It's true, but a losing argument in the current climate.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Only for those with their fingers in their ears. Fortunately, we don't need all the 51.9% to see sense.
Blair, as much as I dislike some of what he did, is bang on here. And it's far from the only argument against brexit.
Blair's argument was probably my biggest reason for being a Remain supporter. The only way 'we' can compete against the superpowers of America, China, Russia, India etc is as a united European bloc.
Yes, a trading bloc. No more no less.
You heard Trump. Just walk away! Kickstart the glorious end to the EU. A dream where every state stands for itself.
We are either within an imperfect bloc and strong, or we are outside and weak.
And they all become the bitches of the economic behemoths present and future. The US, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia (?)
Why the hell do you think that Trump wants the EU to break up?
Because the US can't dominate it.
Of course Trump (and the Russians) would prefer to break up the EU. It’s much easier for them to economically bully smaller countries. If anyone thinks that Trump will consider a “special relationship” when it comes to trade, they are living in cloud cuckoo land
That's an amusing idea when the US are literally a federation of states that do not stand for themselves. They created a political and economic giant by unifying small and medium size states.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And you can’t argue with facts!
Alternative facts...
Yeah the EU isn't the reason we decide to stop killing each other on mass.
The EU/EEC never has been just a trading bloc.
The UK were in a trading bloc from 1960 till 1973 - that's why they joined the EEC.
Yes indeed, much has been made of the so called 'lies' told in 2016 about the EU/Brexit etc., but many would argue the first big lie presented to the UK public concerning what is now the EU, was the idea then that we were joining a trading block only, the 'common market'. The fine print from the Treaty of Rome was not spelled out, except by such as Tony Benn and he was seen as a radical left wing nutter, "don't listen to him" the establishment said and we didn't.
Telling lies about the EEC/EU is par for the course and hasn't finished yet!
Yes because privatisation has worked out so well for railways, schools, health services etc.
Great points, well made.
The fine prints were in the preamble of the treaty and not really hidden, it's arguably the easiest thing to see. Also there is a reason why accession act was named the European Communities Act 1972, community is plural because the EEC(common market) was only one of three communities, the others being EURATOM and the ECSC(treaty of Rome).
It's not true - it is a convenient fiction. You can see the original campaign materials here and the debate that was held at the time: https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/collections/brexit/1975
Its not at all a convenient fiction, the same approaches of outright lies, of a project fear (at one time about Russia/communism/nuclear war etc), every point of view expressed subject to exaggeration and in some cases near farce, were as much in evidence (on both sides) then through leaflets (some anonymous)and other media (although not Social media) as in 2016. All this all clouded the issue, in that case the remain vote won because at that time the implications for staying in were multifaceted and the country had little experience of being in the EEC but generally most people thought it was a 'good idea'. The implications of coming out were related directly and indirectly to the dark days of strikes, 3 day weeks, unchecked Trade Union power, "reds under the bed" etc.
My point was that just as in 2016 the first casualty of the referendum propaganda was the truth.
This was the arrangement all along, IMO: a money-grab by Johnson, Farage, Trump & others:
US wants access to NHS in post-Brexit deal, says Trump ally
Before president’s visit, US Ambassador to the UK says every area of UK economy up for discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nhs-in-post-brexit-deal-ambassador-to-uk-says
US wants access to NHS in post-Brexit deal, says Trump ally
Before president’s visit, US Ambassador to the UK says every area of UK economy up for discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nhs-in-post-brexit-deal-ambassador-to-uk-says
As much as being part of the EU has issues, leaving it will make us considerably weaker as a nation.
Think I am understating it.
Think I am understating it.
The comments about US food didn't exactly thrill me either, mate.
Take back control == be Trumps' bitch
Nothing that you exposed here has nothing to do with the sentence that you quote. I repeat, if you don't like the system, change it via protest, via vote. I don't like the concept of democracy not because your reasons but because is corrupt. Just a note: raising salaries should be according the general economy, but as well to the individual situation of the companies, not only in the case that you expose, but as well when companies have those insane benefits.
