British Politics

[Dazey]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Bojo prepares the Brits for a no-deal Brexit. What a disgrace. 

The sad thing is that all the idiots who voted for this mess will be defending it to the hilt even as the country goes down in flames.

[DieselDaisy]

What sort of bilateral free trade deal demands that one country has unfettered access to a second country's territorial waters, and demands that same second country abide by the rules and regulations of the first? When the EU made trade deals with Canada and Japan, they did not insist on such nonsense. The United Kingdom is now a sovereign nation again! It is the equivalent of Britain demanding access to French vineyards, and insisting that the EU abide by the stipulations of Westminster!!

Walk away Boris. 

[DieselDaisy]

Meanwhile, Liz is quietly going about her business,

[soon]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What sort of bilateral free trade deal demands that one country has unfettered access to a second country's territorial waters, and demands that same second country abide by the rules and regulations of the first? When the EU made trade deals with Canada and Japan, they did not insist on such nonsense. The United Kingdom is now a sovereign nation again! It is the equivalent of Britain demanding access to French vineyards, and insisting that the EU abide by the stipulations of Westminster!!

Walk away Boris. 

Both aspects you are discussing are core elements of neoliberalism 

- unfettered access

- setting the tone of regulation

And beyond that, you are witnessing the type of negotiations that a country who has chopped itself off at the knees will be met with in this neoliberal capitalist system.

 

[Powderfinger]

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Both aspects you are discussing are core elements of neoliberalism 

- unfettered access

- setting the tone of regulation

 

4 minutes ago, soon said:

you are witnessing the type of negotiations that a country who has chopped itself off at the knees will be met with in this neoliberal capitalist system.

Surely these two statements are antithetical?

[soon]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

 

Surely these two statements are antithetical?

No, why?

(I mean, obviously capitalism is rife with contradictions)

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, soon said:

No, why?

(I mean, obviously capitalism is rife with contradictions)

It is funny seeing you support a neoliberal monolith in your musings on Brexit, an organisation who has done a lot to create - neo-colonial - unfair trade regulations with Africa through tariffs, and whose green credentials are suspect. 

[soon]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

It is funny seeing you support a neoliberal monolith in your musings on Brexit, an organisation who has done a lot to create - neo-colonial - unfair trade regulations with Africa through tariffs, and whose green credentials are suspect. 

I didn’t support any entity or any concept 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, soon said:

I didn’t support any entity or any concept 

Forgive me but you seem to adopt the, for lack of a better term, remoaner line, whilst discussing Brexit.

[soon]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Forgive me but you seem to adopt the, for lack of a better term, remoaner line, whilst discussing Brexit.

To you, perhaps that’s how it appears 

What I was intending to communicate is that brexit had no impact whatsoever on neoliberalism. The suggestion that brexit some how defeated neoliberalism only ever existed as propaganda. So of course your new trade deals will be neoliberal. 
 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, soon said:

To you, perhaps that’s how it appears 

What I was intending to communicate is that brexit had no impact whatsoever on neoliberalism. The suggestion that brexit some how defeated neoliberalism only ever existed as propaganda. So of course your new trade deals will be neoliberal. 
 

Oh, for once, I agree, although I don't remember ''propaganda'' pertaining to neoliberalism's defeat much during the entire Brexit period.

 

[soon]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Oh, for once, I agree, although I don't remember ''propaganda'' pertaining to neoliberalism's defeat much during the entire Brexit period.

 

You, yourself have set up brexit as a battle against neoliberalism. Is that not how you engaged me in this very exchange?

[Dazey]

41 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What sort of bilateral free trade deal demands that one country has unfettered access to a second country's territorial waters, and demands that same second country abide by the rules and regulations of the first? When the EU made trade deals with Canada and Japan, they did not insist on such nonsense. The United Kingdom is now a sovereign nation again! It is the equivalent of Britain demanding access to French vineyards, and insisting that the EU abide by the stipulations of Westminster!!

Walk away Boris. 

Probably the sort where one side holds the key to access the world's largest trading bloc and the other has a few fishing boats.

[Homefuck]

I've always had a big historic interest of "the troubles". Any news/thoughts about how the UK is going to handle the irish border following brexit? 

(speaking of the troubles, anyone seen "the miami showband massacre" on netflix? Interesting and horribel) 

[DieselDaisy]

24 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Probably the sort where one side holds the key to access the world's largest trading bloc and the other has a few fishing boats.

If the fishing issue is such an insignificant detail, worth little in terms of GDP, marginal in the greater scheme of things, why then are the EU (Macron chiefly) making it the crucial issue?

And I have never doubted the ability of the British fishing industry to aggrandise, when unlimbered from EU nonsense. 

[DieselDaisy]

34 minutes ago, soon said:

You, yourself have set up brexit as a battle against neoliberalism. Is that not how you engaged me in this very exchange?

I wouldn't say I did, although I have pointed out that the EU is neoliberal. 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

If the fishing issue is such an insignificant detail, worth little in terms of GDP, marginal in the greater scheme of things, why then are the EU (Macron chiefly) making it the crucial issue?

And I have never doubted the ability of the British fishing industry to aggrandise, when unlimbered from EU nonsense. 

Point is that it's much more important to them than it is to us so they're not going to back down on it and we stand to lose a lot more in other areas as a result. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

Point is that it's much more important to them than it is to us so they're not going to back down on it and we stand to lose a lot more in other areas as a result. 

Only if you factor out future growth (UK) and decline (France) of the industry, alongside changing consumer behaviour. 

The good news is we now have 28 trade agreements with 57 countries which will come into operation on 1st January, and more incoming. As a member of the EUCU, we were unable to make bilateral trade deals.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Only if you factor out future growth (UK) and decline (France) of the industry, alongside changing consumer behaviour. 

