Ironically laws we will initially adopt in full… and then no doubt dismantle those that protect the citizens and allow greater exploitation by big business, under the guise of ensuring growth and prosperity by removing ‘red tape’ such as environmental laws, H&E etc… (the US model) driven by even greater collusion between Government and industry…
This is the interesting one imho. The problem is that there are many different opinions on why we have not been more at the centre of driving the European Agenda… which maybe because of this imperial history, or because we are an ‘island’ (ridiculous concept) - but it leads to varying statements that can’t be countered directly because the opinions are so ingrained… even when there is logic to provide a rational and compelling response…
We don’t want to be part of the EU as its undemocratic - too much power with unelected bureaucrats and not with the elected members.
This is TRUE. There is a clear need for reforms that ensure greater decision making by the elected representatives than by the self appointed. But there does need to be balance since the whole purpose is to find a common purpose, not expect a more selfish approach that it should all be about ‘us’ and our needs… more about a collective good. This does mean compromise, but that is needed at all levels of politics… But for the required reform, we needed to be much more engaged, a leader with Germany and France… but we always remained on the fringes
We are not really European (driven by the island mentality?) - this is plainly daft as we are a rich amalgam of all - Celts, Picts, Angles, Saxons (Germans), Normans (French), Scandinavian and Romans… quite a lot of EU blood flows through our veins…
Its about sovereignty init? Really? Well, is it not more important ‘What’ rules of law we live under as opposed to where they are made? There is still and always has been sufficient autonomy to ensure local nuances are covered by local law makers… but if you have a standard free trade, you needs standard laws to ensure all is fair …
Its always been about a European superstate… Well this depends on a why this is so scary for some? Full single integration will never happen, its not on the agenda, but more integration of things like defence, are not a bad thing if it saves everyone money to spend on better local services… Centralised regulation on things like medicine approvals is not a bad thing and has been ongoing for last 30 years - saves time and money and still allows countries to determine local access and prices… for UK this means more limited access as despite us still going on and on about how great the NHS is … its shit, outdated, underfunded and means decisions are made on a cost effective model as opposed to clinical rational… but every politician is too shit scared to address its funding…
Why do some ‘British’ have this desperate desire for sovereignty? I understand it, this should be split into two groups… those who want it as they believe the EU is flawed (a rational perspective), and those that want it regardless of how good the EU was for its member states… and would cling to it even if the EU nations had far higher standards of living, were happier places to live etc… all in the name of the flag… You can’s convince these folks to change with any logic. I have, to date never heard a rational explanation why that attitude is so important to some folks… Many of those that hold the view seem to read the Mail and live in Spain…
There is another angle at being in the centre and driving the shape of the EU
We were VERY late to the table. We dithered for years about actually joining. By that time the institutions and roadmap had already been set in stone by France & Germany and other original members.
We never helped our cause after we joined but we were already playing catch up. Was it doomed to fail because it was built this way? Imho yes.
We always tried to change something that others had set up. Would/could have been very different if we had been a founder.
Good lord. More than two years on this thread and you still don’t know? Or don’t want to know? Because it’s not like sovereignty hasn’t been discussed here.
You seem to be at some kind of internal impasse, @Map-Of-Tasmania, largely because you don’t seem to understand what sovereignty is, betraying a very dictatorial idea of what it means. To you, it’s just the place where laws are made, and what does that matter right, as long as the laws are “fair”. Tell that to Greece, by the way.
What you fail to understand is that the people are supposed to be sovereign.
If the people are supposed to be sovereign, then it’s clear that EU citizens have less sovereignty than a non-Union country will have. More is taken out of their hands. The governments they elect get to decide on a smaller range of issues than they otherwise would have.
Our sovereignty is not free. Every tax payer puts money into supporting the institutions that make our laws, and this transaction is seem to be worth it because voters have traditionally felt that the trade-off was worth it.
That contract has looked increasingly one-sided since we joined what is now the EU, but it’s a ridiculous question anyway.
If you’d have asked “why do people want more control over their lives?”, you might be a tad closer to untying this huge knot. They want more control over their lives because they do not like the results when others have decided things for them.
Its not about strict definitions… but you have in effect helped make a very interesting point (I suspect not intentionally)
What ‘huge knot’? You seem compelled to try and make simple perspectives more complicated, when they don’t need to be… of course its about autonomy, that is not in doubt, but with respect to the bit bold, I don’t believe this is completely true. Why? Because, we DO have those who would expect this ‘control’ as you put it irrespective of how good, bad or even superb the ‘results’ were and my question was what rationale there was for this attitude - you have missed that in your response
Secondly, how does your interpretation of ‘sovereignty’ the apply to those (and I suspect many in that set) who expect this ‘sovereignty’ with the respect to the EU, but are against giving this sovereignty to the Scots/Welsh etc?
The point which you seem to have missed, is that there should be scope (and there is) for local decision making where its important and more collective decision making where it benefits all… the fact that the balance is not currently right, and that there are challenges associated with it is acknowledged…
…The Greece situation is a mess… but not one brought about though design, but a grim result of larger global mess… What stick would use had the 2006 crisis not happened? A crisis brought about by US toxic debt (our new best buddies for future trade no less…) tell me, What kind of mess do you think Greece would be in had it not been part of the EU, but had its debt with others? Would their mess be OK with you because it was their own doing and not the EUs?
