Brexit matters

[Cloud Strife]

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?

Actually, what we're seeing is several attempts to do just that, with varying degrees of success. Remember that it took 50 years to get to Lisbon from Rome, so we can't expect other regional blocs to achieve the same as the EU has achieved in a short time.

Ask yourself why the UK is signing worse trade deals than the EU is.

 

[najaB]

Which raises the question, what would the UK, had Brexit not happened, have done? We will probably never know......

Who knows? But the fact remains that we could have had exactly the same roll-out if we were an EU member means that you cannot claim the vaccine roll-out as a Brexit benefit.

It's like Bob claiming that going to the pub on a Friday night is a benefit of leaving his wife, when she never once tried to stop him going to the pub.

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.

Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up already.

 

[jon0844]

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. It's an ideological thing. 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.

You could have just written that to get your point across.

 

[GusB]

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.

Leaving didn't actually have to be difficult. It was only so because we pandered to the desires of a very vocal minority. We could have had a much better deal than the one we got but for the silly red lines that were drawn. We could have had a bespoke agreement with the EU had we been willing to compromise on certain issues; it's not unprecedented as Switzerland has its own unique agreement with the EU.

To say that you've gained nothing in particular says it all, really. You've denied younger people the opportunity to easily work and study in other countries (I'm assuming you're not that young, going by the fact that you were able to vote in the 1975 referendum). You have made it more difficult for British businesses to trade with our nearest neighbours because of the added red tape and, when we have a shortage of staff in critical industries, you've made it difficult for employers in this country to recruit staff.

All you've gained is that warm, cuddly feeling that there is no longer a democratic deficit (*cough* first past the post, house of lords *cough*)!

 

[E27007]

All you've gained is that warm, cuddly feeling that there is no longer a democratic deficit (*cough* first past the post, house of lords *cough*)!

The democratic deficit is not the UK Parliamet, it is the EU Parliament , 2 out of 3 UK voters ignore, do not turn out to vote, for elections of MEPS. In contrast voter turnout for Mps for Parliament is 3 of 4.
The MEPs who can claim to represent the UK electorate in Europe are the Eurosceptics such as Nigel Farage.
The EEC or EU has never enjoyed the democratic support or acceptance of the UK electorate, read the records showing the turnout for elections for UK MEP's between 1979 and 2019 as only 1 in 3 UK voters turning up to the polling booth, in 1999 the turnout was down to 1 in 4. things chivied for the EU Parliament after 1999, UK voters were supporting the Eurosceptics, UKIP and electing Nigel Farage and followers to the Eu parliament

EEC / EU electoral turnout by member 1979 - 2019

 

[edwin_m]

The democratic deficit is not the UK Parliamet, it is the EU Parliament , 2 out of 3 UK voters ignore, do not turn out to vote, for elections of MEPS. The MEPs who can claim to represent the UK are the Eurosceptics such as Nigel Farage.
The EEC or EU has never enjoyed the democratic support or acceptance of the UK electorate, read the records showing the turnout for elections for UK MEP's between 1979 and 2019 as only 1 in 3 UK voters turning up to the polling booth, in 1999 the turnout was down to 1 in 4. things chivied for the EU Parliament after 1999, UK voters were supporting the Eurosceptics, UKIP and electing Nigel Farage and followers to the Eu parliament

That's arguably because much of the population realised that the EU didn't actually have that much influence over the UK's affairs, so those that wanted out of it were disproportionately likely to vote. The flipside is that the vast majority of the UK's considerable problems can be laid at the door of various Westminster governments.

 

[ainsworth74]

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

Apologies for being overly snappy last night. Long day at work got the better of me!

 

[E27007]

That's arguably because much of the population realised that the EU didn't actually have that much influence over the UK's affairs, so those that wanted out of it were disproportionately likely to vote. The flipside is that the vast majority of the UK's considerable problems can be laid at the door of various Westminster governments.

