UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SeanDrake**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My support for Brexit has not budged one inch
.

There's a big piece missing in your analysis.

You are seemingly blaming all of the current woes in the implementation rather than look at the elephant in the room that is why leave for a worse deal (slightly worse is still worse) for no obvious benefit.

There are only shades of economic and social damage. At several levels.

It's not time to reassess the process of leaving, it's time to have a long hard look at exactly what made so many people think they would be better off outside the EU when it's so blindingly obvious it will not be the case, under any scenario.

You guys were right to say that in or out of the EU, you have to follow somebody's rules on a global level, even if it were only basic WTO.

The nature of global trade, inter-linked systems, and modern comms, means that no man is an island. That's the reality.

It's also the reality that trading standards are getting decided elsewhere in Geneva and New York by various global bodies.

None the less, we know that most global growth in the next few decades is happening outside Europe, and rather than focus on purely the trade, the EU is more interested in the politics. If it had stuck with the common market and the trade, the EU wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

That is my long term goal for Brexit: proper trade on a global basis and not bogged down with this moribund, United States of Europe horsegak.

That is the Brexit prize if it's done properly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Morden wrote:
What do people think about the issues with the Pairing system over the Brexit vote?

The pairing system should be scrapped. I've seen footage of that Lib Dem MP at a Trump protest.

If she could attend that, then there was no reason why she couldn't attend Parliament for the vote.

Well if you saw the rally you would have saw she had her baby with her, however despite the way Boris and the rest act you are not able to bring a baby into the house of commons.

Also she is on maternity leave which is currently a legal right and although less likely to be after brexit currently we have not got that far.
Unless your one of those Brexiteers who feels woman should only stay at home and out of politics then I am unsure how you can feel that the pairing incident was anything other than a scummy attempt to subvert our democracy.

I mean I am sure as a supporter of sovrentea and the sanctity of parliament that you would not want to win in an undemocratic fashion with rules and laws being broken and our democracy being tarnished.......Oh hang on.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously the amount of mental gymnastics and hypocrisy needed to be a Brexiteer has to have mental health implications.

I mean at some point the must be some sort of schism between reality as seen and understood by Brexiteers and actual reality.

I think you can see some cases in people like David "Mince" Davis and Kate "I should be in the DUP" Hooey. If you listen to Davis talk he seems to be completely unaware of what has happened over the last 2 years. When he speaks nothing he says actually matches up with reality.

I think May has started to come down with it she stood and gave a speech in front of the world in which she said no one could accept the EU's backstop position. That was despite the fact she had previously stood in front of the world and accepted the EU's backstop and in fact signed an agreement Las December.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.

With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.

They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

**reds8n**

mental gymnastics

You're proposing a very simple question on a very complex set of circumstances

Boy, we sure are lucky no one tried to do something similar eh ?

https://www.ft.com/content/d615b792-8c1c-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340

Jacob Rees-Mogg’s fund house launches second Irish fund

with regards to the no deal option :

https://twitter.com/atatimelikethis/status/1020658628431368193

that all sounds great eh ?

When leave the EU we don't just lose access to that market, but we will also need to renegotiate 50 or so other trade deals just to maintain what we have.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-free-trade-deals-has-eu-done/?gclid=CjwKCAjws8vaBRBFEiwAQfhs-JmyXvSJSOqb5mHrtY-7CMIcBoJjX9vKCgshrCXgiBw4b8DXGfiQNRoCcOoQAvD_BwE

-- possibly having just told the Eu to do one with regards to the money we owe them -- which I think most people will agree doesn't really make us look like great people to try and make deals with.

what a time to be alive eh ?

https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1020936911194656768

I was told a senior Tory MP had also asked DeXEU if it was possible: to dynamite part of the white cliffs of Dover to allow more lorries through, and if underwater walls could act as borders for fishing.

we are fethed.

**Cruxeh**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.

With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.

They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Perhaps more important is a question I have not seen answered anywhere: What does the UK have to offer in a trade agreement? What does the UK have to offer for other countries, that they can not get anywhere else for a cheaper price at the same quality?

On the other hand, any problems that the EU's special needs child may or may not have upon leaving are not really my concern, are they?

Edit: fishing waters not fishing water. sigh.

**Future War Cultist**

Well, the uk is a fairly big market of what, 70 million people? Lot of money to be made there. We’re also apparently good at robotics and weapons if that’s your thing. Medicine too I think. Jaguar Land Rover make some of the best cars in the world, although it’s India who owns them. Mini, Vauxhall and Nissan manufacture here too. Part of our problem is focusing on services over manufacturing though. I’d always back the former over the latter.

FYI, this smug dismissive attitude towards the UK (what are you even good for?) is probably one reason why remain lost imo.

EDIT: I forgot Astin Martin and McClaren, and our contributions towards Formula 1 racing. We could, if we put our minds to it, become a major player in the world of film, if we’re not already there.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Future War Cultist, I think it's ironic that you and I are the compromise candidates now

We've looked at the reality, we've looked at the politics, the facts, and that's why we push we compromise deal.

We're being tactical we're playing the long game.

Britain as a country has forgotten how to govern, forgotten how to formulate a trade policy, because Brussels has been doing that for us for decades. It will take time to re-learn that skill.

And given that standards are increasingly being made at a global level these days, we can focus on the trade and not the politics of the EU.

Granted, it will take time to rebuild policies, institutions, new fishing and agriculture policy, after Brexit, but long term the goal is trade. That's the prize.

Let the EU tie themselves up in their USE project and let the rest of us get on with trading at the global level.

**tneva82**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's going to be a lot longer than 6-12 months.

It's going to be more like 10 years before the UK starts to recover to where we were in the early 2000s.

20 lost years.

And it will never be as good as it could havn been. Uk goes weaker, eu gnts stronger. Strenght is in unity rather than isolation. More so when earth resources starts to run out. Solos like uk will be swallownd and crushed

**Steve steveson**

Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Cruxeh wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.

With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.

They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Perhaps more important is a question I have not seen answered anywhere: What does the UK have to offer in a trade agreement? What does the UK have to offer for other countries, that they can not get anywhere else for a cheaper price at the same quality?

On the other hand, any problems that the EU's special needs child may or may not have upon leaving are not really my concern, are they? Edit: fishing waters not fishing water. sigh.

Fish and chips is a national dish of the UK. The UK domestic market alone could keep fishing going as a viable industry.

**SeanDrake**

80% of our GDP is from the financial sector and the Tories are not even attempting to conserve this even in the cakeist deal.

If we no deal the only financial companies staying will be the shady scum bags dealing in tax evasion and money laundering. What are the odds they will pay there tax do you think?

Remember folks that the day after we hard brexit the new EU tax evasion laws kick in. I am certain to that the unseemly rush by the vermin to start the brexit proceedings to achieve this was totally unrelated.

Honestly Brexit is not entirely a scam by Moggy and his mates so we cannot prove he deals illegally with Russia and so on and so forth. It was definitely done to benefit the plebs I mean commoners errr sorry little people.

**Future War Cultist**

Steve steveson wrote:
Except all of those industries (with the probable exception of F1) will be ruined by leaving the EU. Car manufacturers are already making plans to leave. The whole car industry is based on a very slick just in time supply chain. Crashing out of the EU will wreck this. Manufacturing is going to be hit very hard and very fast by Brexit. Even in the best scenario companies will leave the UK and factories will close before we can make any trade deals.

That’s why I say go EFTA. Avoids that crash.

I just had a thought. In EFTA we assume control of our own customs policy. We could approach those countries who have tariffs on our products and see if we could get them lowers or removed. Suddenly we’re basically an eu state who’s more open to outside business. Companies across the EU or abroad might move here to get the best of both worlds.

**SeanDrake**

Fishing is the 61st most successful industry in the UK even if they quadrupled there profits they would only jump to 54th.
Fishing is irrelavent to the UK economy but is a totem favoured by leading Brexiters.

Don't forget the brexit town of Grimsby is now looking for a brexit exemptions so the whole town avoids being unemployed. Personally I hope they get brexitered good and hard like they wanted.

**reds8n**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

We've looked at the reality, we've looked at the politics, the facts.

pro -tip :

in future try doing this before voting on important issues.

It's much more effective than having reality crash into you 2 years or so after you've voted.

in other political news :

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/names-of-mps-suspected-of-wrongdoing-to-be-kept-secret-zqtxs7l5z

All complaints against MPs will be kept secret

MPs have voted in favour of allowing all complaints against them, including expense abuses, to be kept secret.

Investigations into MPs’ behaviour are routinely published on the website of the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

Ministers put forward a motion saying that these inquiries should no longer be made public as a matter of course, as they asked MPs to back a system designed to tackle bullying and harassment at Westminster.

The move was heavily criticised by a number of MPs, including Sir Kevin Barron, the Labour chairman of the standards committee, who warned that it would be seen as MPs “trying to cover up their wrongdoings”. He led an attempt to separate complaints about harassment from other allegations of wrongdoing, such as cheating on expenses, but it was blocked by MPs who voted it down by 79 to 22.

Andrea Leadsom, leader of the Commons, insisted that keeping allegations confidential was intended “to put the complainant at the very heart of the process by protecting their identity”.

Mrs Leadsom, who led a cross-party steering group on tackling inappropriate behaviour at Westminster, said that investigations could still be made public after they had concluded.

She said: “Today gives us a new start. Westminster has been rocked by allegations of bullying and harassment since last November but today we can demonstrate our determination to put our house in order and to ensure that in the future everyone will be treated with dignity and respect.”

Two MPs — Labour’s Jess Phillips and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party — rejected her explanation and told the House they suspected this position had been reached as part of a deal with the whips to ensure the wider plan was approved. The new complaints and sanctions procedure which has now been adopted introduces:

•A code of behaviour for MPs which requires them not to belittle staff, make personal comments or touch them inappropriately.

•An independent helpline for harassment and bullying.

•Compulsory training as a sanction for less serious incidents.

•Recall of MPs or expulsion of peers for serious incidents.

•Independent HR advice for staff and a staff handbook setting out where to turn for help.

The rules will apply to an estimated 15,000 people who work in parliament, including visitors and contractors, who could lose their passes if they do not comply. The code will cover MPs wherever they are, including their constituency offices and official visits.

Ms Phillips said earlier that she was “exhausted” by the stories she’d heard since the abuse and harassment scandal broke in parliament last October, noting: “I think I’m up to 50 complaints from a variety of people from different political parties about both members of parliament and others who work in and around politics as well.”

including expense abuses

what are the odds eh ?

elsewhere the govt. is defending and increasing the usage of... err..... child spies

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/20/child-spies-used-only-when-very-necessary-says-downing-street

.which TBH I didn't really even know was a thing we did anyway.

I guess some of that seems more like what people would think of as informants rather than spies per se .. but this does seem a bit morally dubious no ?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

The EU is now a political construct. It's obvious it's moved away from the trade and the economics.

If Britain does it properly, it can be nimble and flexible enough to influence global standards at the top tables where it matters, and not be dragged down by 27 other competing interests all of which have their 3 man parliaments and various veto methods that bog everything down.

Britain can have a 21st century trading model and not the dark ages model of the EU.

If we're in EEA/EFTA we rally and lobby to put the trade back into trading, and there's enough like minded nations in the EU who are wary of further political integration. Get them on board and it's even easier.

That's the prize: better trading with a 21st century model. It will take time, I concede that, but it can be done.

**Future War Cultist**

@ DINLT

I find that quite ironic too.

**reds8n**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The EU is now a political construct. It's obvious it's moved away from the trade and the economics.

from 1972 and 1975

**Kilkrazy**

To go back to the pairing for a moment, it is a rather old-fashioned but useful system that allows MPs to get some stuff done and not compromise their party's strength in the House.

For example, an MP on a fact-finding mission to New Zealand can pair with an MP remaining in the UK.

The reason why the pairing was broken was that the Tory Chief Whip was pretty scared of losing that vote, so he ordered the pairing to be dropped at the last minute with no courtesy call to the opposition or their MP.

This was a cynical ploy which is likely to come back to haunt the Tories in the future.

**SeanDrake**

The only Brexit supporting financial expert and I use that term losely as he is an Ann Rynd fruitcake. States that all manufacturing in the UK will be wiped out by a hard Brexit and considers that a good thing.

There dream is singapore-upon-themes no tax, no employment laws and no environmental laws. A workforce rendered desperate enough to survive that we can compete with China and India.

Everything outside London becomes a giant sweatshop and it all gets a bit dystopian. If you don't think this is true look up Manford and Britania Unchained.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

I find that quite ironic too.

Which is why I extend the hand of compromise to Remain supporters on this forum.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the pairing for a moment, it is a rather old-fashioned but useful system that allows MPs to get some stuff done and not compromise their party's strength in the House.

For example, an MP on a fact-finding mission to New Zealand can pair with an MP remaining in the UK.

The reason why the pairing was broken was that the Tory Chief Whip was pretty scared of losing that vote, so he ordered the pairing to be dropped at the last minute with no courtesy call to the opposition or their MP.

This was a cynical ploy which is likely to come back to haunt the Tories in the future.

In this day and age of smartphones and emails, if an MP is in New Zealand there should be electronic voting for them.

Parliament still thinks it's the 19th century. There's no need for the pairing system.

**SeanDrake**

Ok while your extending your hand can you provided some actual benefits of Brexit even asumming it had all gone perfectly?

Please no Sovrentea or blue passport fantasies.

As for trade you are saying you want to improve trade by lea ing the largest trade block in the world?

Who exactly are you wanting to trade with that we all ready don't trade with?

If we hard brexit who exactly is going to want to trade with us given the loss.of.our manufacturing and financial service's base?

Please don't say the US what the have in mind is not so much trade as sodomy. Even in the anti trade EU our biggest trading partner is the US weird that but anyway we export much more than we import given Trumps current flawed understanding of trade this will enrage him leading to us getting fethed over the Brexit barrel.

Finally do any of the brexiters on here work in a sector likely to be effected by Brexit?

Do you have children or family that will be effected by Brexit for most of there lives?

Did you actually understand what you were voting for other than leave propaganda?

This is why I have little sympathy for the forthcoming storm of gak heading towards most Brexiteers if a no deal is achieved by the Tories.

**Mr Morden**

Kilkrazy wrote:
To go back to the pairing for a moment, it is a rather old-fashioned but useful system that allows MPs to get some stuff done and not compromise their party's strength in the House.

For example, an MP on a fact-finding mission to New Zealand can pair with an MP remaining in the UK.

The reason why the pairing was broken was that the Tory Chief Whip was pretty scared of losing that vote, so he ordered the pairing to be dropped at the last minute with no courtesy call to the opposition or their MP.

This was a cynical ploy which is likely to come back to haunt the Tories in the future.

That was how I read it - Do other nations have similar systems?

Also does anyone know how relaible the system usually is?

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You guys were right to say that in or out of the EU, you have to follow somebody's rules on a global level, even if it were only basic WTO.

The nature of global trade, inter-linked systems, and modern comms, means that no man is an island. That's the reality.

It's also the reality that trading standards are getting decided elsewhere in Geneva and New York by various global bodies.

