Britain outside the EU

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Save another generation from Brussels.

To answer Roughie's question:

Brexit is defined for me as gaining sovereignty so as not to be governed by a foreign entity.

Then, an investment friendly government can help industry to build prosperity.

Definition is very simple; execution needs competence.

[COLOR="Silver"]

1. Some might argue that given that a proportionate number of elected decision makers and appointed Brussels civil servants were British, we weren't governed by a foreign entity.

2. How did that technical gain in sovereignty actually translate into having more control over the destiny of the country? For example. did that mean that we could get better trade deals than we did through the EU? I know it's early days, and Moggy's 50 years aren't up yet, but have Mr and Mrs Soap seen positive outcomes from this increase in sovereignty?

3. Did we need to leave the EU for an investment wizard to make the country prosperous? After all, up until the global crash of 2008, it could be argued that the outcomes of Labour's investment in people and things were improved by access to the Single Market and other EU institutions..

[Sephiroth]

[QUOTE=roughbeast;36165783]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Save another generation from Brussels.

To answer Roughie's question:

Brexit is defined for me as gaining sovereignty so as not to be governed by a foreign entity.

Then, an investment friendly government can help industry to build prosperity.

Definition is very simple; execution needs competence.

[COLOR="Silver"]



1. Some might argue that given that a proportionate number of elected decision makers and appointed Brussels civil servants were British, we weren't governed by a foreign entity.

2. How did that technical gain in sovereignty actually translate into having more control over the destiny of the country? For example. did that mean that we could get better trade deals than we did through the EU? I know it's early days, and Moggy's 50 years aren't up yet, but have Mr and Mrs Soap seen positive outcomes from this increase in sovereignty?

3. Did we need to leave the EU for an investment wizard to make the country prosperous? After all, up until the global crash of 2008, it could be argued that the outcomes of Labour's investment in people and things were improved by access to the Single Market and other EU institutions..

Here we go!

1. Some might argue that given that a proportionate number of elected decision makers and appointed Brussels civil servants were British, we weren't governed by a foreign entity.

Why guard your remark with "some might argue"? What is your belief? The civil servants execute EU policy. It is EU policy to bring about "ever closer union" which the UK majority did not want and a whole raft of people (principally young) did not understand.

2. How did that technical gain in sovereignty actually translate into having more control over the destiny of the country? For example. did that mean that we could get better trade deals than we did through the EU? I know it's early days, and Moggy's 50 years aren't up yet, but have Mr and Mrs Soap seen positive outcomes from this increase in sovereignty?

Your question is blinkered Remoaner language. As I've consistently said, it takes a competent government to create the business friendly environment that will make as prosper (without taking orders from Brussels). Sadly, we don't have that government. Plus COVID knocked a £40 billion hole in our economy and Truss a further similar sum.

3. Did we need to leave the EU for an investment wizard to make the country prosperous? After all, up until the global crash of 2008, it could be argued that the outcomes of Labour's investment in people and things were improved by access to the Single Market and other EU institutions.

No, we did not need to leave the EU to meet your criteria. We did need to leave the EU for so long as they wanted to make their supreme court superior to ours. I draw the line at that for a very simple reason that we should all support: Why is the EU Parliament so keen on EU integration as a single political entity? Answer: So that they have superiority over our and other parliaments. . That is unacceptable to me and should be to you. We may all look alike, but we don't sufficiently think alike.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

He’ll just have to suck it up…

So good! A double pun, OB & Dyson in one go

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

So, help me guys, what does a proper Brexit look like? How would a good Brexit turn out in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or Moggy's 50 years?

