UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[Honey Honey]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Specifically what core competencies and identities?

As far as I can tell the single market is what makes the EU most like a nation state. Freedom to travel and work without a visa, trade without tariffs among member nations, shit like that. And obviously they can mandate binding laws onto member states.

There’s also plenty that doesn’t make it a country. It doesn’t have a unified “domestic” policy - because it’s made up of member states. It doesn’t have a unified foreign policy at all either. And the fact that all member states do recognise each other’s sovereignty is another big factor.

Either way, my point was if leaving the EU means leaving behind the single market and thus leaving behind mutually beneficial multilateral trade agreements... it’s going to hurt us on trade. And if we’re to remain in the single market, we will lose still be subject to EU mandates... while losing our ability to participate in deciding what those mandates are.

Core competencies in that something can be decided at a European level which cannot be vetoed by a member state, with the ECJ having supremacy of law. This is the difference with the single market where a veto is possible and a dispute court which is non-binding. The future remains the competency of the nation state. EU members are increasingly glorified local councils and will continue to have political movements calling to cede power to the centre. Especially those in the €urozone.

The identities of a nation state are evident outside of parliament everyday. There are people there with EU flags, people who feel a connection, a pride and a shared identity. All of the psychological trappings of national identity. The EU itself is to spend billions trying to cultivate this emotional belonging. Some people cried after the referendum result because of a sense of lost identity. No one cried because multilateral trade agreements would be hard to replicate. The foundation of continuity remain is built on this emotional bondage. People marching the streets professing their identity. This was cultivated over time through the symbolism of the European Union project. The very word European is itself a loaded name. 

[The Artful Dodger]

Can't we all just be abducted by Zeus like the original Europa? Make the Greeks the bosses.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Harvsky said:

Core competencies in that something can be decided at a European level which cannot be vetoed by a member state, with the ECJ having supremacy of law. This is the difference with the single market where a veto is possible and a dispute court which is non-binding. The future remains the competency of the nation state. EU members are increasingly glorified local councils and will continue to have political movements calling to cede power to the centre. Especially those in the €urozone.

The identities of a nation state are evident outside of parliament everyday. There are people there with EU flags, people who feel a connection, a pride and a shared identity. All of the psychological trappings of national identity. The EU itself is to spend billions trying to cultivate this emotional belonging. Some people cried after the referendum result because of a sense of lost identity. No one cried because multilateral trade agreements would be hard to replicate. The foundation of continuity remain is built on this emotional bondage. People marching the streets professing their identity. This was cultivated over time through the symbolism of the European Union project. The very word European is itself a loaded name. 

So it’s all emotional shit that doesn’t really matter and has fuck all to do with the well-being of the UK.

Well I hope to fuck we do stay in the single market so the voters didn’t devestate our economy just because of their little feelings.

Also I hope we don’t go the Swiss way if we do that because I don’t know if I can stomach giving the voting public more say on important matters.

[Honey Honey]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

So it’s all emotional shit that doesn’t really matter and has fuck all to do with the well-being of the UK.

"All" is your word. I used the word foundation. Identity also does matter. It's the central tenant of social cohesion.

[Danny]

People identify with the EU emotionally because it isn’t a nation, but a union of nations who care less for borders as each generation is born. People cried because we are restricting ourselves to just being a nation, that in itself has to be enough proof that the EU isn’t one. The world is too big and connected to remain so insular. Fuck knows what the word is but nation isn’t it.

I realise this is a pedantic argument, but I live for pedantic arguments. Please carry on.

[Guest]

I have looked into brexit a lot recently. The more I look at it the more I realise how ridiculously complicated it it. At the moment I think we are gonna be fucked in the short term at least. Hopefully not the long term. 

@Dr. Gonzo @Harvsky you seem the most knowledgeable on it. One thing that brexeters say is that countries like Sweden and Norway do ok. That is something that kind of gives me hope. Thoughts on that?

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I have looked into brexit a lot recently. The more I look at it the more I realise how ridiculously complicated it it. At the moment I think we are gonna be fucked in the short term at least. Hopefully not the long term. 

@Dr. Gonzo @Harvsky you seem the most knowledgeable on it. One thing that brexeters say is that countries like Sweden and Norway do ok. That is something that kind of gives me hope. Thoughts on that?

