Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

I think my post 2096 to Rhiannon was very clear.

Regards ippy

Very clear that you don't want to say why you voted leave. And do you think that is conducive to understanding your position?

[Udayana]

I think my post 2096 to Rhiannon was very clear.

Regards ippy

It is just a provocation. If reasons for brexit cannot be given or argued for, it means those opposed, for their own clearly stated and argued reasons, should put in every effort and means to halt it.

[ad_orientem]

I can quite accept that people on both sides voted to make the UK wealthier without thinking that either side is "othering" the other.

I have been trying to have a discussion on specifics, because I had decided I wanted to move away from the relentless toing and froing over leaving, which I find pointless and tedious as one way or another we will leave.

I chose medicine, but no one seems to want to answer. So I'm not othering, but I would like to point out that some Leavers are avoiding issues.

Another article here about medicines:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/prescription-drug-brexit-pharmacy-supply-chains-shortages?CMP=fb_gu

Something really does need to happen and soon about this.

Again, if the EU would not allow the free flow of bone fide medicines, ingredients etc, with or without tariffs, into the UK as sime kind of punishment for leaving, then it isn't an organisation worth being part of.

[Aruntraveller]

Again, if the EU would not allow the free flow of bone fide medicines, ingredients etc, with or without tariffs, into the UK as sime kind of punishment for leaving, then it isn't an organisation worth being part of.

I refer you to my post #2051. It's not a question of punishment, it is a question of logistics and organisation.

[Udayana]

Again, if the EU would not allow the free flow of bone fide medicines, ingredients etc, with or without tariffs, into the UK as sime kind of punishment for leaving, then it isn't an organisation worth being part of.

Again, as NS stated earlier, that is not the issue.

The issue is that, if we leave without an exit agreement, the UK may be unable to process drug imports in sufficiently timely manner, to allow uninterrupted supply. This is entirely down to the UK government, and hopefully, they are competent enough to have a system in place - in the event of a no-deal exit.

If there is an exit agreement then there is a 2 year transitional period, so the problem does not arise.
 

[Aruntraveller]

This is entirely down to the UK government, and hopefully, they are competent enough to have a system in place

Competent? Government?

I'll have two bottles of those optimist pills right now!

[wigginhall]

I think the tabloids will present any customs delays as punishment by the EU.  There is a certain irony here, since the UK has decided to step outside the single market, with all its rules, and then we complain if the rules continue.

[Rhiannon]

Pretty much. Let's say 'I voted to leave to avoid fascism' - which is actually a viewpoint I've been given. Then voting to stay then means for that person either that I want fascism, or that I am too stupid to get that I am voting for it. We need to have a discussion with those we disagree with on specifics, while acknowledging that in terms of the general, such as feeding children, we might be in common ground. As soon as we bring up something and say we voted for i t, the implication is that the other vote is against that.

Your last sentence is something that you've made up.

Voting is like backing a horse in a race. As Trent says, I might vote Labour because I think they will protect the NHS. OTOH someone could vote Tory, very sincerely, because they believe that wealth creation is essential for increased tax take to fund the NHS. Only when the race is run do we get to see who is right. So when I say that I've voted for security for my kids (food security, job security, whatever) that doesn't mean I think that Leavers didn't; in all likelihood we've backed different horses to deliver the same thing.

As a single mother my concerns are very often framed by the basics of providing what my family needs. That doesn't mean to say that I think that people who vote differently to me don't have the same concerns; we've all looked at what is in front of us and made what we believe to be the best choices. Which is why I find it so frustrating that Ippy won't explain his choices; understanding his POV actually humanises the debate. Understanding that my friend from Grimsby has seen local jobs go to the wall gives a very human dimension to his decision to vote Leave and in doing so he isn't 'othering' me. I believe that the remaining jobs that we have are better protected within the EU. He doesn't. Only time will tell. And I have friends of the older generation who look at how the EU has been run and who believe that that is likely to cause a rise in fascism and who voted Leave on that basis. Again, only history will tell which is correct.

Some people on this forum have very strident opinions for or against religion. Because we've been posting together for a long time now there have been moments when the human story behind the reasons for those opinions has been stated, often quietly, tucked away. There have been a fair few posts on this forum that have been 'aha!' moments in that regard, and I hope that just sometimes I'm more tolerant of others because I understand why they are in one camp or the other, so to speak. What I am trying to say here is that stating one's reasons for voting a particular way is, or should be, the very opposite of othering. What parent or grandparent wouldn't understand a desire for food security? If Ippy told me that (for example) he felt that the children in this country would have better long-term security outside of the EU and give his reasons, I might not agree with him, but we would actually have common ground rather than mutual incomprehension. 'Othering' is not listening, not seeking to understand - the very opposite of what I and others are trying to do. If we don't state mutually our reasons and our fears we will never find common ground and a way to move forward.

