another pointless bridge?

Discussion about miscellaneous topics not covered by other forums
Boro Boy
Posts: 4115
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:05 pm
Location: London
Has thanked: 1044 times
Been thanked: 2185 times
Contact:

Re: another pointless bridge?

Post by Boro Boy » Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:15 pm

macliam wrote:Total rubbish and repeated far too often - in many cases negotiation is to make the impact on the "loser" less bad.

In your world...! Reality: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /negotiate :thumbup:

Chadwick
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 817 times
Been thanked: 2143 times
Contact:

Re: another pointless bridge?

Post by Chadwick » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:25 am

Boro Boy wrote:
Boro Boy wrote:
Chadwick wrote: * UKIP, the ERG, and the various Leave campaigns had been arguing for leaving for much longer, but incredibly hadn't bothered to work out any plan or concept of how to leave or what we would do instead. They literally had one job...

Here you must have missed this 119 page article to read on exiting EU from UKIP.... :eh:

See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BYEEr6 ... SltsB/view

"The purpose of this document is not to restate the arguments for Britain’s exit from the
European Union, that case was made and won on 23rd June 2016.
The purpose of this document is to describe how HM Government and Parliament
could and should fully implement the Referendum decision and leave the European
Union as quickly and completely as possible: thereby restoring Britain’s status as a
sovereign, independent, self-governing nation.
The format of this document is to describe what HM Government needs to do in order to
achieve a speedy and complete withdrawal from the European Union. It also describes the
most important areas of policy now controlled by the EU, and summarises the relevant
background..."
A document put together after the referendum. They actually campaigned to do something they had not defined and did not know how to achieve. Only afterwards did they put that document together. The document takes the stance that this isn't how they would have done it, but rather than address the current situation, they'll use the benefit of hindsight to imagine what they would have done if they had thought of it at the time.

I'll be honest, I haven't read it all yet. I kind of got unstuck in the introduction when it says that UKIP can't present any details because they are leaderless and despite having campaigned for this for years, the best they can now offer is "in some areas policy options for HM Government are proposed."
That didn't put me off entirely. I was confused by the next paragraph that stated that the EU was entwined in UK national life "like some kind of legislative Japanese knot-weed" and that it would take years to untangle this. That's one of the points the Remain campaign argued - you can't 'just leave'. UKIP's proposal is therefore to 'just leave' by immediately repealing the legislation. Then, with no legal basis to eg. keep planes flying and all the other 'project fear' issues, we would negotiate our way out of this undefined limbo. Rather than working out at least the basics first, UKIP's argument is to go for a hard Brexit and pick up the pieces afterwards. Given their acknowledgement of how interdependent we are on the EU, that seems foolhardy.

Undeterred, I carried on reading until I got to their 6 tests by which they defined what Brexit meant. It is regrettable that this information wasn't available at the time of the referendum, so people could decide if it was what they wanted to support. As it is, only if the final arrangements meet these 6 criteria will UKIP agree that we have Brexited to their satisfaction. If these tests are not passed we can argue about whether we have achieved Brexit, BRINO or (a sadly underused term) a Dog's Brexit. (On a personal note, I am disappointed that UKIP have missed the opportunity to introduce the term 'Full English Brexit'.) But I digress.

Test 1 conflates leaving the EU with the European Court of Human Rights, which set off my 'doesn't understand the issue' klaxon. The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.

Test 2 is that we stop people from other countries settling here. No reference to points systems, skills-based quotas, international cooperation etc. Just STOP THE FOREIGNERS. My 'bunch of racists' klaxon went off.

Test 3 is to take control of the fishery EEZ. Apparently we must 'resume control' of an area we never controlled. 'Misleading jingoism' klaxon. Interesting too that this is the third test; this appears to be more important than the general principle of unfettered trade, which is...

Test 4. Freedom to swap tariff-free trade with most of Europe and much of the world (through existing EU treaties) with tariff-laden trade with everyone until we negotiate something better. In other words, Brexit will be a success if our imports and exports cost more. Presumably this is explained in more detail further into the document, but the headline summary just sets off the 'no economic benefit' klaxon.

Test 5 is that Brexit is only successful if we renege on our previous commitments to the EU. Brexit is successful if we can hold our head high and say "an Englishman's word is most certainly not his bond". I don't even have a klaxon - I thought even UKIP had dropped this appalling stance.

