The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.4K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 31 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 370 Fun & Games
- 90 BA Predictor Threads
- 29 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 280 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 110 Current West Ham
- 198 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 25 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 379 Match Threads
- 53 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 36 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 53 Internationals
- 46 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 108 Football Chatter
- 42 Football Chatter
- 260 Other Teams & Matches
- 24 Other Players & Staff
Comments
A future in Europe in my opinion would have meant continued erosion of British values & identity through regulation & immigration.
A future out of Europe again in my opinion will force the UK to be more self sufficient, the devaluation of the pound will encourage manufacturing & discourage imports.
Europe's motives are quite clear, tying freedom of movement with free trade shows their hand, fundamentally a European future will be a USE - United States of Europe.
No more nationalism, look in the mirror & ask yourself why are you proud to be English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh or simply British.
IMO - The Europeans want to take this from us
1. I don't know what 'British values and identity' actually are. Unless it can be defined, beyond being some emotive but essentially meaningless rhetoric, there's no point talking about it.
2. I'm not proud to be 'English' or 'British'.
What does that mean. Nothing. I didn't choose either - it was an accident of birth. If I did nothing to 'choose' it, how can I be proud of it?
Are you proud of the colour of your eyes or hair? That is another thing over which you had no control. Nor does it signify your own efforts, achievements or accomplishments. How can you be proud of something that is an accident?
I can list dozens of things that the 'English' or 'British' did that are disgusting and shameful.
Are you proud of those, too? Or do you just want to cherry pick good stuff and ignore the bad stuff?
I can't be getting on with it, tbh.
Why is it acceptable to look at the bad things but not to look for the good. As an ex-teacher I am sure you found accentuating the positive has a far more positive effect on encouraging your charges with developing their skills, whether social, sporting or academic.
Why can we not have pride in our nation(s)? I am certainly proud to be associated (through accident of birth) with the nation that fought to abolish slavery (for example).
I am also proud that I still have my hair, which is clearly down to genetics and complete fortune - especially as my brothers have both lost most of the hair on their heads ;-)
I personally may not have contributed, but i am proud of what my family and other British families contributed.
We have the rights to have these conversations and the power to change things via the poll booth that many people still strive for.
I am very proud of my British heritage and feel that it should not be given away so lightly.
In terms of how people use the phrase being 'proud to be British' - they don't do it to encourage people to behave in a certain way. It is about congratulating oneself on not being like those other foreign folks, but being much superior. So for me, to focus ONLY on the positive is disingenuous.
I am fully appreciative of good things that British people have done - eg, the emancipation movement, the battle for equal rights etc. But they didn't do it because it was somehow 'British'. And such struggles were not limited to only British people. So I see no reason to link it to any one nationality. Their nation of birth is accidental. If nationality was somehow a driver/determiner of doing 'good deeds' then there would never have been slavery in Britain in the first place.
People did (what I see as) a good thing eg, change the law to prevent child labour and exploitation, or instigate universal suffrage, etc (add your own cause to the list) NOT because they were British but because they were 'good' (imo) people.
As many British people as fought for 'good' causes also oppressed those who did so, and fought against them.
That isn't imo 'our continued insistence of only looking for the bad that has been done'. It's about a balanced view.
I can look at both positive and negative. But in the end, I actually don't care. Because, as I have tried to point out above, I played no part in it. I wasn't born.
Furthermore, it wasn't the sole preserve of people who were born (hundreds of years ago) within the same arbitrary lines drawn on a map as I was. Because France is associated with Equality, Liberty, Fraternity, do they have sole rights to that? No.
For me, that's why 'national' identity is a meaningless concept.
I only have my own identity, that I have built for myself through my own actions and choices.
Finally, anyone who want to embrace the 'national identity,' fair enough. It's not for me, but people make their own choices. I respect their right to do so.
BUT, if they don't front up to both the good and the bad, then I have no respect for them.
I agree with your assertion that we all have our own identity and also agree we should recognise the good and the bad in out past (whether personal or national).
We are from different backgrounds and have different views, that doesn't make either of us right. And that is one of the British attributes I am very proud of, the right to disagree - but hopefully still respect the others' views.
