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.

 r_squared wrote:
I think the argument for Brexit has been comprehensively defeated when the only 2 defenders of it left on this forum are trying to find a comptomise to mitigate the worst of its consequences and even Jacob Rees-Mogg concedes that it could be 50 years before the UK may see a benefit from this venture.

On top of Brexit, centrist politics and the Conservative party have failed the country in every single area. I have never before seen Govts in this country recommend that we start stockpiling resources against a future they have created.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/theresa-may-brexit-no-deal-panic-stockpiling-food-civil-unrest

Is this careful, prudent economic management? A steady hand on the tiller? I've just watched Owen Jones discussing the rise of communist ideology amongst millenials with my jaw agape. I cannot believe that the Conservatives have brought things to such a state that some idiots are seriously touting communism as a solution. Where are the Tories on this forum? Any of them care to justify and defend the path of their political ideology?

I thought not.

Well we might yet cause a crisis in the EU. Having just recovered from the Syrian war and having to manage an influx of refugees a new problem raises its head as 40 million refugees from the UK flood into the EU....Half starved and facing roving bands of feral people on the street the EU has to decide how to distribute these refugees...

We cannot wait 50 years to see a benefit from Brexit.

My daughter, who was too young to vote, will be retired by then.

The accusation that the old have stolen the future of the young generation will be proved conclusively.

 Da Boss wrote:
I mean look at the Tory leadership. To be considered, you have to be in a "safe seat". But to win a marginal, you need to be quite a good MP. So the good MPs get dispatched to the marginals and therefore count themselves out of the leadership jostling while those with the "right" background and connections get parachuted into a safe seat and can play silly buggers trying to get a top job. Same is true in the Labour Party of course, it was the Blairites who pioneered all this stuff.

I find it all fascinating, because growing up I always had a grudging respect for the way politics was conducted in the UK, I always wished Irish politicians would be more like those in the UK. Now I really do not feel that way any more.

The problem with the Tory party is that there are very few people that actually support their ideology. Lots of people vote for them because in the end they think they will pay less tax despite the long term damage this does. Many persuade themselves that the Tories are a safe hand but the reality is that they just change the dynamics of who pays and that it is those at the bottom without a voice. As the guardian article states it just transfers the a financial debt into a social debt. Because the Tories only get a lot of begrudging votes they don't have the grass roots support and the pool of people they can call upon is both dwindling. It leaves the more hard right older generation and a small smattering of individuals that are in wealthy positions that can get to the top. The talent in the Tory party is hence dwindling fast. That can be seen in the quality of the MPs that are put forward, declining steadily leaving worse and worse options to lead the country.

Labour have a different problem. They have large numbers of people to call on and there is likely to be some real talent in there. However finding it is hard as there are also a lot of left wing nutcases that tend to get more support from certain elements of Labour. Additionally the more rationale voices tend to get drowned out by the momentum of left wing ideology that in many ways is just as bad as the nutcase right wing ideology. There was some signs of progress (and despite what people say the early New Labour years did show progress). For example from some experience in the waste industry they did fully consult widely with scientists/industry etc before plans were put in place. However in the second term they started swing to more centre right principles and we ended up with 'Tory light'.

It doesn't help that the populace as a whole tends to be reactive to circumstances (immigration etc) and our politicians tend to pacify short term populist arguments rather than try and put forward why and a different approach. Of course a higher educated populace would hopefully mitigate some of these issues, but too few really understand the principles of statistics and scientific rationale and so forth.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We cannot wait 50 years to see a benefit from Brexit.

My daughter, who was too young to vote, will be retired by then.

The accusation that the old have stolen the future of the young generation will be proved conclusively.

It's questionable even then. In 50 years if current trends continue we will be in the fight of our species battling climate change. Currently data from climate change indicates we are tracking the worst case scenarios. In this case the east coast and London disappear (noting they aren't actually the worst case scenarios just the ones accepted). What JRM is not taking into account is that whilst we try and recover their will be much larger issues and that benefit will never appear. He's fine of course he has lots of money.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 reds8n wrote:




https://twitter.com/SheRa_Marley/status/1021434135586516993

so if you're not doing anything for 2 hours tomorrow then you can get paid to pretend to welcome the king of Qatar.

