Outists position becoming clearer.

[JohnD]

Since the polls closed, we have been told that the £350m was a lie, and nobody believed it anyway; that any savings aren't promised to the NHS but maybe they will get something subject to priorities; and that leaving the EU won't keep those pesky foreigners out, and that we will continue having to follow EU rules.

Now we have an admission from Gerry that trade isn't important either.

And by resigning our membership, we will lose our vote and our influence at the conference table. Own goal, Outists.

*sigh* It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that little factoid, it doesn't change the fact the leavers DON'T WANT OR NEED INFLUENCE AT THAT CONFERENCE TABLE.

So WTF was it all about?

Did we go through it all just to give lying Boris a crack at the PM job?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Now we have an admission from Gerry that trade isn't important either.

Trade is important, but it's not important exactly how it is accomplished.

So WTF was it all about?

It was about not being bound in perpetuity under the unreformable and ever-expanding governance of the EU. Yes, perhaps we will buy back in, accept free movement, be in practically the same situation we are now, but the crucial difference is that we will not be trapped within such a scheme. If it stops being an agreeable arrangement for us, can can change our circumstances with relative freedom; we will have flexibility; sovereignty; we won't have to bail anyone out. Yes, those who wish to trade with the EU will still need to follow its rules but without any say in them, but those people are in the minority, just as Brits who trade with Japan have to follow Japan's rules without any say in them. But the bulk of commerce is domestic, and it unnecessary to be bound by universal rules, domestically.
Remember, if we remain, it does not mean things stay the same: the EU is on an evolutionary path; a mission, and like a train of wagons we will have no choice but to roll along the same rails to a destination we have little control over. I don't like the look of that destination and I don't want to be a train. I want to be a car and choose my own destination.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Mmmm. Perhaps everyone will leave but still be friends and have "agreements which are agreed by all" (may even include free travel) but free to do what each wants in the matters not universally agreed.

That doesn't sound so bad.

 

[wobs]

Now we have an admission from Gerry that trade isn't important either.

Trade is important, but it's not important exactly how it is accomplished.

So WTF was it all about?

It was about not being bound in perpetuity under the unreformable and ever-expanding governance of the EU. Yes, perhaps we will buy back in, accept free movement, be in practically the same situation we are now, but the crucial difference is that we will not be trapped within such a scheme. If it stops being an agreeable arrangement for us, can can change our circumstances with relative freedom; we will have flexibility; sovereignty; we won't have to bail anyone out. Yes, those who wish to trade with the EU will still need to follow its rules but without any say in them, but those people are in the minority, just as Brits who trade with Japan have to follow Japan's rules without any say in them. But the bulk of commerce is domestic, and it unnecessary to be bound by universal rules, domestically.
Remember, if we remain, it does not mean things stay the same: the EU is on an evolutionary path; a mission, and like a train of wagons we will have no choice but to roll along the same rails to a destination we have little control over. I don't like the look of that destination and I don't want to be a train. I want to be a car and choose my own destination.

I see, so your objections are purely ideological rather than anything based on reality.
So screw those people that benefited from EU funding in our poor areas, screw those companies that trade with the EU, we are less democratic, and while we're at it screw our economy because you want to feel erm independent? The only thing that's changed is that we now have no say in the decisions that affect us from the EU. This rules will still affect us, you do know that don't you?
We still have to pay the EU, we still have to abide by EU law, our NHS will probably go down the pan, and all those things that Brexit promised was a lie. And you feel happy about this because.... of some ideological nonsense.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I see, so your objections are purely ideological rather than anything based on reality.

The two are not mutually exclusive. But no, it's not purely ideological. I happen to believe the freedom to make trade deals will prove more profitable to us in the long term, and the freedom to make domestic legislation, more efficient in the long term.

So screw those people that benefited from EU funding in our poor areas,

Personally I would like to see the treasurey match the funding that the EU had previously been returning to us. But if they don't, well, change happens. Suck it up.

The only thing that's changed is that we now have no say in the decisions that affect us from the EU. This rules will still affect us, you do know that don't you?

But if those rules really start to cheese us off we can abandon them without needing another world-shatterinig referendum on it. That's flexibility. As it is most businesses who are affected by the rules have no say in them anyway; when was the last time your local grocer lobbied a Latvian MEP? Or even a British MEP? Never, that's when.

 

[wobs]

I see, so your objections are purely ideological rather than anything based on reality.

The two are not mutually exclusive. But no, it's not purely ideological. I happen to believe the freedom to make trade deals will prove more profitable to us in the long term, and the freedom to make domestic legislation, more efficient in the long term.

So screw those people that benefited from EU funding in our poor areas,

Personally I would like to see the treasurey match the funding that the EU had previously been returning to us. But if they don't, well, change happens. Suck it up.