I guess it would be one that matches some of what the country was promised which included:

• Reduced NHS waiting times
• Rising wages
• Cheaper weekly food shop
• Resurgent economy led by new small businesses
• Easier to get onto the housing ladder
• Politicians more accountable

https://www.indy100.com/politics/lea...ign-video-lies

I think the current approach by Leavers is either to kick the tin can down the alley ("we need to wait 40 years to see the fruits of Brexit", "we just need another prime minister, the previous four couldn't make Brexit work so we'll try the same thing again and hope for different results") or to focus on sovereignty and forget the financial promises.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I guess it would be one that matches some of what the country was promised which included:

• Reduced NHS waiting times
• Rising wages
• Cheaper weekly food shop
• Resurgent economy led by new small businesses
• Easier to get onto the housing ladder
• Politicians more accountable

https://www.indy100.com/politics/lea...ign-video-lies

I think the current approach by Leavers is either to kick the tin can down the alley ("we need to wait 40 years to see the fruits of Brexit", "we just need another prime minister, the previous four couldn't make Brexit work so we'll try the same thing again and hope for different results") or to focus on sovereignty and forget the financial promises.

Wages are rising, I'm pretty sure of that, we might all be worse of because of inflation but as the company I work for provides services to some of the countries biggest companies after speaking to their workers I'm certain wages are going up, substantially, I do recall smug saying that we'd have cheaper food, clothes and footwear straight away he was quite emphatic about the straight away bit to whereas the only thing he did straight away was move his company/ fund/ whatever to Ireland, it's a shame they didn't tell him to shove it, you campaigned for this, suck it up

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

1. Some might argue that given that a proportionate number of elected decision makers and appointed Brussels civil servants were British, we weren't governed by a foreign entity.

2. How did that technical gain in sovereignty actually translate into having more control over the destiny of the country? For example. did that mean that we could get better trade deals than we did through the EU? I know it's early days, and Moggy's 50 years aren't up yet, but have Mr and Mrs Soap seen positive outcomes from this increase in sovereignty?

3. Did we need to leave the EU for an investment wizard to make the country prosperous? After all, up until the global crash of 2008, it could be argued that the outcomes of Labour's investment in people and things were improved by access to the Single Market and other EU institutions..

Membership of the EU was always a trade-off between the pros & cons of being part of such an entity. It is plain to see who much we benefited when you look at the economic growth since we joined the Common Market all those years ago. What was never recognised by the small cabal of sovereignty zealots that drove the Brexit agenda was the fact that the economic DNA of the UK was intertwined with the EU at the smallest level of business. From zero-tariff trade, just-in-time supply chains sources parts from the EU to the ability to source workers, who were economically net-positive, to fill the gaps in our domestic labour market.

Surgically extracting a 40+ year old economic nervous system was always going to be a lose-lose situation. Always. Now here's the rub, those zealots who voted Brexit based on their perception of sovereignty, will never address the lies told at the time to get their project over the line. They still won't. The damage to the country in so many ways will never be honestly discussed and here lies the real problem.

What is less than obvious is the technical gain in sovereignty much celebrated is actually a danger of sorts. While we were part of the EU, as a rules-based organisation, we had checks & balances in place that curbed the excesses of member state governments. We had to abide by environment controls & standards, we had common standards on all sorts of things: food ingredients, etc.

Now, we have no such controls and as such, our Government can take us in a direction far beyond what would have been tolerated when in the EU. Elect a right wing, populous, Government and we're on a crazy train to being a 1st world banana republic. You could argue we on that train already.

In summary, it was all a big con. The sovereignty pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turned out to be, as it always was going to do, a handful of dried beans sold to you by a pack of non-dom spivs. The only funny part of all this is that many of those who voted Leave in the hope that we would have fewer immigrants, now have so many more and here's the kicker, they are not the colour they may have wished for

The inexorable tide of demographics will lead us back into the EU, probably via incremental steps e.g. EFTA first, in approx. 10 years.

[roughbeast]

[QUOTE=Sephiroth;36165784]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

Here we go!



Why guard your remark with "some might argue"? What is your belief? The civil servants execute EU policy. It is EU policy to bring about "ever closer union" which the UK majority did not want and a whole raft of people (principally young) did not understand.




