The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[KenjiOgiwara]

As a foreigner who just briefly reads all the brexit stuff. Can someone tell me the positives of a brexit? What's the main argued points as to why you would want out? 

[ml1dch]

 

 

 

[ml1dch]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

The UK has completely failed to recognise that there are 27 other teams in the league and that no, our delusions of we’re Man Utd, so we can do what we want are utter flights of fantasy

The David Moyes era Manchester United. The last couple of years have been our "losing 2-1 at home to West Brom" moment.

[bickster]

24 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

As a foreigner who just briefly reads all the brexit stuff. Can someone tell me the positives of a brexit? What's the main argued points as to why you would want out? 

Good luck with your quest

[bickster]

Just putting this out there

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think you’re right, but I’m not sure they’re trying to claim that, or that it’s the point. The UK said “we want to leave the club”. They’ve said “OK, that’s a shame. If you still want some of the benefits of the club, then as has always been the case, these are the rules applying to those club benefits”. It’s really (to me) that simple. “If you want to play football then there’s an offside law and a handball law...etc”. If you want to go away and leave the league, then fine, do whatever you like, but if you want to play with us, these are the laws. Friendly games, sure, we can relax the rules on substitutes, but it must be 11 a side, picking up the ball isn’t allowed and you have to pay your pitch fees.

The UK has completely failed to recognise that there are 27 other teams in the league and that no, our delusions of we’re Man Utd, so we can do what we want are utter flights of fantasy.

we haven’t proposed anything credible, bluntly. It’s up to the UK to say what we want within the bounds of reality and we just haven’t. Realistically the EU has always held most of the cards, but the Brexit nutters can’t or won’t see that

Don't you find the whole 'we are not prepared to talk about the nature of our future relationship/the UK won't say it wants in the future' narrative somewhat at odds with itself?

[peterms]

1 hour ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

I'm not so sure flexibility or fluidity are attributes that they can lay claim to.

I would say they can claim to have been reasonably flexible through the process, within the limits, as Blandy says, of what they have explained are core requirements (eg if you want this, then you need to accept that).

As times goes on, they will be less flexible, because a choice must be made.

The constraints they announced, like not being able to have the full benefits of membership without accepting the "four freedoms", were pre-existing, widely known, and obvious.  Their flexibility is not infinite, but is what you might expect in a negotiation conducted by a competent partner acting in good faith while protecting its own interests.  Our flexibility has been confusion, evasion, fantasy, and lies.

Our approach combined "not revealing our negotiating position" - remember that gem - with setting arbitrary red lines for the purpose of internal party management, and wanting to eat our cake and have it.

There is also an element of us setting conditions that could not be achieved, because a big contingent in the tory party wanted a hard brexit, and a breakdown is not a bad outcome for them.  May should have faced this down, but didn't have the numbers to do so.

[Stevo985]

53 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

As a foreigner who just briefly reads all the brexit stuff. Can someone tell me the positives of a brexit? What's the main argued points as to why you would want out? 

I've posted a few times in this thread that I've been asking my Brexiteer work colleagues this again and again for months and I can't get a single answer. The best they can do is "less rules", which is obviously nonsense under May's deal. The only way that's the case is No Deal, which would be a disaster.

I've said before I can understand how people could have voted Leave at the time of the referendum. I think they would have been massively wrong, but there were certain lies and misconceptions (and I'm not talking about the obvious ones like the **** bus) that were valid and believable.

 

However, I do not understand how anyone could now still think that Brexit was a good idea. Obviously millions of people do, but I can't see a single valid reason for why it's a good idea.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

As a foreigner who just briefly reads all the brexit stuff. Can someone tell me the positives of a brexit? What's the main argued points as to why you would want out? 

The main argued points for leaving were sovereignty, immigration, saving money, and opportunities elsewhere.

The actual issues were probably more emotional than based on argument.

[KenjiOgiwara]

Confuses me why "less rules" is found attractive when the rules are sound and generally an advantage. But I guess I don't understand all the nuances. 

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Confuses me why "less rules" is found attractive when the rules are sound and generally an advantage. But I guess I don't understand all the nuances. 