[Udayana]

I think the tabloids will present any customs delays as punishment by the EU.  There is a certain irony here, since the UK has decided to step outside the single market, with all its rules, and then we complain if the rules continue.

Incompetency and lying by the government and media - I can believe.

But these would be our own rules - we could just keep the borders open and let everything continue coming in until proper systems were in place to tax them?
 

[ippy]

Very clear that you don't want to say why you voted leave. And do you think that is conducive to understanding your position?

Not particularly but that's but if you feel inclined to crawl back through my previous posts you'll find I have made myself very clear.

Regards ippy. 

[Stranger]

But these would be our own rules - we could just keep the borders open and let everything continue coming in until proper systems were in place to tax them?

As I understand it, if we fall back to WTO rules, then we'd have to open the borders to every other country we didn't have a free-trade agreement with too.

1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally  Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.

So much for "taking back control", eh?

[wigginhall]

Incompetency and lying by the government and media - I can believe.

But these would be our own rules - we could just keep the borders open and let everything continue coming in until proper systems were in place to tax them?

Well, the word is everything, as Stranger pointed out.  No checks on dodgy food, animals, plant material, from any country, under non-discrimination rules.  This would make us radioactive, metaphorically, and other countries would probably impose severe checks on any imports from us.
Presumably, the Irish border would be super-hard, for the same reason.   .

But the tabloids are complaining about the rules of the single market, even though we are opting out.  The EU are supposed to unravel the SM, as we don't like it!

[wigginhall]

Jeremy Hunt warning the EU, that unless they change their stance, no deal could happen.   Honestly, there must be a production line of comedians being produced by HM Govt.   I suppose they are getting ready for no deal, and trying to avert the flak, hence, it's their fault for having a single market.  There is a possibility of a kind of poker game last minute deal, I would think.   That reminds me of the old joke, if you've been playing poker for 30 minutes, and you're wondering who the patsy is, it's you. 

[Udayana]

Well, this is an opportunity for those that voted to leave to explain what kind of system they want and how it is going to work.

If they don't come up with anything workable, we should just ignore the brexit vote as a kind of massive collective fart.

[wigginhall]

No, you can't ignore it, as it is the voice of the people, and only traitors are against that.  I am assuming that there will be late discussions, with give and take.   But there is no way the EU will dismantle the SM.  Barnier had a neat reply, you want to protect your borders, so do we.

[ippy]

Your last sentence is something that you've made up.

Voting is like backing a horse in a race. As Trent says, I might vote Labour because I think they will protect the NHS. OTOH someone could vote Tory, very sincerely, because they believe that wealth creation is essential for increased tax take to fund the NHS. Only when the race is run do we get to see who is right. So when I say that I've voted for security for my kids (food security, job security, whatever) that doesn't mean I think that Leavers didn't; in all likelihood we've backed different horses to deliver the same thing.

As a single mother my concerns are very often framed by the basics of providing what my family needs. That doesn't mean to say that I think that people who vote differently to me don't have the same concerns; we've all looked at what is in front of us and made what we believe to be the best choices. Which is why I find it so frustrating that Ippy won't explain his choices; understanding his POV actually humanises the debate. Understanding that my friend from Grimsby has seen local jobs go to the wall gives a very human dimension to his decision to vote Leave and in doing so he isn't 'othering' me. I believe that the remaining jobs that we have are better protected within the EU. He doesn't. Only time will tell. And I have friends of the older generation who look at how the EU has been run and who believe that that is likely to cause a rise in fascism and who voted Leave on that basis. Again, only history will tell which is correct.

Some people on this forum have very strident opinions for or against religion. Because we've been posting together for a long time now there have been moments when the human story behind the reasons for those opinions has been stated, often quietly, tucked away. There have been a fair few posts on this forum that have been 'aha!' moments in that regard, and I hope that just sometimes I'm more tolerant of others because I understand why they are in one camp or the other, so to speak. What I am trying to say here is that stating one's reasons for voting a particular way is, or should be, the very opposite of othering. What parent or grandparent wouldn't understand a desire for food security? If Ippy told me that (for example) he felt that the children in this country would have better long-term security outside of the EU and give his reasons, I might not agree with him, but we would actually have common ground rather than mutual incomprehension. 'Othering' is not listening, not seeking to understand - the very opposite of what I and others are trying to do. If we don't state mutually our reasons and our fears we will never find common ground and a way to move forward.

