Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Akka]

I hear argument from the Leave camp, mockery and indignation from the Remain camp.

Considering all the hard facts are on the Remain and most of the empty rhetorics on the Leave, I guess it only proves you've some incredible ability to filter reality out.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Other than the fact that such will take a hell of a long time, such rules are already part of UK regulations. What's more, you'll need Acts of Parliament to repeal any legislation we don't want any more (and those have their own problems right about now).

You contradict yourself.

For regulations we wish to keep that have already been incorporated
into UK law by secondary legislation, there is no legislative action needed.

For regulations we simply wish to scrap, an act of Parliament
repealing such regulations is likely to be extremely simple.

There are bound to be a number of loose ends with cross references
etc to bodies for which the UK is no longer a member; but in most
cases the UK high court judges can resolve any disputes arising.

If not, a tidying up Act Of Parliament or two can be undertaken in due
course, but this latter tidying need not be tied into the Brexit timetable.

Considering all the hard facts are on the Remain and most of the empty rhetorics on the Leave, I guess it only proves you've some incredible ability to filter reality out.

The hard fact is that we voted "Leave".

 

[EnglishEdward]

Pointing out that the UK's attempt to extract itself from 40 years of economic interdependence on the Common Market will lead to substantial economic and political disruptions is hysteria?

The way the Remainers describe it is very near hysteria.

Change is usually disruptive to some extent.

I have never argued that Leaving is a non disruptive event. I regard the disruption
of Leave change as significant rather than substantive.

I am unconvinced that the change titled "Leave" is any more disruptive than the
change titled "Remain" which would likely have become a Proceed to further integration.

Indeed further integration would likely have been far more disruptive with e.g.
(a) conversion UK electricity generators, transformers and user equipment from 240VAC to
220Volts AC,
(b) change to driving on right, premature scrapping right drive vehicles.

I mean, both the Tories and Labour managed to more-or-less lose their leadership in a week.

David Cameron chose to campaign very partisanly for Remain and lost
when he could have been neutral. That was his decision.

The Parliamentary Labour Party was opposed to Jeremy Corbyn from day 1.
The claim that he failed to win the Referendum is a pretext and ignores the
fact that the majority of the UK population is sceptical and that, but for
Jeremy campaigning the Remain vote would have been much smaller than it was.

Jeremy is trying to do the 4 traditional jobs for the main opposition party.

(1) Leader of the Labour Party in the country.
(2) Leader of the Labour MPs in the House of Commons,
(3) Leader of the Opposition taking on the Prime Minister in debate
(4) Serve as Prime Minister in waiting with shadow Cabinet.

His sensible course would be to retain Job (1) and suggest the PLP
elect from its MPs three separate individuals for Jobs (2 to 4).

Doing four jobs is unwise as it represents an overload, and single point of failure.

It is even worse with the Prime Minister who has a total of six jobs, for which the
term "elected dictator" has been used; and that concentration of power is dangerous.

Consider:

(1) Anthony Eden and Suez
(2) Margaret Thatcher and the Community Charge ("Poll Tax")
(3) Tony Blair and Iraq

 

[Akka]

The hard fact is that we voted "Leave".

Yeah, and it's relevant to the point how ?

 

[Verbose]

Like I said, not much difference. I've yet to encounter reasoned and sober criticism of Brexit online. This may have been possible a year ago, but the globalist camp has been driven into a frenzy because their narrative is collapsing around them.

What the world is astounded by, is the fact that we now have an example of British people — lionized by themselves in song and story for their common sense pragmatism — having effectively run a successful referendum on the proposition that everyone should make broad, sweeping decisions about the future of their country based on hunches and gut feelings, and gotten away with it.

Effectively it's an object lesson in British people behaving like ideologically blinkered — otherwise much reviled for it by the British — idealistic Germans or Italians or something. It's other-side-of-the-looking-glass-stuff.

 

[EnglishEdward]

... British people — lionized by themselves in song and story for their common sense pragmatism....

It is our common sense pragmatism that told us the EU isn't working very well, and
we should get off that vehicle before it reaches its destination (crash or Euro Superstate utopia).

Please remember that it was the 'oldies'; disproportionately voting Leave, and oldies are
typically more pragmatic than the enthusiastic young who tend to be more idealistic.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yeah, and it's relevant to the point how ?

