• isac posted an update in the group Group logo of BrexitBrexit 1 month ago

    For me I see no reason to pay any money to the EU, except for an administration fee, and have no wish to fund the development of other EU countries. Either all countries pay or none at all. And yes I know the argument that helping other countries develop increases their ability to buy things from us.

    Why would we want to have another tier of judiciary on top of our already fine domestic system? And yes I understand the need to comply with EU law when dealing with EU trade and I have no problem with that.

    I have doubts that we have had complete control over immigration for many years. I also think we aint going to get the Brexit we were promised.

    • dave replied 1 month ago

      You seem a reasonable and realistic sort of guy so can I just ask this: since you seem resigned to the fact that we are not going to get the clean, painless Brexit we were assured would be ours for the taking during the referendum and since the overwhelming majority of business leaders and most economists seem to be convinced a hard Brexit will be an economic disaster with dire knock-on effects on living standards, public services and jobs, why do you not believe that Remaining in the EU is, at the very worst, the lesser of the evils for you?

      • isac replied 1 month ago

        Remaining in the EU would not be the end of the world.

        However, doing so would require the overturning of the referendum result.

        Either by another referendum or by the government ignoring the first referendum result.

        While remaining would prevent the economic disaster predicted by many it would create a whole set of other problems.

        Any political party ignoring the referendum result would be committing political suicide.

        Any party instigating a second referendum might possibly suffer the same fate.

        What happens if the second referendum is also a leave win?

        What happens to the millions of voters, many who already feel disenfranchised, who voted to leave only to see their wishes ignored or overturned?

        How will the EU deal with a UK which wants to stay?

        There have already been threats of the loss of the rebate and other opt outs presently enjoyed by the UK.

        How will any future UK government be able to accept unpopular EU policies with many of the electorate being unwilling members of said EU.

        Will the EU, innsome ways happy to see the UK leave, really want the UK to stay and possibly disrupt the grand european plan.

        The debate tends to centre around trade and the economy.

        The social and political effects of remaining in the EU might be even more severe then the economic effects of leaving.

        Remainers are quite rightly upset at what they see as the removal of their rights and this is happening after they lost the referendum. They at least have a chance,,alveit a slim one, of seeing their wishes come true.

        How do you deal with the leavers who would see their wishes achieved then removed with no chance of ever being fulfilled if we remain.

        I feel, but obviously don’t know for sure, that many leavers had hoped that the EU would have seen the leave vote as a wake up call and changed some of their policies thus allowing the UK to remain a member.

        That this didn’t happen is unfortunate but altogether understandable and shows how the EU’s vision of the future is different from many people in the UK.

        • dave replied 1 month ago

          Thanks for that very full reply. I can appreciate many of the points you raise and actually agree with a lot of them. We are now in a very unenviable position either way. However, in that trite old phrase, we start from where we are and I do believe that we are now reduced to picking the lesser of the evils. In my view that has to be a confirmatory (or not) referendum. If, once we know exactly what we are voting on and all the implications – as opposed to promises that never materialised – that comes out for Leave again. then that is the end of the argument.

    • Kez replied 1 month ago

      “I see no reason to pay any money to the EU, except for an administration fee, and have no wish to fund the development of other EU countries. Either all countries pay or none at all. And yes I know the argument that helping other countries develop increases their ability to buy things from us.”

      How much do you think it’s going to cost to employ thousands more customs and immigration officers, replicate regulatory agencies etc etc. Our net contribution is peanuts compare to the economies of scale achieved, and that’s even before factoring in the trade benefits.

      “Why would we want to have another tier of judiciary on top of our already fine domestic system? And yes I understand the need to comply with EU law when dealing with EU trade and I have no problem with that.”

      There was not tier of judiciary on top of our already fine system. Our courts obey the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The only reason our courts recognise ECJ rulings is because we passed a law that said so. However our fine system does not extend outside of the UK, which is a problem for British government, businesses and individual who have interests in the EU they may want to defend.

      Anyway we’ve had less than six cases a year on average in the ECJ and we’ve had a very high success rate. Most of the cases we lost were to do with not upholding environmental protections. Not exactly a big deal.

      The ECJ is not the monster it’s hyped up to be by the brexiteers.

      I would be more concerned by WTO courts and ISDS if I were you, because there we tend to get screwed quite a lot and it’s far from what you would call transparent and fair justice.

      “I have doubts that we have had complete control over immigration for many years.”

      We’ve had some illegal immigration but nothing to do with the EU.

      • isac replied 1 month ago

        My objection to paying the EU money is based on fairness.

