Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 18:40:25 GMT
I have withheld from posting here the past week, despite following things closely. People do not seem to be listening to either side of the debate. By the sword divided and all that. As someone who was quite pro EU until shortly prior to the actual vote, I feel I was turned by an informed understanding of both arguments. I have stated earlier in the thread how I conducted debates with my Sixth Form Tutor Group and spoke in favour myself of the Remain argument. I also consider myself well educated so do not take too kindly to the Brexiter Thicko argument .Without getting polemical, which would be a wasted effort, given that I expect no-one to change their position at this stage, these are a few articles which give some sound rationale behind the current UK negotiating position. Boris may have many faults, but he is not stupid, and this is at least one area of business where he is well briefed. And of course some of you are welcome to dismiss these arguments as being right wing bias based on the their sources. However, it is worth bearing in mind that a number of prominent Remain voters have since gone on record that they feel, based on the behaviour of the EU throughout negotiations, that it is right that we exit, for better or worse. Andrew Neil, is also on record stating that he does not feel it is on our best interests to exit, but that the terms of the deal are unacceptable and have served to harden peoples resolve towards a no deal brexit and its effects. As I say, these are worth reading and I would suggest that there is a great deal of integrity in their points raised for a balanced perspective at the very least. www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-boris-johnson-can-t-sign-the-current-brexit-dealwww.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/the-eu-has-dangerously-misread-britain-tlltcnwj9/www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-should-not-accept-brexit-in-name-onlywww.spectator.co.uk/article/if-boris-doesn-t-blink-over-brexit-keir-starmer-becomes-unelectablewww.spectator.co.uk/article/the-political-asymmetry-of-the-brexit-talkswww.spectator.co.uk/article/enforcing-fisheries-policy-isn-t-gunboat-diplomacy-As Daver mentions some of us my take into account the right-wing bias of The Spectator, indeed Boris Johnson was previously editor of The Spectator. The current commissioning editor is Mary Wakefield (Dominic Cummings's wife) & the political editor is James Forsyth who is married to Downing Street Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton. Indeed. As I have noted previously, Andrew Neil makes very clear that he sacked Boris when he became chairman, whilst Mrs Wakefield has had notably less articles of her own published since the lockdown scandal. The Editor in chief Fraser Nelson is, as Andrew Neil makes very clear, often of a different political viewpoint to himself, but exercises his own editorial judgement. Neither are current cheerleaders for Boris Johnson. Have you read the above articles linked? Furthermore, does this commissioned article demonstrate a pro Boris Johnson or Dominic Cummings bias or favour? www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-cummings-debacle-shows-boris-isn-t-fit-to-lead
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 12, 2020 20:47:04 GMT
As Daver mentions some of us my take into account the right-wing bias of The Spectator, indeed Boris Johnson was previously editor of The Spectator. The current commissioning editor is Mary Wakefield (Dominic Cummings's wife) & the political editor is James Forsyth who is married to Downing Street Press Secretary, Allegra Stratton. Indeed. As I have noted previously, Andrew Neil makes very clear that he sacked Boris when he became chairman, whilst Mrs Wakefield has had notably less articles of her own published since the lockdown scandal. The Editor in chief Fraser Nelson is, as Andrew Neil makes very clear, often of a different political viewpoint to himself, but exercises his own editorial judgement. Neither are current cheerleaders for Boris Johnson. Have you read the above articles linked? Furthermore, does this commissioned article demonstrate a pro Boris Johnson or Dominic Cummings bias or favour? www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-cummings-debacle-shows-boris-isn-t-fit-to-leadYes I have read them, I had read most of them before tbh as I read from a variety of sources. PS - Not sure why you felt the need to use bold as a preface to (yet another) link to the spectator?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 21:32:04 GMT
