Post Poll... Britain decided to... Page 1137

  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:05:59 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    We've been having this conversation for several years now; naye decades. And it just doesn't matter to some in the UK... they will never get it, because they don't understand what the EU is. Never have.

    In many ways it is perhaps best the UK leaves.
    Completely agree. It's an odd one but in some ways, we needed the referendum after decades of fucking around and failing to properly engage with it.
  • Psychotext 6 Dec 2018 23:07:21 64,158 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    No, what we needed was for the media and the government to stop blaming the EU and migrants for all our ills.

    Guess what, that's still going on post referendum.
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:07:52 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @FWB

    I think I understand it, but would welcome some clarification on why you think that further such caveats are non-negotiable.

    Equally, you're under no obligation to educate me.

    Edited by GoatApocalypse at 23:10:17 06-12-2018
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:09:29 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    KnuttinAtoll wrote:
    GoatApocalypse wrote:
    I studied EU law as part of a law degree. Laws are negotiable.
    Only where there's a willingness to do so.

    And I'm telling you, FoM isn't even remotely as hot a topic as it is in the UK. Most people quite value it (and Schengen also) myself included obvs.
    That's the question, isn't it; whether it's negotiable. I think it's extremely unlikely, but it is possible.

    I can well believe it and, as a supporter of risky open borders, I value the free movement of people highly.
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:09:36 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    I'm not sure we really are properly engaging in it. Problem is this has all bee rushed. The stupidest decision was issuing A50 without any plan - and Jezz wanted it the next day. Brexit could have been achieved with far less chaos and harm (was never going to benefit us), but we have such weak, dumbnut politicians including a PM who cares only about FoM.
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:12:13 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    GoatApocalypse wrote:
    @FWB

    I think I understand it, but would welcome some clarification on why you think that further such caveats are non-negotiable.
    Because ANY end to FoM (opting out of Schengen does nothing of the sort) completely undermines one of the core principles of the entire institution. It happens, the EU is dead.
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:14:51 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    No, what we needed was for the media and the government to stop blaming the EU and migrants for all our ills.

    Guess what, that's still going on post referendum.
    That too, but alas it's not going anywhere.

    Perhaps in the future once the older generation die off then we might return.

    I recall a comment that Paxman made during his EU documentary; wasn't the greatest but still a good point: the EU for the younger generations has always existed. It's nothing new and at worst it is considered benign.

    They're also far more tolerant of migration.
  • KnuttinAtoll 6 Dec 2018 23:25:51 6,405 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Ok, I'll try to spell it out a bit further (edit - @Goat).

    The EU was founded to avoid conficts in Europe again after WW2. The initial idea was economic cooperation - if you trade with other countries you're less likely to fight them, right?

    Then why not go a step further, and let people move around freely, work and live on the other side of the border fence. Oh and that fence probably should go too.

    All this helped healing wounds of the past and make Europe grow together (the fact it's also an economic powerhouse that can't be easily bullied is a nice side effect). And it works.

    The four freedoms are the foundation of this construct. To dismantle that makes no sense whatsoever. Especially not to try and appease the historically Eurosceptic UK.

    Edited by KnuttinAtoll at 23:26:46 06-12-2018
  • FromTheHalfWayLine 6 Dec 2018 23:31:18 301 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    Psychotext wrote:
    No, what we needed was for the media and the government to stop blaming the EU and migrants for all our ills.

    Guess what, that's still going on post referendum.
    That too, but alas it's not going anywhere.

    Perhaps in the future once the older generation die off then we might return.

    I recall a comment that Paxman made during his EU documentary; wasn't the greatest but still a good point: the EU for the younger generations has always existed. It's nothing new and at worst it is considered benign.

    They're also far more tolerant of migration.
    Now list the stupid shit the young do...
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:31:23 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @FWB

    Why is it dead if a non-member state strikes a deal that includes access to the single market and includes caveated free movement of people (eg with certain levels of qualifications)?
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:31:48 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    I think Goat is placing far too emphasis on the economic aspect. While this plays a part, ultimately FoM (and the freedoms) is a political construct. For many that would mean it has to be negotiable, particularly to the Tories and large swathes of the UK. But that's only because they just don't get the support it has on the continent for... political reasons.

    The EU project (and the single market) is not first and foremost an economic project (it's using economics to achieve a political and social goal). But if that's all you want it to be, then best leave.

    Edited by FWB at 23:33:22 06-12-2018
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:32:59 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @KnuttinAtoll

    What if it's not dismantling it in order to strike an advantageous trade deal with a non-member state?
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:34:18 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Because it (the single market) isn't all about trade!

    Edited by FWB at 23:35:02 06-12-2018
  • JamboWayOh 6 Dec 2018 23:35:21 10,252 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    GoatApocalypse wrote:
    @KnuttinAtoll

    What if it's not dismantling it in order to strike an advantageous trade deal with a non-member state?
    Hang on a minute I feel like I've just stepped into a time warp...
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:36:30 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @FWB

    The precursors to the EU were literally called the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community.
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:38:01 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    Ignore the name. It was setup for political reasons. Coal and steel were chosen as the idea was to link the economies so closely that the two states would find it hard to go to war - two industries vital in the manufacturer of weapons.