Test 6 is that it is more important to get something signed off by the end of 2019, than it is to make sure we get the right result. As a project manager I have some sympathy with this. However, given UKIP's apparent goal of just cutting the UK off and pretending the EU never happened, I fear this arbitrary deadline will just focus them on the quickest end point, and not the best one. If their goal is to reach the beach, rather than find a safe route down where we can carry a picnic and (it's a British beach) a windbreak, UKIP will happily throw themselves off the cliff edge and claim success when they hit the sand below in a tangled and bleeding heap. I don't think the speed of Brexit should be a key factor in determining its success.


It's at this point I stopped reading, because the introduction sounded like they were heading in the wrong direction. The rest of the document may well offer some policy ideas to enable (possibly support?) the headline goals, but the headline goals aren't worth pursuing. I'll try to read the rest - I'm sure there are some benefits to being outside the EU, even if they are outweighed by the benefits of staying in. There aren't many examples of them, but maybe UKIP have tucked them away in here. it would be good to have something to look forward to.
Last edited by Chadwick on Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thanked by: macliam, pabenny, Fuggsy

macliam
Posts: 8176
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:26 pm
Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
Has thanked: 1414 times
Been thanked: 7149 times
Contact:

Re: another pointless bridge?

Post by macliam » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:28 am

Boro Boy wrote:
macliam wrote:Total rubbish and repeated far too often - in many cases negotiation is to make the impact on the "loser" less bad.

In your world...! Reality: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /negotiate :thumbup:
In everybody's world - read your own quote
"The police negotiated with the gunman through an intermediary." Tell me where the win-win situation is there :roll:
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me

blythburgh
Posts: 14853
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:14 pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 31117 times
Been thanked: 6016 times
Contact:

Re: another pointless bridge?

Post by blythburgh » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:30 am

Spinechillling remarks from Nissan this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45743771

Over to Boro Boy to say it is fake news/scaremongering. :lol:
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

Chadwick
Posts: 1699
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:21 pm
Has thanked: 817 times
Been thanked: 2143 times
Contact:

Re: another pointless bridge?

Post by Chadwick » Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:35 am

Boro Boy wrote:
gle1975 wrote:There are lots of models for leaving the EU such as the Norway/Iceland EEA one, the Swiss one where they are not in the EEA but have lots of different agreements, one like the Canada CETA one or just telling the EU to bugger off and doing something based on WTO rules. But because there has been lots of EU integration (without consent - no referendum on Maastricht, Lisbon etc) it's complicated to leave.

You just have to pick one!

...and not have one imposed by the EU when it is they who stand to benefit the most and are in more need of "a deal" than we are. There will be lots of brinkmanship me thinks... :think:
Which model did you pick?
  • Blind Brexit
    Hard Brexit
    Soft Brexit
    Red, white and blue Brexit
    Make-your-own-adventure Brexit
    Dog's Brexit
    Chequers
    Canada
    Canada++
    Norway
    Switzerland
    Just Leave
    No deal
    Good deal
    Bad deal
    Insert-deal-here Brexit
    What's Brexit?
    None of the above
    Don't care
I'll give you a clue: the option on the referendum was the last one.
Even if the end result is 'imposed by the EU', you voted for it.

pabenny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:21 pm
Has thanked: 497 times
Been thanked: 1579 times
Contact:

Re: another pointless bridge?

Post by pabenny » Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:21 pm

Chadwick

I have to admire your fortitude in reading even as far as you did in UKIP's document. I spent a few minutes scanning it and it is the most dreadful jingoistic tosh - I looked at the page devoted to Gibraltar which devoted more time complaining about history teaching than providing a meaningful way forward for the British residents of the Rock. More people live in Gibraltar than are employed as fishermen in the UK. And yet fisheries is one of their key tests.
Thanked by: blythburgh

blythburgh
Posts: 14853
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:14 pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 31117 times
Been thanked: 6016 times
Contact:

Re: another pointless bridge?

Post by blythburgh » Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:33 am

pabenny wrote:Chadwick

I have to admire your fortitude in reading even as far as you did in UKIP's document. I spent a few minutes scanning it and it is the most dreadful jingoistic tosh - I looked at the page devoted to Gibraltar which devoted more time complaining about history teaching than providing a meaningful way forward for the British residents of the Rock. More people live in Gibraltar than are employed as fishermen in the UK. And yet fisheries is one of their key tests.
But then again the people of GIbraltar do not matter much compared to fishermen in swing seats like Lowestoft/Great Yarmouth which still have some fishing boats. Nor do they prop up the Govt. like the DUP.
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest