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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Look at poor New Zealand, only 4 million people, stuck thousands of miles away from Europe...

New Zealand gets almost 70% of their electricity by hydro and geothermal generation alone.

These are NZ exports:



Milk, meat, wool, wood, fruit, wine, aluminium, gold, etc.

Do you know how much surface (and mineral riches) it would take for the UK to provide for their 60 million? Some quick math, New Zealand has 60 million sheep for those 4 million people. Where is the UK going to put 900 million sheep?

Misses the point I was making by a light year. Sheep. Klingon Birds of prey or giant jelly beans. It matters not what New Zealand sell, make,grow, or buy. They are not in Europe, not in the EU, but are thriving and surviving.

And here's Britain, 65 million people, 5th/6th biggest economy in the world, a global giant of science, technology, culture, economics, history, for the last 300 years etc etc


= wouldn't be able to last 5 minutes outside the EU...


Yeah...

Except it does matter a lot what you make or sell, because you need other countries and companies in your local neighborhood to be willing to buy your products. You need a market. New Zealand exports most of its stuff to Australia and China, where they have real need of the kind of products produced in New Zealand, allowing New Zealand to make favourable trade deals. And even with that New Zealand has significant problems in being able to compete in the global market (due to its small size and remoteness), resulting in its trade industry being a lot lower than expected from a highly developed country, which in simple terms means that New Zealand isn't nearly as prosperous or rich as it could have been if it had been larger or located closer to China or Europe. This is why you see that New Zealand's exports are almost all low-value primary items like food or raw resources, rather than the much more valuable advanced machinery and technology that is produced and exported by similar developed countries such as Britain.
Britain's primary market meanwhile is the EU (especially Germany and the Netherlands), but the problem here is Britain doesn't really make anything these EU countries also don't make. In other words, the EU could go without importing British products. By being in the EU, Britain has access to the common market, allowing British companies to freely compete with other EU companies and come out on top over other EU companies producing the same products, allowing them to export so much to EU countries. Outside of the EU, Britain will have to negotiate free trade agreements for its companies to have free access, and at that point EU countries are going to say "why would we import British products when already make those ourselves?". Basically, it would be very hard for Britain to get a favourable trade deal, and Britain will need to make massive concessions just in order to get access to its primary export market. Not to mention it will lose favourable trade deals with the US, China and other countries that could be made because the EU is the world's strongest economic power and has a very favourable negotiating position even with other giants like China and the US. Britain is not a global giant. Its economy and population are tiny next to the EU. The EU is the global giant, Britain is just a small island with an average population and industry.
Britain will be able to survive outside of the EU, that is not in doubt. But Britain will not be as prosperous as it could have been inside the EU, simply because it has lost competitiveness in trade. And trade is much more important for big, industrialised, high-tech Britain economically than it is for small, isolated, agricultural New Zealand. The British economy will suffer a lot for the loss of trade. It is trade that once made Britain great, after all.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
DINLT: New Zealand is not in the EU or Europe.

Dakka: They have lots of sheep.

DINLT: Agreed, but what's that got to do with New Zealand not being in Europe?

Dakka: they export butter. Look at pie chart X Y Z.

DINLT: I know, I buy the bloody stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that New Zealand is not in Europe or the EU...

Dakka: As always, your point falls apart when faced with the facts...

ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

It's almost like New Zealand is not the UK, does not have the same reliance on access to the EU as the UK etc. and so holding up New Zealand as some example of how the UK can be successful out of the EU is absolute rubbish.

You can try and pass that off as everyone else not getting your point but the fact is you don't have a point. You throw out some buzzwords and a headline and when actually confronted on it and asked to present actual details you pivot to appeal to the past rather than actually engage.

For the sake of giving you an opportunity to prove us wrong, tell us exactly how New Zealand, despite being a very different country to the UK with an economy based on very different sectors to the UK, not being a part of the EU has any bearing on the UK?

Cuba is not part of the EU or Europe either. Neither is Thailand. Or Chad. Or the Congo. Or Peru. Or Brazil. Or Israel. And those countries not being part of the EU and Europe have zero to do with the UK and the specific difficulties faced by the UK outside of the EU.

That's why we need sensible compromise, Iron Captain. And the blueprint for it is there: EEA/EFTA.