The only thing that's changed is that we now have no say in the decisions that affect us from the EU. This rules will still affect us, you do know that don't you?

But if those rules really start to cheese us off we can abandon them without needing another world-shatterinig referendum on it. That's flexibility. As it is most businesses who are affected by the rules have no say in them anyway; when was the last time your local grocer lobbied a Latvian MEP? Or even a British MEP? Never, that's when.

Ideology ignores reality, and that is what you are doing.
We will get a worse trade deal, whether its with the EU or China, or the US. History shows this to be true for non-EU countries.

And people do contact their MEPs. I have in the past, and got a great reply when I was a student. I have spoken with people who have been actively involved with the building of new regs. And its not just about your MEP. It sounds like you don't really understand the EU process at all.

But if they don't, well, change happens. Suck it up.

You clearly don't care about those worse off than you, which probably explains your position, but as trade suffers, your own little world might just suffer as well. I hope for your sake I'm wrong.

 

[HERTS P&D]

When will some people just give up?????????????????

We voted out and won, GET OVER IT and move on.

Andy

 

[EFLImpudence]

Looking at not having a seat on the decision making body:

Does it really matter? Isn't it a bit like the overlauded democracy?

What I mean is, it's twenty eight countries, so the only matters on which Britain can make a difference is when the vote is 14 to 13. Then we can make it 15 to 13 or 14 to 14.
On matters which the majority of Europe agrees then it doesn't matter what we say. Either we are happy because we agree as well or ****ed off because we can have no effect.

A bit like me in general elections; it doesn't matter what I vote because the area is staunchly Tory therefore I am happy about that or ****ed off because I can do nothing about it.
It is only the handful of marginal seats which swing the result one way or the other.

The referendum would have had the opposite result if 634,751 (1.365% of the electorate) had voted the other way.

 

[JohnD]

Looking at not having a seat on the decision making body:

Does it really matter? Isn't it a bit like the overlauded democracy?

Being on the committee that makes the rules, and having a voice in the debate, achieves a lot more than just voting on whatever the committee puts forward.

At the moment the UK has a very sweet deal on being the EU's biggest financial centre, and being the conduit for US, China, Japan etc to funnel their money and their deals through us, and we persuaded the EC not to have a Transaction tax. That was all achieved in the committee rooms.

 

[ajstoneservices]

Ideology ignores reality,

Pretty much sums up the EU.

 

[Brigadier]

They're not Outists - try "Winners" instead

 

[Doug99]

The 'Iceland AFC' model as a Brexit solution is a proven winner

 

[Gerrydelasel]

OK here's my Brexit plan:
Let Scotland, N. Ireland and Gibraltar remain in the EU. That keeps them happy and solves the Irish and Gibraltan land borders which can remain open as usual.
Obviously we don't want border checkpoints at the Scottish border, so we instead do full immigration checks at all British ports and airports. Basically immigration control would encircle only the island of Britain: the infrastructure is already there of course. Yes, that will be a bit of a fag for people travelling between EU Scotland and the rest of the EU, but it's a minor inconvenience for a relatively small number of travellers, most of whom carried passports before Brexit anyway.
A fee will have to be paid by the UK to the EU for membership of those regions, of which a portion will be returned in the form of grants to those regions, as per usual. Yes, English taxpayers would be subsidising Scottish/Irish membership, but I think we can put up with that.
Whether England/Wales decides to join the free trade area is open to discussion. If we don't, we could end up with tariffs between England and Scotland/Ireland. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that a special dispensation for reduced tariffs could be agreed with the EU, since they are small countries and members the Union. England might even become a back door for the rest of the World to trade into the EU at a reduced rate via the Sottish border. Kinda like California is for the US. Yes, the EU isn't going to like a back door, but it's a very small border... Or we could just suck it up and join the free trade area, cancel the immigration checks and just enjoy the lower membership fee.

I think this plan has the potential to pi$$ off the least number of people. Whaddya think? C'mon it's more than the government has come up with so far!

 

[wobs]

Looking at not having a seat on the decision making body:

Does it really matter? Isn't it a bit like the overlauded democracy?

What I mean is, it's twenty eight countries, so the only matters on which Britain can make a difference is when the vote is 14 to 13. Then we can make it 15 to 13 or 14 to 14.
On matters which the majority of Europe agrees then it doesn't matter what we say. Either we are happy because we agree as well or ****ed off because we can have no effect.

A bit like me in general elections; it doesn't matter what I vote because the area is staunchly Tory therefore I am happy about that or ****ed off because I can do nothing about it.
It is only the handful of marginal seats which swing the result one way or the other.

The referendum would have had the opposite result if 634,751 (1.365% of the electorate) had voted the other way.

10% of MEPs were UK, so your maths is wrong.

 

[wobs]

They're not Outists - try "Winners" instead

No one wins