None the less, we know that most global growth in the next few decades is happening outside Europe, and rather than focus on purely the trade, the EU is more interested in the politics. If it had stuck with the common market and the trade, the EU wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

That is my long term goal for Brexit: proper trade on a global basis and not bogged down with this moribund, United States of Europe horsegak.

That is the Brexit prize if it's done properly.

I give you credit for changing your economic source from the likes of Legatum to the likes of Richard North.

It's an improvement, but still fall very, very short. It's true that a lot of standards are decided on those UN-derived global bodies but those standards almost invariably end up mirroring the likes of European and American standards. Once they're on the table the actual capability of exacting change is tiny, especially for a country like the UK with a diminishing industrial capacity.

And why would the UK want to set standards on screw sizes and airbag propellants? For a country the size of the UK it's much better to just be a rule taker and adapt quickly to proposed changes.

Pace at the WTO is so sluggish no significant change has happened for a good two decades now. That's why I had a bit of a chuckle when I read about the UK taking a prominent role there. It's... Just not happening.

What matters nowadays is whatever terms are agreed peer to peer. That's why trade deals have a section on standard recognition and a court to deal with these issues, because while it's true those international agencies are the default they don't go far enough, quickly enough.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruxeh wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.

With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.

They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Not just that. What happens to all those British-owned vessels plying Moroccan, Angolan, Cape Verdean or Namibian waters?

They're there thanks to EU brokered deals

**GoatboyBeta**

The problem with the pairing system is that its essentially a gentleman's agreement not an official set of rules. Parliament really needs an official system on the books for either pairing or proxy voting.

**tneva82**

SeanDrake wrote:
Ok while your extending your hand can you provided some actual benefits of Brexit even asumming it had all gone perfectly?.

It is going perfectly. Result is just what was expected. It's when things don't go as expected thingsare sub-perfect

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

jouso wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You guys were right to say that in or out of the EU, you have to follow somebody's rules on a global level, even if it were only basic WTO.

The nature of global trade, inter-linked systems, and modern comms, means that no man is an island. That's the reality.

It's also the reality that trading standards are getting decided elsewhere in Geneva and New York by various global bodies.

None the less, we know that most global growth in the next few decades is happening outside Europe, and rather than focus on purely the trade, the EU is more interested in the politics. If it had stuck with the common market and the trade, the EU wouldn't be in the mess it's in.

That is my long term goal for Brexit: proper trade on a global basis and not bogged down with this moribund, United States of Europe horsegak.

That is the Brexit prize if it's done properly.

I give you credit for changing your economic source from the likes of Legatum to the likes of Richard North.

It's an improvement, but still fall very, very short. It's true that a lot of standards are decided on those UN-derived global bodies but those standards almost invariably end up mirroring the likes of European and American standards. Once they're on the table the actual capability of exacting change is tiny, especially for a country like the UK with a diminishing industrial capacity.

And why would the UK want to set standards on screw sizes and airbag propellants? For a country the size of the UK it's much better to just be a rule taker and adapt quickly to proposed changes.

Pace at the WTO is so sluggish no significant change has happened for a good two decades now. That's why I had a bit of a chuckle when I read about the UK taking a prominent role there. It's... Just not happening.

What matters nowadays is whatever terms are agreed peer to peer. That's why trade deals have a section on standard recognition and a court to deal with these issues, because while it's true those international agencies are the default they don't go far enough, quickly enough.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruxeh wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's one example of what could be done after Brexit.

Recently, Marine Scotland, The University of Highlands and Islands, and the Scottish Fisheries Federation, discussed their future plans for our fishing waters, on the basis of us being free of the CFP.

With the bulk of our fishing waters back, the industry could grow, it would be environmentally sustainable, would help recover fish stocks, and the food standards would be amongst the highest, if not the highest in the world.

They were pushing for a complete boat to dining table strategy, with accountability every step of the way. And because of the high standards, the rug would be pulled from underneath the EU's feet.

The potential there is huge, but sadly, it will likely be bargained away in return for some vague promise on something else.

