Merged Now What?

[Aepervius]

Too bad Britain was biggest proponent of TTIP...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/20/david-cameron-support-ttip

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/04/david-cameron-political-courage-ttip-trade-deal

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/05/big-ttip-leak-cameron-ploughs-on-isds/

Pretty much.

So airfix what do you say of all of that ?

 

[Airfix]

Have you been listening to any of the 'Brexit Street' items on the PM programme recently?
How much study did you give to the views of the younger generation whose whole life has been in the EU and whose views were, I believe, very much on the remain side?

Whoa, hang on a moment.
I know people who are in their early 20's who also voted to leave.
And my whole life has been in the EU. I am only in my 30's.

Fortunately when I was a kid, PMQ's began to be aired on the BBC and I took an interest. I watched as Margaret Thatcher said "no, no, no" and her party turned on her, I watched the leadership contest, I watched John Major, I watched Blair, Brown and David Cameron. I follow politics with interest.

This is supposed to be a skeptics forum, I am a Euroskeptic.

I've been to Belgium, I've met Belgian euroskeptics.
I've learned a lot about the EU and the alternatives to it.

There are other things I would like to see as well. I would like to replace the 800 or so members of the House of Lords with an elected body. I would like a bit more direct democracy. The referendum has shown that when the public are involved apathy disappears.

 

[Airfix]

Too bad Britain was biggest proponent of TTIP...

Correction, David Cameron was the biggest proponent of TTIP.
Just because he was elected, doesn't mean we wanted to endorse everything he stood for.

 

[McHrozni]

Whoa, hang on a moment.
I know people who are in their early 20's who also voted to leave.

About one in four or so, yeah. The remaining three were sane.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028

This is supposed to be a skeptics forum, I am a Euroskeptic.

Most self-described 'Euroskeptics ' aren't skeptics, because they follow a firm dogma of blaming the EU for all ills and pretending to know a lot about alternatives, but are never actually able to describe one that would be remotely livable.

I've learned a lot about the EU and the alternatives to it.

Such as?

McHrozni

 

[Airfix]

Aren't they looking to put together some form of human rights court? I can't imagine that not impacting local laws.

The EU does not have a Court of Human Rights. The EU's court is the European Court of Justice.

The ECHR belongs to the Council of Europe and we're remaining part of that.
The COE doesn't cost nearly £8.5bn a year to be in and doesn't tell us what our tax laws should be.
It doesn't tell us whether or not we can nationalise a factory or not.

It doesn't open British territorial waters to foreign trawlers, cause overfishing then react to the overfishing it caused, with quotas that put British trawlermen out of business whilst foreign trawlers continue to operate.

There's a reason why countries like Iceland and Norway prefer not to be part of the EU.

 

[The Don]

It doesn't open British territorial waters to foreign trawlers, cause overfishing then react to the overfishing it caused, with quotas that put British trawlermen out of business whilst foreign trawlers continue to operate.

That's the narrative that the British trawlermen have developed but the greatest enthusiasts for overfishing are trawlermen themselves. Foreign trawlers operate because British firms sold their quotas.

Here's a different take on the ills of the fishing industry

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britains-fishy-role-in-the-quota-hopping-scandal-1315516.html

 

[Airfix]

Most self-described 'Euroskeptics ' aren't skeptics, because they follow a firm dogma of blaming the EU for all ills and pretending to know a lot about alternatives, but are never actually able to describe one that would be remotely livable.

Read this:

I do not want to go over old ground, because this is not a question of yes or no to the status quo ; we are looking to the future. Some people genuinely believe that we shall never get social justice from the British Government, but we shall get it from Jacques Delors. They believe that a good king is better than a bad Parliament. I have never taken that view. Others believe that the change is inevitable, and that the common currency will protect us from inflation and will provide a wage policy. They believe that it will control speculation and that Britain cannot survive alone. None of those arguments persuade me because the argument has never been about sovereignty.

I do not know what a sovereign is, apart from the one that used to be in gold and the Pope who is a sovereign in the Vatican. We are talking about democracy. No nation--not even the great United States which could, for all I know, be destroyed by a nuclear weapon from a third-world country--has the power to impose its will on other countries. We are discussing whether the British people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under the which they are governed. The argument is nothing to do with whether we should get more maternity leave from Madame Papandreou than from Madame Thatcher. That is not the issue.

I recognise that, when the members of the three Front Benches agree, I am in a minority. My next job therefore is to explain to the people of Chesterfield what we have decided. I will say first, "My dear constituents, in future you will be governed by people whom you do not elect and cannot remove. I am sorry about it. They may give you better creches and shorter working hours but you cannot remove them."

I know that it sounds negative but I have always thought it positive to say that the important thing about democracy is that we can remove without bloodshed the people who govern us. We can get rid of a Callaghan, a Wilson or even a right hon. Lady by internal processes. We can get rid of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). But that cannot be done in the structure that is proposed. Even if one likes the policies of the people in Europe, one cannot get rid of them.