Your question is blinkered Remoaner language. As I've consistently said, it takes a competent government to create the business friendly environment that will make as prosper (without taking orders from Brussels). Sadly, we don't have that government. Plus COVID knocked a £40 billion hole in our economy and Truss a further similar sum.




No, we did not need to leave the EU to meet your criteria. We did need to leave the EU for so long as they wanted to make their supreme court superior to ours. I draw the line at that for a very simple reason that we should all support: Why is the EU Parliament so keen on EU integration as a single political entity? Answer: So that they have superiority over our and other parliaments. . That is unacceptable to me and should be to you. We may all look alike, but we don't sufficiently think alike.

1. I was being tentative because it is a subject open to debate. Your assertion that were virtually locked into an evert closer Europe is irrelevant to the point being made about how EU rules by us and it is also wrong. We had a veto and such major steps as that and we weren't th eonly EU member country against the idea.

2. My statement was a very simple one regardless of my status as a Leaver or Remainer. (Remoaner is a pejorative term, designed to keep the debate at an 'us and them' level.) We did very well in the EU when we had a government committed to investment In trading, science and technology terms, our membership supported that prosperity. What evidence do you have that a similar government now would do as well as New labour?

3. The ECJ only applied to areas of law we agreed to as a sovereign state, i.e. those areas that were of common interest such as the environment, health and safety, fish, product standards, worker and human rights. The latter was required because of free movement. All other areas of law, the large majority, were nothing to do with the EU. Our courts remained supreme over those because we were a sovereign state. Again, the EU had no collective interest in moving ever closer. A few notable individuals and a couple of countries did, but most of the 500 million population and the 27 countries did not wish it.

[roughbeast]

Excuse my fat fingers on my phone. The first sentence should read "... is irrelevant to the point being made about EU rules being made by us..."

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Membership of the EU was always a trade-off between the pros & cons of being part of such an entity. It is plain to see who much we benefited when you look at the economic growth since we joined the Common Market all those years ago. What was never recognised by the small cabal of sovereignty zealots that drove the Brexit agenda was the fact that the economic DNA of the UK was intertwined with the EU at the smallest level of business. From zero-tariff trade, just-in-time supply chains sources parts from the EU to the ability to source workers, who were economically net-positive, to fill the gaps in our domestic labour market.

Surgically extracting a 40+ year old economic nervous system was always going to be a lose-lose situation. Always. Now here's the rub, those zealots who voted Brexit based on their perception of sovereignty, will never address the lies told at the time to get their project over the line. They still won't. The damage to the country in so many ways will never be honestly discussed and here lies the real problem.

What is less than obvious is the technical gain in sovereignty much celebrated is actually a danger of sorts. While we were part of the EU, as a rules-based organisation, we had checks & balances in place that curbed the excesses of member state governments. We had to abide by environment controls & standards, we had common standards on all sorts of things: food ingredients, etc.

Now, we have no such controls and as such, our Government can take us in a direction far beyond what would have been tolerated when in the EU. Elect a right wing, populous, Government and we're on a crazy train to being a 1st world banana republic. You could argue we on that train already.

In summary, it was all a big con. The sovereignty pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turned out to be, as it always was going to do, a handful of dried beans sold to you by a pack of non-dom spivs. The only funny part of all this is that many of those who voted Leave in the hope that we would have fewer immigrants, now have so many more and here's the kicker, they are not the colour they may have wished for

The inexorable tide of demographics will lead us back into the EU, probably via incremental steps e.g. EFTA first, in approx. 10 years.

Oh well - another load of Remoaner tripe to rebut.

Membership of the EU was always a trade-off between the pros & cons of being part of such an entity. It is plain to see who much we benefited when you look at the economic growth since we joined the Common Market all those years ago. What was never recognised by the small cabal of sovereignty zealots that drove the Brexit agenda was the fact that the economic DNA of the UK was intertwined with the EU at the smallest level of business. From zero-tariff trade, just-in-time supply chains sources parts from the EU to the ability to source workers, who were economically net-positive, to fill the gaps in our domestic labour market.