...hope that's their govt. paying for this.

Doesn't say you can't protest. Take an EU flag or two....

The Qatari’s are saying that they believe this to be a paid protest planned by other Gulf states.

I stand by my suggestion of going and taking on a look of sullen disinterest. It works no matter what the aim or who is paying.

It seems that suffering for 50 years for a possibility of being better doesn't seem like the best of deals.

Spain is beginning to agitate about Gibraltar again, which is a timely reminder that post-Brexit Britain will have two land borders with the EU.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexit-ex-pat-pensions-illegal-retired-eu-europe-theresa-may-a8461166.html

It will be “illegal” to pay private pensions to many retired British expats if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal, MPs have been told.

The Association of British Insurers said pensioners who receive their payments into bank accounts in their adopted countries would be left without cash.

“That is a perfectly plausible risk in the future of no agreement is reached in some countries of the EU,” said Huw Evans, the ABI’s director general.

An alarmed Hilary Benn, the Brexit committee’s chairman, said: “They might find that they couldn’t be paid their pension – is that what you are saying?”

The warning came as Britain’s leading service industries attacked Theresa May’s Chequers plan for Brexit, the Commercial Broadcasters Association suggesting they had been “thrown under the bus”.

Those proposals would protect goods, by keeping the UK tied to EU rules, but exclude services – even though they make up 80 per cent of the UK economy.

During the evidence session, Mr Evans also warned that tourists would be forced to pay more for health insurance, because they would lose cross-EU insurance cards.
And he highlighted the threat that a staggering 38m contracts would be “left in legal limbo”, because it would also be illegal to pay claims in EU countries

“If a claim comes in two years down the line, in a country like Germany, their lawyers will be advising them you can’t pay the claim,” Mr Evans told the committee.

On the threat to insurance-based pensions, he said he wanted to “avoid panic”, acknowledging it would not be a consequence of no deal in all EU countries.

But he warned the UK would “end up as rule takers”, telling the MPs: “That is inherent in the approach the government has decided to take in its negotiating position.”

In the white paper that followed the Chequers plan, the UK abandoned attempts to persuade the EU to grant “mutual recognition” to services after Brexit – settling instead for a lesser “equivalence” model.

But this will allow Brussels to deny market access rights if it decides the UK’s regulatory regime does not meet the EU’s standards.

Adam Minns, the executive director of the Commercial Broadcasters Association, condemned the shift as a “backward step”.

He said the UK currently boasted more international channels than any other EU country, a crucial factor being the ability to broadcast to the continent.

But a country such as the Netherlands – with its own tech hubs, excellent air links and with English commonly spoken – was perfectly placed to grab that dominance.

“We are not certain if we are being thrown under the bus, or have we hit a temporary roadblock,” Mr Minns told the committee.

Asked if ministers understood the threat to service industries, he replied: “I don’t know – some do, some don’t.”

The City of London Corporation said it feared the consequences, for example, for solicitors unable to “fly in and out to provide advice”, but recognised the decision as “pragmatic”.

Brexit keeps on giving.

 r_squared wrote:
I think the argument for Brexit has been comprehensively defeated when the only 2 defenders of it left on this forum are trying to find a comptomise to mitigate the worst of its consequences and even Jacob Rees-Mogg concedes that it could be 50 years before the UK may see a benefit from this venture.

On top of Brexit, centrist politics and the Conservative party have failed the country in every single area. I have never before seen Govts in this country recommend that we start stockpiling resources against a future they have created.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/theresa-may-brexit-no-deal-panic-stockpiling-food-civil-unrest

Is this careful, prudent economic management? A steady hand on the tiller? I've just watched Owen Jones discussing the rise of communist ideology amongst millenials with my jaw agape. I cannot believe that the Conservatives have brought things to such a state that some idiots are seriously touting communism as a solution. Where are the Tories on this forum? Any of them care to justify and defend the path of their political ideology?