Instead of which they are constantly demanding answers to questions that would put those negotiations in danger (you don't lay your cards on the table before you bet), then you have the Scottish PM saying she is off to Berlin to hold talks for Scottish trade agreements and assurances with the EU (really? how is that going to work exactly as any must depend on the UK exit talks), and European politicians demanding that London 'Must' give over sections of their lucrative financial business to the Paris and Frankfurt markets - Apart from him (and a couple of other European MP's and the Paris and Frankfurt markets) says who? There is no need for that to happen and I sort of have the feeling that the City will ignore that call and carry on as normal - like they normally do.
It was made clear by the leave campaign (if you actually cut through all the negative remain and media reporting), that the negotiations would be done to get the best possible deal for the UK - not sure when all this 'Hard Brexit' 'Soft Brexit' started, but in the run up to the vote the EU were definitely playing the hard game and it was coming across as they wanted to make it as hard as possible to dissuade anyone else from leaving.
There are two clear EU groups on this, on the one hand (the most vocal) they are taking the 'Make it as hard brexit as possible', on the other there are others that see that if it is a 'hard brexit' it could be as damaging, in not more so, to their own economies.
Your analogy is wrong as well, its not about sharing things. From what I can gather from those who voted to leave (i.e. neighbours and friends), they are perfectly happy to share, providing any sharing agreements are subject to taking into consideration the circumstance of the country, which can be reviewed and revised when the circumstances change. The problem was that the EU made the rules and they had to go along with them, when there was a choice allowed, if the EU did not get the answer it wanted, it would change the rules until it did. They felt disenfranchised, ignored, overlooked and taken advantage of, so this was a chance for their voice to be heard.
If the predictions of hard times to come turn out to be wrong, I'll be the first to be delighted in my error.
My son is 30, and has just become a father. I'd love for both him and my grandson to live in times of economic growth, but I don't think my criticism of the vote to Leave is any kind of reason why the UK isn't 'getting somewhere'.
I am not blaming them all per se, only those who think they still have a say (politicians, so called business and finance leaders, media people etc.) in if we stay in or leave. The vote was to leave, the Gov't has said they will leave as per the vote wanted. With all the negativity these people keep coming out with constantly, they are massively adding to the uncertainty that is causing the falls. Unfortunately the Media are fuelling this as they only like to highlight what they see as attention grabbing headlines and sensationalising it, to the extent that it is a foregone conclusion it will happen.
Yesterday there was a meeting between the PM and the boss of Nissan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-37656480) which is on the BBC business pages - where was this on any of the main news channels, I certainly don't recall seeing it. If he had said he was going to stop investment and possibly pull out of the UK, it would have been all over the headlines on every bulletin - balanced reporting, I think not.
If there were more reporting of this nature or it was given a higher profile, do you not think it might stem or even reverse the falls?
So as much as I would not want him to win, there could be a big benefit there.
Also, don't forget there will be French and German Elections in the months before article 50 is triggered which could have an effect on the negotiations.
Brexit is in effect a not yet violent civil war, we have those who feel British and want to protect their image of what that is and those that don't and see themselves more globally connected through humanity rather than nationhood. The country is massively divided and Theresa May is using wartime tactics when she accuses MPs who want parliament to be involved of trying to subvert the will of the people, she is making them out to be less British or patriotic for questioning what happened.
Many feel the referendum was simply about politics, specifically David Cameron attempting to regain control of his own party from a hard right faction by holding a referendum he felt he couldn't lose. The press however seized the opportunity to show who really controls democracy and delivered the result they wanted.
Such a massive decision should not be about politics, and should not be put to referendum for as we know everyone votes upon what they believe, regardless of it's factual reality, such a decision as to whether it is strategically right for us to leave the EU at this particular time is too big to be about party politics or the man in the street deciding. It needs hard headed informed decision making and nothing else. The only person I have seen act and speak in this way is Mark Carney. I think the man is fantastic, you look at him and you know he is not swayed by emotion, patriotism or what anyone else says, you know he looks at strategy and aim. Unfortunately I have sat down so many times and looked at the position we as a nation were in before the referendum and I cannot see how we end up better off. I would love that we could cherry pick and have control of immigration and retain all the benefits, but I realise it isn't possible. I also recognise that immigration is a problem at present, but no where near the extent where you would sacrifice so much to win control of it. To trade everything else you rely on to build a whole for one small piece makes no sense.