        Either all countries pay or none do.

        But that of course wouldn’t allow the EU to finance its social programme would it?

        UK law is subsidiary to ECJ law because we signed up to it which was a mistake.

        We’ve had years of uncontrolled immigration from EU countries again because we signed up to that as well, another mistake.

    • pablo replied 1 month ago

      “I see no reason to pay any money to the EU, except for an administration fee, and have no wish to fund the development of other EU countries. Either all countries pay or none at all. And yes I know the argument that helping other countries develop increases their ability to buy things from us.”

      So which bit of that argument do you disagree with, do you think it delivers poorer return on investment than we’d get say by investing in African economic development or investing in circularizing our domestic economy, cutting us off into a self sufficient country removed from the wider global economy? Or do you just not like the idea of someone else, someone born somewhere else benefiting from tax you paid, you don’t care if it’s actually mutually economically beneficial?

      There is also the security argument and the argument that reducing the economic gradients within and around Europe reduces the drive for migration, something which appears to bother you.

      Thanks for stating this but I don’t think the small amount of money we spend elsewhere on economic development in Europe does what you think it does, it isn’t charity.

      “Why would we want to have another tier of judiciary on top of our already fine domestic system? And yes I understand the need to comply with EU law when dealing with EU trade and I have no problem with that.”

      Because a court all involved respect and trust is needed when you’re dealing with the supranational issues the ECJ handles. You’d no more willingly submit your trade dispute to a Bulgarian court than a french business would have an English court rule on theirs for the very reason you want a fine British court, there’s a perception it exists to serve British interests. We already have multiple tiers of judiciary in the UK system, why are none of them a problem but the ECJ is?

      I’ve never understood the problem people have with the ECJ, I’d love to understand where it stems from, how it was stoked and by whom.

      “I have doubts that we have had complete control over immigration for many years.”

      Unless you wish to use immigration controls to put a brake on economic growth to force development of British workers or more likely replacement with automation or offshoring of roles what’s that actual objective? Immigration is market driven and the market actually works (worked), contract the economy, people leave, grow it, people come. Stifle the influx and you stifle growth, you drive it elsewhere. If your problem is perceived undercutting of wages we need stronger employment law and we need it enforced but brexit and the stresses it imposes on the economy are likely to have totally the opposite effect on policy. If your problem is under resourced, overstretched services in areas with high population influx (domestic or foreign sources) then blocking the immigration isn’t the easiest or the best fix, the services need to be properly resourced and emergency funding and expertise needs to be made available where services are overwhelmed, this is an austerity issue not a foreigners issue, it’s one brexit makes worse not better if it as forecast for all implementations squeezes government finances. If your issue is regions with the highest social services burden have the least resources then this isn’t a foreigners issue, it’s Conservative policy designed to attack the viability (and electability) of mainly Labour local authorities by removing central funding which helped even out the existing and growing inequities.

      If you just don’t like hearing foreigners talking foreign on the train or living next to a Romanian (Farage) then fair enough, that’s your problem to deal with personally.

      Do you believe the government’s own economic forecast for hard brexit is a reasonable assessment of the likely outcome? If so, what are you willing to lose to pay for all this and what are you willing for me to lose? If not, on what grounds do you contest the forecast?

      My vision for the country I’d like to live in: I’d be happy to go back to the trajectory we were on before Cameron kicked this all off, I liked that country as it opened up, I liked freedom of movement, the opportunities it opened up and the changes it brought. It was far from perfect, I’d have liked to see a return to a more socialist way of thinking that doesn’t demonise the poor but instead provides a humane safety net and services that allow people to live with dignity free of the fear of extreme poverty. I’d have liked to seem ore emphasis on developing a renewable energy fuelled economy. I was relaxed about the path the EU and the Eurozone countries are on toward a tighter knit core in Europe and I’d be happy in the future if it still fit for Britain to be more tightly integrated. Now: honestly I’m disgusted by what we’ve become, I feel I have no longer have any interest in its future, I’m just looking for a way out.

      • isac replied 1 month ago

        Your last paragraph where you state that you were reasonably happy with the way things were going pre referendum goes to the heart of the matter.

        17 million people didn’t share your view and voted for a change. We’ve argued as to the rights and wrongs of this decision for years now and your posts on this thread point out, quite rightly, how much of the blame for the UK’s position lies with the UK government and how they could alleviate some of these issues.

        It could be said that the EU is blameless in all this as it is what it is, we knew full well what we were signing up for and many have enjoyed the benefits of EU membership – all things you have pointed out in the past.