Of course I understand than any rise in costs is past on the consumers. But the funny thing is that it only transfers in full when the costs raises. When it lowers, if we are lucky only small part. If you have different taxes in europe, a company can go to one place, lets say 25% taxes to one that has 10%. This 15% of gain, there is no way that it reflects on the prices in full, specially in none perfect competitive markets. Causing the individuals losing money because they might pay a bit less, but they will not enjoy the whole 15% through lowering + taxes.
The business money has so many problems, because the inequality gap is growing and the superich and rich could contribute much more than what they do closing the gap.
The tax system had been working for decades and now with the old age population, needs to be twiched with unpopular measures that in some countries are already applying. Raising the retiring age. We arrive healthier to older ages than before. IMO shouldn't happen in old professions. Is not the same working in construction than in an office. Also, depending in which kind of vulnerability an individual would find themselves. Also, a person that amassed a more than enough sum of money to live comfortable, shouldn't receive the insane amount of money per month perpetuating the growing gap
NO system last forever without changes, education changes, health system changes. Other things should change. But privatizing systems where the most vulnerable would suffer would not be the solution. That if you are not an insensitive cnut
Scary, isn't it?
Sometimes I wish the ultra Brexiteers would get their way just so people can see for themselves what the true intentions of Brexit are. But it is kind of like wishing people would get seriously hurt so that they can see the foolishness of their choices; I am ashamed to think it.
If it only affected them I'd be for it but it affects everyone.
Any chance of Brexit removing Klopp and Guardiola's right to live and work in the UK?
There might be a silver lining after all
There might be a silver lining after all
No matter how bad things go they will never admit it's their fault.
At least in this country people have a real problem understanding the effects their votes can have on the rest of the country. And its not just leave voters, it's been rather clear that this country since the mid 2000's has been slowly going down a right wing path(I think I'm right in saying the BNP got two European seats in 2009), yet for a lot of people Brexit and leaving the EU has come as some sort of shock.
Chris Patten was talking on Radio 4 yesterday (World at 1?) and he said exactly that, he particularly fears for the Conservative Party going down this route, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Conservatism.
Edit: Found it, and an interesting read:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...ler_older_whiter_more_rightwing_than_it_used/"Smaller, older, whiter, more right-wing than it used to be." ~ Chris Patten talking about what the Conservative Party has become
Interview from The World This Weekend, Radio 4, 02/06/19
Mark Mardell: I discussed the leadership race with one of the grandest of Tory grandees, former party chairman and cabinet minister Chris Patten, and I asked Lord Patten how he would characterise the Conservative Party today.
Chris Patten: Smaller, older, whiter, more right-wing than it used to be. I think the numbers of Conservative activists have been subject to considerable demographic change to put it politely. There has, to be fair, been some increase in the numbers in the last few months I think, which people put down to entryism from Brexiteers. By and large the Conservative Party activists are less like the centre ground in British politics than has been the case for years. You still find redoubts of good sense but I think we're heading towards rather nasty right-wing English nationalism.
MM: And on the subject of Brexit a party that is very firmly, if one believes the polls and surveys, committed to the idea of leaving without a deal if that's what it comes to.
CP: Yes, absolutely. I think that the polls suggest that something like three quarters think we should leave without a deal without having the faintest idea what it means. I hear people banging on about leaving on WTO terms. They wouldn't know what WTO terms were if they came up and punched them on the nose. It's a real humiliation. A lot of lies and a lot of self-delusion and I'm afraid it would be very damaging at home. The likeliest outcome is that the parliamentary party would forward two candidates as they must and that the party and the country choose whichever is the more outlandishly right-wing on the issue of Brexit.
MM: Let's talk about some of them if we could in terms of....
CP: There are too many, we haven't got time...
MM: Let's just choose a few. In terms of what you might call the centrist, Rory Stewart, Jeremy Hunt. Do you find either of them convincing?
CP: I think both Matt Hancock and Rory Stewart would in time by perfectly sensible as Conservative Prime Ministers and I think that Rory Stewart is particularly good. I think he's got an incredible CV and he says very sensible things about the need for honesty in dealing with Brexit and honesty includes not thinking we can waltz off to Brussels and persuade Brussels to give us things which they weren't prepared to give to Mrs May.
MM: I notice you left Jeremy Hunt off that list.
CP: Well I'm never quite sure what side of the argument he's on. He made a speech at a party conference, I think it was last year, comparing the EU to the Soviet Union. Now, he must know that's profoundly foolish because he's actually a clever guy but it sort of suggests that he moves backwards and forwards according to how the wind's blowing.
MM: What about the three front runners of those who adopt the harder line, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.
CP: I don't know Dominic Raab but he doesn't seem to have been a spectacular success as Brexit secretary of state and I think his views on other issues would be rather further to the right than my own.
Boris Johnson, we all know, has a rather [pause] elastic relationship with the truth. He hasn't proved to be terribly competent. It's possible, since he's changed his mind on everything from time to time, that between now and the election of a new Tory leader he'll be wildly in favour of us playing a central role in the EU. On the other hand he could be in favour of us making war with the French. You don't know from one Daily Telegraph column to the other.
Michael Gove is a genuine Brexiteer. He's a very competent minister. While I don't care much for his views on foreign policy, he was very neo-con, it was said of him on one occasion that there was no country in the world that he wouldn't go to war with [laughing]. That may be unfair but I think it was said by one of his colleagues. But I think he is capable of understanding that the biggest task of a new Prime Minister is to try to bring the country together. And that means trying to assemble a consensus and accommodations which have not been very apparent in the last year or two.
MM: Lets project ourselves forward to the moment when someone new takes over. And assume that it is somebody who has promised Conservative Party members that they will take the Britain out of EU without a deal if that's what it comes to, can you see a way through for them at that stage?
CP: No I can't. I think when they try to open a negotiation with Brussels to change the Withdrawal Agreement they'll get a pretty dusty answer.
MM: Well I suppose that raises the possibility that whoever it is comes back and asks the Commons if they can come out without a deal and the Commons says no, and we have a General Election, which brings us back to - what kind of Conservative Party would be fighting that election?
CP: I don't think the EU is going to budge and give us any better deal than we've got at the moment. I don't think the House of Commons is going to budge in its refusal to accept a no deal Brexit. I don't think it will change it's opposition to the deal or the sort of deal which Mrs May negotiated over the months. So in those circumstances it seems to me more likely than ever that we either have a General Election or, I don't like referendums, but it may be that the only way of sorting this terrible, humiliating mess out is by asking people for a second opinion. And it's not undemocratic to do that for heaven's sake.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005mfy
Careful what you wish for or you’ll have Big Sam on the phone to Woodward.
Remainers should adopt "they want to flog the NHS" as a slogan. That will rattle the Brexiteers.
Absolutely, perfect marketing opportunity here.
Won't surprise me if a lot are willing to sacrifice the NHS in order to get the immigrants out.
Sadly see a lot of comments saying just that. They would happily sacrifice the NHS just so they can say they won. Infuriating.
Yeah, there are some on the lunatic fringe, for whom Brexit is like religion. But I would imagine a sizable portion of leave voters are not and wouldn't want to lose the NHS. Actually, given the demographics of leave voters, it could be decisive, much as the slogan on the bus was.
Remainers should focus on a campaign as to why remaining is good instead of why leaving is bad, locusts, ww3 and all that. Maybe they can learn from last time.
Stan is right.
They do need to work on their positive messaging, but you also need to point out why the other side is bad as a counterpoint. "Take back control" was only able to be effective because they'd portrayed the EU as a constraining force that imposed laws and immigrants on us, whilst taking money that could be spent on services. The NHS being up for grabs in the magical trade deal we're going to do with the US is important info. That we'd walk into wonderful mutually beneficial trade deals on leaving the EU is a dangerous lie that needs to be shown as such.