1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brexit Discussion

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by FrenchTart, Sep 11, 2016.

  1. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,431

    Says who, you? Because speaking for myself and admittedly not being an expert in international trade I'm more than qualified to make a judgment, it really doesn't take much information to be capable of making a judgment, for instance I'm not a qualified trauma surgeon but I'm perfectly capable of telling you that if you step out in front of a train traveling at 100Mph that you're likely to come away with significant trauma.

    You see this is why the country is so divided, despite remainers trying to compromise the leave supporters absolutly refuse to do the same, they're being disingenuous, dishonest, illogical and unreasonable, they expect remainers to get on board and fix everything for them as they're incapable of doing it themselves and when the remainers do try to help leavers behave completely irrationally.

    EDIT: And BTW I'm perfectly happy for leave supports to behave so irrationally as the more they do it the further Brexit slips from they're grasp, leave supporters are literally sabotaging what they so desperately want.
     
  2. billysielu

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,134

    Location: Oxfordshire

    Well sure, anyone can do that. But I'm not about to do that because I'd have half the forum telling me I was basically just guessing. What's the point.
     
  3. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,094

    The discussion here appeared to be focusing on trade deals but yes, I'm not disputing that there is also the Brexiter claim that "We should make our own laws, we don't want to be dictated to by Brussels/Germany/unelected bureaucrats". Of course the problem with that is that (again) WE ARE THE EU and Leavers can never seem to come up with examples of EU laws that they specifically want changed, or proof that the UK government would not implement something similar. Or indeed demonstrate that they understand how our own government and civil service operates. It's back to this automatic assumption that British = good/best and EU/foreigners = bad/worst.
     
  4. billysielu

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,134

    Location: Oxfordshire

    We are only one member of the EU.

    Nothing wrong with wanting to change the process even if you don't have specific laws you want to change.
    But common examples are leaving the CAP and CFP, and restricting immigration. Those are changes to laws.

    In terms of regulation, doing something similar is fine and desirable.
    Being able to do something different doesn't mean you should always do so, it just means you can when you want to.
     
  5. inogen

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 19, 2009

    Posts: 3,127

    We all know that the CAP and CFP isn't perfect. Could you please explain why leaving the EU benefits farmers, fisherman and consumers?

    And err, for about the billionth time, give a good reason, given that there's no evidence whatsoever that net immigration would decrease when and if we leave the EU, why restricting EU immigration is a benefit for anyone other than people who don't like other Europeans, or would for whatever reason prefer more of our immigration to come from non-EU countries?
     
  6. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 1,431

    Do you mean those 72 times we've been outvoted in the Council of Ministers or the 89 ECJ judgments that didn't go our way over the last 30 years?

    I mean what you're saying sounds great but it's not like we're consistently on the loosing side so what are you expecting the UK to do differently?
    You see this is what i mean by leave supports throwing Brexit away, first you said "none of us are qualified to do that" and when it's pointed out that anyone can do it you move the goalposts and claim "anyone can do that" It's either none of us or anyone and changing what you initially claimed was true only serves to demonstrate that leave supports are not being consistent and that it's pointless trying to resolve something like Brexit with people who constantly change their minds to suit, you can't build a house on shifting sands.

    And as has been pointed out before if you can provide empirical evidence and information to substantiate what you're claiming then people will listen, if you can't do that then yes people will say you're guessing...Well actually they'll probably tell you that you're talking rubbish as even guesswork involves some degree of work and clearly you're not willing to do even the small amount of work involved in educating yourself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  7. Daftbrown

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 23, 2013

    Posts: 1,160

    Location: Surrey

    Absolutely. You need to be more patriotic and disengage your critical thinking. Close your eyes and think of England. Just feel it in your heart. If Brexit passes, every morning that us true patriots open our curtains we'll be greeted by a Spitfire flypast. It will be glorious.
     
  8. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,613

    Location: Essex

    Eh? :confused:

    That's literally a pro-remain argument. What you're bizarrely viewing as a negative, is actually one of the single largest positive's of being a member.