        What we never get is how people who feel disenfranchised will see their lives change if we remain in the EU. Will the UK governments of all persuasions suddenly change their policies to help these people? History would say not.

        Will the EU change to help these people? There’s no signs or indications of that happening.

        I fear that remaining will simply maintain the staus quo where millions of people miss out on the benefits that many of us are enjoying. Fine for you and me but not quite as good for others.

        It might take the upheaval of Brexit to bring about the massive economic and social changes that we need. Would that it weren’t so. In the end taking back control shouldn’t be just about removing power from Brussels but must be about the people holding our own politicians to account.

        • pablo replied 1 month ago

          “Your last paragraph where you state that you were reasonably happy with the way things were going pre referendum goes to the heart of the matter.”

          The things I wasn’t happy with stem from things we have little control over like economic cycles and from those we do like poor domestic government which has at best failed to effectively mitigate the impact of those cycles on those with no control over them, at worst has exacerbated them and scapegoated those least responsible for the hardship they’re suffering. I don’t blame the EU because it’s not its fault we suffered badly from the banking crash.

          “17 million people didn’t share your view and voted for a change. We’ve argued as to the rights and wrongs of this decision for years now and your posts on this thread point out, quite rightly, how much of the blame for the UK’s position lies with the UK government and how they could alleviate some of these issues.”

          And 16M didn’t share your view. Twice as many again who’ll be very directly impacted by this didn’t or couldn’t express theirs.

          Asking for change is fine. What change? The thing we’ve asked for doesn’t make the things people struggle with better, it won’t because it can’t because it wasn’t at the root of most of the problems people have cynically or naively pinned on it. Pursuing that change in that knowledge is reckless in the extreme because there will be consequences and there will ultimately be a reckoning.

          “What we never get is how people who feel disenfranchised will see their lives change if we remain in the EU. Will the UK governments of all persuasions suddenly change their policies to help these people? History would say not.”

          Trust me, I know exactly how it feels to be disenfranchised, to lose all say in the future of my country.

          “Will the EU change to help these people? There’s no signs or indications of that happening.”

          The EU is not the cause of their woes, the people and policies they keep voting for are backed by those who shape their understanding of the world.

          “I fear that remaining will simply maintain the staus quo where millions of people miss out on the benefits that many of us are enjoying. Fine for you and me but not quite as good for others.”

          How, they’re no more blocked from seeking those benefits than you or I am? At least they weren’t.

          “It might take the upheaval of Brexit to bring about the massive economic and social changes that we need. Would that it weren’t so. In the end taking back control shouldn’t be just about removing power from Brussels but must be about the people holding our own politicians to account.”

          It’s just going to drive away business, the young, the educated and investment. The revolution if it comes will be bleak.

          The idea of people holding politicians to account sounds great but there is a fundamental problem with it inherent to all democracies. There is no incentive in any implementation of a democracy we wouldn’t instinctively recoil from in horror for the general population to be technically nor politically literate. In our representative democracy we send someone into power who we expect to be politically literate and to seek appropriate technical counsel. We can replace then if they fail in that but we don’t, our elections are more like a popularity contest for good reason, we’re not motivated or equipped to assess their performance objectively then reward or punish them for it. Now we could have a more direct democracy but when the credit or blame for the effects of a policy can be shared (over 17M in the case of this referendum for example) there is no real motivation to really get under the bonnet and understand what you’re trying to change and how best to do it. Outcomes are at best random, at worst skewed by the very few with the wealth, tools and connections to shape public opinion, this is profoundly if accidentally anti-democratic.

          If you want electoral and constitutional reform (I do) so for example people aren’t effectively disenfranchised by FPTP then brexit has nothing at all to do with that, it doesn’t make it more or less likely.

          • isac replied 1 month ago

            Your inability to see why some people are unable to access the benefits of EU membership mystifies me.

            I don’t think my posts have laid the blame of Brexit at the EU’s door, that needs to be the responsibility of the UK.

            The chaos caused by Brexit might be the catalyst needed for political change, it’s hard to see how else a ‘revolution’ will occur in the UK.

            • pablo replied 1 month ago

              It just won’t, not for the better anyway. Brexit will not deliver economic growth, economic opportunities for the low skilled/poor or increased political accountability, there is always another scapegoat, the only question is for how long will it remain the other before the blame is focused on you (it’s already on me as a member of the ‘guardian reading metropolitan liberal elite’). If these changes are your hope you really need to consider changing sides, as painful as that will be there is no shame in revising your ideas as the available information and your understanding of the situation changes. Hell, I might yet.

