REVUpminster
Established Member
A plug is vital; and saying it is nonsense when folk here talking about a standard USB plug. Are EU plugs safer than UK plugs. Is wiring standards in the EU safer than British standards.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit matters
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
I disagree.
The "concessions" that the UK had (kindly allowing us to retain both our own currency and borders) were made long before the Eurosceptic movement had any steam (except among some Conservatives). More than that, the EU does not "leave things as they are". It's not what they do and when the time was right those concessions would have been withdrawn. There was nothing "soft" about our membership at all and certainly nothing soft that would have continued for very long had we voted to remain. What you're suggesting is that no concessions would have been made to the disappointed Leavers in the event of a close vote to remain. That would have been fine by me - we're either in or out and I would not have expected it. Nor did I expect any concessions to be made to disappointed Remainers.
The important thing for me is that we have left - something I have been longing for since 1992. The rest is noise.
Annetts key
Established Member
Different does not always mean one is safer than the other.
Prior to the legislation that changed things, mains plugs on appliances were not seen as vital in the U.K., so manufacturers did not supply them with most appliances!
So what you are saying is that no matter what the arrangements are or were, nothing is going to change your mind, you are firmly pro-brexit regardless.
Early on, there was no one standard UK mains socket. "Add your own plug" (or get the shop to do it) was normal/sensible. Appliance manufacturers kept this cost-saving practice long after BS 1363 sockets (13A) were close to ubiquitous.
Morphy Richards broke ranks with their "The one with a plug on" advertising campaign (1978 ?)
Legislation came later. Is this it ? The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987
Yes, it is nonsense. CE standards go far beyond what plug something is fitted with, as evidenced by the fact that CE marked items are already fitted with BS 1363 plugs.
I still disagree with that completely. I don't care when the concessions were made, fact is we had a soft Remain. My position. for example, would be strongly pro-Schengen, and our border controls were for me a source of national embarrassment even when we were in the EU having encountered them at Brussels following a couple of weeks freely travelling around western Europe by train without borders. However I was neutral about the euro: didn't care either way.
But what have you gained? In what ways is your life, personally, better thanks to Brexit?
Mine, for example, is worse in at least two ways. I can no longer automatically move outside the UK or Ireland, even though I might have good reasons (personal in nature, partly) for wanting to do so. And I suffered from Brexit bureaucracy last year when I took my main computer in for repair. Thanks to the bureaucracy involved in sourcing parts from Germany which hitherto could have been sourced easily, I was without my main computer for six weeks.
If you can show me equivalent gains to my losses, then I might start respecting the Brexit point of view a bit more.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
But if, hypothetically, the referendum had gone 52% for Remain, that would mean that 48% had voted against EU membership on the terms the UK had at the time. If you declare that Remain has won and therefore things have to carry on exactly as before, then you are completely ignoring the wishes of 48% of the population. Since you've often posted about how you think the Government should have taken into account the wishes of the 48% who voted Remain, I'm sure you'd want to have made the same consideration towards Leavers if the vote had gone the other way by the same margin!
Falcon1200
Established Member
Does the UK's Covid vaccine and development not count as a Brexit gain?
I'd be up for a follow up referendum in the event of a remain win, where a range of options were presented to decide the future relationship. Not sure what you'd put on there though - commitment to not becoming more politically close (sorry, already had that); commitment to not joining the Euro (had that too); commitment to vetoing an EU army (yeah we had that); commitment to kicking out non-working EU citizens (yeah, already had that too). And so on...
What exact concessions would leavers be after that are compatible with membership of the EU?
Sadly the leave side have consistently refused to engage the remain side to come together and forge a future path, and then getting surprised that people are still disagreeing with them and the "voice of the people".
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No, because there is zero evidence we would have done anything different had we still been a member, not least because we were still following the same rules at the time.
No. It doesn't. As pointed out numerous times already, Brexit played no part in the vaccine development or roll-out process.
Peterthegreat
Established Member
Absolutely. Despite Johnson telling us otherwise.
Falcon1200
Established Member
So did the UK not start vaccinating before the EU?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The Cameron government could have used a 48% vote as reason and evidence to oppose closer integration, which was probably opposed by a majority of the British population considering that some who voted to remain (including me) would still not be in favour of it.
When the vaccines were launched in late 2020, the UK had formally left the EU but was still in the transition period when EU rules still applied. These rules allowed any member state to approve vaccines for its own use without waiting for EU approval. The UK started vaccinating a few weeks before EU member states, but could have done exactly the same if we had still been in the EU.
The UK did (but could have done so if we were still a full member) and the EU quickly overtook us (despite containing a few vaccine sceptic countries such as Bulgaria)
Clearly our government was looking for any kind of Brexit 'win'. That the best they could come up with was the vaccine (and still is the one and only thing) years later says it all really
Clearly our government was looking for any kind of Brexit 'win'. That the best they could come up with was the vaccine (and still is the one and only thing) years later says it all really
reddragon
Established Member
That was not a UK gain due to Brexit it was an EU loss due to Brexit.
The vaccine team were based in London and helped the UK instead of the whole EU. That was a huge loss for all of us.
Yes, and we could have done if we were still a full member. The UK development and rollout was following the EU rules.
The slight nuance to that is the EU countries agreed to centrally procure their vaccines which was slow, hence all the fuss about the UK 'stealing' EU vaccines as we'd got our orders in first.
If the UK had still been fully in the EU, there would have been enormous pressure to agree to the central procurement and not do our own thing.
I agree that there would have been pressure to join the joint procurement, but that doesn't change the fact that Brexit didn't facilitate a faster/better/cheaper vaccine roll-out.
Maybe I would, admittedly. While I am a free-EU-immigrationist, I wouldn't be completely against the concept of criminal checks, for example, being run on potential immigrants - but as long as they "passed" those checks, they could live here.
But it would be this sort of thing I would be prepared to concede, not leaving the customs union.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I see this has been already answered by others.
Falcon1200
Established Member
So why did no country still in the EU do this?
Doppelganger
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 411
They did.
Hungary went their own way with the roll.out of Russian and Chinese vaccines.
Falcon1200
Established Member
1 out of 27?
Because Brussels commanded they not do so otherwise they would face repercussions such as the withholding of funding or even worse. Is that what you're wanting to hear?
I'm puzzled by what you think the reasons might be other than the EU generally works as a collective where there is an advantage to doing so. The EU states therefore operated as a collective rather than pursuing 27 different policies.
What "gotcha" are you hoping to spring?
The fact that John didn't eat a bagel doesn't mean that John couldn't eat a bagel.
Doppelganger
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 411
You said no EU country did, I showed there was at least 1.
I suspect you will be forever trying to argue your point, whatever it actually is...
Falcon1200
Established Member
Not pursuing any 'gotcha, or any particular point, I simply wish to know both, or indeed all, sides of the story, with nothing but facts. And the facts stated above suggest that out of the 27 EU states, only one started Covid vaccinations without EU approval, which means that 26 did not.
Which raises the question, what would the UK, had Brexit not happened, have done? We will probably never know......
BYW thanks to all for the interesting discussion, that was all I ever desired.
The most obvious reasons are:
- It is in their interest to be in a bulk buying collective which can negotiate a better deal than they could get on a smaller order
- Administering a vaccine that has not been approved as safe is not really a good idea.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
I've gained nothing in particular. I didn't expect to. The only thing I've gained (and the only thing I wanted) is the satisfaction that the UK is no longer a member. I took no notice of either side in the referendum campaign (I long ago adopted the principle of never believing anything any politician tells me). It's an ideological thing. I was fundamentally opposed to the UK's membership of the EU. It was a good idea when we joined and to my eternal shame I voted to remain in the 1975 referendum. But I very soon realised that the "European Project" held far greater pretensions than remaining as a simple trading organisation. I don't particularly care what disadvantages or advantages Brexit brings. It will all come out in the wash and life will go on. The EU has thrived by exerting considerable political influence on its member nations by making sure they were so deeply entwined legally with its institutions, that leaving would be very difficult (as the UK discovered). I am simply satisfied now that this country is no longer a member of what I view as a pernicious and protectionist organisation which exhibits a considerable "democratic deficit". (No need to argue that point - it's been done to death and we all have our different views).
What you might ask yourself is this: if the EU is such a fine model for political and economic integration between independent nations, why has it never been replicated anywhere else in the world?
In short, no argument in favour of the UK's membership will convince me that it was in this country's best interests and I'm not open to any persuasion.