Sweden's in the EU - maybe you mean Switzerland? Norway and Switzerland are both in the European Free Trade Association (there's 2 other countries, I forget who they are). They're part of the single market, but not part of the EU customs union.

They're a bit different though. Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). They adopt most EU legislation, except for the common agriculture/fisheries regulations, maybe more... I'm not sure though, maybe @Harvsky knows in more detail. They also have to pay the EU money in grants that doesn't go towards Norway at all. They get a lot of the benefits of the EU - namely the single market and are allowed to participate in certain EU programs. But they have 0 voting rights within the EU - so they have some legislation completely imposed on them... but they don't have a say in it.

If that's the end result of Brexit, that's not so bad... but it does beg the question why we'd want to leave the EU, continue to pay into it, still have legislation "imposed" upon us by the EU, while losing our ability to have any say in what that legislation is.

The Switzerland method is much more complicated and I'm a bit confused by it so I can't go into it with more detail. But it's unique in that the Swiss vote on whether certain EU legislation really applies to them. But the Swiss fucking love voting and referendums. I'm thoroughly opposed to the Swiss method here in Britain because I think people voting on things they don't fully understand is stupid and not the best way to run a nation (see: Brexit). It might work in some countries, but I don't think it works well with the UK (see: Brexit).

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Sweden's in the EU - maybe you mean Switzerland? Norway and Switzerland are both in the European Free Trade Association (there's 2 other countries, I forget who they are). They're part of the single market, but not part of the EU customs union.

They're a bit different though. Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). They adopt most EU legislation, except for the common agriculture/fisheries regulations, maybe more... I'm not sure though, maybe @Harvsky knows in more detail. They also have to pay the EU money in grants that doesn't go towards Norway at all. They get a lot of the benefits of the EU - namely the single market and are allowed to participate in certain EU programs. But they have 0 voting rights within the EU - so they have some legislation completely imposed on them... but they don't have a say in it.

If that's the end result of Brexit, that's not so bad... but it does beg the question why we'd want to leave the EU, continue to pay into it, still have legislation "imposed" upon us by the EU, while losing our ability to have any say in what that legislation is.

The Switzerland method is much more complicated and I'm a bit confused by it so I can't go into it with more detail. But it's unique in that the Swiss vote on whether certain EU legislation really applies to them. But the Swiss fucking love voting and referendums. I'm thoroughly opposed to the Swiss method here in Britain because I think people voting on things they don't fully understand is stupid and not the best way to run a nation (see: Brexit). It might work in some countries, but I don't think it works well with the UK (see: Brexit).

You don't like people voting on what they don't understand. No one understands Brexit.  I actually find it quite interesting but ridiculously complacted. From what I can gather. It may benefit certain businesses that trade in nly in Britain. However only a certain amount of produce can be produced in Britain. We are gonna have to import some produce.  I can't possibly see how it can do anything but put prices up. 

[Honey Honey]

3 hours ago, Danny said:

People identify with the EU emotionally because it isn’t a nation, but a union of nations who care less for borders as each generation is born. People cried because we are restricting ourselves to just being a nation, that in itself has to be enough proof that the EU isn’t one. The world is too big and connected to remain so insular. Fuck knows what the word is but nation isn’t it.

I realise this is a pedantic argument, but I live for pedantic arguments. Please carry on.

You didn't address any of the philosophical arguments. Why?

If we follow the logic of your enough proof the EU doesn't possess the competencies and trappings traditionally reserved for the nation state, then the United Kingdom also isn't a nation state because some Scottish people would cry if Scotland became independent from rUK. So just who is a nation state? That goes back to the philosophical arguments you ignored.

The philosophy without the identity does not hold obedience. As you are seeing across Europe. Once you understand the philosophy and then recognise existence and obedience you can connect the dots of identity and the importance of attachment.

[Dr. Gonzo]

33 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

You don't like people voting on what they don't understand. No one understands Brexit.  I actually find it quite interesting but ridiculously complacted. From what I can gather. It may benefit certain businesses that trade in nly in Britain. However only a certain amount of produce can be produced in Britain. We are gonna have to import some produce.  I can't possibly see how it can do anything but put prices up. 

