Boris is Boss

[Spud1]

On the last point, my perspective is that once out of the EU, we (as in the UK) can work much more closely with the rest of the world.

This is one of the fundamental disagreements around Brexit I think - I think we should be working for the betterment of the EU as a whole (and ideally the world, but that's a long way off), not the betterment of any individual country. I am a proponent of the "United States of Europe" approach in the future (albeit not with such a silly name ), and as such i'm never going to agree with your comment above.

I see being out of the EU as a major hindrance and I genuinely cannot see any benefits in leaving (and not really much in the way of potential benefits over and above the current arrangement). Anyway we don't need to get back into a back on forth on this, given there are already 29 pages discussing it

[Saracen999]

This is one of the fundamental disagreements around Brexit I think - I think we should be working for the betterment of the EU as a whole (and ideally the world, but that's a long way off), not the betterment of any individual country. I am a proponent of the "United States of Europe" approach in the future (albeit not with such a silly name ), and as such i'm never going to agree with your comment above.

I see being out of the EU as a major hindrance and I genuinely cannot see any benefits in leaving (and not really much in the way of potential benefits over and above the current arrangement). Anyway we don't need to get back into a back on forth on this, given there are already 29 pages discussing it

Agreed on not going over it again. It would be interesting to have a nice, long face-to-face chat because, as you say, we see it very differently and the USE, federal Eurooean superstate, whatever we call it, is probably my biggest single reason for wanting to leave.

I have no problem with the NATO-type approach, a conglomerate of nation states working together (supposedly) for a common purpose .... and I mean generally, not just defence. That, to me, makes sense. I don't go for the over-arching federal model though. It's an order of magnitude too far for me. And that is what might make for an interesting argument, in the best sense of the word, in a coffee shop or summat. It's not really even a Brexit discussion. It's more of a conflict of philosophies of governance.

The way I'd put it, echoing your first line or two, is working for the mutual betterment of the 27 (or 28) member states .... but as separate entities determining our own futures, preferably in harmony.

That, broadly, as you say, is our fundamental diference of opinion and, in large part, why I don't think the division will heal any time soon.

If it were just, or even primarily, about trade or economics, then we could look back in 10 or 20 years and see which predictions were right, but if it gets to issues like this (and for both of us, it clearly does) then I can't see a path to unity as those positions are mutually exclusive.

Even if those 29 pages haven't really dealt with this specifically, I still can't see any point going off on it again or we'll likely get dragged back to the old merrygoround. It's agree to disagree time, I think.

[TeePee]

This is one of the fundamental disagreements around Brexit I think - I think we should be working for the betterment of the EU as a whole (and ideally the world, but that's a long way off), not the betterment of any individual country. I am a proponent of the "United States of Europe" approach in the future (albeit not with such a silly name ), and as such i'm never going to agree with your comment above.

I see being out of the EU as a major hindrance and I genuinely cannot see any benefits in leaving (and not really much in the way of potential benefits over and above the current arrangement). Anyway we don't need to get back into a back on forth on this, given there are already 29 pages discussing it

This is a great post, and one which highlights a fundamental difference among Remain voters. One of the many reasons to leave that is commonly discussed by Leave voters is that continuing with the status quo was not an option and that the EU was headed down a path toward a United States of Europe. The usual argument from a Remain voter was that this wasn't and could never happen, often followed by a list of reasons. It's very rare to see a Remain voter who agrees that this was the intent of the EU.

[spacein_vader]

I voted remain and I'm not against a US of E. Over history states have become larger.

A village in the midlands may have ruled itself hundreds of years ago, then become part of Mercia and been ruled from Tamworth. Next that became part of Wessex, then England, then Great Britain, then the UK. It's just a next possible step.

I'm not saying it is inevitable or even good, it just isn't automatically bad.

[Saracen999]

I voted remain and I'm not against a US of E. Over history states have become larger.

A village in the midlands may have ruled itself hundreds of years ago, then become part of Mercia and been ruled from Tamworth. Next that became part of Wessex, then England, then Great Britain, then the UK. It's just a next possible step.

I'm not saying it is inevitable or even good, it just isn't automatically bad.

