"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
I guess we also have to count all the Scot Nit YES voters who would happily have voted for Scotland to Scexit the EU in 2014 but now seem oddly concerned that they must Rejoin ASAP
So they'd be Leave > Remain perhaps, but of a uniquely mendacious variety
Interesting, thanks for that. I have had my Tesla (which I love) for just over a year and had the full monty autopilot put on it but have never really used it. Possibly too much of a control freak!
Here is a driving instruction channel on Youtube trying Tesla Autopilot round Liverpool. Basically, it reacts late and gets confused by street markings...
It has successfully emulated quite a few of us, then.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I was a soft Brexiteer, i'm now far more stringent as i have thoroughly enjoyed the agitation remainers express at slightly more inconvenient passport queues
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Ahem. Not all private enterprise, thanks to the money NASA chucks at SpaceX.
And the money ($18bn) the FCC has available for Starlink to fill in gaps in broadband services in remote areas...
See @Malmesbury post for other areas they are doing well in...
The subsidy vs providing services government is endless and almost as useful as BREXIT arguments.
SpaceX has benefited from a large number of government contracts. Their record on delivering those contracts at prices lower than the competition is pretty good.
The big argument from the European point of view, on subsidies, is the ludicrously expensive military contracts. But these come with extraordinary levels of insight and paperwork, which run up the costs. Again SpaceX has been cheaper on these than ULA.
Both LockMart and Boeing have taken billions over the years for launch development tech programs where they produced - nothing. RASCAL for example. To the point where some suggested they were eating the money and failing deliberately to protect the status quo.
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Secondly, Brexit isn't any old political change, it's a profound life-change. Trying to predict what the economy will be doing ten years after Brexit, is like trying to guess exactly what furniture you will own, and how happy you might be, ten years after you first become a parent. Brexit is huge, dynamic, scary, turbulent, wholly unique, and inherently unpredictable: it will change our economy and our polity in good and bad ways we cannot, by definition, even begin to predict. This is why the forecasts have already proved to be so rubbish.
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care. It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think 'I’m never going through that'. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled.
"Then comes the depression. It’s unavoidable. Overnight, your horizons have shrunk to a nursery room, some cheap Lidl shiraz, and the sound of a fiendishly annoying plastic toy which sings 'Froggy goes a courting he did ride uh-huh' over and over again. The house is a mess, all the time, in every way. You haven’t slept properly for several economic quarters. And so, at one point you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?"
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
ISTR Big G voted Remain but is now Leave. His view is typical of a large section of (typically older small c conservative) voters like my Mother in Law. Particularly when the world didn't cave in the day after the vote.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
ts'easy.
Europhobes: no confidence in their country; deeply insecure, need tangible reassurance about their place in the world, always worried what the big boys are saying.
Europhiles: supremely at ease with the world and their place in it, cool, laid back, confident, are the big boys.
Much truth here.
Brittle brittle Leavers. Have to be handled with care.
@Sunil_Prasannan - a late huge congrats for completing the UK rail network. Correct me if I'm wrong, this is basically all the rail lines, plus all tube/metro/tram?
I assume you drew the line at preserved railways?
Thanks, DC.
Basically, all the "everyday" National Rail network that can be done at "normal" time of day*, plus the GB Trams/Metros/Subways. Except the West Midlands Metro from Library to Edgbaston (opened on the 17th), which I hope to do next week after the current heatwave.
I have done a limited number of heritage lines, but I'm not hell-bent on doing them all! I'm considering doing all those that are still connected, either operationally OR physically, to the National Rail or any other subway/metro (for example, the railway I sometimes volunteer at, Epping Ongar, still has a traversable physical connection to Epping tube station).
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I was a soft Brexiteer, i'm now far more stringent as i have thoroughly enjoyed the agitation remainers express at slightly more inconvenient passport queues
Oh sure, loads on both sides have got more divided and extreme as we keep repeating the same arguments that aren't going to convince each other. Not sure why that is a desirable thing though.
@Sunil_Prasannan - a late huge congrats for completing the UK rail network. Correct me if I'm wrong, this is basically all the rail lines, plus all tube/metro/tram?
I assume you drew the line at preserved railways?
Thanks, DC.
Basically, all the "everyday" National Rail network that can be done at "normal" time of day*, plus the GB Trams/Metros/Subways. Except the West Midlands Metro from Library to Edgbaston (opened on the 17th), which I hope to do next week after the current heatwave.
I have done a limited number of heritage lines, but I'm not hell-bent on doing them all! I'm considering doing all those that are still connected, either operationally OR physically, to the National Rail or any other subway/metro (for example, the railway I sometimes volunteer at, Epping Ongar, still has a traversable physical connection to Epping tube station).
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
Europhobes: no confidence in their country; deeply insecure, need tangible reassurance about their place in the world, always worried what the big boys are saying.
Brexit encapsulated.
"Mummy, mummy, mummy, mummy, are we the best?"
Remain encapsulated,
"Mummy, mummy, mummy, mummy, why can't I have my own way all the time? Mwaaaaaah...."
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
The America ISPs pocketing the money for broadband rollout is a truly shocking case of naked corruption.
It's hard to describe how blatantly they just took the money and did fuck all.
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Ahem. Not all private enterprise, thanks to the money NASA chucks at SpaceX.
And the money ($18bn) the FCC has available for Starlink to fill in gaps in broadband services in remote areas...
See @Malmesbury post for other areas they are doing well in...
The subsidy vs providing services government is endless and almost as useful as BREXIT arguments.
SpaceX has benefited from a large number of government contracts. Their record on delivering those contracts at prices lower than the competition is pretty good.
The big argument from the European point of view, on subsidies, is the ludicrously expensive military contracts. But these come with extraordinary levels of insight and paperwork, which run up the costs. Again SpaceX has been cheaper on these than ULA.
Both LockMart and Boeing have taken billions over the years for launch development tech programs where they produced - nothing. RASCAL for example. To the point where some suggested they were eating the money and failing deliberately to protect the status quo.
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
I will point out that I have zero problem with Starlink taking the money for providing the services others have tried and failed to deliver...