As always you are quick to try and undermine folks opinions with distraction about their ‘understanding’ or interpretation’… you are often quick to chastise me for responding too quickly and ‘not thinking’ in doing so… but I humbly suggest, that throughout this debate, your ‘flaw’ is not to bother with ‘understanding’ what folks are actually saying, and twisting it to suit your response… I have lost track of the countless time folks have asked you to respond to what they actually asked, not your interpretation of it. But full marks for the Paul Daniels approach.
I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not sure you do, and I don’t think what you’ve written is correct.
The Scots have had two referenda since the 1970s on their status as an independent nation, while all home nations bar England now have devolved powers to manage their own affairs. It’s not perfect, and I happen to think that the Scots were particularly done up in the 1970s on that referendum, and did themselves up in more recent polls. It was not lost on a third of SNP voters that leaving the UK just to join the EU wasn’t really independence. Even so, it cannot be said that wishes for more sovereignty have been ignored. Just walk around Holyrood if you’re not sure.
Not sure it’s as cut and dry as that. It may be, I’m just not sure.
I heard on the radio this morning that the French fishermen’s arrangement was negotiated with the French government. Also, the French fishermen prefer to have seasonal fishing of scallops as they believe the produce is best after October 1st (I’m sure it creates greater demand and protects prices too).
So not sure where the EU angle is in this.
I believe you are correct that the English fishermen are allowed to fish there, but only via an agreement with the French directly.
As @Cobham-Saint lamented, I too fear this won’t be the last relationship breakdown that will come to pass post-Brexit.
That’s a very interesting point, that people want more control over their lives and they don’t like the result of it.
It possibly outlines why there is such a divide between rich and poor on this issue. It seems that this vote is not what is best for the country, or future generations, it is purely about what is good for them, at that moment - in what seems a selfish act. I get that this is what most people do when voting for a Government for the short term, but when voting for a long term situation it’s something that doesn’t seem right - that people are voting for short term results (which is likely to leave them worse off anyway).
It’s a sad state of affairs that a lot of people didn’t understand what they were voting for.
On the bright side, we are likely to see a further drop in Corporation Tax, a hike in PAYE income tax and a reduction in investment in the NHS, leading to outsourcing to private healthcare firms.
But it is as simple as that, the French don’t like it but we can be there, bollocks, this is the EU cooperation at its finest and gives credence to the fact national and local interest supersede’s EU doctrine, it does.
French fisherman intensely dislike the EU as well.
That’s another thing, @Map-Of-Tasmania likes to quote integration and fair rules for everyone but, in the past, it seems that the EU have set the rules and the UK has adhered strictly to them. Yet other nations, the French most notably, seem to pick and choose what they want from EU doctrine.
I don’t remember anyone warning that Brexit would mean we’d have to stockpile drugs or that this would cost the NHS and taxpayers up to £2bn. Maybe they should have slapped that on the side of the bus.
No-deal Brexit: Plan to maintain medicine supplies ‘could cost £2bn’
I think we do need to differentiate between farmers and fisherman acting according to their own will vs policy.
Also, no one has said that there IS optimal integration and fair rules… that is and should be aspiration - reform we should have been at the heart of had we ever fully engaged…
… the problem with political reform is that it takes much longer, reform wheels move slowly, as a result we are still on EU version 1.3 and it will probably be version 3 or 4 before all the bugs are ironed out. Thing is we were always happy pointing out the bugs, but not prepared to work on work closely on next version…
Those bugs always seem to slap old blighty on the arse hence the vote went the way it did, ever wondered why some of the biggest beneficiaries from the EU are the most vocal supporters?
(Also the most fervently homophobic and nationalist but don’t mention that as that isn’t on the agenda)
There should be happiness. There should be love. There should be aspiration. We should hang around, and wait for all of this to emerge.
Great, @Map-Of-Tasmania, except for one thing. Nowt will actually happen to change things practically.
You’re just wishing in lieu of any practical solution.
Now if I’m wrong, tell me precisely how all of the things you say should be there, actually get done. With things set as they are, the EU being a Franco-German duopoly bent on political union, I don’t see how that happens.
If we’re only on 1.3 of the EU, and that took 40 years, when the hell does version 3 or 4 pop into existence? And should people have to put up with all the “bugs” until then?
The British public have said no. They want a new operating system sharpish. They recognise that sometimes, it’s better to start from scratch than attempt to fix something that was badly designed to start with, and has a series of bolt-on “upgrades” to make it even worse now.
Britain going Brexit is like being forced to return to MS DOS, green screens and beige clunky boxes… or an Apple Newton in a word of Galaxy’s and iPhones… There are problems with both and folks like different things about both, but either option is better than retreating back to 70s world…
We wont get a ‘new’ operating system… folks will be trying to power up 386’s and expecting to watch Netflix … they will be a bit miffed when they realise what they have brought upon themselves… WYSIWYG…
What, you mean command line interfaces? They’re as popular and powerful as ever. People tend not to use DOS though. More about having UNIX-like shell terminals.
Pick your comparisons carefully, @Map-Of-Tasmania. I’m a programmer.