Well exactly. That's the point. Most of the rules the EU "impose" are actually good for us. The list is endless.
And on top of that, we get to vote on whether those rules are put in place. And of all the rules that have been put in place, i believe the UK voted against 2% of them (don't quote me on that, but it's a very low percentage)

So "too many rules" just is not an issue. Some people argue that it's the principle of the thing, that we're being dictated to by the EU (even though we're not) and that we COULD end up having loads of rules that we don't want. Which I kind of understand. But then we are free to leave the EU IF that becomes an issue.

The difference is we've decided to leave the EU when it isn't an issue.

It's like leaving a nightclub because they have the power to throw you out, even though they had no intention of throwing you out. You've ruined your own experience for something that MIGHT be a problem, but probably never will.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Stevo985

[KenjiOgiwara]

I also find the "EU dictates us" a rather weird way to look at it. Norway you could say are dictated by the EU as we have no input in reality, yet we tend to oblige to almost everything. You guys were one of the power houses in the EU and could easily dictate EUs agenda. I know that wasn't what you said, but I've read it so many places in comment sections and it's rather weird. 

[peterms]

20 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Confuses me why "less rules" is found attractive when the rules are sound and generally an advantage. But I guess I don't understand all the nuances. 

Part of what's happening is a falling-out between two types of capitalist.  There are those who want to be part of a big trading bloc with entrenched rules which set a framework for and protect capitalist accumulation while also having social protections - the centre and left of the tory party, the libs, and the right wing of Labour - and those who want a deregulated dive to the bottom, aping the US, with Liam Fox eager to chew on Trump's chlorinated cockerel.  For the latter, less rules is extremely attractive.

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I also find the "EU dictates us" a rather weird way to look at it.

It's meant to stoke nationalist sentiment by suggesting an improper seizure of control by an external force, rather than a negotiated agreement to accept rules which one also plays a part in setting.  The SNP play the same game, with constant complaints about "Westminster".

[Stevo985]

21 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I also find the "EU dictates us" a rather weird way to look at it. Norway you could say are dictated by the EU as we have no input in reality, yet we tend to oblige to almost everything. You guys were one of the power houses in the EU and could easily dictate EUs agenda. I know that wasn't what you said, but I've read it so many places in comment sections and it's rather weird. 

Well again you're exactly right.

The deal that May has on the table means that we'll be far more "dictated to" because we won't have a seat at the table but will still have to obey the rules. We're literally making things worse for ourselves in that respect (and most other respects to be fair)

[Wainy316]

I don't understand what deal could possibly be passable?

We can either be in the EU in everything but name and without having any power or totally out and up shit creek.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

Don't you find the whole 'we are not prepared to talk about the nature of our future relationship/the UK won't say it wants in the future' narrative somewhat at odds with itself?

No, I don't. I don't quite recognise things as you've written them, but I'll try and explain what I mean.

There's kind of three options, broadly. And the EU is fine with all of them

1. the UK just completely leaves everything to do with the EU and also all the related stuff. Under this scenario there's basically no future relationship as of day 1. Nothing is agreed, we're just out. Out of the Customs Union, the single Market, Europol, EASA, Medicine, Atomic materials, Science, research, Education - everything. That would utterly cripple the UK. It would be suicidal. There's under that scenario, nothing for the EU to discuss with us before we leave, if we choose to go that way.

2. The UK decides whilst leaving the EU, we'd like to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market. These things come with a set of rules for everyone involved. Common rules. They're not negotiable for anyone. The EU would be happy for us to choose this option. Most of parliament and most of the country would too. But not Theresa May, because one of the rules is the free movement of Labour (people) and she hates immigration.

3. The UK decides it has red lines on immigration and other stuff (as it currently is doing). This means we can't have the benefits of the Customs Union and Single Market. If we want those we have to accept the rules that go with them (see 2. above). Because we say we don't want to be in them and we want to leave, but can't quite say how, it's difficult for the EU to understand what we actually want - other than to have our cake and eat it, which is impossible. It also means the Ireland border problem is incompatible with what we say we want.

The EU is clear, the rules were clear before the referendum, during it and after it. There's nothing of consequence to debate. We can pick off the shelf, or we can keep trying to ask for the impossible and the EU will keep politely humouring us, but firmly reminding us that the Brexiteers promises were lies.

[Stevo985]

12 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

I don't understand what deal could possibly be passable?

We can either be in the EU in everything but name and without having any power or totally out and up shit creek.

There is no good deal. Which again is part of the problem.

[StefanAVFC]

 

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

There is no good deal. Which again is part of the problem.

I think the ERG slogan really should be "no deal is better than no deal".