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.

Herzlos wrote:

For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.

It'll work out one way or another. I'm poking around the politics of 1885 right now, and it makes our domestic politics look easy. They had three changes of government in the space of 18 months and people like Bismarck to deal with.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.

Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd respect you a whole lot more if you were still backing Brexit because you believe it to be the correct thing, and were willing to consider that you may have been wrong, even if you decide you aren't.

That depends on the the metric you use to judge what is correct, and what your priorities are.

I think Brexit is "Correct" because I do not desire my country to be absorbed into a United States of Europe, something which I consider to be a pretty blatant endgame for the European Project. I accept that this may result in a short or even medium term economic cost. Essentially, I prioritize long term national sovereignty and independence over economic prosperity.

You have opposite priorities.

Clearly we have different views on what is "Correct".

Indeed, and I fully respect that view - as far as you are concerned, Brexit is the correct thing to do.

DINLT sees to be saying that he no longer thinks Brexit is a good idea, but is sticking with it anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.

It'll work out one way or another. I'm poking around the politics of 1885 right now, and it makes our domestic politics look easy. They had three changes of government in the space of 18 months and people like Bismarck to deal with.

You are right of course - things won't be so bad, and we'll eventually recover. The questions I'm asking are 1. How bad will the actually get? 2. Will they have recovered by the time my kids leave school? 3. How do their prospects here compare with their prospects on mainland EU?

I'd be interested to know why you felt being apart of the EU with veto power, a seat around the table, elected MEP's etc jeopardized Britain's national sovereignty in anyway.

(Apart from meaningless, abstract Daily Mail soundbites like 'United States of Europe' obviously)

 Hollow wrote:
I'd be interested to know why you felt being apart of the EU with veto power, a seat around the table, elected MEP's etc jeopardized Britain's national sovereignty in anyway.

(Apart from meaningless, abstract Daily Mail soundbites like 'United States of Europe' obviously)

Because power will be centralized over time, and our powers of veto and our influence will be gradually eroded.

I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

 Hollow wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.

Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.

Whereas people like me view that as unwieldy and far more difficult than it should be.

The trade deal with Canada took a decade to work out. That's hundreds of thousands of man hours to work out a bloody trade deal.

Also, the idea that they have each others back doesn't always work out, and the larger nations just barge out the smaller ones. The whole agricultural model of the EU basically favours the French over everyone else.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?

Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?

Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.

Which is what people like me don't want happening.

I refuse to hand over sovereignty of own nation completely to an outside party.

If the EU actually wants this whole thing to work, they'd have to break down each of the nation's and reform them into states of the EU of a similar size in order to work, that is probably the only way to balance it out.

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?

Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.

And yet in this very thread you supporters of the eu said we’d never be forced to do anything we didn’t want to. Take away that veto and that’s no longer the case.

One day Article 50 will be repealed. I want out before that happens.

One day x will happen and it'll be the end of the world. Ok, let's say your predictive powers are of prophetic calibre. We were able to veto proposed legislation, including legislation to repeal the veto, and failing all else, we'd retain the ability to leave as and when such an issue was proposed. Article 50 is being repealed on Friday? Enact it on Thursday. You know how we had the ability to do this? Because Westminster hasn't actually forfeited its sovereignty. So if that end of the world x happened, we wouldn't be bound to it.

It's fair enough if you think all decisions should be made at Westminster, or have whatever problems with the structures and objectives of the EU, or even fear that Westminster would actually give away its sovereignty without consulting the public, but I'd suggest that anyone voting leave because they thought the UK would be coerced into an irrevocable legislative bind didn't fully understand how the system works.

nfe wrote:
One day x will happen and it'll be the end of the world. Ok, let's say your predictive powers are of prophetic calibre. We were able to veto proposed legislation, including legislation to repeal the veto, and failing all else, we'd retain the ability to leave as and when such an issue was proposed. Article 50 is being repealed on Friday? Enact it on Thursday. You know how we had the ability to do this? Because Westminster hasn't actually forfeited its sovereignty. So if that end of the world x happened, we wouldn't be bound to it.