All I was pointing out is that Elon Musk has been very good at identifying those sources of money (Carbon credits on his cars, NASA projects, FCC grants for Starlink deployments) and grabbing them to allow him to progress.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Secondly, Brexit isn't any old political change, it's a profound life-change. Trying to predict what the economy will be doing ten years after Brexit, is like trying to guess exactly what furniture you will own, and how happy you might be, ten years after you first become a parent. Brexit is huge, dynamic, scary, turbulent, wholly unique, and inherently unpredictable: it will change our economy and our polity in good and bad ways we cannot, by definition, even begin to predict. This is why the forecasts have already proved to be so rubbish.
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care. It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think 'I’m never going through that'. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled.
"Then comes the depression. It’s unavoidable. Overnight, your horizons have shrunk to a nursery room, some cheap Lidl shiraz, and the sound of a fiendishly annoying plastic toy which sings 'Froggy goes a courting he did ride uh-huh' over and over again. The house is a mess, all the time, in every way. You haven’t slept properly for several economic quarters. And so, at one point you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?"
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Yes, good analogy. But I think MISTY's Henry VIII analogy is also reasonable. History has had a few occasions when the question of English or British political ecclesiastical independence has been raised - Henry VIII, Thomas Becket, the Synod of Whitby... and for most of history ecclesiastical and political were almost synonymous. Personally I'm still disappointed in the outcome of the Synod of Whitby, where independence was traded for influence.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I was a soft Brexiteer, i'm now far more stringent as i have thoroughly enjoyed the agitation remainers express at slightly more inconvenient passport queues
Oh sure, loads on both sides have got more divided and extreme as we keep repeating the same arguments that aren't going to convince each other. Not sure why that is a desirable thing though.
People agitated about first world problems is always fun.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Secondly, Brexit isn't any old political change, it's a profound life-change. Trying to predict what the economy will be doing ten years after Brexit, is like trying to guess exactly what furniture you will own, and how happy you might be, ten years after you first become a parent. Brexit is huge, dynamic, scary, turbulent, wholly unique, and inherently unpredictable: it will change our economy and our polity in good and bad ways we cannot, by definition, even begin to predict. This is why the forecasts have already proved to be so rubbish.
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care. It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think 'I’m never going through that'. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled.
"Then comes the depression. It’s unavoidable. Overnight, your horizons have shrunk to a nursery room, some cheap Lidl shiraz, and the sound of a fiendishly annoying plastic toy which sings 'Froggy goes a courting he did ride uh-huh' over and over again. The house is a mess, all the time, in every way. You haven’t slept properly for several economic quarters. And so, at one point you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?"
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Yes, good analogy. But I think MISTY's Henry VIII analogy is also reasonable. History has had a few occasions when the question of English or British political ecclesiastical independence has been raised - Henry VIII, Thomas Becket, the Synod of Whitby... and for most of history ecclesiastical and political were almost synonymous. Personally I'm still disappointed in the outcome of the Synod of Whitby, where independence was traded for influence.
The Reformation analogy is tempting but fundamentally flawed by the fact it was a top down change. If there had been a referendum in 1535 about breaking with Rome on the same franchise as 2016, Remain Catholic would have won in a landslide. Which is ultimately why we ended up with a compromise - at least compared with the settlement we would have had if Edward VI had survived.
When we rejoin in 15-20 years and Leon happily nurses his beaker of wine in a nursing home he will look out happily, wondering how he got it so wrong in his middle age.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
ISTR Big G voted Remain but is now Leave. His view is typical of a large section of (typically older small c conservative) voters like my Mother in Law. Particularly when the world didn't cave in the day after the vote.
Good evening
I did vote remain but accepted the vote and support leaving and continue to do so, but I would like both extremes to realise there is a middle road and a better relationship would be good but that does require rapprochement by all
You lot really have no idea how hurtful it is that you all accept, without any apparent equivcation. that I really am the slightly dull, overly worthy, rather long winded Scottish Court lawyer that I pretend to be on here.
I am interesting enough to have a secret identity too you know. Honest. 😢
Speaking of by-elections (and apols for the poor technical quality, was taken from a moving train), I saw this just outside the station on Southend Pier last Thursday:
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
Not really. But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense. Congrats.
"Secondly, Brexit isn't any old political change, it's a profound life-change. Trying to predict what the economy will be doing ten years after Brexit, is like trying to guess exactly what furniture you will own, and how happy you might be, ten years after you first become a parent. Brexit is huge, dynamic, scary, turbulent, wholly unique, and inherently unpredictable: it will change our economy and our polity in good and bad ways we cannot, by definition, even begin to predict. This is why the forecasts have already proved to be so rubbish.
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care. It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think 'I’m never going through that'. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled.
"Then comes the depression. It’s unavoidable. Overnight, your horizons have shrunk to a nursery room, some cheap Lidl shiraz, and the sound of a fiendishly annoying plastic toy which sings 'Froggy goes a courting he did ride uh-huh' over and over again. The house is a mess, all the time, in every way. You haven’t slept properly for several economic quarters. And so, at one point you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?"
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
Yes, good analogy. But I think MISTY's Henry VIII analogy is also reasonable. History has had a few occasions when the question of English or British political ecclesiastical independence has been raised - Henry VIII, Thomas Becket, the Synod of Whitby... and for most of history ecclesiastical and political were almost synonymous. Personally I'm still disappointed in the outcome of the Synod of Whitby, where independence was traded for influence.
The Reformation analogy is tempting but fundamentally flawed by the fact it was a top down change. If there had been a referendum in 1535 about breaking with Rome on the same franchise as 2016, Remain Catholic would have won in a landslide. Which is ultimately why we ended up with a compromise - at least compared with the settlement we would have had if Edward VI had survived.
When we rejoin in 15-20 years and Leon happily nurses his beaker of wine in a nursing home he will look out happily, wondering how he got it so wrong in his middle age.
Surely there will be nothing left to regulate or ban in 20 years? The EU will have banned itself in a final, highly sexualised, act of beaurocracy
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Quite. To this day the Anglican Church is, as it itself says, Catholic, just not Roman.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Near the start of the war, there was a piece saying that the Russians see 'Nazi' very differently to us, and it has a different association. For us, it is a particular form of fascism that started in 1930s Germany. For them, it is anyone who dares be anti-Russian or anti-Slavic, particularly from lands to the west. They also apparently split 'Nazism' from 'anti-Semitism', for ... reasons.
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
I hesitate to engage on this stuff as it's so wrapped up in ulterior motives, but there isn't really any dispute that Azov was set up as a neo-Nazi organisation and that it had an unhealthy overlap with Ukrainian ultra-nationalism. The founder, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen". Equally, there isn't any doubt that efforts have been made to tone it down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism for what looks like a reasonably balanced discussion.
