Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

Err.... because as a British Unionist I believe sovereignty resides in my national parliament at Westminster.

Why?

Why not at your county offices?
Why is Westminster the sweet spot?

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

It's not my hope at all. I'll be happy with a BRINO if it shuts the leavers up.

It's just logical. 48% don't want to try a eating out "somewhere new". 52% do. Of those 52, not all have the idea of where they're going. A restaurant is picked at random, lets say a good old British Pub. If any more than 3 of those 52% aren't happy with that choice (6%), then more people will be unhappy than are happy. Correct?

Given that "brexit" is still undefined and means different things to people, do you agree there's a reasonable chance that should "brexit" happen, some not insignificant number of leave voters will be unhappy because they didn't get their brexit?

So which option results in the least unhappy people?

Jesus Hezlos, you ever feel like you’re disappearing up your own backside by trying to justify your reasons to subvert what was a quite simple binary referendum?

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

Why?

Why not at your county offices?
Why is Westminster the sweet spot?

You do get the notion of the nation state don’t you?
I do understand that it suits your argument to deny the UK as a worthwhile entity, but your argument is ridiculous.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

Jesus Hezlos, you ever feel like you’re disappearing up your own backside by trying to justify your reasons to subvert what was a quite simple binary referendum?

Not at all. I'm just walking through the logical conclusions. Do you disagree with the logic, or are you attacking me because I'm right?

Tromking wrote: »

You do get the notion of the nation state don’t you?
I do understand that it suits your argument to deny the UK as a worthwhile entity, but your argument is ridiculous.

I do, and I agree it's a worthwhile entity (I was a Unionist for most of the campaign).

I'm just asking you to explain why you feel Westminster is the sweet spot.
"because I do" is just a meaningless tautology, and just tells me that you have no valid argument why Brexit is good and Scottish independence is bad.

And you don't need one; but at least be honest.
I have a cousin that voted based on his football associations; his team is associated with the unionists.

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

Not at all. I'm just walking through the logical conclusions. Do you disagree with the logic, or are you attacking me because I'm right?



I do, and I agree it's a worthwhile entity (I was a Unionist for most of the campaign).

I'm just asking you to explain why you feel Westminster is the sweet spot.
"because I do" is just a meaningless tautology, and just tells me that you have no valid argument why Brexit is good and Scottish independence is bad.

And you don't need one; but at least be honest.
I have a cousin that voted based on his football associations; his team is associated with the unionists.

Even by your standards this is a silly discussion. Westminster is the sweet spot because it’s where my national parliament resides, and because I’m British and believe in the Union I’m happy that its there.
I don’t believe in Scottish independence because I’m a Unionist and feel the interests of my fellow Brits are best served as part of the most successful Union of nations the world has ever seen. That said, I’m happy for Scots to leave if they so choose.
Back to you, so you’re not a Scots Nationalist or a British Unionist, do I take it you’re a European federalist?

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not. But can you explain how you support Brexit but not Scottish independence?

If you read my posts on the Scottish independence thread I said at the time that if you felt strongly enough you should go for it, even if it meant some economic loss. You didn't win over enough voters.

But, just as there are people in the UK who voted Leave because they don't like Europeans, so there are Scots who voted for Independence because they dislike the English.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

Even by your standards this is a silly discussion. Westminster is the sweet spot because it’s where my national parliament resides, and because I’m British and believe in the Union I’m happy that its there.

So you're for it because it's sort of the status quo? That's fair enough.

Back to you, so you’re not a Scots Nationalist or a British Unionist, do I take it you’re a European federalist?

I don't actually have a strong opinion on where the buck stops, as long a it works. Westminster is the bottom of that list, but I'm fine with Westminster if it did a good job.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

But, just as there are people in the UK who voted Leave because they don't like Europeans, so there are Scots who voted for Independence because they dislike the English.

Undoubtedly. I know a few.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

Undoubtedly. I know a few.

And clever politicians will cultivate this group, just as others will court the chattering dinner classes.

It was obvious from the 2015 GE that there were a group of voters, often from the North, who felt that they were being ignored. UKIP tapped into this vote big time, and they reaped the rewards. Politicians tend to do what works, so I can understand why Farage would continue this approach during the referendum.

If you don't like it , you challenge it at the time, not wait a couple of years and then cry Foul.

cogito

gfplux wrote: »

The Times Brexit breifing has this on the European Medicenes agency EMA.
As the NHS has no money for new drugs this is of little consequence unless this was all part of the Governments cunning plan.

QUOTE
This week The Times reported that the EU would cut Britain out of any role regulating new and existing medicines immediately after Brexit.

Despite claims by ministers that the transition period would effectively mean no change at all in the UK's current relationship with the bloc, an announcement slipped out by the European Medicines Agency paints a very different picture.

The UK is currently the largest contributor to the EMA's operations, carrying out up to 30 per cent of its assessment, vigilance and licensing work. It is a key reason why many large pharmaceutical firms have chosen Britain as the base for research and development operations.

From March next year all this work will be assigned to medical regulators from other countries, despite fears they have neither the capacity nor the expertise to take up the slack. Several industry figures have warned that the EMA's move could lead to delays in new medicines being approved, as well as make pharmaceutical companies based in the EU plan for a hard Brexit. So how has the government responded?

Before the story was published they didn't say anything at all, perhaps hoping that it would go away. Then, when it was published, the health minister Lord O'Shaughnessy wrote a letter, intended for publication, which said this: "During the implementation period the UK will continue to be part of the European Medicines Agency. This means that we will continue to have access to drugs and medical devices at the same time as countries within the EU."

This is utterly mendacious. Of course Britain will "continue to have access to drugs". The point is we'll lose all role in assessing and licensing them and become a rule-taker with no say over the future regulation of life sciences, which the government accepts is vital to the post-Brexit economy.

This matters a lot. Either Lord O'Shaughnessy doesn't understand it or he is deliberately pretending that it doesn't matter. It's hard to say which is worse.
END QUOTE

Logically then, if the EMA is unable to undertake the work which it is supposed to do because it lacks the expertise, it should engage outside contractors with suitable experience to do the work. The EMA might find a few candidates in the UK prepared to do it in return for a hefty fee.

But it's the EU and they don't really do logic, do they?