I thought not.

My backing for Brexit remains steadfast and resolute. Just because the current government couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, doesn't make it a bad idea.

People are forgetting that incompetence goes back further than Cameron and May.

Remember Tony Blair's plan for rebuilding Iraq? Nobody can, because there wasn't one.

What did Remain supporters offer apart from some vague pledges of unspecified EU reforms at an unspecified time with unspecified like-minded nations.

And they accuse Leave of not having a plan...

But blue passports! It will make it all worthwhile!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spain is beginning to agitate about Gibraltar again, which is a timely reminder that post-Brexit Britain will have two land borders with the EU.

High time Britain picked up the phone to Morocco to get them agitating about Spanish enclaves.

As a permanent member of the UN security Council, which Spain is not, the UK could easily agitate for things to happen in New York...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
But blue passports! It will make it all worthwhile!

Can anybody ever point to a time when me or Future War Cultist, or any other Brexit supporter ever gave a damn about Blue Passports?


Apart from one quote some months ago when I was engaging in friendly banter with reds8n and Kilkrazy.


I could not, and have never, given a damn about blue passports.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I think the argument for Brexit has been comprehensively defeated when the only 2 defenders of it left on this forum are trying to find a comptomise to mitigate the worst of its consequences and even Jacob Rees-Mogg concedes that it could be 50 years before the UK may see a benefit from this venture.

On top of Brexit, centrist politics and the Conservative party have failed the country in every single area. I have never before seen Govts in this country recommend that we start stockpiling resources against a future they have created.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/theresa-may-brexit-no-deal-panic-stockpiling-food-civil-unrest

Is this careful, prudent economic management? A steady hand on the tiller? I've just watched Owen Jones discussing the rise of communist ideology amongst millenials with my jaw agape. I cannot believe that the Conservatives have brought things to such a state that some idiots are seriously touting communism as a solution. Where are the Tories on this forum? Any of them care to justify and defend the path of their political ideology?

I thought not.

My backing for Brexit remains steadfast and resolute. Just because the current government couldn't organise a funeral in a graveyard, doesn't make it a bad idea.

People are forgetting that incompetence goes back further than Cameron and May.

Remember Tony Blair's plan for rebuilding Iraq? Nobody can, because there wasn't one.

What did Remain supporters offer apart from some vague pledges of unspecified EU reforms at an unspecified time with unspecified like-minded nations.

And they accuse Leave of not having a plan...

Result would have been wreck of uk regardless of who does it. Bad idea is bad idea. Wrecking of uk was only option frow wrexit. That was known from start.

Only mistake may did that had any effect is treating voting as binding rather than ignore it for good of uk


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spain is beginning to agitate about Gibraltar again, which is a timely reminder that post-Brexit Britain will have two land borders with the EU.

High time Britain picked up the phone to Morocco to get them agitating about Spanish enclaves.

As a permanent member of the UN security Council, which Spain is not, the UK could easily agitate for things to happen in New York...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
But blue passports! It will make it all worthwhile!

Can anybody ever point to a time when me or Future War Cultist, or any other Brexit supporter ever gave a damn about Blue Passports?


Apart from one quote some months ago when I was engaging in friendly banter with reds8n and Kilkrazy.


I could not, and have never, given a damn about blue passports.

But it's only success wrexit has or could have so enjoy it!

...not that wrecking of uk was required for blue passports. Eu doesn#' demand colour

Well, for 2 years, Remain supporters have sniped and griped at anything and everything the Brexit side have done, whilst offering nothing up except if we had stayed in, we could have reformed the EU.

So let's hear it Remain supporters. Let's hear your grand plan for EU reform. After all, if you get your way with another referendum, we'll be back in the EU. So what's your plan?

You lot were saying pre-referendum that the EU is crap, but change is risky, so vote Remain.

So what do you want to change about the EU?

1. When will it be done? Let's see some timetables and plans of action.

2. Who else will join us in this venture?

3. What reforms do you want to make?

4. What are the costs involved?

This will be good.

EDIT: FYI, I was appalled at the blue passports. It was a stupid meaningless pointless gesture that blew up in their faces.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, for 2 years, Remain supporters have sniped and griped at anything and everything the Brexit side have done, whilst offering nothing up except if we had stayed in, we could have reformed the EU.

So let's hear it Remain supporters. Let's hear your grand plan for EU reform. After all, if you get your way with another referendum, we'll be back in the EU. So what's your plan?

You lot were saying pre-referendum that the EU is crap, but change is risky, so vote Remain.

So what do you want to change about the EU?

1. When will it be done? Let's see some timetables and plans of action.

2. Who else will join us in this venture?

3. What reforms do you want to make?

4. What are the costs involved?

Don't need a grand plan. Being in the EU with no reform is better than leaving. Personally I don't think any major reform is needed. I think what is needed is for the UK to start holding their MEPs to account rather than pretending they don't exist. The UK should start accepting that we have an input, but also to accept that we cannot always get our way with 27 other states interests and we need to start worrying what is best for all of us.

My offer is that being in the EU is better than leaving, and that leaving will be massively painful, and even the most ardent pro EU MPs have admitted it will take 50 years to get the benefits, i.e. we will never see any as there will be no-one to hold to account.

Leaving the the most stupid act of self harm the UK has ever made, predominantly driven by lies and ignorance. Remain said it would be a mess and impossibly complicated, but leave supporters chose to attack that at every stage rather than do something positive.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, for 2 years, Remain supporters have sniped and griped at anything and everything the Brexit side have done, whilst offering nothing up except if we had stayed in, we could have reformed the EU.

So let's hear it Remain supporters. Let's hear your grand plan for EU reform. After all, if you get your way with another referendum, we'll be back in the EU. So what's your plan?

You lot were saying pre-referendum that the EU is crap, but change is risky, so vote Remain.

So what do you want to change about the EU?

1. When will it be done? Let's see some timetables and plans of action.

2. Who else will join us in this venture?

3. What reforms do you want to make?

4. What are the costs involved?

I think Brexiteers ought to make some fact based points about things that they think need reforming. Then there is something to talk about.

OK, how about the two parliaments, just to get the ball rolling. Colossal waste of money, bad for the environment and only satisfies France’s ego. What to do what to do.

Bit of a cop out from Remain supporters, and no disrespect to you.

Like I say, the EU is gak, but change is risky, was a common mantra from Reman supporters in the media pre-referendum.

Logically, if they think some aspects of the EU are gak, then they'll know what they are, and what needs changing...

Returning to the EU is a possibility...

I don't mind people criticising Brexit, that is their God given right and I would always defend that...

But if it turns out that Remain had no plan for EU reform, after having spent 2 years criticising Leave for having no Brexit plan...

Well, that makes Remain look just as bad...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
OK, how about the two parliaments, just to get the ball rolling. Colossal waste of money, bad for the environment and only satisfies France’s ego. What to do what to do.

They'll be a vague promise to scrap that at an unspecified point in the future.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, for 2 years, Remain supporters have sniped and griped at anything and everything the Brexit side have done, whilst offering nothing up except if we had stayed in, we could have reformed the EU.

So let's hear it Remain supporters. Let's hear your grand plan for EU reform. After all, if you get your way with another referendum, we'll be back in the EU. So what's your plan?

I would, scrap the £ and join the Euro;
I would have a combined EU military force;
I would ensure that MEPs had to meet certain rules to be paid and get a pension. Not turning up to the fisheries commission would result in not being paid for example...

Are you OK with these? But it does prove a point. Those that want to remain have no reason to action or believe there is a need to reform the EU. They are happy as it is (overall) and the structures they have put in place and the rights they give to all EU citizens. Cameron went to the EU to change things not because of those that want to remain but for those that were thinking leaving would be better.