The EEC did have a great deal of influence over the affairs of the UK, at the outset we were not exactly "rich", yet were a top net-contributor to the EEC Budget, later addressed by the Common Agricultural Policy Rebate under PM Thatcher. The opening of UK to EEC Trade backfired as imports rose rapidly over exports ,in a couple of years UK went from a balanced state of trade to a trade deficit which economists believe caused a loss of 500,000 manufacturing jobs in the UK.
UK voters may not have been aware of the EEC influence then, but they soon became aware after 2005 when EU immigration to GB became a major voter issue!

 

[nw1]

1 out of 27?

And if we were still in, it could have been 2 out of 28.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2022 ==

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.

But is ideology really a good enough reason to support the imposition of draconian restrictions on other people's lives?

Ideologically, I might not like the idea that certain desirable parts of the UK are full of wealthy Tory supporters. But I'm not going to support some theoretical law that stops wealthy Tory supporters moving into such desirable areas from elsewhere.

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?

Because western/central Europe is fairly unique in having a large number of fairly small countries, all of which are "proper" democracies (as opposed to pseudo-democracies like say Russia), and thus working together, free trade, and allowing FoM, is to the benefit of all? I can't think of anywhere else in the world which has this characteristic.

The USA, say, is such a huge country that it probably doesn't need such a system so much.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2022 ==

The democratic deficit is not the UK Parliamet, it is the EU Parliament , 2 out of 3 UK voters ignore, do not turn out to vote, for elections of MEPS. In contrast voter turnout for Mps for Parliament is 3 of 4.

But the EU parliament have never been the main source of UK laws. That is the UK Parliament.

How is it fair that one party will likely (assuming a May or June 2024 election) have been in power for 71% of the 45-year period starting 1979, despite never achieving even 45% of the vote? If that isn't a democratic deficit, I don't know what is.

It's funny that in my experience, there is a correlation between tolerance of FPTP and Tory support. I wonder why.

 

[DC1989]

What

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?

The United States??

The AU?

The USAN?

 

[dosxuk]

The democratic deficit is not the UK Parliamet, it is the EU Parliament , 2 out of 3 UK voters ignore, do not turn out to vote, for elections of MEPS. In contrast voter turnout for Mps for Parliament is 3 of 4.

I guess by those standards, that local council elections are also in deficit. Parish elections are obviously completely anti-democratic, with a 9 in 10 voters not bothering.

The MEPs who can claim to represent the UK electorate in Europe are the Eurosceptics such as Nigel Farage.

Is this the same Nigel Farage who missed the vast majority of his votes, along with almost all of his committee meetings about fishing? I'm not sure you can say anyone who misses the amount of opportunities to represent others as Nigel has is representing anyone.

The EEC or EU has never enjoyed the democratic support or acceptance of the UK electorate, read the records showing the turnout for elections for UK MEP's between 1979 and 2019 as only 1 in 3 UK voters turning up to the polling booth, in 1999 the turnout was down to 1 in 4. things chivied for the EU Parliament after 1999, UK voters were supporting the Eurosceptics, UKIP and electing Nigel Farage and followers to the Eu parliament

You could equally spin that to say that the majority of the electorate were happy with what the EU were doing and were content with their representation.

 

[ainsworth74]

I guess by those standards, that local council elections are also in deficit. Parish elections are obviously completely anti-democratic, with a 9 in 10 voters not bothering.

Police and Crime Commissioners as well. I recall I rocked up to vote in one of those around midday and the staff in the polling station told me I was something like the fifth or sixth person they'd seen so far...

Turnout was around 20% by memory.