    Having a say in the laws that govern our whole continent, means that we are able to influence the rules and regulations that govern the entirety of our most important markets, with which British business overwhelmingly relies upon. (And always will thanks to the economic law of gravity)

    By limiting ourselves to only having influence over the rules and regulations that govern the UK alone, we will not only have lost sovereignty overall, but will be in a situation where the rules and regulations that govern the majority of the global markets that our businesses are reliant upon, are made by other countries, with no concern for our needs whatsoever.

    Apply the very same arguments that you've just made for leaving the EU, to Scottish independence. How do those arguments stack up in that case?

    - Do you think that Scotland would be much more successful if it left the UK, and in doing so lost all influence over the rules and regulations that govern it's largest market?
    - Or how about the American state of say, Idaho? Would it do far better to secede from the USA, and in doing so lose all influence over the rules and regulations that govern it's largest market?

    By leaving their respective unions, both Scotland/Idaho would end up being exposed and beholden to laws that they have had no hand in making. Business isn't a purely domestic activity, it's international. Being members of the EU gives us a phenomenal amount of influence well beyond our own shores, that we otherwise would not have. And with this influence we are able to effect and mould the legal environment that our own businesses operate in.

    Leaving the EU is an instant loss of all of that influence, and is without a doubt the single largest self-inflicted loss of global sovereignty in history.

    So I'm genuinely interested, why do you consider losing all influence over the rules, laws and regulations that govern the markets that British businesses overwhelmingly rely upon, to be a positive thing?
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  9. Entai

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Feb 28, 2004

    Posts: 72,047


    Zero need to change any immigration laws.

    All that has to happen is the Government needs to implement the laws it already has.

    They can limit EU migration if they wish-to.

    They just chose not to limit it currently.

    Leaving the EU will not change that one iota, we will still have the same laws in place and the govt, will still choose whether to implement or not.


    As for all the economic arguments with regard to trade deals with anyone after leaving the EU, lets look at it this way.

    Take any small independent local corner shop with no links to any franchise, so not a Spar or Nisa etc,

    What would you say is the chance they can negotiate a deal with suppliers or wholesalers, that is better than the deal Tesco's or Salisbury's or any of the other large chains can negotiate ???

    I will tell you the chance, simple economies of scale say that chance is zero.


    That is the same as saying Britain has the same chance of getting a good deal with other countries after leaving compared to the deals the EU can get, or have got.
     
  10. billysielu

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,134

    Location: Oxfordshire

    Dunno about farming, but the CFP totally decimated the UK fishing industry, our fishermen were told they can't fish where they previously did because it was allocated to fishermen from another EU member instead. That's what I've seen the results of, because I'm from Hull.
    The difficulty will be rebuilting the skills necessary for ship-building and fishing, because those skills have been completely lost.

    Net immigation would decrease if we created legislation to limit immigration. Of course it would. Whether we actually limit it is another matter.
    One benefit of restricting immigration is trying to limit population growth, so we can catch up on house building.
    Restricting immigration from the EU isn't something I particularly care about though, not why I want to leave the EU.

    Never be on the losing side.

    The 'that' in those cases are completely different things.

    There is no data about the future, it's an impossible request.

    If that's something you value, sure. I have no interest in telling other countries how they should be run, and I would expect their citizens to take issue with it if I did.

    The UK was independent before joining the EU.
    Scotland wasn't, so it's not remotely the same thing.
    Could Scotland be better off outside the UK - dunno, maybe, if they worked hard at it, eventually.
    If I was the UK and Scotland left the UK, my day 1 action would be to invade Scotland and dissolve the Scottish Parliament. Devolution always was a bad idea, because it gives Scots the impression they have more power than they do.

    afaik that's not right.
    EU freedom of movement regulations mean that most citizens of EU/EFTA countries can currently live and work in the UK without restrictions, along with their relatives and partners.
     
  11. mattyfez

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Apr 12, 2007

    Posts: 9,061


     
  12. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,094

    The enduring myth that the EU stole our fishing grounds rather than the rights being sold.

    That makes no sense. We can limit EU immigration NOW and we have total control of non EU immigration NOW but the UK government does not do so. Creating laws that aren't enforced won't make any difference.


    At this point I am unsure whether you are trolling or genuinely have a screw loose.
     
  13. GordyR

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 4,613

    Location: Essex

    You appear to be conveniently ignoring the whole point of my post.