It's also true that Russians tend to think of the Nazis primarily as the people who slaughtered millions of Russians for ultra-nationalist reasons, so groups like this are useful to Putin to whip up feeling against Ukrainian nationalism. But does any of that justify the invasion? No.
I agree with that. But I'd also add Russia's own (ahem) neo-Nazi problem. Which backs up the view that Russians define Nazism differently. *Their* neo-Nazis are fine, as long as they fight for Russia and the regime.
And Putin is just AOK with real live Fascists in his own party - see Dugin, his pet “philosopher” whose tracts have been given official backing.
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Ahem. Not all private enterprise, thanks to the money NASA chucks at SpaceX.
And the money ($18bn) the FCC has available for Starlink to fill in gaps in broadband services in remote areas...
See @Malmesbury post for other areas they are doing well in...
The subsidy vs providing services government is endless and almost as useful as BREXIT arguments.
SpaceX has benefited from a large number of government contracts. Their record on delivering those contracts at prices lower than the competition is pretty good.
The big argument from the European point of view, on subsidies, is the ludicrously expensive military contracts. But these come with extraordinary levels of insight and paperwork, which run up the costs. Again SpaceX has been cheaper on these than ULA.
Both LockMart and Boeing have taken billions over the years for launch development tech programs where they produced - nothing. RASCAL for example. To the point where some suggested they were eating the money and failing deliberately to protect the status quo.
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
I will point out that I have zero problem with Starlink taking the money for providing the services others have tried and failed to deliver...
All I was pointing out is that Elon Musk has been very good at identifying those sources of money (Carbon credits on his cars, NASA projects, FCC grants for Starlink deployments) and grabbing them to allow him to progress.
This (both Musk and the ISPs) also points to something occasionally mentioned here, that American companies often become global companies on the back of direct and indirect support from their government, whereas ours are left to die or be sold off because governments actually believe in free market capitalism.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Oddly, Henry VIII wasn't actually that promiscuous by the standards of the time. He was more sort of serially monogamous. During his first marriage he had two fairly brief affairs, one of which produced a son (and the other of which may or may not have produced a daughter) but he wasn't actually that much randier than his father, who also fathered at least one child out of wedlock.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I was a soft Brexiteer, i'm now far more stringent as i have thoroughly enjoyed the agitation remainers express at slightly more inconvenient passport queues
Oh sure, loads on both sides have got more divided and extreme as we keep repeating the same arguments that aren't going to convince each other. Not sure why that is a desirable thing though.
People agitated about first world problems is always fun.
Each to their own. I get more fun from seeing people together and content rather than agitated.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Oddly, Henry VIII wasn't actually that promiscuous by the standards of the time. He was more sort of serially monogamous. During his first marriage he had two fairly brief affairs, one of which produced a son (and the other of which may or may not have produced a daughter) but he wasn't actually that much randier than his father, who also fathered at least one child out of wedlock.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
Edward IV, now...
Fair enough. Most of what I know about Henry VIII (as opposed to the theology stuff) comes from Six the Musical.
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
“Azov Regiment” being the key phrase. They’re taking about what was a few hundred Ukranian defenders, of the lands Russia took in 2014, but in Russian minds they are the Nazis that dominate Eastern Ukraine, and against whom the Russians went for Kiev are fighting in the Donbass.
Near the start of the war, there was a piece saying that the Russians see 'Nazi' very differently to us, and it has a different association. For us, it is a particular form of fascism that started in 1930s Germany. For them, it is anyone who dares be anti-Russian or anti-Slavic, particularly from lands to the west. They also apparently split 'Nazism' from 'anti-Semitism', for ... reasons.
In addition, I think it claimed that before the fall of the Berlin wall, 'fascist' was the insult of choice, and preferable to 'Nazi'. That slowly changed after 1990.
I daresay our resident Russian experts can say more.
I hesitate to engage on this stuff as it's so wrapped up in ulterior motives, but there isn't really any dispute that Azov was set up as a neo-Nazi organisation and that it had an unhealthy overlap with Ukrainian ultra-nationalism. The founder, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen". Equally, there isn't any doubt that efforts have been made to tone it down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment#Neo-Nazism for what looks like a reasonably balanced discussion.
It's also true that Russians tend to think of the Nazis primarily as the people who slaughtered millions of Russians for ultra-nationalist reasons, so groups like this are useful to Putin to whip up feeling against Ukrainian nationalism. But does any of that justify the invasion? No.
I agree with that. But I'd also add Russia's own (ahem) neo-Nazi problem. Which backs up the view that Russians define Nazism differently. *Their* neo-Nazis are fine, as long as they fight for Russia and the regime.
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
The America ISPs pocketing the money for broadband rollout is a truly shocking case of naked corruption.
It's hard to describe how blatantly they just took the money and did fuck all.
They took the money. And did fuck all.
With an extra topping of “don’t be rude - that’s our money”
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I was a soft Brexiteer, i'm now far more stringent as i have thoroughly enjoyed the agitation remainers express at slightly more inconvenient passport queues
Oh sure, loads on both sides have got more divided and extreme as we keep repeating the same arguments that aren't going to convince each other. Not sure why that is a desirable thing though.
People agitated about first world problems is always fun.
Each to their own. I get more fun from seeing people together and content rather than agitated.
That rather depends on what they are content with or agitated by. Agitated because of injustice, no i dont take any fun from that. Agitated because theyve been to the James O'Brien school of performative outrage, amusing and pitiful. Content because happy and sharing good times, lovely. Etc etc
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Oddly, Henry VIII wasn't actually that promiscuous by the standards of the time. He was more sort of serially monogamous. During his first marriage he had two fairly brief affairs, one of which produced a son (and the other of which may or may not have produced a daughter) but he wasn't actually that much randier than his father, who also fathered at least one child out of wedlock.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
Edward IV, now...
Didn't Boleyn's brother give evidence to the effect that H was not exactly impotent quite, but not really up for it? Or is that a fabrication I got from her, Hilary?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Oddly, Henry VIII wasn't actually that promiscuous by the standards of the time. He was more sort of serially monogamous. During his first marriage he had two fairly brief affairs, one of which produced a son (and the other of which may or may not have produced a daughter) but he wasn't actually that much randier than his father, who also fathered at least one child out of wedlock.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
Edward IV, now...