 

[Dent]

The democratic deficit is not the UK Parliamet, it is the EU Parliament , 2 out of 3 UK voters ignore, do not turn out to vote, for elections of MEPS. In contrast voter turnout for Mps for Parliament is 3 of 4.
The MEPs who can claim to represent the UK electorate in Europe are the Eurosceptics such as Nigel Farage.
The EEC or EU has never enjoyed the democratic support or acceptance of the UK electorate, read the records showing the turnout for elections for UK MEP's between 1979 and 2019 as only 1 in 3 UK voters turning up to the polling booth, in 1999 the turnout was down to 1 in 4. things chivied for the EU Parliament after 1999, UK voters were supporting the Eurosceptics, UKIP and electing Nigel Farage and followers to the Eu parliament

EEC / EU electoral turnout by member 1979 - 2019

How exactly is people choosing not to exercise their right to vote the fault of the EU Parliament, and how does that constitute a democratic deficit?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But is ideology really a good enough reason to support the imposition of draconian restrictions on other people's lives?

Brexit? Draconian restrictions on [other] people's lives? Really?

Countries that place 'draconian restrictions on people's lives' arguably include Russia, China, North Korea, and Afghanistan (particularly if you're a woman). The UK doesn't even come close!

 

[Annetts key]

The democratic deficit is not the UK Parliamet, it is the EU Parliament

I would argue that the first past the post system used by the U.K. to elect MPs to the House of Commons is, by modern standards, a deficient system.

In areas where one party normally dominates (normally described as ‘safe seats’) there is absolutely no incentive for any voters to turn out to vote for opposition parties. For most of my life, my vote for my local MP has made no difference whatsoever.

It’s normally considered funny or amusing when a serious politician loses their deposit in an election. But really, it’s a sad demonstration of how bad our system is.

Then we have the House of Lords. This revising chamber does have one advantage, at least it may have some people who actually know about the subject that is being debated, as they have come from real world professions/jobs. But it’s made up of members that are hereditary peers (92) or peers that have been appointed, or by official function, no member is ever subject to an election. So there is absolutely no democratic representation here whatsoever.

The system that was used for electing MEPs was much better in my opinion. At least I could have a meaningful influence on who got elected. And hence there was a good chance that if I contacted one of them, I would be able to make my point without getting a load of dribble back as a reply.

In my humble opinion, part of the reason why turnout in the elections for MEPs was poor, was the lack of education of the voters on what MEPs did, and how the E.U. actually worked. Not helped by the abysmal media coverage.

Also, in the E.U. system, separate from the representation by MEPs, representatives of each country’s government have a say. Both in the executive branch (European Council) and in the legislative branch (The Council of the European Union).

Any new legislation or amendments to existing legislation are proposed by the European Commission. Then joint approval of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union is required before any changes can pass.

The U.K. certainly had a major influence on the E.U. and I personally think that the U.K. benefited greatly from being a member.

As to the hog wash that the U.K. is poor, we are in the list of the top ten richest countries in the world, and often listed as number five or six based on GDP.

 

[E27007]

You could equally spin that to say that the majority of the electorate were happy with what the EU were doing and were content with their representation.

The turnout for the 2016 referendum was 72.2%, and the result is well known.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2022 ==

How exactly is people choosing not to exercise their right to vote the fault of the EU Parliament, and how does that constitute a democratic deficit?

If of 46 million voters, only 15 million bother to vote , then one must question the validity of the Institution that is not appealing to the Electorate.

 

[dosxuk]

The turnout for the 2016 referendum was 72.2%, and the result is well known.

Until the referendum was proposed as one of Cameron's policies, there had never been a poll that showed a majority for leave. Even once campaigning started, leave was significantly trailing remain for much of the campaign. Farage famously predicted they were going to lose 48:52 and that it wouldn't be the end of it on the night of the result. Then there's the proven facts that remain / happy-with-the-status-quo voters were more likely to stay at home thinking the result was a formality than those who intended to vote leave.

There's a mountain of evidence to show that the majority of people were happy with the EU - right up until the referendum - when campaigning so poor that it the result would have been thrown out had it been binding, reached it's crescendo.

 

[ainsworth74]

Farage famously predicted they were going to lose 48:52 and that it wouldn't be the end of it on the night of the result.

And yet those of the remain persuasion have been ridiculed and the target of various scurrilous attacks for suggesting perhaps the same is true of the result that we actually got...