I don't mind changing my mind, and being pragmatic, trying something new, but I've yet to see it from the other side, and that's the big difference between me and them.

I'm happy to call out my own side when things go wrong: the Bojos, the Farages, Liam Fox, Weasel Gove etc etc

when reds8n posts an article about the British Jigsaw association or whatever, fearing for future exports, I don't disagree, because I want Brexit done properly.

When Juncker appointed his close friend, Martin Selmayr, to a plum EU job, the silence from Remain supporters was deafening. And I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on that, because they dig up articles from all over the place. They knew, they chose not to comment on it.

Similarly, when London tax dodging comes up, which is wrong, no questions there, Remain supporters rightfully attack it, as do I, but as far as they're concerned, it's as though Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Malta never existed.

They talk about Brexiteers wrecking everything, but on their own side: Blair (400,000 dead in Iraq) Clegg (shafted the students and made possible Tory austerity) and Cameron (Libya, referendum and austerity) are never attacked to the same extent as Brexit supporters are.

For two years, they bang on about non-binding referendums, and then call for a people's vote and for this new referendum to be respected.

They talk about democracy, but never stop trying to overturn Brexit in the courts. There's a new court case this week.

They accuse Brexiteers of racism, but say nothing about EU payments to Africa to keep black people out of Europe.

They talk of respect, dodgy money in the Leave campaign, and Britain in the dark ages, and say nothing about EU money to Erdogan, a man who has muzzled his courts, imprisoned journalists, and killed his opponents. And then of course there's the EU backing the putsch in Ukraine.

In other words, they are hypocrites. Hell, I'm one as well, but at least I can admit it.

The Remain side won't budge an inch, won't compromise, adhere to the EU as though it were some Middle-Ages religious dogma, and have been fighting tooth and nail in the court rooms to over turn the referendum at every opportunity. You will never meet a more anti-democratic bunch.

Despite all this, I spend 2 weeks of my life defending Remain supporters on Twitter against a Tory fethwit who wanted them done for treason.

But I'm the Fascist, apparently, even though I want free speech for everybody, even those I don't like.

I get blamed for murders in Ireland that have never happened yet, accused of being a Putin stooge, and apparently spend my time hunting down Polish plumbers to burn at the stake, and that's only when I've finished attacking Mosques and Synagogues.

And despite living and working in Europe for years, I hate the place apparently...

So, what was my crime? Mass genocide? A destructive war across Europe?

No, I voted peacefully to leave a peaceful trading bloc, and was naive enough to think that politicians would implement that result and that the opposition would respect it...

That's what being a Brexit supporter gets you in this day and age.

I'm only suprised I haven't been accused of causing those floods in India. But give it time...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
DINLT: New Zealand is not in the EU or Europe.

Dakka: They have lots of sheep.

DINLT: Agreed, but what's that got to do with New Zealand not being in Europe?

Dakka: they export butter. Look at pie chart X Y Z.

DINLT: I know, I buy the bloody stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that New Zealand is not in Europe or the EU...

Dakka: As always, your point falls apart when faced with the facts...

ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

You're again missing the point, not sure if deliberately.

The point is the UK is not New Zealand or Hong Kong or Zimbabwe. The UK is the same UK whose economy was in the deep gak until they joined the EEC, re-aligned themselves to a services economy while inside the EU, and finally managed to catch up (and eventually outperform) on France, Germany, Italy, etc. while in the EU.

That boat took decades to steer, took vast swathes of the post-war British economy with them and great pains to significant sectors of the British population. And indeed people like Rees-Mogg are finally on record saying that the supposed benefits of Brexit will take place 50 years in the future. Well, that's ok but don't you think you could have said that earlier?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The most important meaningful advantage to the UK is the ability of the British people to ultimately decide on the make up of the institutions and politicians that govern them.

Park it .

when can I vote for the members of the House of Lords, and can you tell me when the next election is for the Queen?

Heck, I don't remember even getting a chance to vote for or against Teresa May in the Prime Minister run-off vote, or Primaries now that I think of it.

And again, there is always the little matter of our ability to vote in our members of the eu parliament.

It seems to me that any complaints against then EU, are nothing more than a hypocritical reflection of our own systems.