It's fair enough if you think all decisions should be made at Westminster, or have whatever problems with the structures and objectives of the EU, or even fear that Westminster would actually give away its sovereignty without consulting the public, but I'd suggest that anyone voting leave because they thought the UK would be coerced into an irrevocable legislative bind didn't fully understand how the system works.

We didn't veto the European Constitution. a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty.

Yeah, Gordon Brown the unelected PM decided to make that decision for us. I talked about this before. Though I do think that even if he did refuse to sign it they would have went ahead with it anyway. To quote Drunker on France's response to the EU constitution, a.k.a, the Lisbon Treaty:

“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”

That's when I first started to question the EU.

How is Britain's politicians being incompetent the EU's fault, though? Further, how is leaving the EU going to help? The root cause, the fact that you have a complete clusterfeth of a political system, isn't going to go away.

And we've been through the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty already, when you posted what can charitably be described as factually incorrect nonsense and what could less charitably be called calculated desinformation.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

nfe wrote:
One day x will happen and it'll be the end of the world. Ok, let's say your predictive powers are of prophetic calibre. We were able to veto proposed legislation, including legislation to repeal the veto, and failing all else, we'd retain the ability to leave as and when such an issue was proposed. Article 50 is being repealed on Friday? Enact it on Thursday. You know how we had the ability to do this? Because Westminster hasn't actually forfeited its sovereignty. So if that end of the world x happened, we wouldn't be bound to it.

It's fair enough if you think all decisions should be made at Westminster, or have whatever problems with the structures and objectives of the EU, or even fear that Westminster would actually give away its sovereignty without consulting the public, but I'd suggest that anyone voting leave because they thought the UK would be coerced into an irrevocable legislative bind didn't fully understand how the system works.

We didn't veto the European Constitution. a.k.a. the Lisbon Treaty.

And? As I said, if you think our government would make decisions you disagree with that's a perfectly valid issue to raise, but pretending their ability to make them was going to be forcibly removed is nonsense.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Yeah, Gordon Brown the unelected PM decided to make that decision for us.

Do you not understand our electoral system or are you trying to invalidate a PM you dislike by misrepresenting that system?

@ nfe

I do understand it. Labour won the GE in 2005 on a reduced majority under Tony Blair. He steps down two years later and Gordon takes over. The public have no say on that. Another two years later, and with that government even more unpopular, Gordon decides to sign us up to this big sweeping treaty that once signed up to cannot be backed out of. He should have had the balls to call a GE first before doing that, running under a mandate of 'vote for me to vote for this treaty'. He would have had a mandate to do it in then. At least May had a referendum result and a GE to her name. No wonder he didn't want any photos taken...

I forgot, it was a labour manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on that, and he dumped it. I know a lot of the blame rests on his shoulders but it perfectly demonstrates how the EU only needs to persuade a few people to get what it wants.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ nfe

I do understand it.

So just misrepresenting it, then. He was no less elected than any other UK PM.

@ nfe

I see what you're trying to pull. Ok then, the PM who never won a general election decided to sign us up to the Lisbon Treaty.

You're both right. Stop arguing past each other.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ nfe

I see what you're trying to pull. Ok then, the PM who never won a general election decided to sign us up to the Lisbon Treaty.

Trying to pull? Aye mate, pointing out that someone is deliberately misrepresenting the Westminster electoral system to try and invalidate a politician they dislike is downright underhanded.

Now that you've conceded that, though, the point you make is not a criticism of the EU. It's a criticism of a British government making a decision that you believe should have been given to the public. As I stated above, twice, that's perfectly fair, but it is absolutely not evidence of a government losing its ability to make decisions, nor of a threat that the EU is Going to forcibly create such a situation.

More delightful news from the string and stable party. The anti abortion, climate change denying, bigoted mates of May are now holding up the Brexit talks. What a cluster of a party this is.