We joined the Common Market. Had it stayed like that, including the development of the Single Market and Customs Union, then we would still be there. But no, they had to do the WTD trick to remove our veto. Why the WTD? France needed to protect its uncompetitive working practices. What else did France want to protect? Its share of our fishing waters and their inefficient farming practices.

On the bit that I've highlighted, we weren't so 'DNA inter-twined' as to have joined the Euro. The Euro got itself into serious trouble and individual countries were then at the mercy of Germany (again). We avoided all that. I still believe that the Euro is the EU's Achilles heel.

Surgically extracting a 40+ year old economic nervous system was always going to be a lose-lose situation. Always. Now here's the rub, those zealots who voted Brexit based on their perception of sovereignty, will never address the lies told at the time to get their project over the line. They still won't. The damage to the country in so many ways will never be honestly discussed and here lies the real problem.

Extracting us from the EU's 'nervous system' had a considerable transition and grace period. That helped. The FTA has helped - all it needs is decent customs forms software to make it easy on our exporters. Their exporters see a huge market here and don't want to lose that - a decent pragmatic situation.

What is less than obvious is the technical gain in sovereignty much celebrated is actually a danger of sorts. While we were part of the EU, as a rules-based organisation, we had checks & balances in place that curbed the excesses of member state governments. We had to abide by environment controls & standards, we had common standards on all sorts of things: food ingredients, etc.

You dismiss the value of sovereignty too lightly. What 'checks and balances' are you referring to? Did those rules deal with German excess when they fixed the value of the Euro against the DM? Did they curb French excesses on the agriculture front? No, they curbed poor old Greece when it tried to get out of an economic mess. There are no environmental rules that we haven't kept; the common standards make sense and if we don't maintain them, we won't sell them very much. Likewise food ingredients - we're not going to go soft on those standards. We don't need the EU for that and if I recall correctly, we developed most of the standards.

Now, we have no such controls and as such, our Government can take us in a direction far beyond what would have been tolerated when in the EU. Elect a right wing, populous, Government and we're on a crazy train to being a 1st world banana republic. You could argue we on that train already.

Utter tripe. What controls are missing now. You've just said that, hypothetically, our sovereign government could take us in directions that Brussels would not like. Your fear of electing the wrong sort of government could happen whether or not we are in the EU is a tilt against democracy - however undesirable you and I might find it. But we need to have that degree of freedom and I doubt that it will happen. Your case for remaining in the EU tilts toward the possibility of the UK straying outside the EU's preferred political boundaries.

In summary, it was all a big con. The sovereignty pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turned out to be, as it always was going to do, a handful of dried beans sold to you by a pack of non-dom spivs. The only funny part of all this is that many of those who voted Leave in the hope that we would have fewer immigrants, now have so many more and here's the kicker, they are not the colour they may have wished for

You are even dafter than I previously thought. Do you really think that the Red Wall and other Leavers were taken in by the hype? They didn't like being a subsidiary of the EU - simples. The promises were nice-to-haves. A competent government could have delivered most of the promise, more or less. However, COVID didn't help and choices made by the government cost us a lot of money which we are now paying back. The EU is/was totally irrelevant .

You then bring racial prejudice (highlighted) into this. That's a foul low blow. This immigration row is entirely political points scoring and very shallow. I've not seen a proper labour requirements analysis that we could debate. It's all headline stuff playing to the electoral roll.

The inexorable tide of demographics will lead us back into the EU, probably via incremental steps e.g. EFTA first, in approx. 10 years.

Who knows? Maybe. Democracy will decide. Don't forget that.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Wages are rising, I'm pretty sure of that, we might all be worse of because of inflation but as the company I work for provides services to some of the countries biggest companies after speaking to their workers I'm certain wages are going up, substantially, I do recall smug saying that we'd have cheaper food, clothes and footwear straight away he was quite emphatic about the straight away bit to whereas the only thing he did straight away was move his company/ fund/ whatever to Ireland, it's a shame they didn't tell him to shove it, you campaigned for this, suck it up

Wages are mostly rising because of runaway inflation. No employer, even the government, could ignore that completely.