This is again the same issue that arises again and again. Leavers want change but are unwilling to put forward solutions to the issues they have because the vast majority are just nonsense ideological concepts (take back control etc). Yes the EU is not perfect. I have some reservations about CAP but not to the extent that I should throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is leavers that have to come up with the changes to be consulted and voted on if they are not happy. Otherwise as above you just get things you are not happy with and try to use as ammunition.

Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Why?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Not the words I would choose.

But I agree, and would say to Whirlwind, with the utmost respect, that it's not a plan he/she is presenting, it's a wish list.


Tony Blair surrendered some of Britain's rebate for a promise of CAP reform.


If memory serves, he got feth all.


And let us not forget that Blair was, and still is, a die-hard EU supporter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Why?

We already have NATO

and after the Black Wednesday debacle, it'll be a hard sell to the British public getting them to sign up for the Euro.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, for 2 years, Remain supporters have sniped and griped at anything and everything the Brexit side have done, whilst offering nothing up except if we had stayed in, we could have reformed the EU.

So let's hear it Remain supporters. Let's hear your grand plan for EU reform. After all, if you get your way with another referendum, we'll be back in the EU. So what's your plan?

You lot were saying pre-referendum that the EU is crap, but change is risky, so vote Remain.

So what do you want to change about the EU?

1. When will it be done? Let's see some timetables and plans of action.

2. Who else will join us in this venture?

3. What reforms do you want to make?

4. What are the costs involved?

I see the biggest challenges facing the EU as being regionalism, resurgent nationalism and populism, a lack of structures with regard to shared currency and defense, and a lack of democratic accountability to an extent.
1. Timetables? Hmmm. I am not sure I can really answer this question. I would say it will happen when a critical mass of countries elect leaders and MEPs who want to see this change? The reform I would suggest for the EU is fairly radical. I also think it is unlikely to have majority support any time soon.
2. I think the smaller countries would like my plan, the bigger countries will not. What I want to happen would not be popular with the average voter I expect, who tend to have a strong sense of national pride.
3. Reforms - not sure why this was point 3, as surely it is the meat of the argument.

My reforms would be:
- Breaking larger nation states into more manageable democratically accountable "chunks". So Germany for example would be broken into the 16 Landers. France might be broken up along similar lines. The UK might become Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, North England, South England and London. The regions in Spain would become independent. This would also equalise the democratic balances between regions, so that one region does not dominate in terms of population and power too much.
- Reform the EU so that the Parliament is the primary decision making body, with a second house for the regional leaders who would have a heavy say in any legislation passed, perhaps a veto.
- Make the commission subservient to the Parliament and the second house (we can keep the current name, the Council).
- Devolve a fair amount of decision making to the regions, ensuring they can adapt as their unique circumstances demand. The devil is in the detail here.
- Combined EU monetary policy to repair the vulnerabilities in the Euro.
- Combined EU military
- Deepen cooperation- more europe until we reach the point where we are a true federal superstate.


So, I would like a federal europe, but I think it is only possible by breaking the bigger nation states into regions. Otherwise the centres of power in these states will alway pursue their selfish interests and sway things in ways which hurt other regions. Look at the dominance of London in the UK and what it has meant for regions like the North East and so on. This also helps to solve the problems of seperatism and nationalism, as everyone can have a strong regional identity within the block.

I believe a unified European military is needed now that the US is no longer a reliable partner. I also believe that we need a combined European monetary policy to get around the problems with the Euro, but this must come with legal force so that it is not abused by some countries.

4. Costs? Obviously, there would be some costs to the initial set up. But they are necessary costs if we want a democratic and balanced EU superstate. I think there will be many efficiencies when we specialise more on things we are good at within the EU and stop having so much duplication of costs, in government and military. I am not that concerned with the costs because I believe the benefit is so high.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

But I agree, and would say to Whirlwind, with the utmost respect, that it's not a plan he/she is presenting, it's a wish list.

We already have NATO

and after the Black Wednesday debacle, it'll be a hard sell to the British public getting them to sign up for the Euro.