Sadly the victory may have become more important than the outcome now for brexiters. Petrol going up, inflation rising month on month, job losses may all be tolerated when before they would have been up in arms, because they need to have won, to see us out. Sadly the thing I am most sure of is that if it does all go wrong if our economy free falls like the pound itself, it will be the poorest hit hardest as it always is.
As for timing you strategically should not trigger before a new French and German govt is elected as you could negotiate with two people who then leave the table and are replaced. it is strategically not prudent or in our interests. But stepping ove rthe line and being able to celebrate a victory which can then not be lost is once again more important to many than coherent strategy.
As for negotiation itself it's embarrassing, like bluffing a pair of fives. There is one simple fact they cannot lose everything depending on the outcome of these negotiations, they can only lose a little, we can lose almost everything, so who is going to give first? us.
TM can politically rabble rouse all she likes, she has no where to go strategically with this.
Apologies for the long post, did not intend it to be but couldn't find my way off the soap box once I stepped on. I hope the politicians will keep debating it as we are as it is the only way.
I still think we will come out worse than had we stayed and those who thought we would "regain control of our borders" will sadly be disappointed. When it comes down to it, the government will always pick the economy over immigration every single time no matter the trade off.
By the end of the negotiations we could be sitting outside the EU in the single market with freedom of movement but no seat at the table and being dictated to, those bank laws we vetoed against to keep the City of London Financial services the centre point, we will not have a say in that what so ever next time around for example, Europe can easily drain the City of London Financial services bit by bit.
Too many people think the UK is a power house to throw its weight around sadly I think people overestimate the UK's power its virtually nothing without its allies and when it comes to it a lot of people will be asking the question "Why did we even bother in the first place."
So the very people that create this toxic mix of nationalism and patriotism, the very people that manufacture war and oversee the slaughter of thousands of people, are the ONLY people that we trust our very lives and futures to? Seems an odd conclusion to me.
I see myself connected to the whole of humanity, I have confidence in the ability of the whole of humanity, not just the chosen (questionable) few. The EU is becoming a Super Nation State, why else would it need to create a European army, the very hallmark of a recognised nation state, the very defenders of a nation state.
People voted out because there is a HUGE disconnect between political aspirations and what people "on the street" actually want and need. The further away decisions are made that affect peoples day to day lives the more alienated, the more disconnected, the less in control people feel. Given the opportunity people have decided to give the establishment a kicking. The nameless, faceless men in Brussels are just that to the average Joe in The Rhondda Valley, nameless and faceless, (and probably clueless). Surely it makes sense that decisions that effect local people are made (as far as possible) locally. The Brexit vote (IMO) is a small step to taking back control, not of borders, not of immigration, not of the shape of our fruit, but of our lives, where we live.
The Brexit vote was a huge shock for the establishment, which is why it`s causing such a rumpus. I know who I trust more with the future of humanity, and it`s not (as claretandblue so eloquently described) the warmongers who represent the nation state.
For me the strategy is remain not because I love the EU although in principle I like the original idea. However at this moment the EU is being tested due to the natural faults of a common currency in the Euro and differing needs and agendas of member states. Within this club 0f 28 members we sat with the second best performing economy, outside of the Euro and it's obligations with a veto and opt outs concerning euro bailouts and non EU immigration.
So for me if you take out emotion and sentiment the strategy is wait and see what happens from an insulated place of control. The EU will either change greatly to survive meaning new treaty change which will need our approval, a time at which we can ask for things in return. Should it simply untangle we are best positioned anyhow due to not being bound to the Euro to make the best of it. We can also leave at anytime in the future we wish by triggering article 50.