 

[edwin_m]

As we speak, Jeremy Hunt is announcing measures that will hurt a lot of people financially, such as freezing tax thresholds until 2028 in a time of high inflation, which will bring a lot of poor people into the tax net and hit everyone already above the threshold to some extent. He has said that this is all necessary to promote growth, in a different way from the disastrous measures proposed by Kwasi Kwarteng to achieve the same objective.

Of the G7 countries, the UK is the only one that hasn't yet grown back to its pre-Covid position - worse than Germany and Italy who are far more exposed to Russian gas supplies. So what is it that is stopping growth in the UK only? Either Brexit or the other stupidities of the Tory government that swears by it.

We have businesses that can't economically export or have to transfer activity (including jobs and tax payments) into EU countries in order to survive. Any business that wants to expand is likely to have difficulty finding the labour. Even the prospect of diverging technical standards is hugely disruptive, and any inward investment is likely to go to countries that don't have these handicaps.

Brexit is now hurting all of us. And all for what - a warm cuddly feeling for those who choose to ignore the facts and who clearly don't care about the people who are suffering from this?

 

[Dent]

If of 46 million voters, only 15 million bother to vote , then one must question the validity of the Institution that is not appealing to the Electorate.

If people were given the right to vote but didn't bother to exercise that right then that is no one's fault but their own, it is certaily not in any way the fault of the organization they didn't bother to vote for.

 

[Annetts key]

Of the G7 countries, the UK is the only one that hasn't yet grown back to its pre-Covid position - worse than Germany and Italy who are far more exposed to Russian gas supplies. So what is it that is stopping growth in the UK only? Either Brexit or the other stupidities of the Tory government that swears by it.

We have businesses that can't economically export or have to transfer activity (including jobs and tax payments) into EU countries in order to survive. Any business that wants to expand is likely to have difficulty finding the labour. Even the prospect of diverging technical standards is hugely disruptive, and any inward investment is likely to go to countries that don't have these handicaps.

Brexit is now hurting all of us. And all for what - a warm cuddly feeling for those who choose to ignore the facts and who clearly don't care about the people who are suffering from this?

Exactly.

Due to the U.K. leaving the E.U. people who participate in my hobby now find it uneconomic to buy or sell items between the U.K. and the E.U., so trade both ways has almost ground to a halt. So I, along with many others are worse off, financially and in terms of the hobby being more frustrating.

 

[nw1]

Brexit? Draconian restrictions on [other] people's lives? Really?

Countries that place 'draconian restrictions on people's lives' arguably include Russia, China, North Korea, and Afghanistan (particularly if you're a woman). The UK doesn't even come close!

Ah, the "something is bad, but it's not as bad as something else, so you can't complain" argument. That could be used to justify just about any wrong-doing by any UK government, of whatever colour, because at least we're not as bad as some other places.

See also: "your bike was stolen, but at least you weren't physically attacked, or murdered, so stop whinging about it". Or, and this is something that I wouldn't put it past the Tories to suggest: "We are going to close all public footpaths from next year, because country landowners are concerned about a few [particularly badly-behaved] outsiders disturbing their cattle or tramping on their crops, so as a precaution, we're going to withdraw all countryside access. But don't complain. Just put up or shut up, because at least we're not a dictatorship".

If we take that argument to its logical conclusion, nobody (of any political persuasion) should be permitted to complain about the UK government (of whichever party) at all.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ah, the "something is bad, but it's not as bad as something else, so you can't complain" argument. That could be used to justify just about any wrong-doing by any UK government, of whatever colour, because at least we're not as bad as some other places.

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't what I was saying at all. The point of my post was to call out the ridiculous hyperbole in your post. British citizens and people living in the UK do not, on the whole, face draconian restrictions on their lives as a result of Brexit, and it is utterly ludicrous to suggest that they do.

 

[nw1]

The turnout for the 2016 referendum was 72.2%, and the result is well known.

The real result of course is a tie. 13 for, 12 against is not a mandate.

Hence an outcome that "sat on the fence" would have been the appropriate one. Not the militant, hard Brexit we have had so far.

