|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 05 2017 22:08 Philoctetes wrote:
Every national government in the EU blames the EU for all the problems and takes credit for everything that goes right. It is an universal problem, not unique to the UK.
if you think it is a fringe argument, maybe. But that doesn't mean it isn't accurate or not a correct analysis.
May has already said she wants to keep the UK inside the single market with some special deal. If they make such a deal, then the UK will be inside the single market, like they are now, but they will have no say in what kind of a market the EU single market is, as they are not a member. So yes, in that respect they will love sovereignty.
There will also be coming more refugees to the UK as there won't be any agreement with the EU. Right now, we have bad agreements about refugees.
Why do people defending the EU feel the need to lie? Theresa May has said explicitly that we are leaving the single market and that we cannot possibly remain inside. She has stated explicitly that border controls and not being under the jurisdiction of the ECJ are red lines.
Your point on refugees makes even less sense. Why would we need a deal with the EU with regards to refugees? Baffling.
|
Don't blame me for May's flip-flopping. Right now she had indeed realized she can no longer maintain that UK is saying in a single market but leaving the EU. But that is just reality catching up to her. Her original plan and vision, if she actually has one, was different.
Your point on refugees makes even less sense. Why would we need a deal with the EU with regards to refugees? Baffling.
Why would we stop illegals and refugees from leaving the EU? Many are in France right now and want to go to the UK. We can either stop them at the France/UK 'border' and send them back to Turkey. Or we can just let them leave the EU, where they are illegal, so we have less illegals inside the EU.
|
I'm blaming you for lying. There has been no flip flopping. Leaving the single market is the government's explicit policy.
Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38641208
On April 05 2017 22:18 Philoctetes wrote:Show nested quote +Your point on refugees makes even less sense. Why would we need a deal with the EU with regards to refugees? Baffling. Why would we stop illegals and refugees from leaving the EU? Many are in France right now and want to go to the UK. We can either stop them at the France/UK 'border' and send them back to Turkey. Or we can just let them leave the EU, where they are illegal, so we have less illegals inside the EU.
Who is 'we'? The UK/France border is operated at Calais on the basis of a bilateral deal between the UK and France. It has nothing to do with you. And they agreed to it because they know that if migrants heard they could get to the UK at Calais there would be a huge influx to France attempting the crossing, and because the burden on ferry/lorry operators was unbearable. Why don't you at least try to educate yourself about these things before commenting?
|
Then you are lying.
She finally 'confirms' that she accepts the UK has to leave the single market on 17th of January this year. And it was big news when she finally did. Big news because she flip flopped. She tried to find a third way, but failed. Then she had to concede. You missed that?
|
You now edited in the 17th of January flip flop. Remember that Brexit referendum happened 23th of June 2016. May has been PM since 13th July of the 2016.
Only just a few months ago she finally said that yes, leaving Brexit also means leaving the single market, by definition. Why did it take her so long? People have been debating this from the start, and she took until the 17th to confirm it. Before then it was deliberately not 'explicit policy'. And I am lying?
I still think England and Wales should leave the UK. Then it would just be England and Wales paying money back to the UK. And it wouldn't involve all these 27 other EU nations.
|
On April 05 2017 22:21 Philoctetes wrote:
Then you are lying.
She finally 'confirms' that she accepts the UK has to leave the single market on 17th of January this year. And it was big news when she finally did. Big news because she flip flopped. She tried to find a third way, but failed. Then she had to concede. You missed that?
That was the first time that she stated her plans for leaving... But for anybody who is familiar with British politics this was clear from the moment she appointed her cabinet. Each cabinet position related to Brexit was appointed to individuals who advocated leaving the single market during the referendum.
Your argument is basically a whine that she took some time to state her strategy. If she actually flip flopped you would be able to provide an example of her saying we would remain members of the single market. But I know for a fact that you can't because she has never said that. Give it up.
On April 05 2017 22:30 Philoctetes wrote:
I still think England and Wales should leave the UK. Then it would just be England and Wales paying money back to the UK. And it wouldn't involve all these 27 other EU nations.
Again, talking about something you don't understand. England leaving the UK would mean an immediate and catastrophic deficit for Scotland and Northern Ireland whose government spending is subsidised by wealthy areas of England. Even Scotland, the country most inclined to leave the UK, does not want this.
|
Well, you seem quite resistant to facts. Theresa May has always kept this idea of the UK saying in the single market while leaving the EU floating around. She has suggested it many times. Either explicitly or just by not denying it as an option. Add to that the whole lobby inside the UK of remain advocates, to take the bad edge off the whole Brexit endeavour, and it is crystal clear. Crystal clear is you are a honest judge of what is happening.