You state that you would get the bulk of your fishing waters back, but does that take into account losing access to other fishing waters in return for that? And did they also take into account that the potential growth in the fishing industry may very well not compensate for the effects of the (hopefully no-deal) brexit in other sectors? And how many of those food standards will you have to drop when you try to get a FTA with, say, the US? And how exactly would you be pulling the rug from underneath the EU's feet? Just curious, because this kind of comes across like your own fantasy.

Not just that. What happens to all those British-owned vessels plying Moroccan, Angolan, Cape Verdean or Namibian waters?

They're there thanks to EU brokered deals

Look at the recent EU-Japan deal. No free movement there or ECJ oversight. Just old fashioned trading without the political union. No reason why Britain couldn't have something like that in the future.

The EU is 27 competing interests where every man and his dog has a veto. That doesn't make for fast or flexible trading fit for the 21st century.

The Canada deal was almost torpedoed by a regional parliament in Belgium.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Look at the recent EU-Japan deal. No free movement there or ECJ oversight. Just old fashioned trading without the political union. No reason why Britain couldn't have something like that in the future.

The EU is 27 competing interests where every man and his dog has a veto. That doesn't make for fast or flexible trading fit for the 21st century.

The Canada deal was almost torpedoed by a regional parliament in Belgium.

Again with the slogans. The Japan, Canadian or South Korean deals don't have any of that because they're limited in their scope.

If the UK was happy with just a Canada-style deal it could have been signed on the very first day of negotiations.

**reds8n**

..maybe actual geography plays a role too.

Spoiler:

taking back control.

..remember when this was project fear ?

still nevermind eh :

Spoiler:

.. it's an oppurtunity, of course.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

It's important to recognize we are where we are after two years, and however much we may want it, the clock is not going to be turned back.

reds8n, you've posted a lot of good diagrams and charts over the years, and it's appreciated, even when I disagreed with some of them.

With doomsday predictions on the horizon, a lot of Remain supporters probably feel vindicated, and I can sympathize with that view.

However, this is the reality we are facing:

1. The vote happened. Leave won. To reverse that, to ignore 17.4 million people, is fantasy politics. Not to mention the can of worms that would be opened.

2. To return to the EU, with all our opt outs and rebates, for the EU to hand back those agency jobs, for them to forgive and forget, it's never going to happen. It's fantasy politics, because there's too much water under the bridge.

3. Similarly, on my side, the idea we can crash out of 40 years of integration overnight, is complete bollocks. WTO is not a serious option.

So we adapt, we compromise, we EEA it in the short-term.

I would repeat my call to my fellow dakka members to contact their MPs and push the compromise situation.

**reds8n**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. The vote happened. Leave won.

Illegally.

You accept the role and rule of law or not ?

The vote happened.

Indeed it did -- in 1975

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

But we can, apparently, have another vote at a later date but for some reason, despite the illegality of the campaign and the total crock that the leave side gave us this has to be the last one ever.

uh huh.

To return to the EU, with all our opt outs and rebates,

It's not returning, it's staying in.

**Steve steveson**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

1. The vote happened. Leave won. To reverse that, to ignore 17.4 million people, is fantasy politics. Not to mention the can of worms that would be opened.

The leave campaign lied and broke the law repeatedly. The leave vote was not for anything in particular and it has since become clear that there were almost as many different versions of leave as voters. On to of all this the vote was very close, close enough in fact that “yes” being the leave option and “no” being the remain option could have made the difference. There is plenty of evidence to show that people’s choices are influenced in votes by going for the positive choice.

Having a second referendum on the final deal would be totally reasonable, and frankly the only democratic option. Had the original vote been clear and fair I would agree, but it was neither.

The only reason it has been dismissed is because May is in fear of a small number of extreme MPs, all of whole stand to gain from leaving the EU and have been working to ensure their business interests are protected, and a small number of right wing newspaper editors who have been shown time and again in having no interest in democracy l.