            • isac replied 1 month ago

              For many people in the UK the EU has opened up many opportunites for work, travel, etc.

              Unfortunately for many people, especially those who live in economicaly deprived areas, these opportunities do not present themselves in the same way.

              Competing with an EU migrant for a job or watching your wage rate being undercut doesn’t exactly inspire you to remain in the EU. If the flow of workers from the EU to the UK and vice versa was similar then there wouldn’t be a problem but the movement is skewed toward immigration into the UK.

              I know the argument for migrants making a positive contribution to the economy but that reflects the UK economy as a whole and not how individuals and communities are affected.

              While the UK government should shoulder most of the blame for these events it’s hard to deny that free movement of labour has facilitated these issues.

              If Brexit delivers positive outcomes then the political system will continue.

              I was arguing that an economic disaster caused by Brexit,as predicted by some, might be on such a scale and cause such distress that there would be a ‘revolution’ that the present political system would be unable to cope with and therefore change would be inevitable.

            • isac replied 1 month ago

              For many people in the UK the EU has opened up many opportunites for work, travel, etc.

              Unfortunately for many people, especially those who live in economicaly deprived areas, these opportunities do not present themselves in the same way.

              Competing with an EU migrant for a job or watching your wage rate being undercut doesn’t exactly inspire you to remain in the EU. If the flow of workers from the EU to the UK and vice versa was similar then there wouldn’t be a problem but the movement is skewed toward immigration into the UK.

              I know the argument for migrants making a positive contribution to the economy but that reflects the UK economy as a whole and not how individuals and communities are affected.

              While the UK government should shoulder most of the blame for these events it’s hard to deny that free movement of labour has facilitated these issues.

              If Brexit delivers positive outcomes then the political system will continue.

              An economic disaster caused by Brexit,as predicted by some, might be on such a scale and cause such distress that there would be a ‘revolution’ that the present political system would be unable to cope with and therefore change would be inevitable.

            • pablo replied 1 month ago

              “For many people in the UK the EU has opened up many opportunites for work, travel, etc.”

              “Unfortunately for many people, especially those who live in economicaly deprived areas, these opportunities do not present themselves in the same way.”

              Why not? I only speak English, my skills are no more or less transferable than those of a joiner or a shop worker or a hairdresser, If I want to move for work I’ll have to work toward that like anyone else.

              The thing I’ve really benefited most, that everyone else has too is that I’ve not been sent to die on a European battlefield and I’m not likely to in large part because of the EU.

              “Competing with an EU migrant for a job or watching your wage rate being undercut doesn’t exactly inspire you to remain in the EU. If the flow of workers from the EU to the UK and vice versa was similar then there wouldn’t be a problem but the movement is skewed toward immigration into the UK. I know the argument for migrants making a positive contribution to the economy but that reflects the UK economy as a whole and not how individuals and communities are affected.”

              Migrants don’t flock to areas without work. I can appreciate individuals feeling aggrieved at competition but those individuals still can and do benefit from the EU and that labour supply in other ways that are less apparent. How will competing with a robot for fewer jobs in a smaller economy be any better if the borders really are tightly controlled? Communities I don’t agree suffer because of migrants, communities are always in flux one way or another. If there is an influx of foreign workers it’s because there is surplus work, work available to locals (if the law is enforced), if local services can’t cope that is a failure of domestic policy and one we could quite easily remedy but it’s been convenient not to. This is supply and demand economics in action, that we haven’t used the rewards of that economic activity to mitigate the local issues associated with it is the government’s failure not the EU’s.

              “While the UK government should shoulder most of the blame for these events it’s hard to deny that free movement of labour has facilitated these issues.”

              But the fix isn’t to leave the EU which will not turn off the flow of labour other than by running down the economy which nobody wants no matter how blase they are about forecasts of economic depression.

              Some think that If Brexit delivers positive outcomes then the political system will continue. But it won’t deliver benefits. Our political system will continue largely unchanged either way, the EU is not the blockage to reform.

              “An economic disaster caused by Brexit,as predicted by some, might be on such a scale and cause such distress that there would be a ‘revolution’ that the present political system would be unable to cope with and therefore change would be inevitable.”

              How in any understanding of the world is that a positive? Look at countries that have had proper revolutions in the last two decades, do you really fancy living in any of them? Talk like this befits a teenage arsonist, not a grown man with responsibilities.

              Do you believe the government’s economic forecast for the hard brexit is reasonably likely to be reasonably accurate?