The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[chalga]

Regarding point a.

 

Did that agreement also have the condition;

 

1: That the ECJ would still be the body to rule on disputed cases?

2: Did it also mean that the free movement of workers would still have to apply and that their rights would be guaranteed as it is now?

 

Regarding point b.

 

That is of course providing the EU in its present form lasts which I doubt as it is already cracking at the seams. The one big problem with the EU (as I see it) is unlike the United States it has no flexibility built in, and when things are inflexible they break easily.

 

The UK right has been predicting the end of the EU for decades now,this is more based on wishful thinking and a hatred of all things foreign more than anything else,so the broken clock theory is the best case scenario for the right in this case.

NAFTA is the one cracking at the seams due to the prescence of one party who is determined to crush the others into the ground due to sheer greed and nationalistic tendencies.

[Fogey]

ENG601PM, your suggestion that the coal and steel industries in the UK (and the subsequent decline of areas such as Sheffield which depended on such industries) were destroyed by the EU are incorrect, they were in fact destroyed by a vindictive British Government that went out of its way to undermine the support base of its political opponents (something you particularly frown on I believe). The British Government attacking those industries would never have provided support to such industries or indeed the union members that those industries contained because that government was ideologically opposed to doing so.

 

Utilising this as a historical evidence base to refer to the idea of relying on a British Government (particularly a Conservative one) to raise up the fortunes of 'the left behinds' is not necessarily a valid assumption to make. It would suggest that the Conservative British Government are more likely to utilise Brexit as an opportunity to further destroy the voice, rights, and livelihood of the poor and consequently under represented for the sake of making them easier to exploit.

 

My developed view on the consequences then is that Brexit is likely to result in the erosion of rights and opportunities of the poor through making the means to exercise those rights difficult to obtain for the financially constrained. There are likely to be more significant attempts to seriously curb the function and existence of organisations that speak with a collective voice for the poor. Especially those that attempt to challenge the hegemony and corruption of the rich and powerful.

[tzijlstra]

Regarding point a.

 

Did that agreement also have the condition;

 

1: That the ECJ would still be the body to rule on disputed cases?

2: Did it also mean that the free movement of workers would still have to apply and that their rights would be guaranteed as it is now?

 

Regarding point b.

 

That is of course providing the EU in its present form lasts which I doubt as it is already cracking at the seams. The one big problem with the EU (as I see it) is unlike the United States it has no flexibility built in, and when things are inflexible they break easily.

 

1: Can you explain to me what is wrong with the ECJ - in an objective manner? How does it negatively impact on your life?

2: No, it didn't actually. The EU was looking for a reciprocal guarantee of current rights for current migrants. Nothing more, nothing less. The UK is already out of Schengen, as I am sure you know.

B: You don't understand the EU, there is no indication that the goals of the EU are indeed 'cracking' - even if they were, the current EU would be replaced by another international consortium that eliminates daft barriers based on pre-21st century ideas.

[apelike]

1: Can you explain to me what is wrong with the ECJ - in an objective manner? How does it negatively impact on your life?

 

Actually I asked if the ECJ rules would apply to that agreement you said "was on the table" and you have not answered. Whether I object or whether it impacts on my life was not part of that question.

 

2: No, it didn't actually. The EU was looking for a reciprocal guarantee of current rights for current migrants. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Can you link to the agreement that was on offer so we can see exactly what that included?

 

The UK is already out of Schengen, as I am sure you know.

 

Yes but the point is the EU wanted the UK to guarantee that in future they would enjoy the same rights as now. If we leave then that is surely up the this government to decide and not the EU.

 

B: You don't understand the EU, there is no indication that the goals of the EU are indeed 'cracking' - even if they were, the current EU would be replaced by another international consortium that eliminates daft barriers based on pre-21st century ideas.

 

I understand the EU and how inflexible it is and its newer members are also starting to realise that and also that they don't have much say. Macron wants change, Merkel is struggling and has only just managed to form a government. France, Italy, Spain and Greece are struggling with high unemployment and yet import cheap labour.

[chalga]

Actually I asked if the ECJ rules would apply to that agreement you said "was on the table" and you have not answered. Whether I object or whether it impacts on my life was not part of that question.

 

 

 

Can you link to the agreement that was on offer so we can see exactly what that included?

 

 

 

Yes but the point is the EU wanted the UK to guarantee that in future they would enjoy the same rights as now. If we leave then that is surely up the this government to decide and not the EU.

 

 

 

I understand the EU and how inflexible it is and its newer members are also starting to realise that and also that they don't have much say. Macron wants change, Merkel is struggling and has only just managed to form a government. France, Italy, Spain and Greece are struggling with high unemployment and yet import cheap labour.

 

None of those countries has said they want to quit the EU,the people of France and Holland have just re affirmed their committment to the EU,Merkel has to go through internal politics,nothing to do with the EU,Germany are in the EU,Merkel or no Merkel,Italy and Greece are growing faster than the UK.Every EU member has a vote on what happens in the EU,because they are the EU.

[ENG601PM]

ENG601PM, your suggestion that the coal and steel industries in the UK (and the subsequent decline of areas such as Sheffield which depended on such industries) were destroyed by the EU are incorrect, they were in fact destroyed by a vindictive British Government that went out of its way to undermine the support base of its political opponents (something you particularly frown on I believe). The British Government attacking those industries would never have provided support to such industries or indeed the union members that those industries contained because that government was ideologically opposed to doing so.