Tony Benn 20th November 1991.

Such as?

EFTA I've shown you the EEA treaty.
Here is the EFTA convention: http://www.efta.int/sites/default/f...fta-convention/Vaduz Convention Agreement.pdf

WTO MFN rules (some people I've met like that option, I do not, but it's an alternative).
We could choose to do bilateral free trade agreements as an independent country but that would take time. I prefer EFTA - EEA.

We are going to leave the EU. Crowing that "life was better in" it doesn't change anything, it doesn't help a business, it doesn't put anyone in work.
We need a policy for life outside.

Whining will solve nothing.

 

[McHrozni]

There's a reason why countries like Iceland and Norway prefer not to be part of the EU.

Yeah, Iceland prefers to to keep the money taken from British and Dutch savers (about 15k€ per Icelander, enough to make or break their economy), and the Norwegians are being a bit silly about it. All experts and many politicians agree they'd be better in than out, but the voters aren't listening.

Kind of like the UK, really.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Read this:

Tony Benn 20th November 1991.

...and he was wrong. The democratic deficit in the EU is less bad than the democratic deficit in the UK. Sure you can (within limits) get rid of the government but the House of Lords is still there and we still have a hereditary monarch who has very real powers.

 

[The Don]

Whoa, hang on a moment.
I know people who are in their early 20's who also voted to leave.
And my whole life has been in the EU. I am only in my 30's.

That's true, then again no-one claimed that the young voted unanimously to Remain. They did however vote to Remain with a significant majority.

 

[Tolls]

Tony Benn 20th November 1991.

And Tony was wrong.
We can remove them by voting out our own government.

The Commission, which is what he was complaining about, is representative of the member states governments.

This has been explained in this thread more than once...

 

[McHrozni]

Read this:

Tony Benn 20th November 1991.

If you think this is relevant (or accurate) you just proved my point. Since you apparently do, I can only thank you.

So, um, thanks for proving my point. Great job!

EFTA I've shown you the EEA treaty.
Here is the EFTA convention: http://www.efta.int/sites/default/f...fta-convention/Vaduz Convention Agreement.pdf

All relevant authorities in Austria, Denmark, Portugal and Sweden - and honestly, the UK - firmly disagree. All of their remaining members are also members of the single market. It is a given that being in the EU is preferable if you want to be in the single market, because they you get to make the rules and not just follow them.
So, um - what is it that you know and they don't, exactly?

We are going to leave the EU. Crowing that "life was better in" it doesn't change anything, it doesn't help a business, it doesn't put anyone in work.
We need a policy for life outside.

No, you needed that half a year ago, now you're down to stopgap and emergency measures. However explaining fanatical Brexiters they're the ones who caused the UK to lose international relevance and wealth and observing their reactions is still a pleasurable sadistic experience.

Rubbing it in is even better.

McHrozni

 

[catsmate]

This is supposed to be a skeptics forum, I am a Euroskeptic.

It'd a forum based around reasoned debate and evidence, not simple knee-jerk opposition.

There are other things I would like to see as well. I would like to replace the 800 or so members of the House of Lords with an elected body. I would like a bit more direct democracy. The referendum has shown that when the public are involved apathy disappears.

The referendum, on one of the most contentious issues today, with vast amounts of dog whistle propagandising that managed a 72% turnout?

Correction, David Cameron was the biggest proponent of TTIP.
Just because he was elected, doesn't mean we wanted to endorse everything he stood for.

Has his successor announced the UK is now opposed to TTIP?

The EU does not have a Court of Human Rights. The EU's court is the European Court of Justice.

Correct.

The ECHR belongs to the Council of Europe and we're remaining part of that.

Tell the public that...

The COE doesn't cost nearly £8.5bn a year to be in and doesn't tell us what our tax laws should be.
It doesn't tell us whether or not we can nationalise a factory or not.

So what? Many of it's decisions were vehemently opposed by the UK government of the day.

It doesn't open British territorial waters to foreign trawlers, cause overfishing then react to the overfishing it caused, with quotas that put British trawlermen out of business whilst foreign trawlers continue to operate.

Ah, more "EU blaming" for British problems.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is supposed to be a skeptics forum, I am a Euroskeptic.

Fallacy of equivocation. "Euroskeptic," in British political parlance, has acquired the meaning "opposed to continuing membership of the EU." It has completely lost the meaning embedded in the word "skeptic," meaning one who assesses the evidence and comes to a working conclusion based on it. I'm not arguing that you haven't done that, but simply defining yourself by a word doesn't give you any form of authority, especially when that word no longer means what you imply it means.

