Brexit

Mal

And I never have had from you LOL

So anyway - What rational and reasonable reasons do you have for thinking a Brexit would be better for the UK?

 

Meh.

The discussions about brexit on here have not really been that interesting for a long time. Awfully repetitive, a lot of evading of answers, not much new.

 

Coming from someone that Quoted something "Winston Churchill " said after WW2 to back up his Case !!!! You are beginning to sound more and more like an Obsessed Person !

 

Pfft, wasn't talking about here

 

Mal

LOL what quote are you talking about I seem to have mentioned Churchill twice in this thread Post 21 and Post 630 and neither seems to have been a quote

I think you are mistaking informed for obsessed.

I mean I can give some Churchill quotes on Europe if you wish

“Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity.”

“If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy.”

“We must build a kind of United States of Europe”

I agree with him on that (while been opposed to other things he did and said) but the thing is that he was talking about wanting a United States of Europe before anything like that existed but a EU was formed and the UK joined it.

What I’m asking leavers is - what are the rational reasons for leaving it, in what way is leaving supposedly going to make things ‘better’?

But NONE seems able to actually give these reasons NOT ONE – why is that?

 

There were several reasons given, you just don't find them rational at first sight, and they refuse to explain why and how their arguments are rational/good (which I agree is a pity). It has been pointed out now by several people now, and I think several times.
Take the arguments given and expand on them. Nobody who voted brexit and has been part of this thread is going to give you what you're asking for it seems. Not how you're asking it now anyway (as they like pointing out they already gave arguments). Otherwise it keeps going in the same circles.

Btw: I liked your post because of the Churchill quotes and the pointing out again why mentioning him in relation to this subject is indeed a useful thing, and earlier in the Brexit discussion it was posed as if Churchill would have agreed with the brexiteers for anti-EU reasons (but he's indeed an early advocate of and important force behind the creation of it). Not the repetition (the question is valid of course, but i would rephrase it)

 

So my video is relevant at 40 yrs old ! Cant have it both ways !!
And although churchill did propose a closer europe ha said without britain in it

 

I'm interested why you think so. But maybe watching it will already make that clear.

 

I think so but balbus said it was too old even though he used earlier info to try prove his point you cant argue with someone that wont listen and thats why everyone else fucks him off

 

This unfortunately seems a childish argument and flawed attempt at logic.

That Churchill happens to be even earlier than the date of your vid doesn't render mentioning him in this debate as just as useful or useless (not sure yet myself) as a vid from the 70s explaining how the free market works in order to state how Brexit will be a succes.

It merely appears he doesn't listen because of his repetitive questioning. I'm convinced he's listening.
It appears just as much that brexit supporters are avoiding explaining their arguments for no good reason. The lack of will to do that can not be solely excused by Balbus way of asking. It's pretty clear that's used as an excuse.

If brexit supporters actually care about their arguments and like others who see it differently to understand, they would be willing to see past that.

 

Ah I see now what you are trying to achieve by re entering this thread !
Ah well good luck with that

 

A constructive convo where people actually want to make the other see their stance.

Do you want that too?

 

My sentiments exactly Mallyboppa.

 

Mal

LOL look yes Churchill wanted a United States of Europe but it was in general terms the thing you posted form 42 years ago was basically a time specific microeconomic problem that seems to have little relevance to the present situation and as pointed out by the Conservative pundit on the programme at the time does not take into account the wider macroeconomic situation.

But please explain what you meant by posting the vid and why you feel it is relevant to 2020 and why you think leaving the EU would be a good thing for the UK?

 

Events might change but there seem to be three ways this could go.

1 – By 2021 we get a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU.

2 – We fail to get an agreement and extend the transition period.

3 – We fail to get an agreement and crash out of the EU.

Getting an agreement

Most experts think the only way to get a full free trade agreement with the EU by the end of 2020 would be to basically cut and paste the present system in some type of Norway type deal (explained in more detail in the thread).

Basically that would mean full access to the single market, and very limited barriers to trade with the EU.

But in return we would have to make substantial contributions to the EU budget (many analysists think it could be higher than what we currently pay to the EU).

And we would have to follow most EU rules and regulations (without having any say in them as we would as an EU member) and in Norway this system also mean means accepting the so-called four freedoms - the freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people.

*

This scenario would cause the least disruption to the UK to the country the economy and people’s lives. In many ways it would be businesses as usual it just means we would have little influence in the EU, paying more and still keeping to EU rules.

However I think this would be seen as a ‘betrayal’ by many leavers and unacceptable and the Johnson Conservative party would pay a heavy electoral cost so I just don’t see that happening.

Extending the transition period.

Trade agreements usually take years to negotiate and we would have the added problem of any deal have to be accepted by all of the 27 EU states who could for national reasons hold it up or veto it (think Spain and the Gibraltar question for example).

So extending the transition period would seem to make sense, allowing for trade to continue for however long the process takes to get a deal.

*

Of course even with an extension whatever deal is not going to be a good at the one we would have abandoned as a member state but given plenty of time we might get something that is not too costly to the UK.

However once again this would be seen by many leavers as another ‘betrayal’ I mean to get a reasonable deal for the UK it could take 5 or even 10 years (the EU-Canada deal took 7 years) and I think many leavers would find such a prospect unacceptable however rational it might be.

Crash out of the EU

I’ve talked to many people (leavers and remainers) that think this has always been what Johnson/Cummings have wanted all along. That they never meant to negotiate in good faith while blame the EU for causing all the problems and getting the right wing press to paint the EU as the villains

*

This might play well with the leaver base but it makes no rational sense (as explained in the thread).

Even if the Johnson Conservatives spend a great deal of time, energy and money preparing to mitigate against the adverse effect of a no deal Brexit the effects would still be immense and the effort would become obvious causing EU exporting companies to see the direction of travel and act accordingly. While I think it would be criminal not to prepare while knowing that was what you knew you were aiming for (and will be seen as such or as incompetence).

And we would still need to get some type of trade agreement with the EU it would just mean we would be in an even worse position.

 

Mujtaba Rahman in the Guardian argues that we actually have less than a year to get a deal if we don’t want a extension to the transition he thinks we only have “seven months to hammer out a deal. The EU’s 27 member states will only agree on the commission’s mandate to negotiate on their behalf by the end of February. The cabinet and Whitehall will also need time to settle on a final policy. Ratification of the deal will probably take two to three months. In a best-case scenario, that leaves March to September – about seven negotiating cycles – to strike an agreement. It’s an understatement to suggest this might not be long enough.”

 

I almost agree with you at this point two of the three examples you give would be disastrous for the country and also would not give the public what they voted for !

 

Mal

In what way disastrous?

I mean as has been explained at length and in detail there are no rational or reasonable reasons for Brexit because any Brexit will leave the UK worse off than remaining and NO leaver has yet been able to give a rational argument for leaving.

 

Dude, VAT in the Netherlands is an eye watering 21%

And you have never known life where prices weren't artificially inflated because of that

 

They are not listening they never will