 

Utilising this as a historical evidence base to refer to the idea of relying on a British Government (particularly a Conservative one) to raise up the fortunes of 'the left behinds' is not necessarily a valid assumption to make. It would suggest that the Conservative British Government are more likely to utilise Brexit as an opportunity to further destroy the voice, rights, and livelihood of the poor and consequently under represented for the sake of making them easier to exploit.

 

Your suggestion that I made that suggestion is incorrect. I did predict the rest correctly though.

 

I blame an uncompetitive UK industry that failed to modernise working practices in a wider environment where subsidy was necessary to compete, but unavailable. I expect you'll just blame Thatcher, which makes discussion pointless.

 

 

Your last sentence is interesting, but only in so much as it typifies the widespread poor understanding that the EU is basically a hegemonic big business protection racket. That's also why Brexit should basically be fine, because those same businesses will knock the politicians into shape.

 

My developed view on the consequences then is that Brexit is likely to result in the erosion of rights and opportunities of the poor through making the means to exercise those rights difficult to obtain for the financially constrained. There are likely to be more significant attempts to seriously curb the function and existence of organisations that speak with a collective voice for the poor. Especially those that attempt to challenge the hegemony and corruption of the rich and powerful.

[Fogey]

Your suggestion that I made that suggestion is incorrect. I did predict the rest correctly though.

 

 

 

 

Your last sentence is interesting, but only in so much as it typifies the widespread poor understanding that the EU is basically a hegemonic big business protection racket. That's also why Brexit should basically be fine, because those same businesses will knock the politicians into shape.

 

So you do believe that Margaret Thatchers Conservative Government would have subsidised the coal and steel industries if the UK hadn’t been in the EU? Are you suggesting that the British Conservative Government didn’t embark on a deliberate campaign to dismantle the heavily unionised coal and steel industries to undermine the support of their main rivals?

 

You seem to now be suggesting that its a good thing that big business will tell our politicians what to do even more after brexit, am I understanding that right?

 

You seem to be attempting to argue your point along the lines of £350million for the NHS in so much as your making things up and then backtracking.

[tzijlstra]

Actually I asked if the ECJ rules would apply to that agreement you said "was on the table" and you have not answered. Whether I object or whether it impacts on my life was not part of that question.

 

Yes you did, I realise I did not fully answer by using a question to make my point: Yes, originally the ECJ was part of the discussion. I've never understood what people have against the ECJ other than a complete misunderstanding of what it does. Hence my question. But also - the ECJ issue could have been negotiated.

 

I understand the EU and how inflexible it is and its newer members are also starting to realise that and also that they don't have much say. Macron wants change, Merkel is struggling and has only just managed to form a government. France, Italy, Spain and Greece are struggling with high unemployment and yet import cheap labour.

 

Just by making the points you make you clearly display a lack of knowledge on how the EU works. For some reason Britain always saw itself as a crucial part of the EU with huge influence and power. Never did the British government turn around and say - thanks to the EU we can now tackle this issue, we can develop this project or we have ended this wrong. Instead it has always been - oh, if you don't like it, nothing we can do, it is EU rules.

 

Right up until the day of the referendum the politicians that were supposed to be 'Remain' like Cameron and Osborne, peddled nonsense to the British public - Cameron's negotiations? They were rubbish, all he brought to the table was stuff he could already execute as an EU member, the British Government had just chosen not to in a way that was misleading to its gullible citizens.

 

Don't be fooled - you and millions of other Brits, have been played by a political journalistic machine that intentionally kept British citizens dumb about the EU - because that way there was a scapegoat above her Majesty's Government.

 

People here keep harping on about Merkel and Macron as if they run Europe - they don't. They are merely two votes in a 27 member EU Council. Sure, they are good at playing the game and getting proposals through, but that doesn't change the power they actually have.

 

People also always bring up the poor performance of the Mediterranean countries. Tell me how well they did before the Single Market?

 

Finally poor Greece - I love that country and can't wait to go back later this year. But let's be very straight here - it wasn't the EU that killed the Greek economy, it was the Greek governments who year after year spent way more than they had and cooked the books to make it work.

[I1L2T3]

Interesting thoughts Tim.

 

It’s looking like the best solution for us might be EFTA. Allows for customs union and some form of single market access. Kills half of the problem people have with the ECJ, allowing the EFTA courts to rule on trade disputes that arise within the U.K.

 

It’s also a decent halfway house to eventual return to EU membership, which whether Brexiters like it or not is going to be demanded by younger voters in the coming years. Anything else looks like a spiteful and misguided act visited on younger generations.

[ENG601PM]

So you do believe that Margaret Thatchers Conservative Government would have subsidised the coal and steel industries if the UK hadn’t been in the EU? Are you suggesting that the British Conservative Government didn’t embark on a deliberate campaign to dismantle the heavily unionised coal and steel industries to undermine the support of their main rivals?

 

You seem to now be suggesting that its a good thing that big business will tell our politicians what to do even more after brexit, am I understanding that right?

 

You seem to be attempting to argue your point along the lines of £350million for the NHS in so much as your making things up and then backtracking.

Dear oh dear, I have not suggested or argued any of those points.

 

I have quite clearly set out that the demise of the UK coal and steel industries has its roots in the European Coal and Steel Community which was set up to protect French and German business interests, which ultimately became the EU with the same essential principles - the protection of French and German business interests. The Tories reaction to union power overreach in the 70's was merely the final minute of the ten to midnight fireworks that people remember, not the build up to the drama.

 

Those self same German and French business interests are not in the business of self immolation after seven decades of hegemony. Have a think about it.

 

Finally, please don't fall into the trap that others do here. I do not 'seem' to suggest anything. If I mean it, I say it, and I am happy to defend it or change my mind in the face of better facts or arguments, and you are very welcome to try.