nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Capt'n Midnight

The Tories are trying to buy the election with promises of a magic money tree that could only be paid for if the economy improves.

And that depends on getting good trade deals or WTO magic claims (lies?) from those who don't understand the WTO.

Most of the countries they need deals with are already screaming.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50419130

Fifteen countries, including the US, India and New Zealand, have been setting out Brexit concerns at a World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Geneva.
...
Australian officials said their beef and lamb exporters had already been hit after several Brexit delays.
...
Brazil said Brexit plans for Northern Ireland could breach WTO rules.

How much trade does the UK do outside of EU/US/Oz/NZ/India and Brazil ?

The UK already dances to China's tune. Vetoing EU tariffs on Chinese steel. Putting lots of EU steelworkers jobs at risk to save the average UK family a fiver on cheap imported shoes.

Let's not forget that Moldova was blocking UK access to $1.7 Trillion of procurement until Feb.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Before the referendum of 2016, what did you interpret Leave to mean? This confusion of what Leave means only manifested post- the referendum result

Nope. Check out chapters 1-3 of this thread and you'll see that the "confusion" was set out from the very beginning. Funnily enough, the EU recognised that there were many potential interpretations of the term "Brexit" and planned for all of them ... which is more than can be said for the UK government (which, you may have noticed, has been Tory throughout the Brexit era).

Deleted User wrote: »

the Conservative Party are offering a clear and decisive option, compared to Corbyn, who now offers the "liars referendum" of Remain v Remain Minus.

Whether you like it or not, Prime Minister Johnson is dominating the polls. There's a reason for that; a reason you refuse to accept.

Where have I said that I don't accept the reason Johnson is "dominating" the polls? I fully accept that the polls show Johnson/the Conservatives as having a lead over the other leaders/parties.

But the reason for that isn't necessarily because of what the Johnson is offering: just because he's prepared to stand up in front of the press and tell outright, demonstrable lies doesn't mean that he can deliver a "clear and decisive" Brexit - and anyone who supports him based solely on this promise is incredibly naïve.

looksee wrote: »

Pages of utter delusion. Why is anyone still engaging?

In my case, it's coz I haven't had any telemarketers call me and I've no-one else to play with ...

[Deleted User]

CelticRambler wrote: »

In my case, it's coz I haven't had any telemarketers call me and I've no-one else to play with ...

It's because this forum is dominated by pro-EU Remainers, who struggle to understand why an individual may decide to opt to Leave.

I'm fully aware that my position is a minority one, but it is no less a legitimate one to hold.

I don't subscribe to the view that just because an individual receives more "likes", they are "more right". That's the nature of forums and I fully accept that my views will never be considered the dominant opinion.

But that's fine by me.

I welcome discussion and disagreement; indeed, I have modified my own views based on the evidence that the Remain side of the argument has put forth - and I will continue to do so.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's because this forum is dominated by pro-EU Remainers, who struggle to understand why an individual may decide to opt to Leave.

Yeah, you're right: we do struggle to understand, because since we lost the infamous Solo, we haven't had one single Brexit supporter come on here and present a coherent argument outlining why Brexit is a good idea. Every single time we ask for examples of how the UK will be better outside the EU, the Leaver swipes the enquiry aside; or comes back with some confused example that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then runs away.

Deleted User wrote: »

If anyone is unsure why there's such division in the UK, it is primarily down to this type of elitism that says that one side of the argument is unilaterally - and without question - the right perspective to hold, and anyone who doesn't share these views somehow belong to the gutters of ignorance where they must rot thereon.

Leavers could avoid portraying themselves as ignorant if they presented arguments based on fact, and coherent explanations based on real-world examples. Unfortunately, the only Leaver statement that comes anywhere close to that was Rees-Mogg's declaration that it will be about 50 years before there's any economic benefit to Brexit.

[Deleted User]

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah, you're right: we do struggle to understand, because since we lost the infamous Solo, we haven't had one single Brexit supporter come on here and present a coherent argument outlining why Brexit is a good idea. Every single time we ask for examples of how the UK will be better outside the EU, the Leaver swipes the enquiry aside; or comes back with some confused example that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then runs away.