Indeed. As I have noted previously, Andrew Neil makes very clear that he sacked Boris when he became chairman, whilst Mrs Wakefield has had notably less articles of her own published since the lockdown scandal. The Editor in chief Fraser Nelson is, as Andrew Neil makes very clear, often of a different political viewpoint to himself, but exercises his own editorial judgement. Neither are current cheerleaders for Boris Johnson. Have you read the above articles linked? Furthermore, does this commissioned article demonstrate a pro Boris Johnson or Dominic Cummings bias or favour? www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-cummings-debacle-shows-boris-isn-t-fit-to-leadYes I have read them, I had read most of them before tbh as I read from a variety of sources. PS - Not sure why you felt the need to use bold as a preface to (yet another) link to the spectator? I used bold as it was a question to yourself as to alleged bias. I too read a range of different sources, including the Guardian of which you appear to favour. I cite the Spectator as they offer what I feel to be a concise and factual argument from both sides. I also trust their perspective. I also respect and agree with them as you are entitled to do with your own choices. You often cite that no-one can argue a clear reason for the benefits of leaving. I feel that there are a number of arguments in favour. The issue of sovereignty seems to be one that is a pretty watertight argument. Who would want to remain a supplicant to friends who wish us to be worse off for wanting to go our own way? David Cameron was pro remain, as were many other senior Conservatives (Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine), whilst Corbyn for one was a lifelong Euro-sceptic, so it is hardly a left-right standpoint. The fact seems to be the issue of enacting what the electorate determined and the need to respect that. I have stated that I do not expect to change anyone's viewpoint, but merely to recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of leaving as chosen by a majority of the electorate that are entirely fair and reasonable. I can see both arguments but find it a little bit 'off' when one side of the debate is not given due credit.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 12, 2020 21:41:39 GMT
Yes I have read them, I had read most of them before tbh as I read from a variety of sources. PS - Not sure why you felt the need to use bold as a preface to (yet another) link to the spectator? I used bold as it was a question to yourself as to alleged bias. I too read a range of different sources, including the Guardian of which you appear to favour. I cite the Spectator as they offer what I feel to be a concise and factual argument from both sides. I also trust their perspective. I also respect and agree with them as you are entitled to do with your own choices. You often cite that no-one can argue a clear reason for the benefits of leaving. I feel that there are a number of arguments in favour. The issue of sovereignty seems to be one that is a pretty watertight argument. Who would want to remain a supplicant to friends who wish us to be worse off for wanting to go our own way? David Cameron was pro remain, as were many other senior Conservatives (Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine), whilst Corbyn for one was a lifelong Euro-sceptic, so it is hardly a left-right standpoint. The fact seems to be the issue of enacting what the electorate determined and the need to respect that. I have stated that I do not expect to change anyone's viewpoint, but merely to recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of leaving as chosen by a majority of the electorate that are entirely fair and reasonable. I can see both arguments but find it a little bit 'off' when one side of the debate is not given due credit. As your post was a quote of mine the inclusion of bold text was superfluous.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 12, 2020 22:27:59 GMT
Yes I have read them, I had read most of them before tbh as I read from a variety of sources. PS - Not sure why you felt the need to use bold as a preface to (yet another) link to the spectator? I used bold as it was a question to yourself as to alleged bias. I too read a range of different sources, including the Guardian of which you appear to favour. I cite the Spectator as they offer what I feel to be a concise and factual argument from both sides. I also trust their perspective. I also respect and agree with them as you are entitled to do with your own choices. You often cite that no-one can argue a clear reason for the benefits of leaving. I feel that there are a number of arguments in favour. The issue of sovereignty seems to be one that is a pretty watertight argument. Who would want to remain a supplicant to friends who wish us to be worse off for wanting to go our own way? David Cameron was pro remain, as were many other senior Conservatives (Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine), whilst Corbyn for one was a lifelong Euro-sceptic, so it is hardly a left-right standpoint. The fact seems to be the issue of enacting what the electorate determined and the need to respect that. I have stated that I do not expect to change anyone's viewpoint, but merely to recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of leaving as chosen by a majority of the electorate that are entirely fair and reasonable. I can see both arguments but find it a little bit 'off' when one side of the debate is not given due credit. Slightly pedantic point, but not a majority of the electorate - rather a majority of those who tuned out to vote
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 23:36:43 GMT