Fair enough. Most of what I know about Henry VIII (as opposed to the theology stuff) comes from Six the Musical.
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, abducted by aliens, now identifies as non binary
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Ahem. Not all private enterprise, thanks to the money NASA chucks at SpaceX.
And the money ($18bn) the FCC has available for Starlink to fill in gaps in broadband services in remote areas...
See @Malmesbury post for other areas they are doing well in...
The subsidy vs providing services government is endless and almost as useful as BREXIT arguments.
SpaceX has benefited from a large number of government contracts. Their record on delivering those contracts at prices lower than the competition is pretty good.
The big argument from the European point of view, on subsidies, is the ludicrously expensive military contracts. But these come with extraordinary levels of insight and paperwork, which run up the costs. Again SpaceX has been cheaper on these than ULA.
Both LockMart and Boeing have taken billions over the years for launch development tech programs where they produced - nothing. RASCAL for example. To the point where some suggested they were eating the money and failing deliberately to protect the status quo.
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
I will point out that I have zero problem with Starlink taking the money for providing the services others have tried and failed to deliver...
All I was pointing out is that Elon Musk has been very good at identifying those sources of money (Carbon credits on his cars, NASA projects, FCC grants for Starlink deployments) and grabbing them to allow him to progress.
I strongly object to the characterisation that Starlink is taking money for providing services that others have tried and failed to provide.
The other ISPs have, on multiple occasions, taken the money and failed to provide the contracted services. No *trying* was involved.
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
Speaking of by-elections (and apols for the poor technical quality, was taken from a moving train), I saw this just outside the station on Southend Pier last Thursday:
There seems to be a petrol pump in the door, and a pair of elderly dwarves dressed in purple above it.
Its the 10 year anniversary of Musk promising to put a man on Mars in 10 years.
And in that ten years Musk has done more to make that eventual goal realistic than almost anyone else in history had. And via private enterprise rather than a nation putting its blood and treasure behind the effort.
Ahem. Not all private enterprise, thanks to the money NASA chucks at SpaceX.
And the money ($18bn) the FCC has available for Starlink to fill in gaps in broadband services in remote areas...
See @Malmesbury post for other areas they are doing well in...
The subsidy vs providing services government is endless and almost as useful as BREXIT arguments.
SpaceX has benefited from a large number of government contracts. Their record on delivering those contracts at prices lower than the competition is pretty good.
The big argument from the European point of view, on subsidies, is the ludicrously expensive military contracts. But these come with extraordinary levels of insight and paperwork, which run up the costs. Again SpaceX has been cheaper on these than ULA.
Both LockMart and Boeing have taken billions over the years for launch development tech programs where they produced - nothing. RASCAL for example. To the point where some suggested they were eating the money and failing deliberately to protect the status quo.
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
I will point out that I have zero problem with Starlink taking the money for providing the services others have tried and failed to deliver...
All I was pointing out is that Elon Musk has been very good at identifying those sources of money (Carbon credits on his cars, NASA projects, FCC grants for Starlink deployments) and grabbing them to allow him to progress.
This (both Musk and the ISPs) also points to something occasionally mentioned here, that American companies often become global companies on the back of direct and indirect support from their government, whereas ours are left to die or be sold off because governments actually believe in free market capitalism.
And in 2022 we have posters here getting excited about getting FTTH; which is nice, but ignores the fact that it’s about thirty years late thanks to Thatcher.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I was a soft Brexiteer, i'm now far more stringent as i have thoroughly enjoyed the agitation remainers express at slightly more inconvenient passport queues
Oh sure, loads on both sides have got more divided and extreme as we keep repeating the same arguments that aren't going to convince each other. Not sure why that is a desirable thing though.
People agitated about first world problems is always fun.
There's far more Politics Of Envy on the Right than the Left these days, it seems to me.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I was a soft Brexiteer, i'm now far more stringent as i have thoroughly enjoyed the agitation remainers express at slightly more inconvenient passport queues
Oh sure, loads on both sides have got more divided and extreme as we keep repeating the same arguments that aren't going to convince each other. Not sure why that is a desirable thing though.
People agitated about first world problems is always fun.
There's far more Politics Of Envy on the Right than the Left these days, it seems to me.
The left are too busy with the politics of Batshit crazy nonsense for much envy
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
Closed in the 1990s (1994, I think?). It was certainly operating when I lived in South Woodford in 1991/2, and I still kind-of regret not having done it in LU service.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
Closed in the 1990s (1994, I think?). It was certainly operating when I lived in South Woodford in 1991/2, and I still kind-of regret not having done it in LU service.
30th September 1994. I started commuting on the Central Line and District Line to Imperial College just three days later, so a missed opportunity!
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
In an ideal world, in the real world unfortunately we have a battle enough ensuring TfL keep the line from Loughton to Epping, let alone extending it back to Ongar, especially with fewer commuters daily and more wfh
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
Closed in the 1990s (1994, I think?). It was certainly operating when I lived in South Woodford in 1991/2, and I still kind-of regret not having done it in LU service.
30th September 1994. I started commuting on the Central Line and District Line to Imperial College just three days later, so a missed opportunity!
Same day the Aldwych spur of the Piccadilly Line closed.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Quite. To this day the Anglican Church is, as it itself says, Catholic, just not Roman.
The Apostles' Creed includes the line "I believe in the holy catholic church" so for Anglicans the crucial distinction is between 'Roman' and 'holy' (... an atheist writes).
Before February, I would occasionally watch a couple of Russia-based YouTube channels (unsubbed). One is still in Russia; one left.
This afternoon, the wonderous YouTube algorithm (*) put the following on my feed. It is from a man, allegedly in Russia, who talks about the way he has to be so much careful now than he was ten years ago.
It is long, and ends in a prayer (the only YouTuber whom I have sever seen end in a prayer), but I thought it very powerful. PB would certainly be banned in Russia; or at least we'd be *very* careful in what we say.
It's also frightening to see how quickly he thinks things have changed.
Not that batso an idea, though I'm not sure how it fits in with the "kids should be out learning a trade" vibe.
It does have consequences, though. One is that every attempt to improve breadth of the 16-18 curriculum has foundered on our sentimental attachment to A Levels.
The other is that right now we can barely staff GCSE maths in schools. Making everyone do some sort of maths for another two years would need more, and more expert, staff. Since one of my jobs is converting people into maths/science teachers, trust me that this could be tricky.
