• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

@nayimfromthehalfwayline

Of course its not just a trading block, but the EUs core is a customs union with the 4 freedoms outlined previously. To work together you have to have some political mechanisms. But do you think our parliament is worth less since being in the EU? I've barely noticed a European election. When was the last one? If the EU is such a political entity, why are we focused on our own parliament and not the MEPs and elections I wonder? Because the EU is a customs union first and foremost, its political areas are limited, but they are important and of value.

Re. international cooperation, what you are essentially saying is lets leave an infrastructure that is proven to facilitate cooperation across nations, and rebuild from scratch? The EU not only ensures european nations are not polluting, or that corporations overcharge us unfairly, we also have sway over 3rd party nations like Turkey. Which is good because a dirty factory in Turkey or Ukraine will pollute across borders. In this globalised world laws are still largely bound by nation states - even with EU laws, UK law is still prevalent when it comes to making a business deals etc but EU law facilitates any legal issues that may need to be resolved. I can give examples if you wish, its dull, but essentially far cheaper and easier to settle disputes in the EU than say with a party in the US. Laws are still national, but much of human activity is international. A business deal maybe for an online service, or manufacturing of cars which uses components from 10s of countries and then ships the finished cars to 10s of others. For the past decades we have shaped these international EU laws. Soon we will not. But we'll probably still abide by them.

Do you see the irony in saying, we want to be international, work with other nations, trade with other nations...and we're going to achieve this by leaving the worlds largest facilitator of non-tariff trade; a union that massively accelerates international cooperation? Can you point to any other union of nations that has delivered much to progress trade, control pollution, ensure peace, and represent people on international issues that nations are not able to?

I would have even more respect for your determined arguments if you said yes there are benefits, and we can discuss the good and the bad of the EU. Its not I00% black and white. The EU has its foibles but there are some terrific things it accomplishes, and it doesn't big itself up, or make a lot a noise, it gets on with these relatively dull yet important things in the background.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
I would have even more respect for your determined arguments if you said yes there are benefits, and we can discuss the good and the bad of the EU. Its not I00% black and white. The EU has its foibles but there are some terrific things it accomplishes, and it doesn't big itself up, or make a lot a noise, it gets on with these relatively dull yet important things in the background.
Click to expand...

You see, heres a problem. You are clearly reading my posts with a preconceived prejudice. Which, apart from being quite unfair, really invalidates much of what you are saying - because clearly the points being made are not being received.

@monkeybarry obviously sits on the opposite end of most things in this thread to me, yet his responses show he clearly understands what I mean. The few times they dont, a little conversation later, it is clear that we are on the same page. Maybe we convince each other of a point, maybe we agree to disagree - it matters not as the conversation is on an even footing.

With you, half the time, Im wondering if you even read the post. Perhaps we just have a fundamental communication issue.

I am yet to see genuinely compelling arguments that make me think about staying. Most are easily argued away - and not because I am dead set upon leaving - because the arguments just dont stand up in my view.

For example, your repeated claims that we would miss out on things like excessive roaming charges being controlled. Topically it comes up in the news today that a UK based company announces that it is stopping the practice in countries as far afield as South America and Australia. This, IMO, completely invalidates your claims that these kind of things will be lost to us outside of the EU. And, in the post I made I clearly stated it likely happened because of the EUs initial ruling. What was your response? "But lets not give credit where its due if it doesn't support ones bias."

Firstly, this doesnt address the counter point raised to your initial claim(s), secondly it just seems rather petulant because it was against your view - and yet you then go on to accuse me of bias?!

Lets be honest, cross nation agreements are made all the time on an immense variety of subjects. Often one nation takes a lead/sets a precedent and others sign up/follow suit. Being in or out of the EU, would things like this drastically change for us? Or would we likely join in? This is one of the big beats you have been drumming, but I genuinely do not think it makes much difference if we are in or out. Not because I WANT to be out, but because, objectively, I think it makes little difference. Phone charges being but one example evidenced nicely today.