Sorry Rhiannon I'm guilty of largely enjoying the company of, I would say of all that post on this forum, the bitter feelings that accompany this split from the EU I have no intention of being involved In.

I've never wanted wanted an EU going right back to the original ref for the EEC and there's nothing I've seen or heard at any time since then that has altered my opinion about, not so much the EEC but the EU, incidentally I feel the transforming of the EEC into the EU was foisted on us by a number of typical underhanded moves so typical of politicians, particularly that last trip of Mr Brown to Lisbon where he went out of his way to avoid the media and he was largely successful in doing so too, If his intentions were at least good ones why the need for this surreptitious manner of his?

Incidentally I have a sizeable amount of my family that live in Grimsby/Cleethorps, even a couple of Great, Great, Great nieces and nephews too, my oldest sister was 19 years older than me which should explain, I've been an uncle since I was a six year old. 

I remember the first time I was there there were children running around that didn't have any shoes, lots of them I'd never seen anything like that before. 

Regards ippy

[wigginhall]

Sorry Rhiannon I'm guilty of largely enjoying the company of, I would say of all that post on this forum, the bitter feelings that accompany this split from the EU I have no intention of being involved In.

I've never wanted wanted an EU going right back to the original ref for the EEC and there's nothing I've seen or heard at any time since then that has altered my opinion about, not so much the EEC but the EU, incidentally I feel the transforming of the EEC into the EU was foisted on us by a number of typical underhanded moves so typical of politicians, particularly that last trip of Mr Brown to Lisbon where he went out of his way to avoid the media and he was largely successful in doing so too, If his intentions were at least good ones why the need for this surreptitious manner of his?

Incidentally I have a sizeable amount of my family that live in Grimsby/Cleethorps, even a couple of Great, Great, Great nieces and nephews too, my oldest sister was 19 years older than me which should explain, I've been an uncle since I was a six year old. 

I remember the first time I was there there were children running around that didn't have any shoes, lots of them I'd never seen anything like that before. 

Regards ippy

 

I'm just curious as to what you want.  You have talked about a complete break from the EU.  By that, do you mean closing ports and airports to EU traffic?

[Rhiannon]

Sorry Rhiannon I'm guilty of largely enjoying the company of, I would say of all that post on this forum, the bitter feelings that accompany this split from the EU I have no intention of being involved In.

I've never wanted wanted an EU going right back to the original ref for the EEC and there's nothing I've seen or heard at any time since then that has altered my opinion about, not so much the EEC but the EU, incidentally I feel the transforming of the EEC into the EU was foisted on us by a number of typical underhanded moves so typical of politicians, particularly that last trip of Mr Brown to Lisbon where he went out of his way to avoid the media and he was largely successful in doing so too, If his intentions were at least good ones why the need for this surreptitious manner of his?


Regards ippy

Now because you've been slightly more forthcoming I can see we have common ground. Brown acted like an idiot over Lisbon. His intentions were good in the sense that he believed it to be the right thing, but he went about it in completely the wrong way. Whatever it was, it looked underhand and undemocratic. Had the Lisbon Treaty been put to the country it is highly unlikely we would be in this mess - one way or another the issue would have been decided, and if necessary a workable compromise reached.

[ippy]

Now because you've been slightly more forthcoming I can see we have common ground. Brown acted like an idiot over Lisbon. His intentions were good in the sense that he believed it to be the right thing, but he went about it in completely the wrong way. Whatever it was, it looked underhand and undemocratic. Had the Lisbon Treaty been put to the country it is highly unlikely we would be in this mess - one way or another the issue would have been decided, and if necessary a workable compromise reached.

Damn it I've even joined the conservative party so that I have a vote against T May, it was hard collecting the forms and filling them in, I hate the hard bastards, I'm doing this because I believe it to be the best way to get the leave Europe, I didn't vote for hard or soft I voted to leave the EU.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Damn it I've even joined the conservative party so that I have a vote against T May, it was hard collecting the forms and filling them in, I hate the hard bastards, I'm doing this because I believe it to be the best way to get the leave Europe, I didn't vote for hard or soft I voted to leave the EU.

Regards ippy

A vote against T May? For who? If Johnson and Mogg could not put themselves up when A deal would be settled over a cup of tea. They are not going to step up when there are food shortages and people are dying because there are no meds.