I'm obviously delighted that the poisonous Tories are getting what they deserve after getting into bed with gay hating religious nutjobs. But it's not great for brexit and is already being used as a stick beat the Scottish national drum.

As Scottish independence is the key to me keeping a European passport I'd be delighted...

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?

Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.

And yet in this very thread you supporters of the eu said we’d never be forced to do anything we didn’t want to. Take away that veto and that’s no longer the case.

And we won't, unless we choose to give up our veto in some hypothetical future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
One day Article 50 will be repealed. I want out before that happens.

Do you have any basis for that or just anti-eu paranoia?

For that to be an issue we'd either need to agree (veto) or we'd need to give up our veto (voluntarily or brexit) and then a qualified majority would need to agree to scrap A50.

I think you're safe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Erh, that's the point of the EU. They act together as one whole and hence they get a better deal for everyone which includes trade deals, environmental issues and...er...agreements with countries that think they are bigger than they really are.

Dear God Thank You! This is something that has been driving me nuts. When Brexiteers say things like "The EU just want to bully and punish us, whilst only thinking about themselves!"... YES! They do, that's the whole point! Being in the EU means that we all benefit from being able to throw our collective weight about. Do you think the US, China, Russia, Brazil etc give a hoot about being Mr Nice at the negotiating table? Being within the EU allows all the EU countries to have each others back and collectively bargain. Breaking away from it is doing to leave the UK incredibly vulnerable.

Whereas people like me view that as unwieldy and far more difficult than it should be.

The trade deal with Canada took a decade to work out. That's hundreds of thousands of man hours to work out a bloody trade deal.

Also, the idea that they have each others back doesn't always work out, and the larger nations just barge out the smaller ones. The whole agricultural model of the EU basically favours the French over everyone else.

How much of a mess do you think the Canada deal would be if they had to negotiate with all 28 members individually?

Probably far less of a mess if I'm honest. Canada could do its trade on a country by country basis.


And of course we're safe from article 50 getting repealed. Because we are leaving.

So ,no confidence and won't supply. Can we get our £1bn back now?

Herzlos wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Presumably we'd still have a veto over dropping the veto?

Though I can see their point; too many members with a veto and nothing will get done. Needing an actual majority achieves similar but with a bit less power to individual states.

You just know that should a UK government be of the mind to drop the veto in return for some short term gains, the public wouldn’t have a referendum offered to them on it. Just like they haven’t put referenda to us for pretty much anything they sign at the EU. No wonder many voters seized their one opportunity with both hands when it was actually offered. A shame that the only choice we’ve ever really been given control over is in or out, and not more over time that allow a more moderate position to evolve.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Probably far less of a mess if I'm honest. Canada could do its trade on a country by country basis.

Would they want different terms for each country? That could turn into a logistical nightmare.

It's probably still a bit easier, but we always see the Canada deal rolled out to show the EU in a bad light, comparing the performance of negotiating for 28 countries vs 1. It's not like for like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I could have sworn that the 5 presidents report which came out after the referendum said that they planned to fully replace the veto with qualified majority voting. I can’t remember all the details but that report pretty much confirmed all of my suspicions about the EU.

Herzlos wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Probably far less of a mess if I'm honest. Canada could do its trade on a country by country basis.

Would they want different terms for each country? That could turn into a logistical nightmare.

It's probably still a bit easier, but we always see the Canada deal rolled out to show the EU in a bad light, comparing the performance of negotiating for 28 countries vs 1. It's not like for like.

Like for like would be for example the Canada - South Korea FTA which took nine years to negotiate. The Indians are already on record saying their deal will take over we a decade and will come with many strings attached re: immigration.

But of course every country is aching to sign whatever deal the UK pushes in front of them, because we're so cool and empire 2.0

Herzlos wrote:
For better or worse, we're all hitched to the wagon of Brexit. I just hope someone can find a way to make it work; because in all honesty I really don't want to have to move to Germany.

Hey weather's better there! No week long non-stop rain to worry about.