Things in the UK are how they are due to austerity to a large extent in my view and not so much due to immigration (although there are serious issues due to that), but not so much so that you would adopt the path we have at present if strategically working in the interests of the nation as a whole. In all nations the economy is the means through which the nation prospers or fails, if our economy falters public services will be cut again and again, Boris will be OK but the working man will hurt.
What I ask of my brexit friends when having this debate is what is your strategy and the best strategies end up only with the economy just about staying where it is and reliant on so many things going our way, and most are so outlandish and rely upon us being able to do exactly as Boris said, we go to the EU and say we want free market membership but control of immigration, we don't want EU law and we don't believe we should pay anything to the EU....... and they say yes because Germany wants to sell us cars and France wants to sell us cheese. It's at that point I become very anti referendum as a way of deciding the countries course.
However, the EU has other purposes, and if you judge it by some of these, it is a success.
Furthermore, as I suspect you also know, there are many factors which lead to differing economic situations between different states. Not least, geography, geology and weather, which the EU can't really do much about.
Finally, even if we accept the premise of your argument, couldn't we equally say that it is a blooming miracle that certain countries have avoided bankruptcy given their circumstances, and so well done EU! ;wink
The wrong decision for the wrong reasons.
*Assuming you are right about their motives.
I think most people want the same things. Peace, happiness good health, to feel safe etc, etc, it`s just that due to the complexities and misfirings of the human brain we seek different ways of achieving them. And yes, I would love to be able, in the future, to sit in my open top Mercedes on Aldeburgh seafront, sipping chilled Italian Pinot, whilst eating some long crusty bread and brie, I just hope that these finer things will still be available to us. If not it will have to be the Hillman Imp with a bottle of mild and a spam sandwich.
I just have a huge problem with politicians and levels upon levels of bureaucracy. And I find it hard to fathom when people from Remain complain about Boris and his bus, Farage and his squinty eyes, Gove and his disappearing chin and the lies that they spout. And Brexiters complain about Osborne, Cameron and project fear, and Sadiq and his independent state of London, and all the other prophets of doom (and the lies that they spout) and then who do we look to, who do we turn to now Brexit may be a reality. The same people we KNOW lied to us only weeks ago. And what makes it worse, these liars representing us are talking to politicians and bureaucrats from the other side of the water who themselves undoubtedly lie, cheat and steal to maintain their slippery grip on the little bit of power they possess.
As I say, most people want the same things in life, I have just lost faith over the years in the ability of the current system, and the tens of thousands of people that run it, to successfully deliver what most people want. You only have to watch the news every night to see that the World isn`t working, and it`s not you and I that cause or want the famine, death, destruction, war, and inequality that dominate most broadcasts, and I`m not saying that (most) governments crave famine, death and destruction, but who else is there to blame. West Ham keep losing, Bilic gets the sack. World keeps imploding? perhaps we should try something different. I don`t want to punch Putin on the nose, never met the bloke, but if Hilary wants to flex American muscle........................
I`m just so bored of the status quo. No one is EVER taught about alternatives, kids are never taught to question authority (I know that sounds mad) why would they be. We (from a very early age) blindly accept what we are taught and told and are never given the alternate view. I stumbled upon "the alternate view" as a 13 year old through Punk, and was lucky enough a few years later to have an Anarchist as a lecturer (economics) who encouraged us to read economists and philosophers from that perspective as well as mainstream.
What that taught me is NO-ONE has all the answers and NO-ONE is perfect, we are human after all, but to aim for freedom, for equality, for peace and a World free from exploitation and oppression is worth striving for. Unfortunately, the World we live in seems to accept these inequalities as natural and for the most part a necessity to perpetuate the Capitalist way. They don`t openly admit this of course but Government and religious structures and moralities are structured to keep us keeping on accepting.
Now I must apologise for the soap box thingy.
Oh and COYI, roll on saturday, and lets smash the mackems (metaphorically speaking of course).
So I can't understand how you can blame governments (ie, folks) for all the horrors and failures of the word today, but somehow think that 'ordinary folks' are not just as much a mixture of vices and virtues and wouldn't mess up just as much if there was some other system in place.
What a good idea.
Oh. Yeah, that's right. ;doh