As for New Zealand doing ok, there are different circumstances at play. You might want to read some actual details, rather than your usual hysterical pronouncements and regurgitation of flashy headlines that don't have any foot placed in reality.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
DINLT: New Zealand is not in the EU or Europe.

Dakka: They have lots of sheep.
DINLT: Agreed, but what's that got to do with New Zealand not being in Europe?
Dakka: they export butter. Look at pie chart X Y Z.
DINLT: I know, I buy the bloody stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that New Zealand is not in Europe or the EU...
Dakka: As always, your point falls apart when faced with the facts...
ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

Almost like you have the concept in mind of making an argument, but when it comes to the actual details, and gist of the argument, there's nothing.

And when your point falls apart when faced with the facts, maybe you should consider your position...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


When Juncker appointed his close friend, Martin Selmayr, to a plum EU job, the silence from Remain supporters was deafening. And I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on that, because they dig up articles from all over the place. They knew, they chose not to comment on it.

Unfortunately this shows that you are really looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. You are expecting others to know your mind and the issues you have with the EU. Like the above you point out events that have occurred in the past and then complained that no one else raises them on your behalf. The reason that no one complained that M. Selmayr was given a specific job is because the people you thought should, in the grand scheme of things, didn't see it as an issue. It's your issue, but you want to make it that it is others.

It lacks a type of responsibility. In a way you are happy to heckle from the back saying "It's not good enough" what X did in the past, but I'm not going to raise it at the time, only that others didn't later. I have an issue with the EU but it's for those that don't oppose it to solve the problems I have with it. If you don't agree with the proposal you just say "it's not what I want" - despite that it can never be what you specifically want. The EU, the UK and so forth is a democracy, it requires negotiation and finding common ground so that a reasonable compromise can be found.

You complain that others are horrified by some of the hate rhetoric and voice that opinion as is there right to do so as they also have freedom of speech. Yet you defend a person you state you don't like by supporting their right to say something; but which was never the issue. No one was advocating Bozo should be silenced. The right to free speech comes with responsibility and if someone fails to show that then others have a right to criticise and condemn that lack of responsibility. The approach you are taking is to hide behind something that people aren't complaining about, turning away and not standing up against the comments by 'hiding' behind a right that was never the issue. It's not rolling out the red carpet for someone, but it is turning away when other less desirables do so.

You want a compromise (EEA) only as stepping stone to get what you want (full Wrexit). That isn't a compromise at all. Why do you expect people to accept your compromise when it is nothing of the sort?

You complain that the EU gives money to African states and think that is a problem despite that sharing wealth will make the whole world better and will mean that people don't need to migrate because there life chances are as equal as anywhere in the world. Yes it means some of that money goes to people we prefer didn't get it. But sometimes you have to take sacrifices to improve the world.

This is the reason why you get 'frustrated responses'. You want others to have the responsibilities for the issues you have, yet fundamentally you are happy to complain about them after the event and worse that others didn't do so on your behalf.

Is DINLT's argument that you can't support the EU unless it's either perfect or you personally have a reform plan to make it perfect?

Or to put it another way, that you can't support a flawed polity?

 monarda wrote:
Is DINLT's argument that you can't support the EU unless it's either perfect or you personally have a reform plan to make it perfect?

Or to put it another way, that you can't support a flawed polity?

By the same logic though, you can't support a Brittan not part of the EU for many of the same reasons, but with British names rather than dirty foreign ones.

 monarda wrote:
Is DINLT's argument that you can't support the EU unless it's either perfect or you personally have a reform plan to make it perfect?

Or to put it another way, that you can't support a flawed polity?

I think contradictory approach would be a fairer representation. My interpretation is that it revolves around an ideological perspective in that "we are better off on our own". However this is then followed up by arguments that are easily shown to be flawed. These are we can do more trade with countries like China, India, New Zealand, US which is an economic argument; whilst being opposed to the customs union which all evidence suggests losing access to will costly us vastly more than we will ever gain from the slight increase in trade with these much more distant countries. The opposition to a coordinated military force, whilst advocating using our military/defence capabilities as a tool in the negotiations. It doesn't help that there is no evidence to any of the statements put forward, they are for the most part opinions (for example see the comment on Juncker placing someone he knows in a position of responsibility; there's no argument about why that is negative for the UK being in the EU).