We're at risk of getting into that discussion.

States getting larger isn't automatically bad. Or automatically good. It's certainly not an inevitable progression.

For instance, tell SNP MPs, or members/voters for that matter, that hey, Scotland being subsumed by the UK and ruled by a bunch of old Etonian posh boys in Westminster is "just the next step" and see what happens.

....

It's just a next possible step.

Agreed, but emphasis on possible. It's also possible we could be the 51st US state, but I sure don't want that either. Though some people would argue we kinda de-facto already are, which I also reject.

So if it's possible, but not inevitable, then we get to the nub of it .... is it desirable?

If you remember, or look back, to some of my pre-referendum posts about why I would vote Leave, you'll find a common point is precisely because I don't want to be part of a USE (I'll call it that for convenience, but I mean a European federalised superstate).

Points made back then included :-

- it always was a central plank of the evolving body that has morphed into the EU.

- xeveral of the core figures (those still alive over recent years) have explicitly stated that, and that it was a founding objective among the Common Market original 6 i the 50's.

- that Ted Heath knew that, and agreed with it, when he took us in, without asking us.

- in our subsequent "Exit" referendum, we were lied to by both government and main opposition parties about what was entailed in the "Common Market", EEC, whatever we call it. I still have the bumph and some recordings from that referendum campaign over Common Market exit. We definitely were lied to.

- that had we been told the long-term objective was a USE, we may well have voted Leave in the '70s, but again we were outright lied to about that.

- Heath subsequently admitted it. It was a speech in, IIRC, Geneva in 1991. I have the speech archived somewhere.


So, the background .... we were conned into being "in" in the first place. Why? To cement trading relationships with the EU and weaken bonds with traditional 'friends' like many Commonwealth countries, especially New Zealand and Australia.

That argument is still being used. How? Because we do "so much trade with the EU and Leaving will damage that". Of course we do so much trade. We've been inside a protectionist barrier for 40 years. It'd be stunning if we weren't doing lots of trade. But, what would we be doing with that traditional partners, and the rest of the world, if we hadn't been behind those barriers fir 40 years?

So for me, the issue is that the EU is, by it's own declaration, working towards "ever greater union". That only leads to one place.

So is being in or out of it desirable?

For me, no. For you I assume yes. And thats both fair enough, and why that division is insoluble. Whatever happens, the losing party aren't going to like it.


Which brings me to whether that "larger state" trend is an inevitable progression?

Personally, I prefer the UK as it currently is. I don't want Scotland breaking away. But, it would be hypocritical to argue the will of the people of the UK is to Leave the EU so we must, but that if the will of the people of Scotland is to Leave the UK that they can't. So, much though I don't want that, and despite a Scottish ancestry (though not currently eligible to vote on it), if the people's will in Scotland is the Leave the UK, then they should be allowed to.

That progression from village to UK isn't beyond reversing, and the continued existance of the UK isn't guaranteed in it's current form. For that matter, neither Wales nor NI are without secessionist elements. Who knows where that'll be in 10, 50, 100 years?

[neonplanet40]

So, the Prime Minister refused to send a letter requesting an extension. And in many ways, he didn't. He sent 3 instead.

[Spud1]

So, the Prime Minister refused to send a letter requesting an extension. And in many ways, he didn't. He sent 3 instead.

Indeed, its yet another farce on top of a farce.

Parliament & the country cannot decide on brexit - but he insists on trying to push that through, ignoring everyone.
Parliament has clearly deicded however that a no-deal brexit is a bad thing, and that we need a better deal before proceeding - but he ignores the only clear decision that has been made on this topic in recent months and pushes on ahead regardless. Not signing the letter was very childish and not befitting a position such as Prime Minister.

We really need to get rid of Boris, words just cannot express how much of a prat he's being at the moment.

[neonplanet40]

Yet, his actions will have the support of many. I do think that a PM needs to be above everyone else though, in terms of behaviour and conduct. It is for this reason that I liken Boris with Mr Trump.

I believe they bring in elements of childishness and teenage huffery which ultimately undermines the office they hold.

[TeePee]

The country did decide on Brexit, and Parliament has pretty much decided too. It's just that many MP's don't like what the country decided.

Boris has, so far, done very well. He negotiated a significantly better deal than May was able to, even after the EU said it was impossible, and even after the attempts at sabotage and the Surrender Act.

[neonplanet40]

He negotiated a better deal than May? In which way? Politically? Economically?

[Saracen999]

Yet, his actions will have the support of many. I do think that a PM needs to be above everyone else though, in terms of behaviour and conduct. It is for this reason that I liken Boris with Mr Trump.

I believe they bring in elements of childishness and teenage huffery which ultimately undermines the office they hold.

Up to a point, I agree with that but with Boris, the buffoonery is an act, a shell, that goes back to his childhood. And, so far, he's made it work for him. Since becoming PM, he's dialled the buffoonery right back, smartened up his act and, self-evidently from the events of the last couple of weeks, made some progress with EU leaders, especially the 'big names'. He has a degree of credibility with them that seems to have led to a 'we can work with him' not dissimilar to Reagan and Gorbachev, or for that matter, Blair and Bush. Nobody would accuse either of those pairings as being exactly politically aligned, yet there was enough respect to be able to work with them.

And, frankly, keeping every last detail, nuance, and negotiating position private while they work out a compromise might drive media types nuts (and hurrah for that, a little humility will do them good) but there was a marked absence of leaking both from the EU and the cabinet which is one reason I say they seem to be able to work together.

So far, and it is only so far 'cos he is a politician, but EU leader's comments seem to suggest they feel he's taken a politically honest approach, in that he pretty much has said what he meant, and meant what he said ..... within the normal bounds of pokutical rhetoric, at least.

And we've gone from a "deal" that parliament rejected, three times and by historic margins, and a "no renegotiation" stance by the EU, to a deal they serm happy with. And that, inevitably, involves some compromises by the UK too.

As I said, though, he is still a politician. My guess is that a large chunk of his current position is electoral positioning. Carrying on with this small a majority, or even a small minority, isn't sustainable for traditional UK politics and he's positioning himself as leading a party that's serious about leaving the EU, hoping to regain Tory voters inclined to vote UKIP/Brexit-Party while at the same time, hoovering extra support in high Brexit-supporting Labour areas. If he manages that, he could well end up with a significant Tory majority, and that strengthens his negotiating hand in the post-exit phase with the EU, which includes the trafing relationship going forward and that is where the real economic impact, or lack thereof, will be sorted out. On both sides.

Time will tell.

[TooNice]

Larger state is not -always- desirable, but it obviously come with some advantages, namely leverage in the world stage.

Now if the EU has a history of suppressing freedom of press / expression, violently supressing protests, making people vanish, have a president for life, then yes perhaps I might have some strong reservations. But it doesn't cross any of my "red lines", and I find it highly unlikely that any country in the EU are that keen to head that way, let alone all of the EU (required for such drastic changes).

There is one more instance where I consider a large state might be undesirable: when the population is particularly homogenous *and* the system already work rather harmoniously. The UK though, doesn't tick that box (overall). The UK is neither that homogeneous, nor do I think that immigrants has brought more negative than positives.

As such, I think that an union with our neighbour (complete with freedom of movement, as we have within our union), of which we have some veto and control, provides more positives than negatives in our case. The way I see it, the UK is different from various countries in the EU, just as Scotland is different from England and the rest of the UK. Prior to Brexit (and having Trump Jr. as our PM), I did not like or dislike other parts of the UK any more than any other European country. So on a personal level, I would much rather be able to have an easy option of ending in 27 other countries than 3.

And I would also prefer the country be represented on the world stage by the largest economic block in the world than a former world power that hasn't done much good for it's own image (as a frequent reader of foreign press, and I don't mean EU, I would say that we are kind of lucky that Trump attract more attention.. but the ones we attract have generally not been amazing..). While he's dialed down on his rhetorics in the days leading up to the deal, parliament never should've had to waste time tieing up his hands, it never should have been necessary to take him in court (where he ultimately lost unanomously).

If he hadn't shown himself to be so untrustworthy and.. Trump-like, and wasted so much time messing around, there might've not been the amendment yesterday. Parliament (and indeed the EU) seems quite forgiving for his ways, but I am not, and if I was still resident in the UK (which I doubt I will ever be, I am probably not going to renew my passport when it expires - short Scotland having it's own in the future), it is highly likely that I would never vote for any of the two big parties ever again.

[TeePee]

Now if the EU has a history of suppressing freedom of press / expression, violently supressing protests, making people vanish, have a president for life, then yes perhaps I might have some strong reservations. But it doesn't cross any of my "red lines", and I find it highly unlikely that any country in the EU are that keen to head that way, let alone all of the EU (required for such drastic changes).

Ask the Catalans how they feel about that.

[Top_gun]

Larger state is not -always- desirable, but it obviously come with some advantages, namely leverage in the world stage.

Now if the EU has a history of suppressing freedom of press / expression, violently supressing protests, making people vanish, have a president for life, then yes perhaps I might have some strong reservations. But it doesn't cross any of my "red lines", and I find it highly unlikely that any country in the EU are that keen to head that way, let alone all of the EU (required for such drastic changes).

There is one more instance where I consider a large state might be undesirable: when the population is particularly homogenous *and* the system already work rather harmoniously. The UK though, doesn't tick that box (overall). The UK is neither that homogeneous, nor do I think that immigrants has brought more negative than positives.

As such, I think that an union with our neighbour (complete with freedom of movement, as we have within our union), of which we have some veto and control, provides more positives than negatives in our case. The way I see it, the UK is different from various countries in the EU, just as Scotland is different from England and the rest of the UK. Prior to Brexit (and having Trump Jr. as our PM), I did not like or dislike other parts of the UK any more than any other European country. So on a personal level, I would much rather be able to have an easy option of ending in 27 other countries than 3.

And I would also prefer the country be represented on the world stage by the largest economic block in the world than a former world power that hasn't done much good for it's own image (as a frequent reader of foreign press, and I don't mean EU, I would say that we are kind of lucky that Trump attract more attention.. but the ones we attract have generally not been amazing..). While he's dialed down on his rhetorics in the days leading up to the deal, parliament never should've had to waste time tieing up his hands, it never should have been necessary to take him in court (where he ultimately lost unanomously).

If he hadn't shown himself to be so untrustworthy and.. Trump-like, and wasted so much time messing around, there might've not been the amendment yesterday. Parliament (and indeed the EU) seems quite forgiving for his ways, but I am not, and if I was still resident in the UK (which I doubt I will ever be, I am probably not going to renew my passport when it expires - short Scotland having it's own in the future), it is highly likely that I would never vote for any of the two big parties ever again.

Turning London into a state can't come quick enough for me.

[Top_gun]

Looks like the £15 threshold for vat is removed under a no deal Brexit.

[TooNice]

Last I checked, Spain's action wasn't sanctioned by Brussel. And I haven't seen any "EU army" occupy our parliament trying to stop us from leaving.

And who knows what -would- happen if Scotland try to push for independance only for the government to suppress it. I guess that "Responsible for the breaking-up of the Union" is not on the top of the list of what British PM want on their CV.. Or be told "Told you so" when people say that Brexit would endanger the Union, but polls suggest that amongst those who back the PM, beliefs tend to range between "Regretable but worth the cost" to "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" (in a more colourful way), and Pro Union no longer enjoy the lead. So the "will of the people" may well consent to the break up of tge union. Politically, it may be great for the government, as without the very alienated SNP, it will be much easier to get a majority. It might even widen the Brexiter majority the rest of the UK (even more so if NI also leave.. I'd throw in London too, alas the geographical realities..).

I do however note that the situation in Spain would make it unlikely that Scotland would be allowed in the EU in the foreseable future, but looking at where the direction the UK is heading, I think that there is much greater political will for Scotland to work as closely with the EU as possible without being a full member than the rest of the UK so I would take my chance with that if I had a say. Whether I would qualify to vote if/when indyref2 happens is a large question mark, but I have gone from against leaving to 50/50 to in favour of leaving.