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
Closed in the 1990s (1994, I think?). It was certainly operating when I lived in South Woodford in 1991/2, and I still kind-of regret not having done it in LU service.
30th September 1994. I started commuting on the Central Line and District Line to Imperial College just three days later, so a missed opportunity!
Same day the Aldwych spur of the Piccadilly Line closed.
Am I the only person who's been 'subjected' to a military experience at Aldwych tube?
You lot really have no idea how hurtful it is that you all accept, without any apparent equivcation. that I really am the slightly dull, overly worthy, rather long winded Scottish Court lawyer that I pretend to be on here.
I am interesting enough to have a secret identity too you know. Honest. 😢
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Quite. To this day the Anglican Church is, as it itself says, Catholic, just not Roman.
The Apostles' Creed includes the line "I believe in the holy catholic church" so for Anglicans the crucial distinction is between 'Roman' and 'holy' (... an atheist writes).
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Quite. To this day the Anglican Church is, as it itself says, Catholic, just not Roman.
The Apostles' Creed includes the line "I believe in the holy catholic church" so for Anglicans the crucial distinction is between 'Roman' and 'holy' (... an atheist writes).
Not sure if it has changed (I know things do change even in the Catholic church) but when I used to get dragged along to the Catholic church by my Mum the phrase used was the Nicene creed:
"I believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic church"
There was scepticism earlier on about Ukraine’s counter offensive in Kherson.
It’s reported now that Russia have moved 25k north of the dnipro into a honey trap. As of last night their resupply / retreat routes have been closed off.
Most analysts seem to expect Ukraine to use this as an opportunity to heavily attrit Russian forces at relatively little risk, rather than launch a full armoured assault. In the meantime in their haste to move forces to Kherson, the Russians may have left the back door open at Izyium, a strategically key highway intersection for logistic operations for the wider theatre.
One suspects the Russian actions at the Zaporizhzhia are because they know Zelensky has them by the bollocks. So if necessary they’ll use the spectre of a radiation cloud to enhance their hand, and depressingly they may well play that card.
To describe this as Putin doing quite well or winning seems a stretch to me. These are the desperate actions of a dictator who knows he may be scrambling to stay alive within a few months.
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
Closed in the 1990s (1994, I think?). It was certainly operating when I lived in South Woodford in 1991/2, and I still kind-of regret not having done it in LU service.
30th September 1994. I started commuting on the Central Line and District Line to Imperial College just three days later, so a missed opportunity!
Same day the Aldwych spur of the Piccadilly Line closed.
Am I the only person who's been 'subjected' to a military experience at Aldwych tube?
(And I'm not being a Walt in saying this.)
Wasn't a (never used?) LU station used during WW2 and in ensuing decades for processing servicemen (National Service)? But you aren't that old, unless you were a film extra at Aldwych?
Do we have any idea where this fellow Dynamo is from?
Dura Ace - what are all these bullshit claims being made by the Ukrainians since day 1? Please tell.
We’ve been upgraded to the Mk IV Russian Troll. One who has likely lived in the UK at some point, and has a reasonable understanding of British political life over the past decade. That’s actualy really difficult to do, so we as PB should be proud that we got one of the best trolls they have, with mostly subtle hints and on-conversation points, in between the trolling for Putin. We PBers should be proud that we can attract the best.
Indeed.
However, like all trolls, he/she/they/it has talking points they are obliged to slip in, in particular the regular use of the phrase "Neo-Nazi".
I still don't get why this site is so worried about the transmission mechanism of certain views rather than the views themselves.
Weren't people all in a tizzy because they thought @Heathener was somehow a troll or something on account of their ISP?
Just discuss the views - we are all robust enough not to worry about who or what may be putting them forward.
If I said the moon was made out of cheese no one would care a damn, nor I'm guessing argue with me (hey @BartholomewRoberts) because it is transparent rubbish. So apply the same test to posts on here. If they are transparent rubbish don't engage and if they have some merit then do engage.
Haven't seen Heathener on a while.
Didn’t Leon finally retire “her” when someone posted that Heathener was Leon?
I seem to remember his rather relieved “finally” post in response!
I missed that if so, but wasn't it long speculated that Heathener was Leon?
Maybe we all are!
Also been speculated on before...
Heathener is (was) Mystic Rose and neither are Fruity Leon.
You can trust me on this. It's one of my specialities.
He as good as admitted it the other day. Hats off I say. I have enough issues staying coherent whilst posting as one person.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Quite. To this day the Anglican Church is, as it itself says, Catholic, just not Roman.
The Apostles' Creed includes the line "I believe in the holy catholic church" so for Anglicans the crucial distinction is between 'Roman' and 'holy' (... an atheist writes).
catholick and apostolick, shirley?
I'm sure you're right. It's over 60 years since I last muttered it with fingers crossed.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
Last headcount had 3 people switching sides after 6 years of intense debate, for a net change of 1 poster. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Yeah but how they switched. Made up in energy for around 100 posters apiece.
@williamglenn is the only Remain > Leave switcher I think?
I guess we also have to count all the Scot Nit YES voters who would happily have voted for Scotland to Scexit the EU in 2014 but now seem oddly concerned that they must Rejoin ASAP
So they'd be Leave > Remain perhaps, but of a uniquely mendacious variety
I don’t think we’ve had Super Scot Eabhal’s Brexit history. I’m all agog..
There was scepticism earlier on about Ukraine’s counter offensive in Kherson.
It’s reported now that Russia have moved 25k north of the dnipro into a honey trap. As of last night their resupply / retreat routes have been closed off.
Most analysts seem to expect Ukraine to use this as an opportunity to heavily attrit Russian forces at relatively little risk, rather than launch a full armoured assault. In the meantime in their haste to move forces to Kherson, the Russians may have left the back door open at Izyium, a strategically key highway intersection for logistic operations for the wider theatre.
One suspects the Russian actions at the Zaporizhzhia are because they know Zelensky has them by the bollocks. So if necessary they’ll use the spectre of a radiation cloud to enhance their hand, and depressingly they may well play that card.
To describe this as Putin doing quite well or winning seems a stretch to me. These are the desperate actions of a dictator who knows he may be scrambling to stay alive within a few months.