    No one is telling other countries how they should be run. We are talking about having some level of control over the laws that govern our own businesses abroad.

    I'm in favour of the UK having a say in those laws, you apparently do not want the UK to have a say in the laws that govern British Business abroad.

    That is literally your position.

    That makes zero sense. Are you trying to say that Scotland wasn't independent before it become part of the UK? :confused:

    You're still totally missing the whole point.

    Let's try this one more time. You said the following:

    Right now as EU members the UK has the following:

    - The ability to set domestic laws.
    - The ability to influence the creation of international laws, that effect British business.

    By leaving the EU, the UK only has the following:

    - The ability to set domestic laws.

    British business then becomes exposed to laws that the UK has no influence over.

    So, with the above in mind, why do you favour losing the ability to influence the laws that govern the markets that British businesses have to operate in?

    Why are you so convinced that losing the ability to influence the laws that you're beholden to, is a positive thing.

    This makes you sound incredibly unhinged, and gives us quite an insight in to why the (lack of) reasoning you've displayed over the last few posts has been so consistently illogical and irrational.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  14. Six6siX

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 25, 2004

    Posts: 4,722

    Location: Hertfordshire

    @billysielu you haven't addressed the direct question I asked here: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32656145

    You appear to be sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "you can't predict the future"; you have a base position which relies on the premise that "anything is possible" rather than actually looking at the information available to you and come up with a reasoned argument in this debate. In a nutshell: this approach is everything that is wrong with the pro-Brexit position.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  15. inogen

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 19, 2009

    Posts: 3,127

    as @mattyfez posted, the decimation of the UK fishing industry has nothing to do with the CFP. The blame has been put on the CFP do divert attention from those that have sold off our fishing rights. BTW, we're the only EU country that their fishing rights in private hands. What a surprise.

    Again, passing legislation to limit immigration is not dependent on being a member of the EU or not except in a theoretical way. In all practicality, we could, if that was desirable, decrease net immigration by capping non-EU immigration which is far higher than EU immigration. The fact is that no party is currently standing with a policy to significantly reduce net immigration. Noticeably decreasing immigration would destroy the welfare state as know it.

    Seeing the reduction of immigration is a good thing means you're not seeing the whole picture. It's a bad thing. The local pressures on services are not a problem with immigration policy or immigration. It's a problem with funding and austerity.

    The UK could build lots of housing if we actually wanted to. Again though, no mainstream party is has a policy to do so. The Tories want high property values maintained and Labour want better use of the existing housing stock. Greens and the Liberals have similar positions to Labour with more emphasis on environmental impacts of housing development.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  16. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 18,627

    https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/racism-is-still-a-huge-problem/

    How very awkward.

     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  17. billysielu

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,134

    Location: Oxfordshire

    Grats on being wrong on every point.

    Thanks for telling me what my position is. You're wrong btw.

    No you are. This is the Brexit thread.

    Because it's in exchange for other EU members losing the ability to influence laws here.

    Sorry bro I'm not ignoring you I just don't know what you expect from me.

    This isn't true, it's the CFP. EU quotas killed the fishing industry.
    If you think otherwise, prove it.
     
  18. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,094

    Mr Badger said "The enduring myth that the EU stole our fishing grounds rather than the rights being sold.

    That makes no sense. We can limit EU immigration NOW and we have total control of non EU immigration NOW but the UK government does not do so. Creating laws that aren't enforced won't make any difference.

    At this point I am unsure whether you are trolling or genuinely have a screw loose."

    As you're claiming I'm wrong on every point then you appear to be stating that:

    You do believe the myth that EU stole our fishing grounds rather than the rights being sold.

    You do not believe the truth that the UK government currently has the power to control immigration.

    You seriously believe that if Scotland gains independence from the UK by political means that the rest of the UK should then use military force to invade Scotland.
     
  19. billysielu

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 9, 2009

    Posts: 11,134

    Location: Oxfordshire

    And you think the opposite, which is why you're wrong, congrats on repeating your wrongness. In b4 you repeat it again.
     
  20. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,094

    This is the point at which you are supposed to post some proof to back up your claims.

    Presumably you're dropping the nonsense about invading Scotland?