    Any reading at all of the founding fathers makes it very very obvious what they were doing. They weren't hiding it.

    Edited by FWB at 23:39:07 06-12-2018
  • KnuttinAtoll 6 Dec 2018 23:39:34 6,405 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    GoatApocalypse wrote:
    @FWB

    The precursors to the EU were literally called the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community.
    The goal from early on was also an "ever closer union" the British seem to be allergic too.

    The closer you are, the stronger you are, and the lesser the chance of another conflict breaking out again on the continent.

    As FWB, it's not all about trade, but frankly that seems to be the only thing the Brits seem interested in. Money.
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:40:56 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think we're starting to broach a much broader subject here, ie the relationship between politics and economics and the extent to which the further exists to facilitate the latter.

    But your point seems to be that it was established as a trading bloc to achieve political ends, with which I agree entirely.
  • KnuttinAtoll 6 Dec 2018 23:42:49 6,405 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    And to think it was Churchill who came up with the idea of a "United States of Europe". I would love to know what he'd make of this Brexit malarkey now.
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:43:08 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    It's an incontestable point. They were very open about it and that's still what it is.

    British involvement in Europe* - particularly the Tories (Blair had other ideas) - was fuelled by economic desires**; nothing more. Again, maybe the UK should just leave if it won't "get it".


    *And not just in the 20th and 21st century.
    ** I suspect your comment that it is a "capitalist" project stems from this. You see it very much through a British prism. That's all this island has ever viewed it as and would love it to be.

    Edited by FWB at 23:45:33 06-12-2018
  • rockavitch 6 Dec 2018 23:43:48 1,075 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @GoatApocalypse You could be right, a non member state quite possibly could maybe make a deal that bypasses one/all of the big 4 rules.

    But UK is not a non member state yet. They are negotiating an exit, negotiating from within, so if there is movement on any of the 4 then whats to stop the other members doing the same?

    If UK want to have a crack at bypassing one or all then they'll need to do it after they have left.
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:43:51 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    He'd probably be miffed that India is emerging as a global economic force.
  • GoatApocalypse 6 Dec 2018 23:45:04 4,920 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @rockavitch

    Which is why the political declaration follows the withdrawal agreement.
  • FWB 6 Dec 2018 23:48:21 55,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 17 years ago
    rockavitch wrote:
    But UK is not a non member state yet. They are negotiating an exit, negotiating from within, so if there is movement on any of the 4 then whats to stop the other members doing the same?

    If UK want to have a crack at bypassing one or all then they'll need to do it after they have left.
    A valid point. Won't happen though.
  • spamdangled 7 Dec 2018 00:17:32 31,738 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    GoatApocalypse wrote:
    KnuttinAtoll wrote:
    GoatApocalypse wrote:
    I studied EU law as part of a law degree. Laws are negotiable.
    Only where there's a willingness to do so.

    And I'm telling you, FoM isn't even remotely as hot a topic as it is in the UK. Most people quite value it (and Schengen also) myself included obvs.
    That's the question, isn't it; whether it's negotiable. I think it's extremely unlikely, but it is possible.

    I can well believe it and, as a supporter of risky open borders, I value the free movement of people highly.
    The EU is founded on the principle of the four freedoms being indivisible. It is fundamentally against their interests - and their rules - to sacrifice one of them while giving us one or more of the others, otherwise they risk the entire collapse of the union.

    It's not an option, and they have repeatedly stated that for over two years now.

    Edited by spamdangled at 00:18:11 07-12-2018
  • spamdangled 7 Dec 2018 00:21:23 31,738 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    (sorry to chip in out of nowhere, it's just that I've been getting increasingly annoyed by people and politicians on both sides spending the last few years insisting the UK can have their cake and eat it when the EU has repeatedly stated it is fundamentally against their founding principles).
  • Psychotext 7 Dec 2018 00:25:38 64,158 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    There are issues there anyway. If they give the UK a preferable deal then there are clauses in the Japanese / Canadian trade deals that will give them the same.
  • spamdangled 7 Dec 2018 00:35:11 31,738 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Psychotext Precisely. It took them what, 7 years to negotiate Canada? They're not going to risk fucking that up just to please our little upstart island.
  • simpleexplodingmaybe 7 Dec 2018 00:57:17 8,431 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I don't like all this talk of the end of FoM being a price worth paying. I expect it of the Tories but the Lexiters are into it too.

    On principle I'm a big fan and in practice I think anyone who wants to fuck up the lives my friends have built here is a shithead.
  • spamdangled 7 Dec 2018 01:02:50 31,738 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I can't remember who it was in the commons (it think it was someone in the SNP), but it was said today that one of the goals of any government is to ensure that the next generation has more opportunities and is better off than the last - and that the removal of FOM and the economic damage is a betrayal of that belief.
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.