Are you saying that hastiness, being crap at war - and perhaps a readiness to make use of an asset for use in psychological and radiological warfare when faced with the prospect of being ground down by attrition - are more likely to be present when forces are led by a dictator than when they're led by a person (who wouldn't necessarily be a skilled comedy actor) who is more prone to delegate?
How sure are you that the Ukrainian account of who's been shelling Zaporizhzhia is true and the Russian account is false?
For info: the Russian brass are predicting a Ukrainian false flag incident, although near Slavyansk, not at Zaporizhzhia.
Did the Epping Ongar to North Weald train last month, certainly an enjoyable route
Indeed and it's a very well-run successful line starting from the old Routemaster bus at Epping right through to the bookshop at Ongar.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
Closed in the 1990s (1994, I think?). It was certainly operating when I lived in South Woodford in 1991/2, and I still kind-of regret not having done it in LU service.
30th September 1994. I started commuting on the Central Line and District Line to Imperial College just three days later, so a missed opportunity!
Same day the Aldwych spur of the Piccadilly Line closed.
Am I the only person who's been 'subjected' to a military experience at Aldwych tube?
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Quite. To this day the Anglican Church is, as it itself says, Catholic, just not Roman.
The Apostles' Creed includes the line "I believe in the holy catholic church" so for Anglicans the crucial distinction is between 'Roman' and 'holy' (... an atheist writes).
That's about the size of it.
For Anglicans, "Catholic" is thought of as "universal", without the added papal pretensions and claims. Though some will give the Pope a 'first amongst equals' type of respect.
On Henry VIII, with all that screwing around he almost meets the qualifications for one of the more controversial Popes from the time in history.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Oddly, Henry VIII wasn't actually that promiscuous by the standards of the time. He was more sort of serially monogamous. During his first marriage he had two fairly brief affairs, one of which produced a son (and the other of which may or may not have produced a daughter) but he wasn't actually that much randier than his father, who also fathered at least one child out of wedlock.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
Edward IV, now...
Didn't Boleyn's brother give evidence to the effect that H was not exactly impotent quite, but not really up for it? Or is that a fabrication I got from her, Hilary?
He certainly would not have given that evidence, as if he had there would have been immediate question marks over the paternity of Anne's two or three pregnancies (accounts conflict) which would have condemned her for adultery.
Didn't make much difference of course but he wasn't stupid, just unlucky.
So Hilary Mantel like Philippa Gregory is talking nonsense.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Quite. To this day the Anglican Church is, as it itself says, Catholic, just not Roman.
The Apostles' Creed includes the line "I believe in the holy catholic church" so for Anglicans the crucial distinction is between 'Roman' and 'holy' (... an atheist writes).
Evangelicals within the Church of England though would say they had more in common with Baptists and Pentecostals than the Roman Catholic church. The Church of England is a very broad church ranging from Anglo Catholics, some of whom became Roman Catholic over women priests, to liberals who are the largest group now, certainly amongst the clergy, to conservative evangelicals who tend to have the most well funded churches
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
I don't think that holds any more. It's more like just over half.
Just for interest - 19 countries in the current Eurozone (ignoring all the ones that are mandated to join it that have spent the last 5-25 years desperately avoiding having to do so). Interesting trends.
Using your plurality of community identification criteria, rather than formal membership or attendance, we have:
Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Greece, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
Of those, clearly not Roman Catholic: Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Greece, Cyprus
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Oddly, Henry VIII wasn't actually that promiscuous by the standards of the time. He was more sort of serially monogamous. During his first marriage he had two fairly brief affairs, one of which produced a son (and the other of which may or may not have produced a daughter) but he wasn't actually that much randier than his father, who also fathered at least one child out of wedlock.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
Edward IV, now...
Henry VIII is often portrayed as doing the right thing (the break with Rome) for the wrong reasons ( he fancied a new wife). But that us to judge yesterday today's standards. Back then, the first duty of any monarch was to produce a son and heir for the Kong term stability of the kingdom. Queens were pretty much untested and not obviously on a par when the primary role was as a military leader. On that basis, the break with Rome was a selfless act for the kingdom.
"Increased regulatory burdens due to Brexit have hit 54% of businesses."
When touting the 'benefits' of Brexit, many of its proponents hugely underestimate its impact, by looking ONLY at direct exporters, rather than the whole supply chain. ~AA
“Increased regulatory burdens irrelevant to almost half of businesses.”
So affecting the majority of businesses.
And this you champion. Now.
So roughly the same proportion of businesses as are affected by corporation tax.
That something affects businesses isn't a reason by itself that it shouldn't happen. Its a con but if the pros outweigh it, then it may be desirable or even necessary.
By our favourite convert's estimation a majority of businesses are negatively affected by Brexit.
You may think that is a price worth paying for the sovereignty that we always had, but I am surprised at a free-market liberal such as yourself being in favour of greater burdens on business.
That they're "affected" doesn't mean the net effects are negative.
Does "increased regulatory burden" sound particularly appealing to you?
In general, no, which is why I've already acknowledge its on the con side of the balance sheet.
Unfortunately some people here want to only look at one side rather than double entrying things and looking at the other side of the equation.
I know I shouldn't ask this but what, to you, is the biggest benefit of Brexit given that, like NATO membership and any trade deal we do with anyone we agreed a set of rules for the club that we decided to join (and then decided to leave)?
For me any normal trade deal, like NATO, has set rules that are determined and agreed in advance and then operate consistently. In order for the rules to change, the UK Parliament must approve a change to the rules.
The EU does not operate on the same basis, it has sovereignty to act and change the rules unilaterally without UK Parliamentary input. The EU Parliament and EU Commission has the authority to change the rules without UK Parliamentary recourse.
NATO, and trade deals, do not have a Parliament or Commission that can rewrite the rules like that.
Just about any club can rewrite rules which affects the members and which is part of the articles of association. As can British parliaments for that matter.
Whether it be stipulating that on Fridays all members must wear tartan trews or creating a border in the Irish Sea we voluntarily delegate decision-making power to an executive which then makes decisions in the context of them having been told they are allowed to by the membership.
So given that, what is the biggest benefit you have seen to date from Brexit.
The EU is a club which can change its own rules.
Trade deals (and NATO) are not. The rules are not changing unilaterally.
That is the big benefit from Brexit. The UK approves changes to trade deals, the EU is self-evolving.
As I said any organisation including the British government can change its own rules. Literally any organisation can. The EU is not different in that regard. Changing the rules is part of the articles of the club in the first place. So leaving that is not a benefit it is just us deciding that we didn't want to follow those rules any more.