You've gone off message DINLT. Remember that if the UK had voted to stay in the EU these things would be unstoppable, inexorable, inevitable. Presenting them as something the UK could simply say 'no' to just because it's true is very bad form.

Why? The euro is a political project not bound by economic reality, and it’s killing the economies of the poorer performers. Having one interest rate and a fixed exchange rate among all those different economies is a big mistake that’s already nearly spilled over twice. Here, this explains it better:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/joseph-stiglitz-the-problem-with-europe-is-the-euro

But if anyone is so fething stupid as to be still championing that thing then there’s little I can say that’ll change their minds. Contrarianism is an awful thing to be sure.

As for the push to create an EU army, who controls it? What do you plan to do with it? What’s wrong with Nato?

The Euro is flawed, but solving those flaws requires more european integration.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Why?

We already have NATO

and after the Black Wednesday debacle, it'll be a hard sell to the British public getting them to sign up for the Euro.

Why does the existence of NATO mean that more integration between the European militaries is a bad idea and should not happen?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Bit of a cop out from Remain supporters, and no disrespect to you.

Like I say, the EU is gak, but change is risky, was a common mantra from Reman supporters in the media pre-referendum.

Logically, if they think some aspects of the EU are gak, then they'll know what they are, and what needs changing...

These were reforms based on what they thought was needed to persuade those want to leave. They weren't there to persuade those that wanted to remain. As a comparison:-

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
OK, how about the two parliaments, just to get the ball rolling. Colossal waste of money, bad for the environment and only satisfies France’s ego. What to do what to do.

They'll be a vague promise to scrap that at an unspecified point in the future.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

As for the push to create an EU army, who controls it? What do you plan to do with it? What’s wrong with Nato?

Think of it as akin to the organisation of the western Allied forces in World War Two. Each country still has control over its own military but there will be an elevated level of command above that (Eisenhower), made up of the top staff of each country, which set strategic goals and policy. This does not meant the the armed forces of each country are going to be broken up, or that they will not be operating under their own command structures. Eisenhower being in command of the allied forces in WW2 did not mean that American officers were giving direct orders to British forces or vice versa. Within the confines of the strategic goal each country still has to determine how they will meet that goal in cooperation with the others.

This would make Europe stronger on its own and in NATO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Join the euro and create an eu army? That’s fething mental. Absolutely fething mental.

Not the words I would choose.

But I agree, and would say to Whirlwind, with the utmost respect, that it's not a plan he/she is presenting, it's a wish list.

Why is it, you yourself have already stated that the EU is creating one. Surely then there is a feasible timetable for such an implementation if you yourself noted that it was being brought forward.
Given the £ and Euro are now comparable in value there would be little financial impact from the change where the value of goods would be altered. You could probably implement it in a four year period (two years to prepare the legal framework, one year to consult and advise of its implementation (align banking sector), one year to change infrastructure (car park payment systems). That would really allow for free flow of goods to consumers. Now you can buy your car from a French dealer if it is a better offer without any transfer fee costs. You can sell goods to someone in the EU without the same costs. No daft exchange rates to consider that can mean you are paying a different price for the same meal over two days etc.

However you are missing the point. You are asking people that are happy, generally, with the EU to offer up solutions to the issues you have. That's not a reasonable request because we have, really, no idea what the issues you have. It should be for Leavers to suggest changes and whether Remainers would support these being put forward to democratic process at the EU.

Tony Blair surrendered some of Britain's rebate for a promise of CAP reform.

If memory serves, he got feth all.

CAP was reformed but still has issues. Largely to do with the way it supports small farmers (which is either a good or bad thing depending on whether you support big business or not). My main gripe is how it effectively stops third world countries competing and is effectively state aid (Simply ensuring they meet our standards should be enough).

The rebate was changed because otherwise the UK would not have been contributing to the costs of the enlargement of EU (which Blair supported). So from his standpoint he got what he wanted. The UK would contribute more to the enlargement of Europe but maintained the existing rebate arrangements for everything else. It meant that we contributed more but for a specific reason. Whether you agree with that reason is another issue.