The good news is we now have 28 trade agreements with 57 countries which will come into operation on 1st January, and more incoming. As a member of the EUCU, we were unable to make bilateral trade deals.

We already had all those deals as part of the EU. All we've signed is continuation agreements to retain the status quo.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Dazey said:

We already had all those deals as part of the EU. All we've signed is continuation agreements to retain the status quo.

That isn't true. The Japanese trade deal is not a continuity agreement.

[DieselDaisy]

Imagine if you asked an outsider country, Australia, Canada or Japan say, that they could join this club in which,

- they can no longer bilaterally trade

- lose control over waters and are capped with fishing quotas

- lose part-control over land border/migratory policy

-  its jurisprudence is placed on your statute book in place of domestic jurisprudence

- You pay into it, i.e., are a net contributor, and receive less in return!

Oh yes, and you have little democratic say in this actual arrangement and the whole thing arrives governed by unelected Commissioners, and in reality dominated by two other powerful nation state rivals (historic, and some would say not so historic, antagonists) who guide the organisation to their interests (e.g. French agricultural protectionism).

And you even have to wait until January to get vaccinated!

Bonkers, isn't it? But remainers would say: ''sounds good - where do we sign up?'' haha.

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[Dazey]

  

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Imagine if you asked an outsider country, Australia, Canada or Japan say, that they could join this club in which,

- they can no longer bilaterally trade

- lose control over waters and are capped with fishing quotas

- lose part-control over land border/migratory policy

-  its jurisprudence is placed on your statute book in place of domestic jurisprudence

- You pay into it, i.e., are a net contributor, and receive less in return!

Oh yes, and you have little democratic say in this actual arrangement and the whole thing arrives governed by unelected Commissioners, and in reality dominated by two other powerful nation state rivals (historic, and some would say not so historic, antagonists) who guide the organisation to their interests (e.g. French agricultural protectionism).

And you even have to wait until January to get vaccinated!

Bonkers, isn't it? But remainers would say: ''sounds good - where do we sign up?'' haha.

Once again you completely fail to understand the difference between entering into such an agreement from a neutral standpoint and leaving such an agreement when it's already deeply entwined with you economy.

IF we were in the same position as Australia, Canada and Japan then walking away would simply result in a continuation of the status quo and hence life would go on uninterrupted. The critical point that you fail to grasp is that EU membership IS the status quo and simply leaving with no deal in place incurs innumerable penalties. 

To address your points individually:

Imagine if you asked an outsider country, Australia, Canada or Japan say, that they could join this club in which

- they can no longer bilaterally trade

But Australia, Canada and Japan don't stand to suddenly be unable to trade freely with by far their biggest economic partner   

- lose control over waters that are capped with fishing quotas

We're not losing control over anything. Fishing quotas have been in effect for decades   

- lose part control over land borders/migratory policies

In exchange for the ability to live and work in any of 27 other member countries 

-  its jurisprudence is placed on your statute book in place of domestic jurisprudence  

The issue on which you might have a point but can you name any significant ECJ rulings that genuinely impact your life in real terms?

  - You pay into it, i.e., are a net contributor, and receive less in return!

Utter little Englander garbage. The contribution to the EU budget annually is dwarfed many times over by the economic benefits of trading freely the EU 27. Likewise the imposition of tariffs in the event of a no deal Brexit will result in a far bigger hit to our economy than the peanuts we're saving by not paying into the EU pot.

I'm also wondering how you can cite agricultural protectionism as a reason for us to leave when the impact of a no deal Brexit will be felt most keenly by UK farmers who will see massive tariffs imposed on them overnight.  

[DieselDaisy]

56 minutes ago, Dazey said:

  

Once again you completely fail to understand the difference between entering into such an agreement from a neutral standpoint and leaving such an agreement when it's already deeply entwined with you economy.

IF we were in the same position as Australia, Canada and Japan then walking away would simply result in a continuation of the status quo and hence life would go on uninterrupted. The critical point that you fail to grasp is that EU membership IS the status quo and simply leaving with no deal in place incurs innumerable penalties. 

To address your points individually:

Imagine if you asked an outsider country, Australia, Canada or Japan say, that they could join this club in which

- they can no longer bilaterally trade

But Australia, Canada and Japan don't stand to suddenly be unable to trade freely with by far their biggest economic partner   

- lose control over waters that are capped with fishing quotas

We're not losing control over anything. Fishing quotas have been in effect for decades   

- lose part control over land borders/migratory policies

In exchange for the ability to live and work in any of 27 other member countries 

-  its jurisprudence is placed on your statute book in place of domestic jurisprudence  

The issue on which you might have a point but can you name any significant ECJ rulings that genuinely impact your life in real terms?

  - You pay into it, i.e., are a net contributor, and receive less in return!

Utter little Englander garbage. The contribution to the EU budget annually is dwarfed many times over by the economic benefits of trading freely the EU 27. Likewise the imposition of tariffs in the event of a no deal Brexit will result in a far bigger hit to our economy than the peanuts we're saving by not paying into the EU pot.

I'm also wondering how you can cite agricultural protectionism as a reason for us to leave when the impact of a no deal Brexit will be felt most keenly by UK farmers who will see massive tariffs imposed on them overnight.  

I didn't write the highly rhetorical question from the perspective and specifics of a British withdrawal, but, wanting to belong to such an organisation in the first place! The language should have made it clear. It was rather aimed at an outsider to the debate, a non-European.

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I didn't write the highly rhetorical question from the perspective and specifics of a British withdrawal, but, wanting to belong to such an organisation in the first place! The language should have made it clear. It was rather aimed at an outsider to the debate, a non-European.

But you forgot to list all the positive stuff that comes from belonging to an organization as the EU.