So we end up in the same situation every 4/5 days or so. A statement is raised, it relatively quickly gets argued why the statement is not flawed, leading to increasing non-sensical further statements (which can lead to bizarre comments such as not liking Bozo for what he does and say, but supporting what he says). Until we get to a point that the contradiction is so extreme that we suddenly get silence. Then 4/5 days later it all starts again, rinse and repeat.

The only non-contradictory statement is the benefit to his own business for having access to free trade deals currently resisted by the EU (for whatever reason). In that I can understand the argument, by leaving the EU whether those individuals that benefit outweigh the overall impact on the country as a whole. Hence the ideological perspective. It's better for me, the rest be damned that's their issue, which many in the Tory party take to heart as well.

I had a rant yesterday. I embarrassed myself. I apologise for any offence caused to my fellow dakka members.

I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. I know that. I'm only human.

But I will say this. True sovereignty in this globalized world is impossible. I accept that. Even the EU has to take rules from the various UN bodies and WTO. The EU is there, it's not going anywhere, it's on our doorstep, we have to deal with it in some manner. There's no getting away from that. As an example, environmental problems that affect us all don't give 2 hoots for abstract lines on a map.
I've never had a problem with loose co-operation with the EU on defense or the environment.

From a purely, selfish, national interest, it makes sense. If there was a major environmental disaster in the English Channel, damn right you'd work with the French to sort it.

But there was a referendum. We're all democrats. We have to respect the result. And people are concerned about damage to business and the economy. And that is a legitimate concern in my book. No problem with that.

So we compromise, we become pragmatic, and IMO, we shift to a EEA/EFTA solution that satisfies the moderates on both sides. Nobody gets 100% of what they want, but we get pretty close and that's a good result in my book. I'd happily take 10-15 years of EEA/EFTA and weigh up the options at the end of it. See where the nation is. Then plan accordingly. Pure trade has always been my main focus. Feth me, if it had stayed a common market, I doubt we'd ever have heard of Brexit.

I am now a moderate and a pragmatist on this issue, and I would urge everybody else on here to take the middle ground as well. I obviously disagree with everybody on a lot of issues, but you lot are a fair and clever bunch at times, I respect your viewpoint (even though I disagree with it) and I confidently predict there is a pragmatic side to your nature and politics.

When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do sir? That's a famous quote which i mentioned before in my open letter, and having reviewed the situation, I'm adapting to the facts. We've had 40 years of EU integration. We won't de-couple in 5 minutes.

The problem is fanatics on both sides. With Leave, we have the fantasy politics of trading on WTO terms and taking any old bollocks of a trade deal from Trump. Spivs to a man and woman, the lot of them.

On the Remain side, they've been trying to re-run the referendum for 2 years, and now we have this people's vote bollocks. I mean, what were 33 million people doing in 2016 Vince? Having a fething raffle at a village fete? And you spent years telling us the EU was this benign entity, but now you're telling us it's so hard to leave because of the problems with trade, standards, and regulations? So what is the EU? Benign or complicated? You can't have it both ways.

We need to re-claim Brexit from the fanatics, take the middle ground, take the pragmatic solution, and best of all, a majority in the country and the commons would go for it.

This is a wargames forum, so our influence is obviously limited. But as I said, write to your MP, tell your friends and family of the compromise solution: EEA/EFTA. Spread the word.

It helps us trade with the EU, solves a lot of problems but still allows us freedom to maneuver on sovereignty on a lot of other issues, as much as a country can hope to do in a globalized world. And we can over time, start tailoring it to UK specific needs.

Damn May and her red lines!

Let's heal the wounds of the Dakka UK politics forum, take the middle ground, and remember why we're here: our love of miniature wargaming.

I'm increasingly busy with business and family matters these days. I may return in the Autumn/Winter, New Year.

Best of luck to you all.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So what is the EU? Benign or complicated? You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can.

Medicine is benign and very complicated. Most good things in the world require expertise, investment and motivated people to run them so that the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Military, economy, the electric grid, international trade, healthcare, science and just about everything that's managed or regulated by elected politicians are incredibly complicated to the layman.