Leavers could avoid portraying themselves as ignorant if they presented arguments based on fact, and coherent explanations based on real-world examples. Unfortunately, the only Leaver statement that comes anywhere close to that was Rees-Mogg's declaration that it will be about 50 years before there's any economic benefit to Brexit.

First and foremost, I have no idea who Solo is. Second, I'll always offer examples as to why I think a federalised/militarized Europe is a bad idea and, third, I have no plans to "run away' - though many on here have openly asked for me to be "banned" or that I espouse "complete delusion", but those condemnations, without evidence, are now considered acceptable opinion.

That's fine, I just happen to take a different view. For me, objectivity matters.

Regarding Leave, I don't believe there is much of an "economic argument" to be had; as I don't believe that economics can, in the long-term, rely on any reliable predictive potential. Those most married to political perspectives tend to over-trust those results that favour their own politics. I'm sceptical of relying on economic persuasions due to how successful that predictive potential is, or can be.

For instance, I am against a federalised Europe for the same reason I'm against any conception of a federalised Africa, North America, Asia, or Australasia.

My principle rests on the basis of more power and identity residing with the individual, and not the powerful collective; democratic nations engaged in free-market capitalism for the benefit of all. That to me appears to be a legitimate position to hold.

It may be disagreeable, but it is a legitimate position.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the date was stipulated such that, if Johnson didn't return to parliament with a deal, sufficient time was available to avoid a no deal and force Johnson to secure an extension.

Even though Johnson came back with a deal, an extension was foisted upon him. Many here have claimed that MPs wished to have more time to scrutinize the legislation. You can believe that if you choose. It's quite obvious to me that it wasn't a matter of scrutiny, as Labour and other already stipulated, it was a matter of preventing the Prime Minister from delvering Brexit and going past the 31 October deadline, in the hope the public would tide against Johnson.

That tide didn't come to shore. That's why Johnson is so popular, or far more popular than those in Opposition anticipated.

Surely he is a failure? He promised 31st October and would have preferred to be dead in a ditch instead of breaking it.

Why did he promise it if he couldn't deliver? He saw May's deal get lambasted with Boris himself voting against causing the UK to remain in the EU (amongst other leavers and remainers). He knew he was in for a fight and was not up for it. It was not foisted upon him. It was his job to convince the democratically elected representatives of his deal. And he failed. Badly.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

It's because this forum is dominated by pro-EU Remainers, who struggle to understand why an individual may decide to opt to Leave.

I'm fully aware that my position is a minority one, but it is no less a legitimate one to hold.

I don't subscribe to the view that just because an individual receives more "likes", they are "more right". That's the nature of forums and I fully accept that my views will never be considered the dominant opinion.

But that's fine by me.

I welcome discussion and disagreement; indeed, I have modified my own views based on the evidence that the Remain side of the argument has put forth - and I will continue to do so.

I genuinely wish to understand why people support leaving - im happy to debate the ins and outs (pardon the very poor pun) - that's the reason i engage on this forum. But i have to be honest and say i have not seen a significantly valid reason for supporting leave -

The usual suspects include

Undemocratic to have a second referendum
The first Referendum was entirely fair, despite obvious evidence to the contrary
The EU is undemocratic and often insists on countries holding second referenda -
People fully understood what Brexit they wanted and it included exit of the CM/CU
The decision is no longer leave remain, that was settled - the question is now what type of Brexit to get

I have some respect for the final reason btw - but ultimately i reject it due to my genuine stance on what Brexit will result in

Remain in EU - Status Quo
Leave with Very Soft Brexit - CM/CU - slightly less than status quo
Leave with a Deal - Measurably Less than Above Soft Brexit
Leave with no deal - Significantly less than above Deal

All Cumulative

Happy to discuss - an aside Question time and the View will be interesting tonight

Edit - i tend not to receive vast amounts of thanks either btw - at least when ever i have read back, i dont notice more than 3-4 - not discussing for thanks anyway so

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

For instance, I am against a federalised Europe for the same reason I'm against any conception of a federalised Africa, North America, Asia, or Australasia.

So you are against something that isn't going to happen. Grand.

Now what's your problem with nation states cooperating?

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

So you are against something that isn't going to happen. Grand.

Now what's your problem with nation states cooperating?

If you're Eurosceptic, it doesn't mean you're against European nations cooperating.

I'm all in favour of European cooperation - on intelligence, on free trade, on education and so forth - but I am against the idea that all European nations are forged together into one parliament, one council, one president, one anthem, and one state.

It's that simple - 100% co-ooperation, not political alignment.

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

I am against the idea that all European nations are forged together into one parliament, one council, one president, one anthem, and one state.

None of which exists or is going to exist. Anything else?

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

None of which exists or is going to exist. Anything else?

What!?

Leroy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you're Eurosceptic, it doesn't mean you're against European nations cooperating.

I'm all in favour of European cooperation - on intelligence, on free trade, on education and so forth - but I am against the idea that all European nations are forged together into one parliament, one council, one president, one anthem, and one state.

It's that simple - 100% co-ooperation, not political alignment.

So you against the UK then?

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

What!?

Every member state of the EU has its own parliament, president, anthem and everything else and nobody is threatening to take them away.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you're Eurosceptic, it doesn't mean you're against European nations cooperating.

I'm all in favour of European cooperation - on intelligence, on free trade, on education and so forth - but I am against the idea that all European nations are forged together into one parliament, one council, one president, one anthem, and one state.

It's that simple - 100% co-ooperation, not political alignment.

How could you have 100% cooperation without political alignment?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll always offer examples as to why I think a federalised/militarized Europe is a bad idea

But there is no proposal by anyone anywhere to create a federalised, militarised Europe, so any such examples have no relevance to this thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am against a federalised Europe for the same reason I'm against any conception of a federalised Africa, North America, Asia, or Australasia.

None of those continents are being federalised. The only region that is federalised and militarised in the sense that you seem to oppose is the United States of America. Do you believe that those 50 states should be de-federalised and recover the independence and sovereignty they gave up over the last 300 years?

Deleted User wrote: »

My principle rests on the basis of more power and identity residing with the individual, and not the powerful collective; democratic nations engaged in free-market capitalism for the benefit of all. That to me appears to be a legitimate position to hold.

It may be disagreeable, but it is a legitimate position.

It would indeed be legitimate if it was coherent. But every argument in your first paragraph can be applied to the Union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It makes no sense to argue in favour of the UK withdrawing from the EU but to oppose the break-up of the UK. All of the "worst" characteristics attributed by Brexiters to the relationship between the UK and the EU apply much more acutely to the relationship between the constituent countries of the UK and Westminster.

black forest

Is there ground hog day somewhere?

I got a bit bored and had a look at Twitter. How about a look up of a few of the things the EU is financing in the UK?

https://twitter.com/pablopereza/status/1157236910772895744?s=21

It’s a bit too much but thankfully someone already activated the thread reader app.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1157236910772895744.html

So much for showing the direct net effects of the money the poor UK has to send to Brussels every year. If you are interested in your area just look it up. It’s all there...

https://what-europe-does-for-me.eu/en/home

Strazdas

lawred2 wrote: »

How could you have 100% cooperation without political alignment?

You can't, it's a fantasy. Brexiteers want to return to an early 1950s version of trading, not realising it's not even possible in the global economy of 2019.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll always offer examples as to why I think a federalised/militarized Europe is a bad idea.

This is a strawman in terms of the Brexit debate. Europe is neither federalised nor militarized under the EU. Some people might want it to be both, but so what? Some want it to become a Union of European Socialism, others want it to revert to a mere bare bones trade agreement, and others want it to collapse. None of those things are the reality of the EU today, and the UK had the power as a member state to prevent or not take part in any of those potential alternative versions of the EU some people would like to see.

Indeed the irony is that Brexit means that the UK is now unable to stop the EU moving in the direction of a federalised/militarized Europe. If that is they way the EU developes, Brexit means that the UK will just have to sit right beside it and live with it, like it or not, rather than playing a major role in shaping the EUs development to suit the UK as they had done over the past 40 years.

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

That's fine, I just happen to take a different view. For me, objectivity matters.

Regarding Leave, I don't believe there is much of an "economic argument" to be had; as I don't believe that economics can, in the long-term, rely on any reliable predictive potential. Those most married to political perspectives tend to over-trust those results that favour their own politics. I'm sceptical of relying on economic persuasions due to how successful that predictive potential is, or can be.

Except that is clearly nonsense and clearly not objective. Capitalism demonstrably works. Allocating resources based on price demonstrably works. Decreasing barriers to trade increases trade and wealth. The UK erecting barriers to trade clearly increases economic drag.

For instance, I am against a federalised Europe for the same reason I'm against any conception of a federalised Africa, North America, Asia, or Australasia.

My principle rests on the basis of more power and identity residing with the individual, and not the powerful collective; democratic nations engaged in free-market capitalism for the benefit of all. That to me appears to be a legitimate position to hold.

It may be disagreeable, but it is a legitimate position.

it's a nonsensical position. If you are Pro individual, why are you in favour of increasing the arbitrary power of the UK government to do what it wants? A decidedly undemocratic entity which clearly disregards human rights and the rights of the individual? Why are you interested in taking away individuals' rights to move, establish, move capital around Europe?

You haven't explained why you are against a "federalised Europe - or why you fear that everyone else will vote for it (or why you are against everyone else voting for it - surely you are Pro individual freedom?). Are you similarly against a federalised Germany, a federalised United States, a federalised Canada?

murphaph

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you against the UK then?

Or the US, or Canada or Mexico....all federal states. North America is a huge continent but thanks to federalism only 3 countries in it.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

It's because this forum is dominated by pro-EU Remainers, who struggle to understand why an individual may decide to opt to Leave.

I'm fully aware that my position is a minority one, but it is no less a legitimate one to hold.

I don't subscribe to the view that just because an individual receives more "likes", they are "more right". That's the nature of forums and I fully accept that my views will never be considered the dominant opinion.

But that's fine by me.

I welcome discussion and disagreement; indeed, I have modified my own views based on the evidence that the Remain side of the argument has put forth - and I will continue to do so.

Your position holds little water, not because of the position itself but the way you are presenting it to us. There has been many half truths and outright lies in your posts that has been flagged up and you ignore it.

Examples include claiming it was Labour that stopped Brexit from happening when it was an amendment from Sir Oliver Letwin, Conservative minister, that proposed the extra time for scrutiny. Labour had 260 or so MPs, so please explain to me how a party with less than the majority in Parliament stopped Johnson from proceeding with his bill on an amendment from a non-Labour MP.

Then you also wanted to claim that MPs had enough time to scrutinize the bill which is not true. The truth here is that even with the deal very close to May's deal, she didn't publish the WAB so MP's didn't have time as you claimed. You have not acknowledged this so either you know it and are posting false information or you are ignoring and spreading the wrong information. I would like to know what it is you are doing.

I am happy to debate Leave opinions on here, although inevitably they always end in the same way, either a permanent ban or the poster just leaving when their position is shown to be irrational. Yes irrational, as you yourself admit the economic benefit from Brexit is tenuous at best so people would be worse off. This wasn't accepted by the Leave campaigns and maligned as "Project Fear" so to claim people knew is just false again. So people voting to be worse off financially and struggling is irrational.

Igotadose

black forest wrote: »

Is there ground hog day somewhere?

I got a bit bored and had a look at Twitter. How about a look up of a few of the things the EU is financing in the UK?

It’s a bit too much but thankfully someone already activated the thread reader app.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1157236910772895744.html

So much for showing the direct net effects of the money the poor UK has to send to Brussels every year. If you are interested in your area just look it up. It’s all there...

https://what-europe-does-for-me.eu/en/home

The thread doesn't mention CAP (farm support). This document: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/by_country/documents/cap-in-your-country-uk_en.pdf does. Quick summary: 2014-2020, around 22 billion euros in CAP support. So, around 5.5 billion euros per year. Good luck replacing that.

Joe_ Public

Maybe when committed brexiteers admit there is no economic benefit to leaving, that it's entirely politically motivated and that there is a price to pay for the privilege of "taking back control", maybe then you could have a rational debate around it. Talking about sunny economic uplands 30-50 years down the road is risible, not a serious attempt to engage in a proper, truthful discussion.

[Deleted User]

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Maybe when committed brexiteers admit there is no economic benefit to leaving, that it's entirely politically motivated and that there is a price to pay for the privilege of "taking back control", maybe then you could have a rational debate around it. Talking about sunny economic uplands 30-50 years down the road is risible, not a serious attempt to engage in a proper, truthful discussion.

I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders.

It's the principle that matters, not GDP going down a few points (which is debatable).

Not everything can be reduced to money. Some things matter more.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders.

It's the principle that matters, not GDP going down a few points (which is debatable).

Not everything can be reduced to money. Some things matter more.

That is probably true for some brexiteers, but certainly not for everyone who voted Leave on 2016 - I’d say enough to have swung the referendum from Leave to remain.
It seems the current election is being fought on the basis of money, so you are in the minority if you think a GDP (and consequent treasury) hit is acceptable damage.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders.

It's the principle that matters, not GDP going down a few points (which is debatable).

Not everything can be reduced to money. Some things matter more.

This is indeed the crux of it.

No one outside the Brexiteer bubble understands the thought process behind this.

No one can understand how or where Brexiteers believe that they will "take back control" outside the EU.

Trade - The EU has the highest standards in global terms , so to trade wit them you'll have to adhere to those standards , as you currently do , except now , you will have absolutely no influence in setting those standards, you'll just have to abide by them.

If you choose to lower your standards , you can't trade. You can raise your standards, but you can of course do that today. so not seeing the gain there at all.

Borders - This has been done to death , but you've always had control of your borders , so you are not really gaining anything there either.

Laws - Again , you have always had control over your laws and vetoes over EU laws so another area where no one sees the benefits claimed.

So - What everybody but Brexiteers sees is a classic case of "cutting off your nose in spite of your face"

You are leaving the EU and giving up any influence with your single largest trading partner and one of the largest trading blocks on earth to gain virtually nothing in reality.

The only change moving forward in a post Brexit UK will be that the HMGOV and the British press will no longer be able to blame their ineptitude and disfunction on the EU.

[Deleted User]

Ribs1234 wrote: »

That is probably true for some brexiteers, but certainly not for everyone who voted Leave on 2016 - I’d say enough to have swung the referendum from Leave to remain.
It seems the current election is being fought on the basis of money, so you are in the minority if you think a GDP (and consequent treasury) hit is acceptable damage.

But that's true with every election.

For instance, not everyone who voted Remain supports a European Defence Pact. Not everyone who voted Remain supports free movement of people (see the latest Sky poll released today) etc. Not everyone who voted Remain supports additional Eastern members joining the EU etc. I could go on.

So just as Leave voters have different expectations, so too does Remain. After all, neither Leave nor Remain are "static" positions, they are evolving with the times and not everyone will agree with that direction.

The same principle applies to General Elections.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's true with every election.

For instance, not everyone who voted Remain supports a European Defence Pact. Not everyone who voted Remain supports free movement of people (see the latest Sky poll released today) etc. Not everyone who voted Remain supports additional Eastern members joining the EU etc. I could go on.

So just as Leave voters have different expectations, so too does Remain. After all, neither Leave nor Remain are "static" positions, they are evolving with the times and not everyone will agree with that direction.

The same principle applies to General Elections.

... and since general elections are held regularly because of changing positions and circumstances (and new information and the amount of time elapsed), you’d also be happy to revisit the referendum by going back to the people. Great.

[Deleted User]

Ribs1234 wrote: »

... and since general elections are held regularly because of changing positions and circumstances, you’d also be happy to revisit the referendum by going back to the people. Great.

Yes, once the first referendum result has been implemented; in the same way we hold general elections after the result has been implemented, not before.

Thanks for reaffirming my position.

Shelga

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders.

It's the principle that matters, not GDP going down a few points (which is debatable).

Not everything can be reduced to money. Some things matter more.

Do you think that it is selfish to force an economic hit on the nearly 50% of the country who didn’t vote for it, in order to satisfy the whims of your ideology?