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Oh well - another load of Remoaner tripe to rebut.



We joined the Common Market. Had it stayed like that, including the development of the Single Market and Customs Union, then we would still be there. But no, they had to do the WTD trick to remove our veto. Why the WTD? France needed to protect its uncompetitive working practices. What else did France want to protect? Its share of our fishing waters and their inefficient farming practices.

On the bit that I've highlighted, we weren't so 'DNA inter-twined' as to have joined the Euro. The Euro got itself into serious trouble and individual countries were then at the mercy of Germany (again). We avoided all that. I still believe that the Euro is the EU's Achilles heel.




Extracting us from the EU's 'nervous system' had a considerable transition and grace period. That helped. The FTA has helped - all it needs is decent customs forms software to make it easy on our exporters. Their exporters see a huge market here and don't want to lose that - a decent pragmatic situation.




You dismiss the value of sovereignty too lightly. What 'checks and balances' are you referring to? Did those rules deal with German excess when they fixed the value of the Euro against the DM? Did they curb French excesses on the agriculture front? No, they curbed poor old Greece when it tried to get out of an economic mess. There are no environmental rules that we haven't kept; the common standards make sense and if we don't maintain them, we won't sell them very much. Likewise food ingredients - we're not going to go soft on those standards. We don't need the EU for that and if I recall correctly, we developed most of the standards.




Utter tripe. What controls are missing now. You've just said that, hypothetically, our sovereign government could take us in directions that Brussels would not like. Your fear of electing the wrong sort of government could happen whether or not we are in the EU is a tilt against democracy - however undesirable you and I might find it. But we need to have that degree of freedom and I doubt that it will happen. Your case for remaining in the EU tilts toward the possibility of the UK straying outside the EU's preferred political boundaries.




You are even dafter than I previously thought. Do you really think that the Red Wall and other Leavers were taken in by the hype? They didn't like being a subsidiary of the EU - simples. The promises were nice-to-haves. A competent government could have delivered most of the promise, more or less. However, COVID didn't help and choices made by the government cost us a lot of money which we are now paying back. The EU is/was totally irrelevant .

You then bring racial prejudice (highlighted) into this. That's a foul low blow. This immigration row is entirely political points scoring and very shallow. I've not seen a proper labour requirements analysis that we could debate. It's all headline stuff playing to the electoral roll.




Who knows? Maybe. Democracy will decide. Don't forget that.

1. Still name-calling? Why are you behaving like a troll instead of like a grownup?

2. In 1975 I voted against staying in the EEC because it was just a capitalist club. With the introduction of the Social Chapter and other measures forcing capitalism to show its acceptable face, I warmed to the project. I was particularly impressed at how the Commission was used to overcome the natural democratic deficit that comes with size. Again, because the EU is a democracy, France didn't get to bully its way and states didn't vote to remove the veto on anything that mattered. France had to concede that it would have to do without the CAP over time.

3. We were intertwined with the EU right down to the minutia, but because of political opposition Brown had to fake the argument that our economy wasn't congruent with the Eurozone economy yet. Blair was for joining.

The only country to fall foul of the rigour required to be in the Eurozone was Greece. Greece had faked its economic data to make it appear ready to join. Blame Greece not the EU.

4. We may have gained technical sovereignty in some respects, but we have lost control and influence in many ways.

5. In good times, before the UK political pendulum began to swing to the right, we helped create, and often initiated, EU law regarding environment, product standards, worker rights and human rights. We still are arbitted by the ECJ regarding products for the reasons you gave. That is the price of tariff-free trade with economic blocs. However, because we aren't signed up to a customs union we have to have our goods checked. Regarding worker and human rights and the environment we are already eroding those standards. Also, Whitehall has been asked to systematically go through all EU laws that Parliament adopted to winkle out which bits The Tories don't want.