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

That's the narrative that the British trawlermen have developed but the greatest enthusiasts for overfishing are trawlermen themselves. Foreign trawlers operate because British firms sold their quotas.

Here's a different take on the ills of the fishing industry

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britains-fishy-role-in-the-quota-hopping-scandal-1315516.html

Most of the catch from Whitby goes off by refrigerated lorry to Europe.
Lobsters and Langoustines are kept in tanks and shipped live to Europe.
There is a processing plant in Whitby that produces breaded Scampi which used to be local caught Langoustine. It's now more valuable as a lige export so Whitby Scampi is now made from prawns imported from Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand.

 

[Aepervius]

Ah, more "EU blaming" for British problems.

And this is clear here that Euroskeptic is not skeptic as we use here e.g. look at evidence. As the article from 96 linked above clearly shows, the UK had an array of disposition they could have done, but refused to do out of political ground. In other word they kept accusing EU of their malaise and requiring an EU wide solution or even a charter change, when in reality they could have had a solution in a jiffy locally.

This is not skepticism, as in regarding evidences and drawing conclusion from it, this is denialism as its worst, taking any tidbit without checking it and accusing the EU of everything under the sun.

The reality is that the EU laws are only a minimum standard , government are allowed to implement more stringent standard, or new laws, which go beyond the EU laws. As long as they apply to everybody without exception.

The British trawler selling off boats WITH quotas to other countries and then complaining that the other countries are using that quota, and the UK government asking for irrealistic solution (a frigging treaty change) when they could have had a realistic and fair law locally, is one of such example.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The referendum has shown that when the public are involved apathy disappears.

And idiocy and xenophobia reign.

Correction, David Cameron was the biggest proponent of TTIP.
Just because he was elected, doesn't mean we wanted to endorse everything he stood for.

So unelected bad, elected bad when they don't agree with you?

We are going to leave the EU. Crowing that "life was better in" it doesn't change anything, it doesn't help a business, it doesn't put anyone in work.
We need a policy for life outside.

This is true but good policy is not formed based on wishful thinking and nonsense. So first we need to eliminate the wishful thinking and nonsense and examine actual facts and reality.

Being in the EEA seems like the next best thing to being in the EU but to have that accepted means overcoming the 'take control of our borders' frothing Little Englanders who pushed the No vote to victory in the first place.

In any case it's the government who will decide and since my vote does nothing to elect the government (democratic deficit anyone?) I don't get a say.

 

[The Don]

Being in the EEA seems like the next best thing to being in the EU but to have that accepted means overcoming the 'take control of our borders' frothing Little Englanders who pushed the No vote to victory in the first place.

In any case it's the government who will decide and since my vote does nothing to elect the government (democratic deficit anyone?) I don't get a say.

And an EEA solution will make (almost) everyone a bit unhappy.

Those like me who want to remain in the EU will be unhappy.

People who want to "close the borders" will be unhappy.

People who don't want to send £££££s to the EU will be unhappy

But right now it's the least worst option (apart from walking away from Brexit, whistling, hands in pockets).

 

[abaddon]

Correction, David Cameron was the biggest proponent of TTIP.
Just because he was elected, doesn't mean we wanted to endorse everything he stood for.

Wait just a minute. You are moaning and groaning over the actions of unelected EU officials

AND

You are moaning and groaning over the actions of your own directly elected officials.

AND

You are moaning and groaning about the consequences of Brexit

AND

You think a sweetheart deal will be on the table

What on earth is it that you want? Or even think is vaguely feasible?

 

[Airfix]

It'd a forum based around reasoned debate and evidence, not simple knee-jerk opposition.

Or blind unquestioning support...

The referendum, on one of the most contentious issues today, with vast amounts of dog whistle propagandising that managed a 72% turnout?

The turnout at the last general election was 66.1% are you suggesting we should have had another election shortly afterwards in the hope of a different result and higher turnout ?

Has his successor announced the UK is now opposed to TTIP?

She has announced "Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it".
TTIP is a deal between the EU and the USA not the UK and the USA, so her policy of Brexit will cut us out of TTIP.

Single market aside, what else is good about the EU ?
Not much.

Countries not in the single market only need to comply with rules that affect trade with it, whether it be on a tariff free basis or not.

Countries in the EU have to comply with far greater rules, rules which restrict who they can trade with on a tariff free basis, rules which interfere with internal matters of taxation and spending.

Another problem is that the Commission is always dominated by federalists who dream of creating a unified Europe with themselves as it's government.

From Jaques Delors to Jean Claude Junker there has been a relentless march towards ever closer union with no recognition of public hostility to the notion. The Euro has been a badly managed project, countries such as Greece should not have been allowed into it, or to remain in it when economic disaster occurred.

If there was an elected body proposing it's policies / if it had no military staff or military policies, I might have considered voting to remain, but this organisation that exists today, is very different in nature to the EEC that we joined in the 1970's.