View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 649 of 662
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 648, 649, 650 ... 660, 661, 662  Next

suze
1373601.  Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:38 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I'm not convinced that Scotland could afford to take on Northern Ireland.


I'm not sure that the Westminster government will see that as its problem.

If Scotland doesn't want Northern Ireland, if as you suggest Scotland won't be able to balance the books even without it, then it is always open to Scotland not to vote for independence.

The last poll I saw on the subject (for the Sunday Times, 24 Jan) had it that in the event of a referendum "tomorrow", Scotland would vote for independence by the margin of - wait for it - 52:48. As we all know, that particular margin is the hugest possible indication of the will of the people, and that which it mandates must be caused to happen at all costs.

Scotland's call.

 
dr.bob
1374029.  Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:36 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
I can now start looking for all those promised tangible ways in which my life is demonstrably better as a result of leaving the EU. I haven't found any yet ...


My driving licence recently expired so I had to apply for a new one. It arrived last week. I notice that the new card has a big, shiny union jack plastered in the corner, instead of the EU flag that used to adorn my old licence.

I think we can all agree that the past 4.5 years of craziness have definitely been worth it for that alone.

 
Jenny
1374037.  Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:53 am Reply with quote

Well I guess we may get another three months to think about how it all affects Northern Ireland, if we're lucky.

 
tetsabb
1374043.  Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:50 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:


I think we can all agree that the past 4.5 years of craziness have definitely been worth it for that alone.


Absolutely, and we have happy fish! Jacob Rees-Mogg said so.

 
dr.bob
1374131.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:36 am Reply with quote

Never trust a Moggie talking about fish ;-)

 
tetsabb
1374151.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:26 am Reply with quote

Dammit, I am going to ask again.

Can any of our pro-Brexit contributors point to a tangible, day-to-day, practical improvement to our lives any time soon as a direct result of the process??

Last chance.

 
Efros
1374156.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:43 am Reply with quote

 
Brock
1374159.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:08 pm Reply with quote

tetsabb wrote:
Dammit, I am going to ask again.

Can any of our pro-Brexit contributors point to a tangible, day-to-day, practical improvement to our lives any time soon as a direct result of the process??

Last chance.


I'm not a pro-Brexit contributor, but the UK's decision not to take part in the EU's vaccine procurement process appears to have brought about a definite advantage to this country. We're a long way ahead of the EU (19.2 doses per 100 people against 3.9).

Now, this wasn't strictly speaking as a result of Brexit: the UK was invited to take part in the process (we were still in the transition period at the time and therefore eligible). And any of the 27 EU nations could have made the same decision; it was a decision for individual member states.

None the less, the Commission leant very heavily on member to states to take part in the process. It's an open question whether they'd have put the same pressure on the UK if we hadn't been on the way out. Several member states are now regretting their decision not to go the same way as the UK and arrange their own procurement process. And today, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission, admitted failures.

You can argue over the detail of whether the UK's decision was as a result of Brexit or not; but it was certainly heavily influenced by the Brexit process.

 
suze
1374163.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:41 pm Reply with quote

Then again, you could also argue that the EU would have gotten its act together more quickly than it has if Britain were still involved.

If Britain had never attempted to leave, and had said unto the rest of the EU "We'll take the lead on this if you like", only Germany would have even thought about saying "Well actually, we were hoping to do that".

 
Brock
1374165.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:56 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Then again, you could also argue that the EU would have gotten its act together more quickly than it has if Britain were still involved.

If Britain had never attempted to leave, and had said unto the rest of the EU "We'll take the lead on this if you like", only Germany would have even thought about saying "Well actually, we were hoping to do that".


Absolutely.

It's the same with the vaccine approval process. The Government goes on about how much quicker the MHRA was than the bureaucratic European Medicines Agency. But before the UK left the EU, the EMA was in London. We were given the job because we were best at it!

This argument for UK membership of the EU was rarely made; that we should be in because it's good for the EU, not just for us.

 
crissdee
1374179.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:47 pm Reply with quote

Brock wrote:
This argument for UK membership of the EU was rarely made.


My recollection is that there was no consistent argument "for" membership, just a constant stream of slagging off the other side. I couldn't vote at the time anyway, but if I had seen any meaningful argument for staying, I might have tried to sort something out.

 
Brock
1374181.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:39 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:

My recollection is that there was no consistent argument "for" membership, just a constant stream of slagging off the other side.


I know. Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was conceived as a referendum on staying in the EU, not a referendum on leaving. That was the proposition to be put to the British people; David Cameron had negotiated a package of reforms to UK membership, and he wanted endorsement for it.

Unfortunately his renegotiation didn't go as well as expected, and the Remain campaign was forced onto the back foot from the outset. When the Leave campaign came up with its own prospectus, which was effectively a manifesto for government, the Remain campaign was entirely unprepared for it. Most of their campaign seemed to consist of warnings about how awful it would be if the other side won.

The irony is that it's even worse than they predicted. Was the "border in the Irish Sea" predicted by the Remain campaign? Did they predict the piles of unsellable seafood? Did they predict that British businesses would have to relocate operations to the EU to get round Brexit red tape?

And why is no political party, apart from the SNP, talking about how awful it all is? The Lib Dems have gone very quiet about it. As for Labour, their strategy seems to be to pretend that it isn't happening, because they don't want to alienate all those "red wall" voters who they want to get back at the next election.

But by the time of the next election, won't a substantial proportion of those voters have realized that it was a gigantic mistake?

 
CB27
1374186.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:40 pm Reply with quote

In that respect I think it's easy for the SNP to campaign about it being a shit show because it plays to their call for a vote on independence.

As for other main parties, the reason there's no point in going on about it being a shit show is that voters (regardless of how they voted) tend to turn quite quickly on politicians and parties who only criticise without offering alternatives.

I'd like to see a more proactive approach to offering alternatives to the current handling of the situation, but I get the feeling everyone's been very focused on Covid.

 
suze
1374197.  Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:38 pm Reply with quote

Does this imply that no party actually wants the votes of the "Hard Remain" sector?

Even the Conservative Party acknowledges that it only has those "red wall" seats on loan, and it has probably already lost most of them back to Labour at the next election whatever happens from here on in.

But what of, for instance, Putney? That was the only Labour gain at the election of 2019, and it went from Conservative to Labour for two reasons. One, Justine Greening - the outgoing Conservative MP who didn't stand in 2019 - was personally popular there. Two, it had voted very strongly Remain and didn't like the way the Conservative government had tied itself in knots in attempting to Leave.

Now, Ms Greening has made public that she is no longer a member of the Conservative Party, and has hinted in not quite so many words that she voted Labour in 2019. It is not impossible that she will be the Labour candidate there come the next election - but unless that happens, why would the good people there bother to carry on voting for a party which doesn't reflect their positions?

Now OK, there aren't all that many ridings in which Labour has a great deal to gain by taking the "Well, that Leaving thing turned out to be a shit idea, didn't it?" line. It might be worth half a dozen seats in London, two more in the Home Counties, and just maybe one in Edinburgh - but those are seats that Labour probably needs if Britain is to have a Prime Minister who is already a Knight for the first time since Douglas-Home.

 
barbados
1374203.  Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:18 am Reply with quote

If an election was fought on a single issue, then that might have some weight behind it.
They arenít though are they.

 

Page 649 of 662
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 648, 649, 650 ... 660, 661, 662  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group