The fact that she never was explicit about it only means she is more competent that Boris Johnson. She always knew that one day she may have to explain there is no other option but leaving the single market. So she made sure she couldn't be pinned down too hard. Johnson, on the other hand, he flip flopped on it in 20 seconds. May did the same flip flop taking 9 months. A 9 months flip flop is still a flip flop to me.
BTW, Scotland is subsiding England. And North Ireland can join Ireland, preventing a new war.
Scotland may not want it. But it's not up to Scotland. If England wants to leave, they have the right to leave.
It is another debate about if Scotland is better off under May's austerity policies. Or under Schäuble's austerity.
|
The mods on this forum should ban people for this kind of insanity, not for swearing. It is offensively stupid.
BTW, Scotland is subsiding England.
Please do explain to me how a country with a 10% deficit is subsidising a country with a 3% deficit.
And North Ireland can join Ireland, preventing a new war.
This would cause a war. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.
|
Why do you think Irish unification would cause a war?
|
What does the current deficit have to do with it? Scotland has oil and some nice industry. England basically only has the financial sector in London. If you take the old industrial cities or the countryside of England, the fundamentals are unsound. And there has never been a good vision from London. Just look at the funds the top English universities have already lost by an announced Brexit, and how they have been replaced by Downing Street.
Yes, Brexit is flaming up conflict again. And not only in Northern Ireland. A conflict Englishmen and their crazy ideas of empire is responsible for. It is shameful what the UK did so recently in Northern Ireland. And now they want to turn the Ireland-Northern Ireland border into a hard border again?
And why is it so offensive for someone to suggest the English need to abandon their idea of empire. Abandon their idea they are some special nation. It is complete folly to develop new more modern ICBM submarines, to somehow act like you are as powerful as the US. Yes, you have started the industrial revolution. Yes, you won both world wars. Yes, you have a veto on the UN SC. But otherwise, you are just like France, Poland, Italy, or any other European country. Not a special nation destined for greatness.
And the concept that one needs to be banned by moderators for daring to point this out, that only proves my point. This is some sickness some English elites still have. It needs to be cured. For their own sakes.
BTW, it is not just some 'lunatic that needs to be banned' saying this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/12/england-wales-eu-brexit-article-50
|
On April 05 2017 22:47 LightSpectra wrote:
Why do you think Irish unification would cause a war?
Because an overwhelming majority of the population do not even want a vote on unification at the moment. Contrary to popular belief, the UK does not hold any territory against the will of its population. Sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland was not just the IRA vs. the UK. There were militant unionist groups, too.
I'll just ignore that ranting lunatic...
|
Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU. But now you are saying they need to leave the EU because you think they wouldn't vote to be united? I am not telling them they have to unite. They can have a vote on that, if they feel like. If they want to remain separate for now, they can. I didn't see recent polling on it. And I am also not saying that implementing whatever wins a referendum will not lead to conflict. But everything is better than London deciding to send soldiers to some neighboring island to enforce some artificial border, against the will of the majority of the people there. Especially considering how much violence it took to accomplish that in the past.
I agree though that Northern Ireland wouldn't be a viable independent country. It is too small. It will force them to become a tax haven, like all those other countries that are somehow already independent, or want to be and are too small on their own. But Ireland used to be an united country, before the English came and split it up.
|
On April 05 2017 23:10 Philoctetes wrote:
Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU. But now you are saying they need to leave the EU because you think they wouldn't vote to be united? I am not telling them they have to unite. They can have a vote on that, if they feel like. If they want to remain separate for now, they can. I didn't see recent polling on it. And I am also not saying that implementing whatever wins a referendum will not lead to conflict. But everything is better than London deciding to send soldiers to some neighboring island to enforce some artificial border, against the will of the majority of the people there. Especially considering how much violence it took to accomplish that in the past.
It is precisely because the majority will of the people was to remain in the UK that the UK was obliged to fight in Northern Ireland. Notice that the British Empire has, contrary to your belief, disbanded. Every country was given a vote on independence.
I think you aptly demonstrate with your comments that the UK is, in fact, a special country. Because when I talk about domestic Dutch politics I have the common sense to defer to natives who actually understand the situation. Only the US has to suffer comparable arrogance of people who know nothing about their country telling them how wrong they always are. Something to do with our media being so universal, I suppose.
When talking about wars in which people still living have lost friends and family members, it is advisable to have a clue what you are talking about and to speak with a degree of restraint.
|
On April 05 2017 22:54 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 22:47 LightSpectra wrote:
Why do you think Irish unification would cause a war? Because an overwhelming majority of the population do not even want a vote on unification at the moment. Contrary to popular belief, the UK does not hold any territory against the will of its population. Sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland was not just the IRA vs. the UK. There were militant unionist groups, too. I'll just ignore that ranting lunatic...
All of the pre-Brexit polls do indeed show something like 70% in favor of unionism, that's true, but that number has dropped a lot since Brexit and even more since talks of a hard border have started.
|
We should go back to the olden days where whenever a country doesn't agree with us, we split it up until some of the pieces do and the other pieces become decreasingly relevant. Let's start with the UK.
|
On April 05 2017 23:19 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 22:54 bardtown wrote:On April 05 2017 22:47 LightSpectra wrote:
Why do you think Irish unification would cause a war? Because an overwhelming majority of the population do not even want a vote on unification at the moment. Contrary to popular belief, the UK does not hold any territory against the will of its population. Sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland was not just the IRA vs. the UK. There were militant unionist groups, too. I'll just ignore that ranting lunatic... All of the pre-Brexit polls do indeed show something like 70% in favor of unionism, that's true, but that number has dropped a lot since Brexit and even more since talks of a hard border have started.
Nobody involved is talking about a hard border. Quite the opposite. In fact, the most positive thing about the EU's appointment of Barnier is that he is very familiar with the Irish situation and has made it clear that he considers it a priority on a personal level. Same for David Davis.
|
The UK should have been a honest broker in the sectarian war on the island of Ireland. Instead, they picked a side and escalated. Why? Because of their own selfish interests. Not for the good of the Irish.
And maybe if you knew more about your own country, and the countries in your union, had you been more sensible, you wouldn't have to be so offended when you encounter someone with a different opinion.
So you think the UK is indeed special because I have an opinion on it? Oh well...
And Brexit means that the Ireland-Northern Ireland border becomes the outer border of the EU. Claiming that this isn't problematic to the current situation and rekindles old conflict is ignorance. Dangerous ignorance.
|
On April 05 2017 23:26 Philoctetes wrote:
The UK should have been a honest broker in the sectarian war on the island of Ireland. Instead, they picked a side and escalated. Why? Because of their own selfish interests. Not for the good of the Irish.
This translates to "Let terrorists have free reign in your country, you horrible bigot!"
Northern Ireland is not a financial asset. It is one of the poorest parts of the UK and requires subsidies from the other constituent countries. We defend its people because they are our citizens. They identify as British and want to remain in the UK. Your suggestion is that we should just sit back and let terrorists murder them, or more accurately, us...
|
Wut? I neither said you should let terrorists murder nur that Northern Ireland was a financial asset.
This doesn't go anywhere. Considering I will soon be 'banned' and you get every basic concept backward, this is pointless. Obviously, you aren't a honest debater right now. And I am not sure you could be one if you wanted to.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 05 2017 22:07 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2017 22:04 warding wrote:
Is the plan for the UK to have its own regulations as substitute of CE marking? That would be a big cost on both importers (bad for consumers) and exporters (bad for UK competitiveness), for no perceptible advantage unless you believe British people are somehow better at creating regulations. It's a choice between lack of sovereignty and insularity. Yes, we will make our own regulations. If you want to export into a certain market then you abide by the regulations of that market. But it's safe to say that the UK will be more liberal and deregulated than the EU so it won't be any cost to exporters who already import to the EU, for example. The UK is much more serious about capitalism and competitiveness than the EU as a whole, so you can rest assured that where possible money will be saved.
Lets consider you're a British entrepreneur who has invented a wearable device that measures the fart particles in the air - main use case being to alert pub users about unacceptable levels of indoor farting. It's got a Bluetooth module that connects to your phone. You want to commercialize it across Europe and the US. For the US you have to undergo FCC testing and spend $10k. For Europe you spend another $10k for CE marking. Because of Brexit, you now have to spend another $10k for compliance testing and certification for the UK market. If you're a larger company with greater compliance worries, those figures will go up because you will have to hire a separate law firm to make sure everything you're doing will comply with local regulations.
Because of this cost, smaller companies may forego introducing their products in the UK market. Larger companies will enter and make UK consumers pay for those prices. UK entrepreneurs will incur in larger costs vs other entrepreneurs, becoming less competitive. On top of that, the UK will have to create another bureaucracy to recreate regulations and standards, which is a cost to tax payers.
EU regulations aren't anti-capitalism or uncompetitive, they're actually quite sensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