Meanwhile which rules that we didn't want to follow any more are the actual benefit?
The difference is that the EU is an institution according to those terms.
Trade deals are not. How can the Aus/UK trade deal change itself unilaterally without the UK's agreement in the same way as the EU can change the rules without the UK's agreement?
It depends. If the trade deal contained provisions for terms to change under certain conditions then the trade deal itself would change. It all depends upon the terms of agreement when it was entered into. Whether that is a trade deal or membership of something or other.
So again, what is the biggest benefit of Brexit. What have in your opinion we now done or received or been given that didn't or couldn't have happened in the EU.
So trade agreements aren't clubs as you've defined them which is a distinct advantage to not being in a club.
The biggest benefit of Brexit is that Parliament controls the laws now, not a "club".
Oh jesus and back we go. We control our laws. That is what parliament is for. And what about NATO controlling our armed forces. All good with that?
We control our laws now post Brexit. We didn't pre Brexit. That's why Brexit was a good thing.
NATO doesn't control our armed forces. NATO can not compel any nations forces to take any actions they don't want to take. That is something the Americans were absolutely adamant be adopted in NATO from it's very foundation onwards.
We controlled our laws pre-Brexit and post-Brexit. You are tilting at windmills and, aside from that wholly spurious distinction have failed to describe any tangible benefit of Brexit.
No, we didn't. The EU Parliament did for many laws. Otherwise, why do you think the EU Parliament existed.
Now Parliament controls all laws, both those it formerly controlled and those previously controlled by the EU. That is the tangible benefit of Brexit.
Unless we sign a trade deal that comes with its own Parliament that can rewrite its own rules in the same way, no trade deals are not the same as the EU.
I honestly don't know why you guys are bothering to have this debate for the XXXth time
It is like listening to Catholics argue with Protestants - during the Early Reformation
You have such differing conceptions of reality there can be no meeting ground, and no one will ever be persuaded to change their mind. Sovereigntist Brexiteers - like you and me - sincerely believe that to restore British democracy and sovereignty we had to leave the fundamentally undemocratic EU. Obviously
Committed EU-philes believe we had complete sovereignty in the EU, and that is proven by the fact we were eventually able to leave it (albeit taking a beating on the way out). To my mind that is a preposterous idea that borders on the infantile, nevertheless I will afford my fellow PB-ers the respect of honouring this as a "truth" they genuinely believe
But if that's the way they see the world then they are in a parallel universe to us, and never the twain shall meet. So we could all save a lot of tine for more interesting chat about aliens if we abandoned this particular unresolvable dispute
To an extent it still is, 90% of EU Eurozone nations are Roman Catholic in terms of their largest religious group, the UK is Protestant plurality. Most of the Protestant Lutheran plurality nations are in Scandinavia now and not in the Eurozone or in EFTA but not the EU.
Henry VIII's break with Rome was the Brexit of its day?
No, that's a very inaccurate parallel. Protestantism was a Europe-wide project with very strong links between Protestants in different countries.
And the Anglican split with Rome was mostly an EEA Brexit- the lines of power and control were cut, but (at least to start with) what happened on the ground didn't change much. The later attempts to make the CofE properly protestant didn't really stick.
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
Oddly, Henry VIII wasn't actually that promiscuous by the standards of the time. He was more sort of serially monogamous. During his first marriage he had two fairly brief affairs, one of which produced a son (and the other of which may or may not have produced a daughter) but he wasn't actually that much randier than his father, who also fathered at least one child out of wedlock.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
Edward IV, now...
Henry VIII is often portrayed as doing the right thing (the break with Rome) for the wrong reasons ( he fancied a new wife). But that us to judge yesterday today's standards. Back then, the first duty of any monarch was to produce a son and heir for the Kong term stability of the kingdom. Queens were pretty much untested and not obviously on a par when the primary role was as a military leader. On that basis, the break with Rome was a selfless act for the kingdom.
He was also the only adult male to legally succeed another adult male in the previous 96 years.
Comments
But it's a smarter flawed analogy that @Leon 's pregnancy nonsense.
Congrats.
So they'd be Leave > Remain perhaps, but of a uniquely mendacious variety
SpaceX has benefited from a large number of government contracts. Their record on delivering those contracts at prices lower than the competition is pretty good.
The big argument from the European point of view, on subsidies, is the ludicrously expensive military contracts. But these come with extraordinary levels of insight and paperwork, which run up the costs. Again SpaceX has been cheaper on these than ULA.
Both LockMart and Boeing have taken billions over the years for launch development tech programs where they produced - nothing. RASCAL for example. To the point where some suggested they were eating the money and failing deliberately to protect the status quo.
The FCC comedy includes this incredible fact - in the past the various ISPs have taken federal money to improve internet access. Then not done the work. Then declared it would unfair to ask for the money back. Now they are upset that SpaceX is bidding capability that already exists - probably they think that actually fulfilling a contract is evil or something.
and it gets more prescient as the years roll by
"Secondly, Brexit isn't any old political change, it's a profound life-change. Trying to predict what the economy will be doing ten years after Brexit, is like trying to guess exactly what furniture you will own, and how happy you might be, ten years after you first become a parent. Brexit is huge, dynamic, scary, turbulent, wholly unique, and inherently unpredictable: it will change our economy and our polity in good and bad ways we cannot, by definition, even begin to predict. This is why the forecasts have already proved to be so rubbish.
"Thirdly, there will be blood. Brexit is going to be painful, like childbirth. It just is. The Leave quacks who promised a brisk and blissful delivery don’t have enough diamorphine to dull the nerves. We might need epidurals from the Treasury. We will swear a lot, and not care. It might be rather embarrassing but again, we probably won’t care, because we’ll be concentrating on the pain. Other countries will look at us and think 'I’m never going through that'. Immediately after Brexit, we will likely appear reduced, saggy, wrinkled.
"Then comes the depression. It’s unavoidable. Overnight, your horizons have shrunk to a nursery room, some cheap Lidl shiraz, and the sound of a fiendishly annoying plastic toy which sings 'Froggy goes a courting he did ride uh-huh' over and over again. The house is a mess, all the time, in every way. You haven’t slept properly for several economic quarters. And so, at one point you will stare at a bowl of mushed baby food, and then you’ll soulfully ask yourself: Why did I ever do this?"