After pushing again and again that the EU is only about trade, you now conceed it is a political union (having denied) but waive it away in the same breath. That political union neuters our ability to control our borders. If nothing else that is an enormous weight of power to hold over our domestic government, wouldnt you say? "But do you think our parliament is worth less since being in the EU?" Until the referendum, with this one example? Yes, I absolutely do.

I know very well there are supposed controls available to us, that we apparently (conveniently?) conspire to not use and be completely unaware of - but again this is one of those arguments that simply doesnt stack up. As @scaramanga quite easily showed. And, as is common when something supports a Leave point of argument, it is seemingly ignored.
 
@nayimfromthehalfwayline you have a wonderful way of taking an example and making it both support and undermine your argument, at the same time!

Roaming charges have been stopped in the EU, and now one company has started to use this approach as its USP. You admit that the EU brought about this change. Then saying this change would have happened anyway, that we didn't need the EU, just doesn't stack up. You can't have it both ways. It took the EU to make the change happen. Its simple isn't it?

If Three or whoever find their profits are no better with this non-EU roaming initiative in a handful of other countries, they can change their charges back there is nothing to stop them. But they can't do that within the EU. Can we agree this is one simple feather in the cap for the EU or is it too difficult to concede? Its not a big issue, but surely you can hold your hands up and say yes this is one thing the EU has done alright with.

I am happy to concede freedom of movement is not working for the UK. Its a problem for the UK, and one of the EU negatives. We do have control of our boarders however, everyone gets their passport checked. We know who's coming in and out, and I personally think if we the UK wanted to do something positive to help, we probably could now. It might not be perfect, but we are not even trying the tools we have at the moment.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
@nayimfromthehalfwayline you have a wonderful way of taking an example and making it both support and undermine your argument, at the same time!

Roaming charges have been stopped in the EU, and now one company has started to use this approach as its USP. You admit that the EU brought about this change. Then saying this change would have happened anyway, that we didn't need the EU, just doesn't stack up. You can't have it both ways. It took the EU to make the change happen. Its simple isn't it?

If Three or whoever find their profits are no better with this non-EU roaming initiative, they can change their charges back there is nothing to stop them. But they can't do that within the EU. Can we agree this is one simple feather in the cap for the EU or is too difficult to concede? Its not a big issue, but surely you can hold your hands up and say yes this is one thing the EU has done alright with.

I am happy to concede freedom of movement is not working for the UK. Its a problem for the UK, and one of the EU negatives. We do have control of our boarders however, everyone gets their passport checked.
Click to expand...

And you have the wonderful way of completely missing the point, and Im still convinced not actually read the post as well.

I have never denied it is a plus for the EU. Never. Just as Ill happily say I like a lot of the quality of life/environmental policies they have. I have no issue in saying as much, and have done already*.

It is in no way a bother to me to agree there are good things, not at all.

The EU came up with the roaming charges directive, yes. And good for them too, it is a very decent policy. And, being part of the EU, we automatically benefit. I really do understand this point, it is not lost on me.

Now, lets just take a hypothetical look at this, as if the UK were not in the EU.

The EU come up with this wonderful idea. We like that idea, it is good. We join in, in a reciprocal arrangement, that is to the benefit of all. As you are keen to point out - the EU is a global player helping shape policy world wide - why wouldnt they let us get involved?

So - to conclude - we could well get in and benefit without being a part of the EU. Just as we can follow their lead on any number of initiatives. I am sure there are plenty, more pressing than phone bills, that they would actively WANT our input and agreement upon.


Immigration - yes, we check passports. We can do very little else though, can we? Any EU citizen can walk in and make it work for them - we have very little recourse. Essentially we just get to hold the door open. And that, on principle I fundamentally disagree with. And not before going over the EU/Non EU discrimination which I also fundamentally disagree with. It is a major issue, and has been done to death so I am hesitant to open that particular can of worms. Ill only say that I feel your last sentence does you and the issue a disservice.