Another thing. How does an outfit that bottled the repercussions of stopping England taking part in the World Cup suddenly so macho at the repercussions of bringing the British way of life to an end?With food and fuel shortages, No foreign holidays, no flights, no driving abroad etc?

Under these circumstances you'd expect the US to bankroll Brexit.....but no.

[ProfessorDavey]

Now because you've been slightly more forthcoming I can see we have common ground. Brown acted like an idiot over Lisbon. His intentions were good in the sense that he believed it to be the right thing, but he went about it in completely the wrong way. Whatever it was, it looked underhand and undemocratic. Had the Lisbon Treaty been put to the country it is highly unlikely we would be in this mess - one way or another the issue would have been decided, and if necessary a workable compromise reached.

I think it is naive to think that a referendum on Lisbon would have decided the issue - the 2016 referendum hasn't decided the issue, quite the reverse, it has created a far more divided country on the EU. Had there been a referendum on Lisbon, regardless of the result there would have still been divisions on the EU. Indeed just as we saw in 2016 having a referendum forces those who really weren't;t concerned about the EU as an issue (in 2016 over 90% of the population) to be forced by the vote to be concerned. Calling the 2016 referendum turned a non-issue for the vast, vast majority of the population into the most serious issue for the population. I suspect we'd have seen something similar, although probably not as intense, with a vote on Lisbon.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't vote for hard or soft I voted to leave the EU.

But that is a meaningless and naive statement- you have to have an outcome from leaving, whether it be soft, hard, WTO, EEA etc, etc etc. To fail  to give a damn about the future direction when voting is borderline negligent considering the massively different outcomes and potential massively damaging consequences of most of those outcomes.

[Rhiannon]

I think it is naive to think that a referendum on Lisbon would have decided the issue - the 2016 referendum hasn't decided the issue, quite the reverse, it has created a far more divided country on the EU. Had there been a referendum on Lisbon, regardless of the result there would have still been divisions on the EU. Indeed just as we saw in 2016 having a referendum forces those who really weren't;t concerned about the EU as an issue (in 2016 over 90% of the population) to be forced by the vote to be concerned. Calling the 2016 referendum turned a non-issue for the vast, vast majority of the population into the most serious issue for the population. I suspect we'd have seen something similar, although probably not as intense, with a vote on Lisbon.

I don't agree. The EU that people want to stay in or leave now is different to the one back then. We could have made choices as to how we wanted to proceed. Truthfully, I'm not sure I would have voted for greater integration. But now we have it, I've found that I love the European feel that my part of the world has now while still being completely and unmistakably English, but more to the point our society functions the way that it does because of the EU and as far as I am concerned it is too late to leave safely. If we had been able to vote back in the day when Brown was looking shifty in Portugal (and it was a big story at the time, I'm not convinced that people were disinterested especially as Ireland were getting a vote and we weren't) we may - may - have been able to head some of this shit off. Voting against may have led to the government getting further compromises in Europe, or we may have left but with fewer consequences than now, given how much the world has changed in such a short time. Or we would have voted to accept it, Ukip would have been dead in the water and Call Me Dave would never have felt the need to hold another referendum.

[ippy]

I don't agree. The EU that people want to stay in or leave now is different to the one back then. We could have made choices as to how we wanted to proceed. Truthfully, I'm not sure I would have voted for greater integration. But now we have it, I've found that I love the European feel that my part of the world has now while still being completely and unmistakably English, but more to the point our society functions the way that it does because of the EU and as far as I am concerned it is too late to leave safely. If we had been able to vote back in the day when Brown was looking shifty in Portugal (and it was a big story at the time, I'm not convinced that people were disinterested especially as Ireland were getting a vote and we weren't) we may - may - have been able to head some of this shit off. Voting against may have led to the government getting further compromises in Europe, or we may have left but with fewer consequences than now, given how much the world has changed in such a short time. Or we would have voted to accept it, Ukip would have been dead in the water and Call Me Dave would never have felt the need to hold another referendum.

Love the use of 'call me Dave', not heard that one before.

Regards ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Or we would have voted to accept it, Ukip would have been dead in the water ...

Really, why do you think a vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty would have made UKIP dead in the water, noting that UKIP are about leaving the EU, and their campaign wouldn't have been effected by a vote either way on an EU treaty. Do you really think that had the 2016 referendum gone the other way that UKIP would have disappeared ... nope, remember Farage was claiming that a vote to remain would just redouble efforts from UKIP. Actually the one thing that seems to have puncture the UKIP bubble was a vote to leave.