But lastly, cheer up. In the end, no matter how bad the depressions, or how annoying the nappies, very few people regret becoming a parent. It will be the same for Brexit. In ten years’ time we’ll look through the kitchen window of renewed prosperity, watch the laughing Remainers playing football with our smiling Brexit child, and we’ll quietly sip tea from a Union Jack mug, and we’ll think: best thing I ever did."
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-brexit-is-just-like-having-a-baby
Brittle brittle Leavers. Have to be handled with care.
Basically, all the "everyday" National Rail network that can be done at "normal" time of day*, plus the GB Trams/Metros/Subways. Except the West Midlands Metro from Library to Edgbaston (opened on the 17th), which I hope to do next week after the current heatwave.
I have done a limited number of heritage lines, but I'm not hell-bent on doing them all! I'm considering doing all those that are still connected, either operationally OR physically, to the National Rail or any other subway/metro (for example, the railway I sometimes volunteer at, Epping Ongar, still has a traversable physical connection to Epping tube station).
* then there are the PSUL routes, some of which I have actually done!
http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2022.pdf
Think you might be referring to my aversion to a 2nd Referendum.
"Mummy, mummy, mummy, mummy, why can't I have my own way all the time? Mwaaaaaah...."
It's hard to describe how blatantly they just took the money and did fuck all.
All I was pointing out is that Elon Musk has been very good at identifying those sources of money (Carbon credits on his cars, NASA projects, FCC grants for Starlink deployments) and grabbing them to allow him to progress.
History has had a few occasions when the question of English or British political ecclesiastical independence has been raised - Henry VIII, Thomas Becket, the Synod of Whitby... and for most of history ecclesiastical and political were almost synonymous. Personally I'm still disappointed in the outcome of the Synod of Whitby, where independence was traded for influence.
When we rejoin in 15-20 years and Leon happily nurses his beaker of wine in a nursing home he will look out happily, wondering how he got it so wrong in his middle age.
https://twitter.com/ArtMemeLord/status/1551278568243662849
I did vote remain but accepted the vote and support leaving and continue to do so, but I would like both extremes to realise there is a middle road and a better relationship would be good but that does require rapprochement by all
I am interesting enough to have a secret identity too you know. Honest. 😢
But the involvement of a power-mad shagger at the top of the British end is very on-brand.
It's the number of times he married sets him apart.
Edward IV, now...
With an extra topping of “don’t be rude - that’s our money”
Content because happy and sharing good times, lovely.
Etc etc
The other ISPs have, on multiple occasions, taken the money and failed to provide the contracted services. No *trying* was involved.
Literally - thanks for the money. And FU.
I was led to believe the line's owners want to extend right down into Epping, link with the end of the Central Line and provide a rush hour service for commuters going beyond Epping (basically reviving the old link closed in the mid 70s).
I realise there are many agencies involved but I'm sure you would agree this is something both the Town Council and the District Council could get behind and support.
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
By 58% to 32%, Britons agree with this, although 18-24 year olds are split 45% / 41%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1556659332028268545?s=20&t=FpA0vvgT-HPRrAOsiaMqrA
Do you think it is or is not morally acceptable to own a second home in Britain today?
Is: 52%
Is not: 29%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1556663272644005888?s=20&t=FpA0vvgT-HPRrAOsiaMqrA
Summon the homesmeller pursuivant, there are bricks and mortar sinners among us!
This afternoon, the wonderous YouTube algorithm (*) put the following on my feed. It is from a man, allegedly in Russia, who talks about the way he has to be so much careful now than he was ten years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TTOzvwVC3Q
It is long, and ends in a prayer (the only YouTuber whom I have sever seen end in a prayer), but I thought it very powerful. PB would certainly be banned in Russia; or at least we'd be *very* careful in what we say.
It's also frightening to see how quickly he thinks things have changed.
(*) All Hail the Algorithm!
It does have consequences, though. One is that every attempt to improve breadth of the 16-18 curriculum has foundered on our sentimental attachment to A Levels.
The other is that right now we can barely staff GCSE maths in schools. Making everyone do some sort of maths for another two years would need more, and more expert, staff. Since one of my jobs is converting people into maths/science teachers, trust me that this could be tricky.
(And I'm not being a Walt in saying this.)
"I believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic church"
It’s reported now that Russia have moved 25k north of the dnipro into a honey trap. As of last night their resupply / retreat routes have been closed off.
Most analysts seem to expect Ukraine to use this as an opportunity to heavily attrit Russian forces at relatively little risk, rather than launch a full armoured assault. In the meantime in their haste to move forces to Kherson, the Russians may have left the back door open at Izyium, a strategically key highway intersection for logistic operations for the wider theatre.
One suspects the Russian actions at the Zaporizhzhia are because they know Zelensky has them by the bollocks. So if necessary they’ll use the spectre of a radiation cloud to enhance their hand, and depressingly they may well play that card.
To describe this as Putin doing quite well or winning seems a stretch to me. These are the desperate actions of a dictator who knows he may be scrambling to stay alive within a few months.
I’m all agog..
How sure are you that the Ukrainian account of who's been shelling Zaporizhzhia is true and the Russian account is false?
For info: the Russian brass are predicting a Ukrainian false flag incident, although near Slavyansk, not at Zaporizhzhia.
For Anglicans, "Catholic" is thought of as "universal", without the added papal pretensions and claims. Though some will give the Pope a 'first amongst equals' type of respect.
On Henry VIII, with all that screwing around he almost meets the qualifications for one of the more controversial Popes from the time in history.
Didn't make much difference of course but he wasn't stupid, just unlucky.
So Hilary Mantel like Philippa Gregory is talking nonsense.
"Die Hard is a Christmas movie, full stop.
"Steven E. de Souza, who penned the film’s script more than 30 years ago, is adamant about that."
Just for interest - 19 countries in the current Eurozone (ignoring all the ones that are mandated to join it that have spent the last 5-25 years desperately avoiding having to do so). Interesting trends.
Using your plurality of community identification criteria, rather than formal membership or attendance, we have:
Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Greece, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
Of those, clearly not Roman Catholic: Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Greece, Cyprus
Clearly RC: Ireland, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Malta, Lithuania
Too tightly balanced to call: Netherlands, Germany, Latvia
Law unto itself - National theology of Not being RC: France
One source, and using various other refs:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/19/5-facts-about-catholics-in-europe