That you are quite wrong to state that the hard facts are on the Remain.

 

[uppi]

It is our common sense pragmatism that told us the EU isn't working very well, and
we should get off that vehicle before it reaches its destination (crash or Euro Superstate utopia).

Please remember that it was the 'oldies'; disproportionately voting Leave, and oldies are
typically more pragmatic than the enthusiastic young who tend to be more idealistic.

Common sense pragmatism usually comes with something that resembles a plan.

I respect the desire to leave the EU, but the statements of the Leave before the referendum were ideologically blinded - at best.

 

[Verbose]

It is our common sense pragmatism that told us the EU isn't working very well, and
we should get off that vehicle before it reaches its destination (crash or Euro Superstate utopia).

Everyone could make that deduction. Lots have. It takes a special kind of frenzy to what the British just did however.

 

[Mouthwash]

What the world is astounded by, is the fact that we now have an example of British people — lionized by themselves in song and story for their common sense pragmatism — having effectively run a successful referendum on the proposition that everyone should make broad, sweeping decisions about the future of their country based on hunches and gut feelings, and gotten away with it.

Effectively it's an object lesson in British people behaving like ideologically blinkered — otherwise much reviled for it by the British — idealistic Germans or Italians or something. It's other-side-of-the-looking-glass-stuff.

Case in point.

 

[Arakhor]

I hear argument from the Leave camp, mockery and indignation from the Remain camp. Exceptions are possible in the former case, but I haven't seen any in the latter (I mean reasoned argument that isn't full of obvious fallacies making it practically a circle-jerk).

Don't you think it's much more likely that you're already predisposed towards the Leave side and therefore are not an impartial witness?

For regulations we simply wish to scrap, an act of Parliament repealing such regulations is likely to be extremely simple.

Who exactly will decide what gets scrapped and what on earth makes you think that any act in Parliament will be "extremely simple"?

It is our common sense pragmatism that told us the EU isn't working very well, and we should get off that vehicle before it reaches its destination (crash or Euro Superstate utopia).

The thing about common sense is that it just isn't too common.

 

[Verbose]

Case in point.

So you though that was a sign of hysteria, did you?

Sure, Britain has got everybody's attention. What do you want to do now?

 

[Akka]

That you are quite wrong to state that the hard facts are on the Remain.

Woah, that's some powerful grasping at straws. Trying to hard to miss the point is kinda the best endorsement you could give it.

Also, your whole attempt at justifying that the EU is dysfunctionnal and the UK would be better leaving it is pretty comical considering nearly everything that was used as arguments for the Leave campaign is a direct consequence of... UK influence. Irony is thick.

 

[Takhisis]

Precisely.

And it was the older people in the UK; who have watched this process for up to 40 years
and decided, based upon their experience over that period of time, who have recognised
this and disproportionately voted to Leave.

It was not xenophobia and it was not because we are so naïve to simply believe Nigel Farage,
Michael Gove or Boris Johnson and their like etc and their exaggerations and theatrics.

No xenophobia? On your part, personally, maybe, Edward. But on that of a lot of people in Britain -mostly but not only England- there is a sort of polite xenophobia of the stiff upper lip kind. The ‘Don't grimace in front of the quaint natives and their ridiculous customs’ type. I see it every time I bump into people here in South America. A lot of tourists from England cannot comprehend how I can speak Spanish and English like a native. It's something that is not done.

It remains to be seen whether Brexit will actually happen by the way. Article 50 hasn't been triggered yet. This maybe due to the political chaos in London and/or preparations are needed for the Brexit negotiations within the UK establishment.

I think there is a significant chance once the new Tory leader/PM is crowned there could be another general election and perhaps the new government will disagree with acting on the referendum result maybe citing "as not being in the UK's best interests at this point in time" refusing to or "delay" triggering Article 50.

I still believe Article 50 will be triggered, but it just appears to me that Brexit was more of a certainty the day after the referendum than it is now.

There should be a general election. The current government is, in a way, illegitimate. Leaving aside the fact that they got on crooked rules with 30% of the vote, they were chosen to lead a UK which was not seceding from the EU.

For their part, the EU want Englang/Britain to leave the UK once and for all. For too long the UK has gotten special treatment.
Want more workers to keep your exploitative, finance sector-driven model afloat? Fine, bring in cheap workers from Eastern Europe a decade before everyone else!
Want to keep your currency? Fine! You don't even have to keep it pegged as the Danes or Croatians do.
Want to pay less? Fine, you get tax rebates.