It comes with the times, this is no longer the Renaissance.

jouso wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So what is the EU? Benign or complicated? You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can.

Medicine is benign and very complicated. Most good things in the world require expertise, investment and motivated people to run them so that the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Military, economy, the electric grid, international trade, healthcare, science and just about everything that's managed or regulated by elected politicians are incredibly complicated to the layman.

It comes with the times, this is no longer the Renaissance.

ROFLMAO. DINLT went on new record on absurd statements. Benign can't be complicated? Ah if only life was so that all the good things were easy.

I want to know, what’s wrong with a second vote? If views have changed the on ignoring it is the very definition of undemocratic.

If views have not changed then what’s the problem? The only reason I can see for people not wanting it is fear that the result will change, and they are the anti democratic ones.

Reasons to have a second vote?

1) Confirm that we are happy with the reality before making it our future.
2) Confirm that views have not changed before making a monumental change to our society.
3) The leave campaign lied and broke the law in the first vote. Let’s have a fair vote.

Reasons not to? Cost? That’s about it. All this talk of being undemocratic is just nonsense and, in itself, undemocratic and trying to stop democratic debate. The leave behaviour has been vile right from the start. Lies, breaking the law, attacking people as undemocratic for debate and as “traitors” for insisting our law be followed.

What's wrong with it? Result could change. That's why wrexiteers are so dead set against it. They know they can't win on fair vote with truth out so they are dead set against it.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I want to know, what’s wrong with a second vote? If views have changed the on ignoring it is the very definition of undemocratic.

If views have not changed then what’s the problem? The only reason I can see for people not wanting it is fear that the result will change, and they are the anti democratic ones.

Reasons to have a second vote?

1) Confirm that we are happy with the reality before making it our future.
2) Confirm that views have not changed before making a monumental change to our society.
3) The leave campaign lied and broke the law in the first vote. Let’s have a fair vote.

Reasons not to? Cost? That’s about it. All this talk of being undemocratic is just nonsense and, in itself, undemocratic and trying to stop democratic debate. The leave behaviour has been vile right from the start. Lies, breaking the law, attacking people as undemocratic for debate and as “traitors” for insisting our law be followed.

You missed 4) Let the thousands of young people, who were ineligible to vote last time, have a say in the decision that has the most impact on them of all the population (as they’ll have to live with it the longest).

 Jadenim wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I want to know, what’s wrong with a second vote? If views have changed the on ignoring it is the very definition of undemocratic.

If views have not changed then what’s the problem? The only reason I can see for people not wanting it is fear that the result will change, and they are the anti democratic ones.

Reasons to have a second vote?

1) Confirm that we are happy with the reality before making it our future.
2) Confirm that views have not changed before making a monumental change to our society.
3) The leave campaign lied and broke the law in the first vote. Let’s have a fair vote.

Reasons not to? Cost? That’s about it. All this talk of being undemocratic is just nonsense and, in itself, undemocratic and trying to stop democratic debate. The leave behaviour has been vile right from the start. Lies, breaking the law, attacking people as undemocratic for debate and as “traitors” for insisting our law be followed.

You missed 4) Let the thousands of young people, who were ineligible to vote last time, have a say in the decision that has the most impact on them of all the population (as they’ll have to live with it the longest).

I would generally agree but then, I cant help but wonder what the preteens who cannot currently vote will feel if these young people make 'the wrong decision' for their sibblings.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A solution that satisfies the moderates on both sides. Nobody gets 100% of what they want, but we get pretty close and that's a good result in my book. I'd happily take 10-15 years of EEA/EFTA and weigh up the options at the end of it. See where the nation is. Then plan accordingly. Pure trade has always been my main focus. Feth me, if it had stayed a common market, I doubt we'd ever have heard of Brexit.

I am now a moderate and a pragmatist on this issue, and I would urge everybody else on here to take the middle ground as well. I obviously disagree with everybody on a lot of issues, but you lot are a fair and clever bunch at times, I respect your viewpoint (even though I disagree with it) and I confidently predict there is a pragmatic side to your nature and politics.

When the facts change, I change my opinion, what do you do sir? That's a famous quote which i mentioned before in my open letter, and having reviewed the situation, I'm adapting to the facts. We've had 40 years of EU integration. We won't de-couple in 5 minutes.

You, like many leavers, seem to misunderstand what a negotiation is. Just because you backed down from something after realising it was a no goer does not mean that the other side has to give the same. Neither the EU or Remain has to change their demands just because you have. It’s like me coming to your house, demanding all of your stuff then calling you unreasonable because you won’t give me anything.

The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.

Apparently the Leave.EU campaign group is encouraging its supporters to join the Conservative Party in the hope of forming a voting bloc for a Hard Brexiteer in a possible leadership election in the late autumn.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/19/brexit-tory-mps-warn-of-entryism-threat-from-leave-eu-supporters

Under party rules, you have to be a member for over three months to vote in a leadership election if it goes to the whole party.

Herzlos wrote:
The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.

You want WW3?

'cuz this is how you get WW3.

 whembly wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.

You want WW3?

'cuz this is how you get WW3.

Oh yeah, because the current hyper-individualistic tribalism won't lead to conflict at all...

 whembly wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.

You want WW3?

'cuz this is how you get WW3.

WW3 is one way to go about it; but not by any stretch a good way. A single state should mean less conflict and robust frameworks for dealing with it. Common language, currency, movement etc would make life a lot easier. It's the natural evolution of states (city, country, country, bloc, continent, planet).

And a whole lot more rational than moving in the other direction.

For the record, I still believe in Brexit. But I want it done properly. I'm adopting the FDR approach to solving problems. Try something, and if it doesn't work, try something else. Flexible. Pragmatic. Exactly what we need right now. What we don't need is Ultras on both sides who will scupper the nation!

The Tories and May are clearly out of their depth, and the fantasy WTO option as offered by Mogg and Redwood is weapons grade bollocks.

Similary, sweatshop millionaires on the Remain side who offer up fantasies of People's referendums is pie in the sky nonsense.

People's referendum? As opposed to what? Does he think it was cats and dogs voting in the last one?

What do I want from Brexit? Trade and sovereignty, whilst recognising that in this globalised world that 100% of that is probably no longer realistic. But even the EU follows rules from somebody: UN bodies, WTO etc etc

As long as we can grab back as much as we can, that'll do me in the short to medium term. What I don't want is a minute longer of the EU's United States of Europe that they seem hell bent on adopting.

From a strategy viewpoint, we get back so much from EEA/EFTA and in the long term, we can properly strike an immigration deal with the EU, because even EU members recognise something has to be done.

We also get so much back from the compromise position: farming, fisheries, free from defence initiaitves, justice home affairs, and a lot of latititude to strike our own deals as we see fit. We can also tailor country specific protocols in the long term to suit us.

And if there's any nations such as Denmark, who have always been uneasy about the Euro and further integration, we can possibly get them to join us.

The UK could be a beacon for the sort of free trade we envisaged when we first helped create EFTA.

IMO, this deal would command a commons majority, a country majority, would solve problems, and calm business. And i say, 15 years time, if we ain;t happy, we plan from a position of strength.

Again, I say my great fear is a disaster crash next Spring, Remain take over, and we're back in the EU. I support the compromise deal, becuase half a Brexit is better than no Brexit, and any port in a storm.

Remain and Leave fanatics will try and torpedo this, but to the moderates I say, hold fast.

Does the EEA/EFTA option command a dakka majority?

We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.

Good luck to you all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apparently the Leave.EU campaign group is encouraging its supporters to join the Conservative Party in the hope of forming a voting bloc for a Hard Brexiteer in a possible leadership election in the late autumn.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/19/brexit-tory-mps-warn-of-entryism-threat-from-leave-eu-supporters

Under party rules, you have to be a member for over three months to vote in a leadership election if it goes to the whole party.

What sovereignty did we actually lose from being in the EU?

I agree a bad brexit will push us straight back into the EU; but the only options for Brexit are bad. It's just aboit chasing the least bad option.

I don't think the EEA will satisfy many people. Most don't understand enough about It, it doesn't address any of the concerns and doesn't fit with Mays red lines. It does the least damage though and May could say with a straight face that we left the EU.