Yeah if you only do business in Britain, Brexit will either have no impact to your business or maybe even a positive impact. But it's bad for British businesses that export goods and services - they don't really know where they will stand in the future and there's been no clarity for them really in the last 2 years. But one of the most prominent in the leave camp said "fuck business" so I suppose business doesn't matter... bollocks to the economy I suppose.

It's also bad for foreign businesses that export to the UK for the same reasons. And it's also really awkward for the people who moved to the UK from EU member states.

The referendum was stupid because it was far too vague for the general voting public. People were voting either for the status quo or a mystery option that was completely undefined. And Brexit meant different things to different people. I suppose a lot of people had a lot more faith in our political leadership than they really should have.

A better option for the referendum would have been to lay out a plan for what Brexit would actually mean. And then the options would have been remain or leave under certain terms that were laid out. And then leave could have campaigned on what those terms actually were, rather than just making stuff up. Instead it was completely undefined and people made stuff up in the campaign and created illusions of what Brexit would mean.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah if you only do business in Britain, Brexit will either have no impact to your business or maybe even a positive impact. But it's bad for British businesses that export goods and services - they don't really know where they will stand in the future and there's been no clarity for them really in the last 2 years. But one of the most prominent in the leave camp said "fuck business" so I suppose business doesn't matter... bollocks to the economy I suppose.

It's also bad for foreign businesses that export to the UK for the same reasons. And it's also really awkward for the people who moved to the UK from EU member states.

The referendum was stupid because it was far too vague for the general voting public. People were voting either for the status quo or a mystery option that was completely undefined. And Brexit meant different things to different people. I suppose a lot of people had a lot more faith in our political leadership than they really should have.

A better option for the referendum would have been to lay out a plan for what Brexit would actually mean. And then the options would have been remain or leave under certain terms that were laid out. And then leave could have campaigned on what those terms actually were, rather than just making stuff up. Instead it was completely undefined and people made stuff up in the campaign and created illusions of what Brexit would mean.

Trust me if you go down to a rough pub in Bristol you will see how little some people know. I don't know to much about it either so hopefully this doesn't come across as self opinionated but there were people who literally thought we left the next day and that all the immigrants would leave the country.

One thing that could do with a bit of clariying for me.

A lot of people voted to leave because of Islam and Syrian refugees. However if a refugee can provide reasonable evidenced that he or she are in danger in their own country they will be granted asylum and that is because of the Geneva convention and has nothing to do with the EU

Edited January 26, 2019 by Guest

[Danny]

5 hours ago, Harvsky said:

You didn't address any of the philosophical arguments. Why?

If we follow the logic of your enough proof the EU doesn't possess the competencies and trappings traditionally reserved for the nation state, then the United Kingdom also isn't a nation state because some Scottish people would cry if Scotland became independent from rUK. So just who is a nation state? That goes back to the philosophical arguments you ignored.

The philosophy without the identity does not hold obedience. As you are seeing across Europe. Once you understand the philosophy and then recognise existence and obedience you can connect the dots of identity and the importance of attachment.

I’d had one too many and don’t really care that much about this argument

[6666]

I think this video perfectly explains Brexit so far. 

 

[Honey Honey]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

A better option for the referendum would have been to lay out a plan for what Brexit would actually mean. And then the options would have been remain or leave under certain terms that were laid out. And then leave could have campaigned on what those terms actually were, rather than just making stuff up. Instead it was completely undefined and people made stuff up in the campaign and created illusions of what Brexit would mean.

Wouldn't work either mate. You have to negotiate with the EU which means give and take on red lines. That give and take would do exactly as what is happening now in the parliamentary arithmetic and cause deadlock. What would be needed is a political party with a strong majority whose purpose is to leave and who are willing to walk away from the table and take no deal.

If there was a plan in the referendum then it would still require politicians who don't agree with it, believe it or who didn't put it forward going along with it. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Harvsky said:

Wouldn't work either mate. You have to negotiate with the EU which means give and take on red lines. That give and take would do exactly as what is happening now in the parliamentary arithmetic and cause deadlock. What would be needed is a political party with a strong majority whose purpose is to leave and who are willing to walk away from the table and take no deal.