*And, to appease your need for some sort of balance, I do share concerns that post Brexit working conditions could be adversely effected. I can see it entirely possible workers end up worse of in terms of conditions and rights.
 
Broadly speaking there are 2 versions of post Brexit Britain. You could say one is more 'socialist' with wages of the low paid enhanced as we control immigration, and we protect British industry, maybe even nationalise some industry. Scara would love this option :)

The other version, more classically Conservative, is to make the UK even more deregulated, with reduced trade barriers. The 2 versions are not really compatible.

Re. the more 'Conservative' version. Its a misnomer that we have lots of regulation in the UK however, most of our red tape is imposed by our national government, not by the EU. For example, planning and building laws. Reduced trade barriers, and open trade, is the big glowing light to Conservative Brexit moths. They are in effect pinning all their Brexit hopes and aspirations on the UK creating more trade by us becoming more open and easier to trade with.

What we need to answer is, 1. how we trade with the EU. It is fundamental, all countries trade most with neighbours. Can we be outside the customs union, and FOM, but get the EU to give us non-tariff trade? If we can somehow get this, what will be the price we pay? What are brexit Conservatives answer? So far it's the slightly arrogant, well they will want to trade with us, our money buying their goods is more important to them than their infrastructure and principles. Is it?

Furthermore, 2. trade is controlled not just by import tariffs but by the backdoor through regulation. Countries protect their own by writing regulation to suit their industries. They also have regulation to protect consumers of course, but naturally, they will also look out for their own industries. The UK used to partake inputting into EU regulation, for example on drugs which previously might have favored some of the UKs drugs companies. What is to stop the EU regulating financial services for its 500m consumers, so they can get more of the lucrative financial services trade within the EU, rather than in London?

Which version of Brexit would you like? The more socialist model, or the open trade model? Are either better for us than what we have now in the EU? These will be the key questions over the next year.
 
Last edited:
The methodology of the Independent poll looks a bit dodgy. It seems they've forced the ambivalent 25-30% of the population who don't vote in anything to take a position, and then included them, instead of letting them declare undecided/don't care, like there's normally the option of.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The methodology of the Independent poll looks a bit dodgy. It seems they've forced the ambivalent 25-30% of the population who don't vote in anything to take a position, and then included them, instead of letting them declare undecided/don't care, like there's normally the option of.
Click to expand...

It depends, some pollsters re-allocate "don't knows" with good results. I guess it depends on how that re-allocation is done.
 
the dza said:
It depends, some pollsters re-allocate "don't knows" with good results. I guess it depends on how that re-allocation is done.
Click to expand...

It's not really don't knows (i.e. undecided) that they've done with in this instance though, it's don't cares/non-voters that they've forced to give a preference. There's no point re-allocating those because those people won't vote whatever.
 
Gutter Boy said:
It's not really don't knows (i.e. undecided) that they've done with in this instance though, it's don't cares/non-voters that they've forced to give a preference. There's no point re-allocating those because those people won't vote whatever.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
*And, to appease your need for some sort of balance, I do share concerns that post Brexit working conditions could be adversely effected. I can see it entirely possible workers end up worse of in terms of conditions and rights.
Click to expand...

If the tories do cut back on workers rights then I would expect them to get trounced in the following general election. When I was younger I would especially when running my locksmith business work well up to 70 hours a week with that including travelling, it was my choice and I loved the money I earned.

But I would be against forcing people to work 60 hours a week in a really hard warehouse job where they would ruin their health. One of the reasons the tories became pretty much un-electable in the late 90's was because how out of touch with the public. If we were lucky enough to ever leave the EU we could create the country we wanted. I have said many times that if we leave the EU, then the liberals would become a force again if they focused on domestic issues.
 
monkeybarry said:
The funny answer is....
David Davis

The real answer is.....
Not knowing what kind of country we want
Click to expand...