6. Again you insult someone. Why accuse someone for being "dafter" than you thought, just because their take on red wall voter motives is different than yours. Adult debate, requires adult conduct.

In my view the red wall voted Leave out of frustration that their lives had become blighted since 2010 with the effects of dogma-driven austerity. The genius of Farage, Cummings and Tice was that they successful spun that our woes were due to the EU and particularly immigration from the EU. EU workers were blamed for longer waiting times in the NHS and for lack of school places. The real immorality here was that even though EU workers paid their way and increased our GDP the extra revenue was not put into extra hospitals or school places or into towns with high EU immigration like Boston. Austerity dogma won! Farage also successfully linked the arrival of asylum seekers and refugees with the EU through his disgraceful Breaking Point poster.

The good thing is that red wall voters have seen the flow of asylum seekers increase since we left the EU, legal immigration soar and their lives have get worse, albeit all for multiple reasons, not just because we left the EU. How did The Who put it? "We won't get fooled again!" Red Wall voters won't be voting for those who deceived them again.

7. We might agree about your last point. A shallow game is being played by the political combatants with inhumane, surface-scratching, headline gestures such as Rwanda, detention barges and stopping worker's families coming with them. Starmer is as shallow as any, with no real policies to increase our skills set to combat excessive immigration and no attempt to stop the boats by opening up controlled safe routes for everyday asylum seekers. A year ago, he made that suggestion, but buried it again when red wall voters appeared not to like it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

<SNIP>

1. Still name-calling? Why are you behaving like a troll instead of like a grownup?

<SNIP>

Priceless!

On the rest of your post, I would simply say this:

1. I was addressing Ian, not you.

2. Ian presents his case in a less logical manner than you. So I debate with you accordingly.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

Wages are mostly rising because of runaway inflation. No employer, even the government, could ignore that completely.

Pre crisis of living they were rising too, the bonuses people were being offered for simply accepting a job were good

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Oh well - another load of Remoaner tripe to rebut.

<snip>

Yawn .. heard it all before. As I mentioned, you do not address the reality of what happened, rather you spin the old fairy tales that it would have been fine if it wasn't for those pesky Tories. Racism & xenophobia was a factor in 2016, you may not be able to see this but it was real. Farage's Breaking Point poster was all about this. Very deliberate.

Your replies are too patronising to engage with. Adult problems require adult discussion and I see nothing of that here.

[1andrew1]

How it started in 2017

Boris Johnson has claimed that the UK is “first in line” for a free trade deal with the US after the Trump administration takes office on 20 January. On a hastily arranged trip to the US to reinforce previously weak links with Donald Trump’s transition team, Johnson also declared on Monday that the incoming administration had “a very exciting agenda of change”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...th-trump-aides

Six years later

Joe Biden snubs UK and shelves plan for trade agreement in huge blow to Rishi Sunak

Joe Biden has shelved plans for a trade deal with the UK as the 2024 presidential elections looms closer.

Plans for a "foundational" trade agreement with the UK ahead of next year's national polls comes after Senate opposition and disagreements over the scope of the deal.

Talks were intended to end in the spring ahead of both countries heading to the polls.

But now the deal is not expected to go ahead, two people briefed by the British and US governments have said.

According to the Commons Library, negotiations for a US-UK trade deal started in May 2020 but there have been no talks since October 2020.

The prospect of a trade agreement between the UK and US has long been a major desire of successive Conservative Prime Minister's since the UK voted to exit the EU in 2016.

New negotiations were set to span a variety of topics, including agriculture ,labour rights, the environment, supply chains, regulation of services, digital trade documents and others.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...uk-rishi-sunak

[Ms NTL]

And yet Uk banks and City Financial institutions report our income to USA and EU. Brexit changed nothing.

I was told it has nothing to do with data protection, there are agreements to share such info between EU and USA (UK has signed while in EU)

So, I got new Chinese bank accounts. I received my new Beijing card today. It can be linked with multiple accounts in US dollar, HK dollar, Euro, pound sterling and renminbi.