I used bold as it was a question to yourself as to alleged bias. I too read a range of different sources, including the Guardian of which you appear to favour. I cite the Spectator as they offer what I feel to be a concise and factual argument from both sides. I also trust their perspective. I also respect and agree with them as you are entitled to do with your own choices. You often cite that no-one can argue a clear reason for the benefits of leaving. I feel that there are a number of arguments in favour. The issue of sovereignty seems to be one that is a pretty watertight argument. Who would want to remain a supplicant to friends who wish us to be worse off for wanting to go our own way? David Cameron was pro remain, as were many other senior Conservatives (Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine), whilst Corbyn for one was a lifelong Euro-sceptic, so it is hardly a left-right standpoint. The fact seems to be the issue of enacting what the electorate determined and the need to respect that. I have stated that I do not expect to change anyone's viewpoint, but merely to recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of leaving as chosen by a majority of the electorate that are entirely fair and reasonable. I can see both arguments but find it a little bit 'off' when one side of the debate is not given due credit. Slightly pedantic point, but not a majority of the electorate - rather a majority of those who tuned out to vote Much has been made of that over the past four years. Unfortunately it is those who vote that count. One cannot assume the preference of those who did not. Was it not important to them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 23:42:36 GMT
I used bold as it was a question to yourself as to alleged bias. I too read a range of different sources, including the Guardian of which you appear to favour. I cite the Spectator as they offer what I feel to be a concise and factual argument from both sides. I also trust their perspective. I also respect and agree with them as you are entitled to do with your own choices. You often cite that no-one can argue a clear reason for the benefits of leaving. I feel that there are a number of arguments in favour. The issue of sovereignty seems to be one that is a pretty watertight argument. Who would want to remain a supplicant to friends who wish us to be worse off for wanting to go our own way? David Cameron was pro remain, as were many other senior Conservatives (Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine), whilst Corbyn for one was a lifelong Euro-sceptic, so it is hardly a left-right standpoint. The fact seems to be the issue of enacting what the electorate determined and the need to respect that. I have stated that I do not expect to change anyone's viewpoint, but merely to recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of leaving as chosen by a majority of the electorate that are entirely fair and reasonable. I can see both arguments but find it a little bit 'off' when one side of the debate is not given due credit. As your post was a quote of mine the inclusion of bold text was superfluous. No matter. Do you have a response to the question?
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 12, 2020 23:55:42 GMT
I have withheld from posting here the past week, despite following things closely. People do not seem to be listening to either side of the debate. By the sword divided and all that. As someone who was quite pro EU until shortly prior to the actual vote, I feel I was turned by an informed understanding of both arguments. I have stated earlier in the thread how I conducted debates with my Sixth Form Tutor Group and spoke in favour myself of the Remain argument. I also consider myself well educated so do not take too kindly to the Brexiter Thicko argument .Without getting polemical, which would be a wasted effort, given that I expect no-one to change their position at this stage, these are a few articles which give some sound rationale behind the current UK negotiating position. Boris may have many faults, but he is not stupid, and this is at least one area of business where he is well briefed. And of course some of you are welcome to dismiss these arguments as being right wing bias based on the their sources. However, it is worth bearing in mind that a number of prominent Remain voters have since gone on record that they feel, based on the behaviour of the EU throughout negotiations, that it is right that we exit, for better or worse. Andrew Neil, is also on record stating that he does not feel it is on our best interests to exit, but that the terms of the deal are unacceptable and have served to harden peoples resolve towards a no deal brexit and its effects. As I say, these are worth reading and I would suggest that there is a great deal of integrity in their points raised for a balanced perspective at the very least. www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-boris-johnson-can-t-sign-the-current-brexit-dealwww.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/the-eu-has-dangerously-misread-britain-tlltcnwj9/www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-should-not-accept-brexit-in-name-onlywww.spectator.co.uk/article/if-boris-doesn-t-blink-over-brexit-keir-starmer-becomes-unelectablewww.spectator.co.uk/article/the-political-asymmetry-of-the-brexit-talkswww.spectator.co.uk/article/enforcing-fisheries-policy-isn-t-gunboat-diplomacy-I don't disagree that the EU are making outrageous demands / being unreasonable / driving a very hard bargain. But I would ask why they are doing so. Not because they are inherently wicked people, rather they are simply acting rationally in pursuit of their own self interest. I would suggest that the reason why they are making such extreme demands is because they know they can, i.e. they correctly understand the strength of their position and the weakness of the UK's position and have pitched their demands accordingly.
What have the EU27 done? They have understood and defined where their interests lay. They have been realistic in their understanding of the relative power of the 2 parties and they have been effective in pursuing their interests. By contrast the UK failed to define and understand its own interests, e.g. “Brexit means Brexit” and “Take back control”. Instead of recognising that our primary interest was our economic relationship with the EU, we concluded that our primary interest was in an abstract and unrealisable ideal of sovereignty. The UK then completely failed to understand the relative power of the 2 parties – Michael Gove’s famous line “we hold all the cards” was actually the complete opposite of the reality. The UK then tried to achieve its goals by acts of bad faith – proposing to break international law – that destroyed trust, undermined its own reputation and lost the moral high ground.
I think this about the 3rd time in this thread I have cited Tony Blair’s argument that there are only 2 types of Brexit available – the pointless Brexit or the painful Brexit – but I keep coming back to it because it is the fundamental reality of Brexit. The pointless Brexit is the one where we remain subject to EU rules the same as an EU member except we no longer have a vote, but we retain the economic benefits of EU membership so it is relatively painless. The painful Brexit is the one where we are no longer bound by EU rules and are free to make our own, but only have access to the single market on WTO terms. There never was any such thing as a good brexit, only different types of bad brexit
This choice between the painful or the pointless Brexit is the one the UK seems to be facing now. This is crunch time – up until now it was still possible for brexiteers to maintain the pretence that regaining full sovereignty while retaining privileged access to the Single Market was possible, but reality has finally bitten.
But it’s no use blaming the EU for the position we are in – we did it to ourselves when we voted Leave in 2016
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 13, 2020 0:23:23 GMT
Yes I have read them, I had read most of them before tbh as I read from a variety of sources. PS - Not sure why you felt the need to use bold as a preface to (yet another) link to the spectator? You often cite that no-one can argue a clear reason for the benefits of leaving. I feel that there are a number of arguments in favour. The issue of sovereignty seems to be one that is a pretty watertight argument. Who would want to remain a supplicant to friends who wish us to be worse off for wanting to go our own way? There are plenty of clear reasons advanced by brexiteers - the problem is not that they are unclear, the problem is that they are unconvincing.
The sovereignty argument is bogus. Or, to be more accurate, the argument put forward that we can regain sovereignty without paying a huge economic price for the privilege of doing so is bogus.
As I said in a post above, the fundamental truth of Brexit is that we have a choice of the painful Brexit or the pointless Brexit, i.e. there is a trade-off between sovereignty and prosperity. What we gain in sovereignty we lose in prosperity and vice versa. Simple as that.
Leavers have never been honest about that trade off. Firstly they claimed we could get a free trade deal with the exact same benefits as our current relationship with the EU without the downsides of membership and that such a deal would be “the easiest deal in the world”. Does anyone still believe that?
Secondly they claimed that trade deals with the rest of the world come along and make us even more prosperous. And yet the vast majority of economists and forecasters show a net loss in UK GDP as a result of Brexit, with the GDP gains from new trade deals too small to offset the losses arising from leaving the EU.
The honest argument (as opposed to the dishonest one put forward by brexiteers) about sovereignty is that we can regain it by leaving the EU but we will not be as prosperous as we would be if we remained in the EU. I personally don’t find that argument to be particularly persuasive or watertight, but others may take a different view
I don't think the EU actively want us to be worse off for wanting to go on our own way. The basic idea of the single market (and it was Mrs Thatcher's idea, let's not forget) is that EU members align with one another - the level playing field, rules from Brussels, call it what you will - and in exchange they get full access to each other's domestic market. The benefits of alignment in terms of increased prosperity are deemed by members to outweigh the costs in terms of lost sovereignty. Alignment and access go hand in hand, 2 sides of the one coin. The UK has taken a different view of the costs/benefits and chosen to leave. That’s our prerogative. But remember the basic idea that alignment and access go hand in hand. So if we go our own way, and cease to be aligned, then we lose access. The more we converge, the more access we get. By the same token the more we diverge, the less access we get. Our economy depends on the access we currently enjoy. If we lose that we take a hit.
If we choose to go our won way, we choose to lose access and we take a hit. But it’s the result of our choice, not the EU trying to punish us. Having said that, yes of course the EU are going to negotiate hard and try to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs to themselves of the new relationship. But I don’t think we can hold that against them. Is it realistic to expect them to do otherwise? The fact what they are offering is so bad for the UK is because our position is so weak because we need the EU more than the EU needs us.
But, as I said before, we chose to put ourselves in that weak position when we voted Leave in 2016. You can’t really blame the EU for acting rationally in their own interests from their position of strength. We would do the same if we were in the stronger position
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 13, 2020 12:04:21 GMT
Another deadline that came to nothing. One to add to a long list of such deadlines for Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 13, 2020 12:19:08 GMT
As your post was a quote of mine the inclusion of bold text was superfluous. No matter. Do you have a response to the question? Well no that article doesn't (another one I had already read) doesn't change the facts in respect of the political affiliations of the spectator.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 13, 2020 13:10:11 GMT
Another deadline that came to nothing. One to add to a long list of such deadlines for Brexit. Although to be fair to both leaders, wasn't today the deadline to decide whether or not it was the final deadline?
And (very wisely imo!) they've decided it wasn't the deadline, in time to meet the deadline!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 13, 2020 13:23:25 GMT
Signs of hope and a helpful move from the EU, possibly?
On the level playing field and that major sticking point of do/not we have to abide by EU standards, and adherence to new standards introduced (by either side) in the future:
"The EU is reported to have dropped the idea of a formal mechanism to ensure both sides keep up with each other's standards and is now prepared to accept UK divergence - provided there are safeguards to prevent unfair competition."
That really does read like a decent compromise - 'unfair competition' safeguards will be there in every free trade agreement, very different from blanket imposition of standards.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 13, 2020 13:33:42 GMT
I have stated that I do not expect to change anyone's viewpoint, but merely to recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of leaving as chosen by a majority of the electorate that are entirely fair and reasonable. I can see both arguments but find it a little bit 'off' when one side of the debate is not given due credit. Slightly pedantic point, but not a majority of the electorate - rather a majority of those who tuned out to vote It is a bit pedantic isn't it?
On that basis we've never had an elected government (except of course the National Government of the 30s), local councils have approximately zero members, Wales didn't vote for devolution by about 3-1 and most shocking of all, nobody has ever won Strictly! Or even worse, Bake Off!
|
|
|
Post by The Brigadier on Dec 13, 2020 13:52:15 GMT
Another deadline that came to nothing. One to add to a long list of such deadlines for Brexit. True...but if it means the slightest chance of a deal being struck with EU rather than the economic chaos no deal would bring to the country...I'm rather relieved it has come to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Dec 13, 2020 15:39:40 GMT
Hello again
His will be my last post on the subject until we have a definite idea what the situation will be after 31/12/2020. While stepping back from the brink is good, it is small to medium businesses who I feel most sorry for. The uncertainty must be giving them sleepless nights. Take care my fellow political commentators, see you when the dust settles...
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 13, 2020 15:43:46 GMT
Signs of hope and a helpful move from the EU, possibly?
On the level playing field and that major sticking point of do/not we have to abide by EU standards, and adherence to new standards introduced (by either side) in the future:
"The EU is reported to have dropped the idea of a formal mechanism to ensure both sides keep up with each other's standards and is now prepared to accept UK divergence - provided there are safeguards to prevent unfair competition."
That really does read like a decent compromise - 'unfair competition' safeguards will be there in every free trade agreement, very different from blanket imposition of standards.