 

[DC1989]

UK to have worst economic decline in Europe next year -and by some margin...

https://mobile.twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1593214478195519489

 

[nw1]

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't what I was saying at all. The point of my post was to call out the ridiculous hyperbole in your post. British citizens and people living in the UK do not, on the whole, face draconian restrictions on their lives as a result of Brexit, and it is utterly ludicrous to suggest that they do.

If you wish to emigrate (either way, UK->EU or EU->UK) you do.
If you depend on easy imports from and exports to the EU you do.

You might not care, but other people might. It's only "ridiculous hyperbole" to you, because you don't care enough about these rights.

And I'm sorry, but it is an absolute fact that the Conservative Party has been the instigator for having rights withdrawn that we had for 47 years. Think about how long that period is from a railway perspective. When we joined the EEC, class 87s were yet to be introduced. The newest class 42x Southern EMUs were still being introduced. Pre-war units such as BILs and CORs were only just withdrawn. And steam was still a recent memory.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you wish to emigrate (either way, UK->EU or EU->UK) you do.

If you wish to emigrate, then you apply for a visa for your intended country, in the normal way that people in just about any other country in the World outside the EU do. And also in the same way that you would have had to do to even before Brexit if you wanted to go to almost any non-EU country. I get that it's an administrative hurdle, and isn't to everyone's tastes, but it's hardly a draconian restriction on your life that you have to apply for a visa and satisfy certain conditions in order to go and live in other peoples' countries. Once again: It's ridiculous hyperbole to say that it is.

 

[nw1]

If you wish to emigrate, then you apply for a visa for your intended country, in the normal way that people in just about any other country in the World outside the EU do. And also in the same way that you would have had to do to even before Brexit if you wanted to go almost any non-EU country. I get that it's an administrative hurdle, and isn't to everyone's tastes, but it's hardly a draconian restriction on your life that you have to apply for a visa and satisfy certain conditions in order to go and live in other peoples' countries. Once again: It's ridiculous hyperbole to say that it is.

In your opinion. Also, no guarantee of success, of course, which means that many of us will not bother, even though we might want to.

Let me paraphrase your argument, in a hypothetical scenario where all public footpaths have been closed, and access to the countryside severely restricted, due to the desires of a number of vocal landowners. I choose this as countryside access is arguably similar to emigration, in the sense that it's a long-standing privilege: you walk on private land, but currently have legal access on public rights of way.

"If you wish to walk in the countryside on former public footpaths or open-access land, then you apply for a permit or obtain permission from the landowner(s) for your intended route, in the normal way that people would have traditionally done to access completely private land. [They could grant access, but equally might not]. I get that it's an administrative hurdle, and isn't to everyone's tastes, but it's hardly a draconian restriction on your life that you have to apply for a permit and satisfy certain conditions in order to go and walk on other people's land. Once again: It's ridiculous hyperbole to say that it is."

 

[najaB]

I get that it's an administrative hurdle, and isn't to everyone's tastes, but it's hardly a draconian restriction on your life that you have to apply for a visa and satisfy certain conditions in order to go and live in other peoples' countries. Once again: It's ridiculous hyperbole to say that it is.

I agree that it's not draconian. It is, however, a restriction and an administrative hurdle that didn't exist for a long time and for zero objective gain.

The fact that visas were required for countries outside the EU is just whataboutism.

 

[nw1]

I agree that it's not draconian.

I would say it is, because we had that right for a long time. 1973 is a long time ago, so to withdraw such a right is a big, big deal.

It is, however, a restriction and an administrative hurdle that didn't exist for a long time and for zero objective gain.

Completely agree with this. We've lost a lot, what exactly has been gained, apart from, apparently, people with an ideological opposition to the EU feeling self-satisfied?

The fact that visas were required for countries outside the EU is just whataboutism.

Indeed, and I would personally have extended FoM (both ways) to other low-risk countries, with a similar economic profile to the UK, outside the EU.