Now, effectively, those concessions are over because the UK will not be a member of the EU anymore. If the UK/England wants to benefit from access to the common European market, too bad, they need to offer something new.

As Akka says:

nearly everything that was used as arguments for the Leave campaign is a direct consequence of... UK influence. Irony is thick.

Also, this article might help. No reruns this time.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Who exactly will decide what gets scrapped and what on earth makes you think that any act in Parliament will be "extremely simple"?

Parliament can decide which UK Acts implementing EC Directives may be scrapped.

Repealing acts is far simpler than drafting legislation.
Acts can be repealed with just a few sentences,
new acts usually require pages and pages.

The thing about common sense is that it just isn't too common.

Another pointless comment.

 

[trader/warrior]

Like I said, not much difference. I've yet to encounter reasoned and sober criticism of Brexit online. This may have been possible a year ago, but the globalist camp has been driven into a frenzy because their narrative is collapsing around them.

So why don't the British just leave now? Most of the European pro-EU side have made it clear they wouldn't mind the British just take the consequences and get out now and take their never-ending need for special treatments with them.

 

[Mouthwash]

So why don't the British just leave now? Most of the European pro-EU side have made it clear they wouldn't mind the British just take the consequences and get out now and take their never-ending need for special treatments with them.

I'd assume that's more about mitigating or denying the consequences of Brexit (though I'm not very in touch with the Eurosphere, as an English-speaker.) I do know that Germany's economy depends on the free trade zone, so it's difficult to see why they would desire the precedent set by Brexit. Merkel's conciliatory tone is because of the UK's huge importance to German exports, and that will not change.

 

[EnglishEdward]

No xenophobia? On your part, personally, maybe, Edward. But on that of a lot of people in Britain -mostly but not only England- there is a sort of polite xenophobia of the stiff upper lip kind. The ‘Don't grimace in front of the quaint natives and their ridiculous customs’ type. I see it every time I bump into people here in South America. A lot of tourists from England cannot comprehend how I can speak Spanish and English like a native. It's something that is not done.

According to Wikipedia:

"Xenophobia is the fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange"

I am puzzled as to how fear can be polite.

Would you have preferred them to grimace at you?

There should be a general election. The current government is, in a way, illegitimate. Leaving aside the fact that they got on crooked rules with 30% of the vote, they were chosen to lead a UK which was not seceding from the EU.

You may not like First Past The Post elections, but it is not 'crooked'.

Want more workers to keep your exploitative, finance sector-driven model afloat? Fine, bring in cheap workers from Eastern Europe a decade before everyone else!

It is not the finance sector that employs low wage immigrants.

Now, effectively, those concessions are over because the UK will not be a member of the EU anymore. If the UK/England wants to benefit from access to the common European market, too bad, they need to offer something new.

What is offered is EU access to the UK market.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Also, your whole attempt at justifying that the EU is dysfunctionnal and the UK would be better leaving it is pretty comical considering nearly everything that was used as arguments for the Leave campaign is a direct consequence of... UK influence. Irony is thick.

Are you blaming UK influence for the Greek debt crisis?

Are you blaming UK influence for the disastrous break-up of Yugoslavia?

Are you blaming UK influence for the higher unemployment in the Euro zone?

Show us your logic!

 

[Akka]

Are you blaming UK influence for the Greek debt crisis?

The debt crisis is nowhere to be found in the most talked argument of the Leave campaign.

Are you blaming UK influence for the disastrous break-up of Yugoslavia?

WTH does the breaking of Yugoslavia has anything to do with the Brexit, or even the EU to begin with ?

Are you blaming UK influence for the higher unemployment in the Euro zone?

The main argument I've seen about unemployment in the UK has been either about "eastern migrants" (which are a direct consequence of the UK pushing to expand the EU eastward) or about "workers being screwed by big money" (with the UK being the one vetoing any regulation on the finance sector).

Show us your logic!

Right back at you. Nearly all your answers here are just as completely out of the blue and totally unrelated to the point as your previous answer to me. Such consistency in being completely beside the subject and ignoring whatever argument is put out tend to be sign of deliberate disingenuity.