As a serious remainer; I don't want a half measured fudge. If we still want to leave then we should do do properly. Once we realise how stupid that is, we can negotiate to get back in.


15 years after that you'd be willing to look at the evidence and reconsider? How generous of you, but we all know that until you are personally affected you'll think the hardest of brexit is the best option, so I'm sure we'll be having the same conversations then.

Since you now Want to take your time and do brexit properly (despite originally demanding a50 was triggered immediately), do you have an objection to staying in until we can figure out wtf we're wanting to do?

Herzlos wrote:
What sovereignty did we actually lose from being in the EU?

Nothing, DINLT just keeps repeating the same "arguments" from lying Leave campaign.

To me, true democracy is asking the people what they actually want when knowing all that was said and done until the disastrous referendum, rather than forcing them to get the same wreckage road just because of a more than questionable result made years ago.

What DINLT is talking about is not democracy - it's just right wing desperate move to force the others, clearly more numerous voices to accept their wrong vision, and not caring about how much suffering it will inflict to them just for the benefit of a small number. As always.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.

You want WW3?

'cuz this is how you get WW3.

Oh yeah, because the current hyper-individualistic tribalism won't lead to conflict at all...

Tribalism isn't going to go away just because you have a massive planetary-wide government. If anything, such massive, distant, centralised governments only tend to increase local nationalism, the EU and Brexit being a sad example. Basically, tribalism is going to lead to conflict no matter what, it is just inherent to our species.

Herzlos wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
The sooner we get rid of this local sovereignty garbage and become a single planet wide state the better.

You want WW3?

'cuz this is how you get WW3.

WW3 is one way to go about it; but not by any stretch a good way. A single state should mean less conflict and robust frameworks for dealing with it. Common language, currency, movement etc would make life a lot easier. It's the natural evolution of states (city, country, country, bloc, continent, planet).

And a whole lot more rational than moving in the other direction.

Actually, the natural evolution of a state is to collapse again after growing large. States have a natural tendency to grow, but once they reach a certain threshold they get smaller again. That has happened to every empire, federation or union in history so far. Tribalism is inherent to our species. The more distant a government is from us, the more resistance it will meet. This happens even if the language and culture is the same, but when the language and culture of the government are different, resistance tends to skyrocket. People just really tend to hate being lorded over by those disgusting foreigners, whoever they may be.
A planetary state is pure science fiction. It is a utopia similar to a world without conflict. Not something that will ever happen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.

You only say that because the referendum ended with the result you wanted.

In a real democracy, people know what they vote for.
Heck it's been over 2 years and still no one really knows what "Brexit" actually means...

The only real democratic (and sensible) approach right now is to have a second referendum, once it's established how you are actually going to leave the EU, and what that means for the UK.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Remain and Leave fanatics will try and torpedo this, but to the moderates I say, hold fast.

Does the EEA/EFTA option command a dakka majority?

We are all democrats. Let's respect the referendum, heal the nation, and talke the pragmatic, middle ground, like the sensible adults we all are.

]

Please stop these ad hominem attacks. You are not the moderate. You are just trying to push for as much as you can now you accept that leaving the EU was a stupid idea. You are already trying to blaim someone else for messing it up, as if someone else would have been able to get a better deal faster, when this is exactly what Remain said would happen. The Tory’s are a mess at the moment, but they are not messing up the negotiation, they are asking for what they were told was impossible, but people like you ignored it and claimed it was project fear.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Actually, the natural evolution of a state is to collapse again after growing large. States have a natural tendency to grow, but once they reach a certain threshold they get smaller again. That has happened to every empire, federation or union in history so far. Tribalism is inherent to our species. The more distant a government is from us, the more resistance it will meet. This happens even if the language and culture is the same, but when the language and culture of the government are different, resistance tends to skyrocket. People just really tend to hate being lorded over by those disgusting foreigners, whoever they may be.
A planetary state is pure science fiction. It is a utopia similar to a world without conflict. Not something that will ever happen.

All previous empires have expanded beyond their ability to manage and eventually contracted, sure, but I think that's down to the implementation rather than concept. Most people don't want to be exploited by foreign overlords, so if you can avoid that (by allowing every local canton a say) it may be different. We are in the realms of fantasy though - were no where near ready for something like that.

Monday's eh ?