I shall stick my neck out and say there will definitely be a deal. No deal and the ensuing chaos would discredit Brexit, leading to a possibility of Rejoining in the medium term. The brexiteers will do everything they can to avoid that, up to and including capitulation to the EU, which will be spun as a triumph for gunboat diplomacy. All else over the last few days has simply been theatrics
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 13, 2020 16:05:03 GMT
You often cite that no-one can argue a clear reason for the benefits of leaving. I feel that there are a number of arguments in favour. The issue of sovereignty seems to be one that is a pretty watertight argument. Who would want to remain a supplicant to friends who wish us to be worse off for wanting to go our own way? There are plenty of clear reasons advanced by brexiteers - the problem is not that they are unclear, the problem is that they are unconvincing.
The sovereignty argument is bogus. Or, to be more accurate, the argument put forward that we can regain sovereignty without paying a huge economic price for the privilege of doing so is bogus.
As I said in a post above, the fundamental truth of Brexit is that we have a choice of the painful Brexit or the pointless Brexit, i.e. there is a trade-off between sovereignty and prosperity. What we gain in sovereignty we lose in prosperity and vice versa. Simple as that.
Leavers have never been honest about that trade off. Firstly they claimed we could get a free trade deal with the exact same benefits as our current relationship with the EU without the downsides of membership and that such a deal would be “the easiest deal in the world”. Does anyone still believe that?
Secondly they claimed that trade deals with the rest of the world come along and make us even more prosperous. And yet the vast majority of economists and forecasters show a net loss in UK GDP as a result of Brexit, with the GDP gains from new trade deals too small to offset the losses arising from leaving the EU.
The honest argument (as opposed to the dishonest one put forward by brexiteers) about sovereignty is that we can regain it by leaving the EU but we will not be as prosperous as we would be if we remained in the EU. I personally don’t find that argument to be particularly persuasive or watertight, but others may take a different view
I don't think the EU actively want us to be worse off for wanting to go on our own way. The basic idea of the single market (and it was Mrs Thatcher's idea, let's not forget) is that EU members align with one another - the level playing field, rules from Brussels, call it what you will - and in exchange they get full access to each other's domestic market. The benefits of alignment in terms of increased prosperity are deemed by members to outweigh the costs in terms of lost sovereignty. Alignment and access go hand in hand, 2 sides of the one coin. The UK has taken a different view of the costs/benefits and chosen to leave. That’s our prerogative. But remember the basic idea that alignment and access go hand in hand. So if we go our own way, and cease to be aligned, then we lose access. The more we converge, the more access we get. By the same token the more we diverge, the less access we get. Our economy depends on the access we currently enjoy. If we lose that we take a hit.
If we choose to go our won way, we choose to lose access and we take a hit. But it’s the result of our choice, not the EU trying to punish us. Having said that, yes of course the EU are going to negotiate hard and try to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs to themselves of the new relationship. But I don’t think we can hold that against them. Is it realistic to expect them to do otherwise? The fact what they are offering is so bad for the UK is because our position is so weak because we need the EU more than the EU needs us.
But, as I said before, we chose to put ourselves in that weak position when we voted Leave in 2016. You can’t really blame the EU for acting rationally in their own interests from their position of strength. We would do the same if we were in the stronger position
I was going to respond in a very similar manner, so won't repeat all this. But it does seem strange that in our dealings with the EU this attitude seems to be that we are obeying them when in fact we are a member of the EU who make shared decisions. This narrative that the EU is out to get us has been one used so many times. I think it stems from the fact we are an island, as such many of us have never really seen ourselves as part of Europe. But again, I still haven't heard any convincing arguments as to how specifically our lives & most importantly the lives of the most disadvantaged amongst us, will be improved by leaving the EU. For example there is the very real possibility that funding received from the EU is not going to be replaced by equal funding from our own government in places like Cornwall. Amongst my social group there's about a 70/30 spilt in remain/leave voters, none who voted leave & still believe in it have been able to answer this question. I still don't know what specifically the EU has done to negatively impact on their lives so much that they voted to leave!
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 13, 2020 17:28:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Dec 13, 2020 18:55:43 GMT
|
|