If there was a plan in the referendum then it would still require politicians who don't agree with it, believe it or who didn't put it forward going along with it. 

What did you vote mate?

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Harvsky said:

Wouldn't work either mate. You have to negotiate with the EU which means give and take on red lines. That give and take would do exactly as what is happening now in the parliamentary arithmetic and cause deadlock. What would be needed is a political party with a strong majority whose purpose is to leave and who are willing to walk away from the table and take no deal.

If there was a plan in the referendum then it would still require politicians who don't agree with it, believe it or who didn't put it forward going along with it. 

Yeah I know it’s not really realistic because we’d be voting for something not negotiated with the EU already.

My big issue with Brexit is I think no deal is just an unacceptable option and, in my books, is just something that people who profit off economic collapse want to happen. And those who push for austerity and privitisation of industries (usually the same people though) will be happy. But for most ordinary people living ordinary lives it just makes things unnecessarily complicated.

And then the alternative keeps a lot of things substantially the same by keeping us in the single market, but we’d lose our say in EU legislation that would likely still apply to it. And I’m not sure any benefit from not being in the EU would outweigh that loss to our ability to have a say in legislation. But we also had that fuckhead Farage as an MEP not taking his job seriously and just being a twat in the European Parliament, so certain areas of the country didn’t really give a shit about whether we had proper representation in the EU in any case.

[God is Haaland]

[Danny]

Farage  about to stir up the bigotry again. The man is a complete cunt.

[Guest]

On 10/02/2019 at 09:24, Danny said:

Farage  about to stir up the bigotry again. The man is a complete cunt.

What's he done now?

[Danny]

16 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

What's he done now?

Starting up a new Brexit party apparently 

[Fairy In Boots]

5 hours ago, Danny said:

Starting up a new Brexit party apparently 

Think you have a very limited view of political posturing. It’s a party designed to ensure the two “main” parties stay on track and deliver Brexit. They didn’t  like UKIP as it split their vote hence the concession to have a referendum and UKIP being annihilated at the general election because they’d effectively been negated by that promise. 

Post Brexit to stay relevant because they’re work is now done, UKIP have lurched further to the right from Euro skeptic to outright anti immigration. That’s made them toxic to the electorate. 

So Eurosceptic Brexit support is at a loss, hence a Brexit party will consolidate that vote and therefore the two main parties will court that vote, mainly by delivering Brexit or promising to do so. 

[Danny]

10 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Think you have a very limited view of political posturing. It’s a party designed to ensure the two “main” parties stay on track and deliver Brexit. They didn’t  like UKIP as it split their vote hence the concession to have a referendum and UKIP being annihilated at the general election because they’d effectively been negated by that promise. 

Post Brexit to stay relevant because they’re work is now done, UKIP have lurched further to the right from Euro skeptic to outright anti immigration. That’s made them toxic to the electorate. 

So Eurosceptic Brexit support is at a loss, hence a Brexit party will consolidate that vote and therefore the two main parties will court that vote, mainly by delivering Brexit or promising to do so. 

I understand why he’s doing it, but Tommy Robinson or not UKIP was openly bigoted throughout the referendum and before, there being more people out there that are in line with that level of bigotry rather than Tommy Robinson’s level doesn’t change the fact that this is what Farage is doing.

[The Artful Dodger]

Looks increasingly like Umunna et al will split off. The man himself is an incorrigible snob and it's barely plausible that he would have existed within the Labour party before Blair essentially destroyed the very premise of the Labour party. It's scandalous that a by election is not automatically triggered, they have used the Labour banner to further their career and gain a large salary.

[The Artful Dodger]

Annnd they've gone. Good riddance and hopefully they never feel Labour is the party for them again.

[Inverted]

1 hour ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Looks increasingly like Umunna et al will split off. The man himself is an incorrigible snob and it's barely plausible that he would have existed within the Labour party before Blair essentially destroyed the very premise of the Labour party. It's scandalous that a by election is not automatically triggered, they have used the Labour banner to further their career and gain a large salary.

Apparently they've been working with a consultancy in Washington and will be targeting marginals in the next election, rather than try their luck fighting to keep the safe seats the Labour Party provided to them to allow them to establish their careers. 

The centre being the usual bastion of moral fortitude as they have been for the last hundred years.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Inverted