No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

Fran_Klee

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Shall we hand back to Africa all the money we made from the slave trade as well?

I'm all for phillw and likeminded thinkers to start the ball rolling by putting their money where their mouths are.
What are the chances of that happening, realistically?

Fran_Klee

phillw wrote: »

Still better than starving until the country's bankrupt. Don't blame me, I voted for prosperity in the EU.
.

Oh, like the Greeks?
Just remind us, how is that working out for them after the EU got their greedy mitts into them?

If you want to look at the "prosperous" EU as a whole I'd love to know if your idea of prosperity means continually losing out in any meaningful comparison while much of the rest of the world really does prosper.
The supposedly "prosperous" EU's growth rate average over the past ten years is well under 2%.
By comparison, India = around 7%; Malaysia and Indonesia both around 5%; China around 7%.

Kohoutek

westernpromise wrote: »

Well, no, it's not. That's a middle ground person's conceit to try to fiddle elections so that everyone always agrees to a compromise that adopts their own views. Any such poll is a mandate for one or other extreme position, unless you've got 51% spoiled ballot papers (which express a view, in a way that just not voting doesn't).

There is nothing illegitimate about compromise at all in a democracy. The idea that democracy = majoritarianism is a widely held perception in the UK due to FPTP and the fact that until 10 years ago, most govts always had a Parliamentary majority.

Look at other countries though, and it isn't so - any country with PR, or even the US where control of the presidency, House of Representatives and Senate is regularly split between Republican and Democrats.

The idea that not ignoring 48% of the votes in the referendum is "fiddling" and somehow anti-democratic is absurd.

phillw

Fran_Klee wrote: »

Oh, like the Greeks?
Just remind us, how is that working out for them after the EU got their greedy mitts into them?

What do you mean? The Greeks created their own problems. The EU helped them out, I'll give you that they didn't help out the Greeks the way they demanded it. It's always easier to blame others for your own failings.

Fran_Klee wrote: »

I'm all for phillw and likeminded thinkers to start the ball rolling by putting their money where their mouths are.
What are the chances of that happening, realistically?

Why would I put money where my mouth is? You're not supposed to eat money, silly boy.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Shall we hand back to Africa all the money we made from the slave trade as well?

Seems like some people think we should try https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-49435041
But it's certainly not something a morally bankrupt leave voter would do.

phillw

AFF8879 wrote: »

If the issue of EU membership was something that could be compromised on, then we wouldn’t have needed a referendum.

We could join EFTA, which is actually what we were in before we joined the EC. I think a lot of people thought we went from WTO to EC, but we didn't.

Or frankly there were enough irregularities in the referendum that we could compromise and do it again. However the findings at the moment are that our election laws aren't fit for purpose and we can't ever hold a legitimate election again.

Boris could have used his powers of persuasion to sell that to the people, instead of whatever it is he's planning. He might actually be planning on going to the EU and suggesting EFTA.

AFF8879 wrote: »

(thankfully Cameron was enlightened enough at that point to recognise popular opinion and so we didn’t need a referendum).

David Cameron didn't think there would be a referendum, he got conned into it promising it & then forced to go through with it. The establishment managed to pull a fast one on all the progressives & will reap the reward.

Kohoutek

AFF8879 wrote: »

I agree with the principle of what you are saying but the problem is you can’t really be “halfway out” of the EU. If the issue of EU membership was something that could be compromised on, then we wouldn’t have needed a referendum. Same thing as gay marriage, either it is permitted or it isn’t (thankfully Cameron was enlightened enough at that point to recognise popular opinion and so we didn’t need a referendum).

That's not right - there are several levels of participation in the EU

1. EU + EZ, e.g. France
2. EU w/o EZ, e.g. Sweden
3. EU w/o EZ plus Schengen opt-out and other opt-outs, e.g. the UK
4. EFTA (i.e. single market membership), e.g. Norway
5. Customs union, e.g. Turkey
6. Comprehensive trade deal on goods, e.g. Canada
7. No comprehensive trade deal, e.g. US

MisterMotivated

Kohoutek wrote: »

That's not right - there are several levels of participation in the EU

1. In the EU + use the Euro as currency, e.g. France
2. In the EU + don't use the Euro as currency, e.g. Sweden
3. In the EU + have some border controls, e.g. the UK
4. Not in the EU but trade with them through EFTA (i.e. single market membership), e.g. Norway
5. Not in the EU but have agreed a Customs union, e.g. Turkey
6. Not in the EU but have a Comprehensive trade deal on goods, e.g. Canada
7. Not in the EU, e.g. US

All the countries referenced in your list above are either 'in' or 'not in' the EU, there are no 'half-in-half-out' countries. Having a trading relationship/agreement is not the same thing as being a member. More than half your list involves being 'not in' the EU and, under points 6 and 7, you could say that almost the entire world 'participates' in the EU. That does not mean that they are all EU member states.

The referendum was on whether we should be a member of the EU, not whether we should ever trade with them again.

phillw

MisterMotivated wrote: »

The referendum was on whether we should be a member of the EU, not whether we should ever trade with them again.

Exactly, but it's now being reframed by the far far right as also not being in the single market or customs union either.

zagubov

phillw wrote: »

We could join EFTA, which is actually what we were in before we joined the EC. I think a lot of people thought we went from WTO to EC, but we didn't.
.........
Boris could have used his powers of persuasion to sell that to the people, instead of whatever it is he's planning. He might actually be planning on going to the EU and suggesting EFTA.

We actually founded EFTA when we were prevented from joining the EU. We abandoned it and we're probably not a good fit any more ( we're massively larger than its other members, and they may not accept us as members).

Kohoutek wrote: »

That's not right - there are several levels of participation in the EU

1. EU + EZ, e.g. France
2. EU w/o EZ, e.g. Sweden
3. EU w/o EZ plus Schengen opt-out and other opt-outs, e.g. the UK
4. EFTA (i.e. single market membership), e.g. Norway
5. Customs union, e.g. Turkey
6. Comprehensive trade deal on goods, e.g. Canada
7. No comprehensive trade deal, e.g. US

I'd divide 4 into
4a EFTA + EEA e.g. Norway
4b EFTA -EEA e.g. Switzerland

phillw

zagubov wrote: »

We actually founded EFTA when we were prevented from joining the EU.

Founding countries of EFTA were Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom in 1960. The EEC started as a set of treaties going back to 1951, at the time we were wary about such a close relationship. It wasn't until 1961 that we wanted in on the main action and made our first application. This was rejected in 1963.

The EU didn't exist until 1993.

It may be that the EU wouldn't see EFTA as a correct fit, it might not even work for us. But the argument that we did alright without a deal before the EU ignores the facts completely.

We could argue that we should go back to 1950's style arrangements, but europe has moved on a bit since then themselves. It will be like fighting a law banning petrol engine cars, after it's possible to produce fuel for it & then complaining because you can't drive it.

I certainly think it would be easier to get into EFTA than what Boris is trying to do.