"In agriculture, fisheries, external trade, and the environment, it’s fair to say that EU legislation and policy is indeed the main driver of UK law and policy, although the UK retains some freedom of action in these areas.

In other important areas—for example, welfare and social security, education, criminal law, family law and the NHS—the direct influence of the EU is far more limited."

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

It'd be interesting to look at what the UK can do to create the country we want outside the EU, bearing in mind, most internal social laws have been all ours all along.

How labour and conservatives present their vision of post brexit will be fascinating. Both won't want to alienate certain groups. Almost wise not to say too much and risk alienating people - which is what we've maybe seen so far, and why there ins't any clear vision or proposal on the table. Which is a sad thing. Here's a chance that's been sold as a way to liberate the UK, and we have no leadership or exiting vision or plan. That is the real sham/e of brexit so far - where is the vision, proposals, excitement?

Whatever the post brexit reality, the government may have to implement it with less revenue, in the short term, and maybe in the long term.

But yes we will control our laws on fishing, agriculture and the environment! Yes! Whether we will truly control our external trade arrangements is a whole other discussion, looking at how much the 55m population UK can dictate in this global world of trade.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
"In agriculture, fisheries, external trade, and the environment, it’s fair to say that EU legislation and policy is indeed the main driver of UK law and policy, although the UK retains some freedom of action in these areas.

In other important areas—for example, welfare and social security, education, criminal law, family law and the NHS—the direct influence of the EU is far more limited."

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

It'd be interesting to look at what the UK can do to create the country we want outside the EU, bearing in mind, most internal social laws have been all ours all along.

How labour and conservatives present their vision of post brexit will be fascinating. Both won't want to alienate certain groups. Almost wise not to say too much and risk alienating people - which is what we've maybe seen so far, and why there ins't any clear vision or proposal on the table. Which is a sad thing. Here's a chance that's been sold as a way to liberate the UK, and we have no leadership or exiting vision or plan. That is the real sham/e of brexit so far - where is the vision, proposals, excitement?

Whatever the post brexit reality, the government may have to implement it with less revenue, in the short term, and maybe in the long term.

But yes we will control our laws on fishing, agriculture and the environment! Yes! Whether we will truly control our external trade arrangements is a whole other discussion, looking at how much the 55m population UK can dictate in this global world of trade.
Click to expand...

This is key. For decades we have wanted to be Scandinavia and the US.
Oddly, I think many that voted leave did so for socialist values, but would still vote Tory.
 
monkeybarry said:
This is key. For decades we have wanted to be Scandinavia and the US.
Oddly, I think many that voted leave did so for socialist values, but would still vote Tory.
Click to expand...

Yes - the classic paradox of Scandinavian quality of life for US level taxes!

I'm roughly in that bottom group (although I'm a bit different to socialist and local factors means I'll probably vote Lib Dem next time). The priority now is securing Brexit, and I think the Tories are best placed to deliver that, mainly because they can control their remainer faction better than the Labour leadership can. In 2022, that's when I'll vote on normal issues/a vision for the future again.
 
milo said:
This piece on why we shouldn't read too much into this poll (in isolation) is worth a read

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...t-too-excited-by-the-bmg-10-remain-lead-poll/
Click to expand...

Polls are always limited - not least by it being hypothetical! “Brexit” - one term - is a complex, multilayered thing, yet it seems to create a binary in or out reaction in people. And if you’re in one camp the nuances of what might be delivered to you and the UK are not particularly important. They are overshadowed by the simple in or out mentality.

Maybe when there is more detail of the trade deal there will be more for us to weigh up and evaluate. We can see more or less what the UK will get at that point. Parliament thank goodness will get a vote - we’re not a dictatorship after all - and imo people should also get a vote. Simply because MPs may not know how to represent people’s views on the final deal.

For example if the deal includes retaining free movement of people for 5 years would Leavers be happy? Or I we’re still subject to ECJ rulings on our laws is that acceptable? Leavers resist any votes yet don’t know what it is they will get, like a mystery gift box [emoji23]


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back