking anyone who doesn't 'belong' out. Some people seek inclusion through religion (which can be inclusive or exclusive) others through sport, music or even stamp collecting, practically any cultural activity that people interact and socialise. In other words nationalists need a better hobby.

FrancieBrady · 18-10-2017 12:56AM

sink wrote: »

Nationalists such as yourself have completely different first principles to my own and other internationalists.

Nations, culture and ethnicity are transient, existing only momentarily and forever changing and evolving. Your parents and grandparents had different cultural beliefs and practices to your own and the further you go back in time the farther culturally removed your ancestors are from you. In fact you share far more culture with your present day European neighbours than you do with your own ancestors only 3 generations back. There was once a time when the concept of Irish, British etc, didn't exist and eventually they will cease to exist. Even the landmasses we call homelands will one day sink under the sea. So your objective of preserving a national identity is as certain of defeat as death itself.

Have you visited Cornwall, Yorkshire, the Outer Hebridies? Why should you have anything to do with making the laws of anywhere you have not visited?

And what the parliamentary expense scandals? One could argue that that is a common cultural trait! The EU has more free trade deals in place and being negotiated than any other nation/trade block. Both those arguments fall flat under any scrutiny.

Really any of these 'technical' arguments that you put forward are just a smokescreen for what at heart is your desire to live in a culturally homogeneous state where you hope to feel a sense of inclusion. Nationalism is one of those dangerous beliefs that seek inclusion through exclusion, by dividing people along arbitrary lines and kicking anyone who doesn't 'belong' out. Some people seek inclusion through religion (which can be inclusive or exclusive) others through sport, music or even stamp collecting, practically any cultural activity that people interact and socialise. In other words nationalists need a better hobby.

I think you may have missed the sarcasm inherent in his/her post.

sink · 18-10-2017 12:59AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you may have missed the sarcasm inherent in his/her post.

On second reading I see I somehow skipped over the first paragraph.

doh! Poe's law in action I guess.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments