Brexit and the Consequences

[barjon]

Hi Att',
As FXX doesn't want to play ball - I'll indulge you. That said, he is quite correct when he points out that all these questions have been asked - and the answers provided - many times before, so I'm not going to tell you anything you don't already know.

It's all about the overarching principle - specific details are not important at this stage. Obviously we can't re-write every EU/ECJ law, rule, regulation and edict between now and next March - that's totally impractical. Besides which, a great many - probably the vast majority of them - are just fine as they are and will never be changed. Hence the EU withdrawal bill. The point is that when we leave we'll have the option to edit or delete anything we want. (By way of example, I'm hopeful that changes to the fishing industry will be high on the list.) So, going forward, we will be able to decide for ourselves how we wish to conduct our affairs and not have a third party impose their rules 'n reg's on us - even though the vast majority of them we agree with and support. Think principle, principle, principle - that's pretty much all you need to know and do, whereupon most of this stuff becomes fairly obvious, clear and simple.
Tim.

Yes, it’s a fine principle, Tim, and if you followed it in absurdum you would first break up the UK so that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could decide how they wished to conduct their affairs. Then, in England, break up into counties so they could do the same. Then to individual cities and towns and so on.

However, as the interaction between peoples grew and continues to grow it makes sense to have a common framework between them. Somewhere is a balance to be drawn - you draw it tighter than me that’s all.

 

[timsk]

Hi Jon,

Yes, it’s a fine principle, Tim, and if you followed it in absurdum you would first break up the UK so that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could decide how they wished to conduct their affairs. Then, in England, break up into counties so they could do the same. Then to individual cities and towns and so on.

There is the National Assembly in Wales and the Scottish Parliament, so they can - to some degree at least - have control over their own affairs. If they want complete independence from England, they can hold a referendum and, if their respective peoples decide that's what they want - they'll get no complaint from me. Within England, we do of course have county, district, town and parish councils - so the political infrastructure is already in place. Granted, it doesn't always work and there's loads wrong with it - but at least as individuals there is a mechanism in place by which we can affect change. That's not the case with the EU, evidenced by David Cameron's ill-fated visit to Brussels when he was PM warning Juncker et al that if they didn't show some flexibility and understanding towards the U.K. then he'd have to call a referendum. They raised two fingers to him and we are where we are now.

However, as the interaction between peoples grew and continues to grow it makes sense to have a common framework between them. Somewhere is a balance to be drawn - you draw it tighter than me that’s all.

I don't object to the principle of a common framework - especially regarding trade. On the contrary, I agree that it's a good idea. What I object to is having less say than a country like Malta as to what that framework is and then having to abide by every aspect of it. It comes back to the principle of stuffing 27 different shaped pegs into one big round hole. It's never going to work. So, if the EU is to survive (which I don't believe it can in its current form), it needs to change. And fast. The first thing it needs to do is to listen. The second thing it needs to do is to abandon the political objective of a United States of Europe. Thereafter, it needs to accept that different member states have different needs and agendas and to allow for some degree of flexibility and be prepared to make bespoke agreements on a country by country basis. If they started to behave reasonably and introduced measures along these lines, I'd feel much happier about remaining in the EU.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Hi Jon,

There is the National Assembly in Wales and the Scottish Parliament, so they can - to some degree at least - have control over their own affairs. If they want complete independence from England, they can hold a referendum and, if their respective peoples decide that's what they want - they'll get no complaint from me. Within England, we do of course have county, district, town and parish councils - so the political infrastructure is already in place. Granted, it doesn't always work and there's loads wrong with it - but at least as individuals there is a mechanism in place by which we can affect change. That's not the case with the EU, evidenced by David Cameron's ill-fated visit to Brussels when he was PM warning Juncker et al that if they didn't show some flexibility and understanding towards the U.K. then he'd have to call a referendum. They raised two fingers to him and we are where we are now.


I don't object to the principle of a common framework - especially regarding trade. On the contrary, I agree that it's a good idea. What I object to is having less say than a country like Malta as to what that framework is and then having to abide by every aspect of it. It comes back to the principle of stuffing 27 different shaped pegs into one big round hole. It's never going to work. So, if the EU is to survive (which I don't believe it can in its current form), it needs to change. And fast. The first thing it needs to do is to listen. The second thing it needs to do is to abandon the political objective of a United States of Europe. Thereafter, it needs to accept that different member states have different needs and agendas and to allow for some degree of flexibility and be prepared to make bespoke agreements on a country by country basis. If they started to behave reasonably and introduced measures along these lines, I'd feel much happier about remaining in the EU.
Tim.

Aye, the political framework is already in place with each level subservient to the higher level. To a large extent we have never accepted subservience to the higher EU level and have mostly been dragged along kicking and screaming. Only got to see the turnout for European MEP elections or the regard in which we hold those MEPs. Partly, that’s because the European Parliament started off as a relatively toothless body. That’s changed but our views on it have not.

 

[FXX]

London threatens retaliation if Brussels refuses to change position on City

just seen this on the wire for you all to banter away. This is arguably our strongest card to play and we should be using it to our advantage.


"UK negotiators have told their counterparts in Brussels that about 7,000 European-based investment funds that rely on British clients for their cash and profits will be hit by regulators unless the EU changes its position on the City of London after Brexit."

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-tit-for-tat-measures-over-financial-services

 

[Pat494]

just seen this on the wire for you all to banter away. This is arguably our strongest card to play and we should be using it to our advantage.


"UK negotiators have told their counterparts in Brussels that about 7,000 European-based investment funds that rely on British clients for their cash and profits will be hit by regulators unless the EU changes its position on the City of London after Brexit."

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-tit-for-tat-measures-over-financial-services

I heard the vultures from the City are leaving in droves for Paris. Berlin and Frankfurt.
No loss if those selfish b*ms disappear. They just pocket millions from flogging off a country's BEST companies and pocket the cash

 

[FXX]

I heard the vultures from the City are leaving in droves for Paris. Berlin and Frankfurt.
No loss if those selfish b*ms disappear. They just pocket millions from flogging off a country's BEST companies and pocket the cash

You must have heard this from project fear who stated 20k+ jobs would go but as it turns out only a few hundred are going

 

[Pat494]

Got to be careful on this principal thing. Plenty of people from the past met a very painful end for their principles. And now years later except for a few martyrs they are largely forgotten and died for nothing. Pragmatism has its advantages sometimes.

 

[sminicooper]

Got to be careful on this principal thing. Plenty of people from the past met a very painful end for their principles. And now years later except for a few martyrs they are largely forgotten and died for nothing. Pragmatism has its advantages sometimes.

Give us some examples please !

 

[neil]

Adults in the room

Hi Jon,

There is the National Assembly in Wales and the Scottish Parliament, so they can - to some degree at least - have control over their own affairs. If they want complete independence from England, they can hold a referendum and, if their respective peoples decide that's what they want - they'll get no complaint from me. Within England, we do of course have county, district, town and parish councils - so the political infrastructure is already in place. Granted, it doesn't always work and there's loads wrong with it - but at least as individuals there is a mechanism in place by which we can affect change. That's not the case with the EU, evidenced by David Cameron's ill-fated visit to Brussels when he was PM warning Juncker et al that if they didn't show some flexibility and understanding towards the U.K. then he'd have to call a referendum. They raised two fingers to him and we are where we are now.





I don't object to the principle of a common framework - especially regarding trade. On the contrary, I agree that it's a good idea. What I object to is having less say than a country like Malta as to what that framework is and then having to abide by every aspect of it. It comes back to the principle of stuffing 27 different shaped pegs into one big round hole. It's never going to work. So, if the EU is to survive (which I don't believe it can in its current form), it needs to change. And fast. The first thing it needs to do is to listen. The second thing it needs to do is to abandon the political objective of a United States of Europe. Thereafter, it needs to accept that different member states have different needs and agendas and to allow for some degree of flexibility and be prepared to make bespoke agreements on a country by country basis. If they started to behave reasonably and introduced measures along these lines, I'd feel much happier about remaining in the EU.
Tim.

Interesting comments on the EU from a Greek Economist's perspective ?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/03/yanis-varoufakis-greece-greatest-political-memoir

Selection of content:

The first revelation is that not only was Greece bankrupt in 2010 when the EU bailed it out, and that the bailout was designed to save the French and German banks, but that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy knew this; and they knew it would be a disaster.

This charge is not new – it was levelled at the financial elite at the time by leftwing activists and rightwing economists. But Varoufakis substantiates it with quotes – some gleaned from the tapes of conversations and phone calls he was, unbeknown to the participants, making at the time.

Even now, two years after the last Greek election, this is of more than academic interest. Greece remains burdened by billions of euros of debt it cannot pay. Because of the actions taken in 2010-11 – saving private banks by saddling north European states with massive debts – it is French and German taxpayers who will pay the price when the Greek debt is inevitably written off.


Interesting figures on National Debt?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d.....69i57j0l4.5406j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

AND
Comparison of the EU Member States
Below you find real time clocks of the national debt and the budget surplus/deficit of the member countries of the European Union (EU) under the Maastricht Treaty in percent of GDP (debt to GDP ratio, surplus/deficit to GDP ratio). According to the Maastricht Treaty, the national debt should not exceed 60.0 percent of GDP and the deficit should not exceed 3.0 percent of GDP.

https://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficits-comparison-of-the-eu-member-states.html

Seems Treaties can be ignored if the numbers cannot be adhered to.
And you can bail out Banks to maintain the illusion of a working European capitalism, but slash hospital or other social spending on a people.
( The USA has the Fed to move money around from surplus states to deficit
( Greek?) states) But even the USA ( A Deficit nation) cannot keep sucking in more in imports than it exports with consequent bad results for surplus countries like Germany ( think Greece ( deficit nation) eventually was unable to absorb more and more German exports)

 

[Atilla]

@Atilla


Like many remainers I just don't think you understand why the vote went the way it did. I can rehash the same reasonings as has been done by others many times on this thread and in the press. I don't see the point in that given that this thread is nothing more than a repeating record without any progress. Its like it has morphed into a platform for remainers and brexiters to throw mud at each other. Cheese, repeal bill, what difference would it make other than yet another mud slinging match?

I am at the point where I just don't care about the what's, when's, or who for that matter. I can for example explain to you until the cows come home, it isn't going to change your viewpoint. Likewise asking me to discuss this and that as though it will yield dialect is just not going to happen. Every note between the remainers and brexiters in this thread has lead to mud slinging to varying degrees. Nobody is going to budge on their view on this and after 400 pages and over 6k posts nobody is any wiser or having an altered opinion.

Remainers just don't understand and never will by the looks of it. Project fear is continued in various forms without much evidence to support outside of anecdotal. I am not getting into a mud slinging match and I know you are pulling me in but it just isn't going to happen. I have trading to do and a profession to maintain so unfortunately I will be stepping off this thread indefinitely. If after 6000 posts perceptions were altered I might have given this more time but alas it isn't the case.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I think I have a clue - see pic below.

I can see tumble weeds blowing the down the thread with your super post. Think much of the country feels the same. I also feel precisely the reason why Brexit is so fundamentally important because tumble weeds will be rolling down many streets in England.

Ok here is the serous reply.

1. Eurosceptics have been against EU since the beginning back in 70s. They have always been there and never quite left.

2. Always against any progress EU have made with treaties unifying EU States and indeed this is no secret.

3. Here is the crux of the matter - reason why Eursceptics have done well this time round is linked to crash of 2008, belt tightening across many countries, Arab spring uprising and refugee crises, ISIS blowing up bombs in Europe to justify intervention for wars and we are all pretty much sick of finger wagging muslim dick heads telling us how great they are...

UKIP and Eurosceptics have capitalised on key issues to sway public opinion.


ISSUE for UK is that once these lesser minor issues have died down, UK having bailed out of project EU will become an isolated Island on the periphery of EU much like Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In fact perhaps even be in a less of a position if tit for tat responses with EU escalate.

There are other issues like lack of investment and whilst it may be easy to say NSH tourism is the reason for waiting lists and NHS crises as opposed to million more people now over the age of 75 but the 25% drop in police numbers, teachers or nurses are little more difficult to explain.

Anyhow in summary when the dust settles in another decade and after another mini recession the globe moves forward heaps and bounds, UK will have less industry, less finance and less R&D to compete on the World stage. We'll also have more aged population with nation carrying a greater tax burden.

That's my opinion.

Others may suggest different and that's what this is all about. Pretty fundamental stuff with long term impact.

When ever the fundamentals turn up, migrants and refugees trumps all other debate. Here I agree with you.

If we don't identify core issues but falsify them for political justification, we'll end up applying wrong policies without really tackling root cause of problem.

 

[Atilla]

Hi Att',
As FXX doesn't want to play ball - I'll indulge you. That said, he is quite correct when he points out that all these questions have been asked - and the answers provided - many times before, so I'm not going to tell you anything you don't already know.

It's all about the overarching principle - specific details are not important at this stage. Obviously we can't re-write every EU/ECJ law, rule, regulation and edict between now and next March - that's totally impractical. Besides which,
a great many - probably the vast majority of them - are just fine as they are and will never be changed. Hence the EU withdrawal bill. The point is that when we leave we'll have the option to edit or delete anything we want. (By way of example, I'm hopeful that changes to the fishing industry will be high on the list.) So, going forward, we will be able to decide for ourselves how we wish to conduct our affairs and not have a third party impose their rules 'n reg's on us - even though the vast majority of them we agree with and support. Think principle, principle, principle - that's pretty much all you need to know and do, whereupon most of this stuff becomes fairly obvious, clear and simple.
Tim.

So how does what you say here tally up with
“The lack of influence is quite marked. Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times. That is a fact.” (Leave)



Find it ironic you have principal in your post.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016...ain-outvoted-more-than-other-countries-in-eu/

Here is another very principled fella

 

[timsk]

So how does what you say here tally up with
“The lack of influence is quite marked. Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times. That is a fact.” (Leave)

Find it ironic you have principal in your post.

Hi Atilla,
Please remember that as a leave voter I am - by definition I am told - thick as two short planks. In other words, I'm afraid I have no idea what the connection is between the part of my post you highlighted in red and what I've quoted from you above. There's none that I can see and, therefore, no contradiction and no tallying up to be done!
Tim.

 

[timsk]

. . . I made a small contribution towards Darren Grimes' appeal and forwarded the link to a handful of people in my address book. One of them being my brother who lives in Canada and, while he takes some interest in UK affairs, doesn't involve himself to the extent that we all do on this thread. He replied saying that - having read the links - he cant quite get his head around what the case is all about. So, in my reply, I attempted to outline the key points as I understand them. I've copied what I wrote to him below because, for the reasons given, I think it's important that everyone supports Darren Grimes' appeal - regardless of which side of the Brexit debate one is on.

As a follow up to this post of mine a few pages back - I've received a reply from my brother in Canada which I thought I'd share here. He writes: "Thanks for shedding light on Grimes’ plight. What seems odd to me is that in most democratic societies one would expect to find an administrative means for Grimes to appeal the fine. To force him to effectively appeal through the courts is a huge waste of court time and expensive lawyers over a relatively small matter (in monetary terms, not to Grimes)."

Further to the above, here's the latest from Grimes' solicitor: Statement by Saunders Law on behalf of Darren Grimes concerning the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS) report published 29th July 2018
Tim.

 

[counter_violent]

As a follow up to this post of mine a few pages back - I've received a reply from my brother in Canada which I thought I'd share here. He writes: "Thanks for shedding light on Grimes’ plight. What seems odd to me is that in most democratic societies one would expect to find an administrative means for Grimes to appeal the fine. To force him to effectively appeal through the courts is a huge waste of court time and expensive lawyers over a relatively small matter (in monetary terms, not to Grimes)."

Further to the above, here's the latest from Grimes' solicitor: Statement by Saunders Law on behalf of Darren Grimes concerning the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS) report published 29th July 2018
Tim.

I really do hope this all ends up in court, but I strongly suspect that everything will be dropped before it gets that far. Looks to me like this organisation is totally inept. Perhaps the Govt will intervene before it goes much further.

 

[counter_violent]

I heard the vultures from the City are leaving in droves for Paris. Berlin and Frankfurt.
No loss if those selfish b*ms disappear. They just pocket millions from flogging off a country's BEST companies and pocket the cash

Pat.

Without the City and it's cooperation, the EU are f******ed.

I'm not saying this as a Brexiteer.......it's a fact.

 

[counter_violent]

That's gratitude for you.

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-30/manchester-arena-bomber-had-been-rescued-by-royal-navy/

 

[sminicooper]

I really do hope this all ends up in court, but I strongly suspect that everything will be dropped before it gets that far. Looks to me like this organisation is totally inept. Perhaps the Govt will intervene before it goes much further.

Electoral Commission has got form on this and has a pretty dodgy history when it comes to impartiality and fairness. It ought to end up in court with resulting exposure but they wouldn't like the publicity so I don't suppose it will get that far. Thank goodness for the Internet, social media and crowd funding!

......... And still the powers that are so much wiser than us ordinary people want to restrict freedom of the press - and the Internet if they could get away with it. It would be funny if it wasn't true

 

[counter_violent]

Electoral Commission has got form on this and has a pretty dodgy history when it comes to impartiality and fairness. It ought to end up in court with resulting exposure but they wouldn't like the publicity so I don't suppose it will get that far. Thank goodness for the Internet, social media and crowd funding!

......... And still the powers that are so much wiser than us ordinary people want to restrict freedom of the press - and the Internet if they could get away with it. It would be funny if it wasn't true

What they have all discovered is. that normally compliant, subservient Joe public have minds of their own and with the advent of the internet, access to more information alongside a platform to express their views.

A quiet revolution you might say. The politicians and press are left floundering.

 

[counter_violent]

I don't think it would be fair to my MP to repeat his reply but I can give you the flavour. It's an ultra-safe Midlands constituency, has been continuously Conservative for over 90 years and the Brexit vote was split fairly evenly along national lines. Having given him the full benefit of my views on Theresa May's duplicity/incompetence/lack of leadership with regard to Brexit and urging him and his colleagues to deal with it, I actually felt quite sorry for him and wasn't really anticipating a reply other than the standard polite acknowledgement.

A few days later I received a lengthy email setting out his stall. It would seem that he has carefully thought about these topics and while not revealing whether or not he has submitted one of those "dissatisfaction" letters or openly slagging off the PM, he carefully explained his background to being a Brexit supporter and discussed in detail the Chequers proposal. I was interested to find out that prior to being an MP he had been very closely involved in the movement to prevent Tony Blair from adopting the Euro and further closely involved in campaigning for a referendum on the EU constitution. So whether you agree with his Brexit views or not, it is evident that like the leopard, he has spots and hasn't changed them! I thought he gave a fair assessment of the Chequers proposal: not a particularly good deal even if achievable but having some merit in parts. He actually discussed in detail the merits and demerits of quite a few factors. His overall assessment of the situation is that it is all very fluid and rather unclear at the moment (omitted to say whether he thought this was Theresa May's fault).

What has impressed me is his statement that "As your MP I owe you a duty of honesty about the difficult situation in Parliament" and I believe he has fulfilled that. I think it's important to remember that for an MP in a constituency that is fairly evenly split, it is impossible to please both sides and the only sensible course is to come clean and state what you really believe in – no doubt that is very difficult for some MPs. It's also Theresa May's problem isn't it?

There was a lot more in his reply than my brief outline above but I do at least feel that this man is doing his best to be a good constituency MP. Despite their popular bad press, it's always been my impression over the years in dealing with MPs that the ones I have encountered have been decent hard-working people wanting to contribute something worthwhile to national life. It would be interesting to hear about anyone else's experience with giving their MP an ear-bending.

For the record, after the Brexit vote and the subsequent resignation of Cameron, I wrote to Andrea Leadsom urging her to stand in the leadership contest. I did receive a reply thanking me for my support. It was quite brief and I expect this was because she was busy at the time.
It soon became apparent though that the establishment were out to knobble her tilt for the top job.

If only she had surrounded herself with proper advisors from the outset....things might have turned out quite differently.

 

[FXX]

For the record, after the Brexit vote and the subsequent resignation of Cameron, I wrote to Andrea Leadsom urging her to stand in the leadership contest. I did receive a reply thanking me for my support. It was quite brief and I expect this was because she was busy at the time.[emoji38]
It soon became apparent though that the establishment were out to knobble her tilt for the top job.

If only she had surrounded herself with proper advisors from the outset....things might have turned out quite differently.

I just don't see her as having the goods to handle the stress of the role and alpha male predators.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk