Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 18/05/2023 17:26:06
-
Brexit proponents say they don't want their laws and currency influenced or made by non-British bureaucrats in Brussels. Is it largely a nationalist/xenophobic thing?
-
The Rich in the UK want Brexit because it allows them to destroy worker, environment and social protections- which they see as harming short term profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retained_EU_Law_(Revocation_and_Reform)_Bill
To be fair, there are Left wing arguments against the EU but they seldom get a mention compared to nationalism and xenophobia.
-
It's not, there are many people who are pro European union and right wing, land owners business owners etc and many left wing (Jeremy Corbyn) who are brexiteers due to the undercutting provided.
Any segregation a list policy is easily construed as fascist if you have liberal peace and one love mankind all united hippie spectacles. Trouble is no one ever says to liberals that the ukraine would be speaking Russian at this point in time and so probably would they if left up to them due to the fact that saying as such would be, well, fascist wouldn't it? Jeremy Corbyn is also of a similar position to the liberals regarding the ukraine invasion.
-
What Corbyn actually said was that just giving arms to Ukraine won't fix the problem.
And he's right; we also need a diplomatic effort, which is the other point he made but which wasn't reported in the media (which is owned by billionaires who daren't have people listen to the Left).
The problem is the maniacs on both sides who, as Putin does, support the idea of "guns for peace".
There are valid Left wing reasons for opposing the EU.
The simplest is that the EU is effectively a cartel and cartels are bad for customers and workers.
But... if there's going to be a cartel, you are much better off inside it than outside.
And Brexit was never going to break up the EU no matter how many Right wing nut-jobs said it would.
so leaving was as most predicted, a disaster for our economy etc.
Essentially everything described in the press as "project fear" has come true.
There is no "considerable upside"; the "sunny uplands" were never more than a mirage.
-
The phrasing of a question is very important in such break away events for the very reason of hippie unity liberal spectacles.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-20512743.amp
It would be quite easy to portray the segregational Nationalist party in Scotland as swivel eyed fascists. One thing about these "cause" parties like the UKIP is that they have a common enemy, a goal to unite against. Fascism is power (not that I am saying UKIP or the SNP are fascists) through belief, once the initial goal is achieved another cause is needed, probably a bigger or more extreme goal. The National socialists of Germany in the 1930s needed a bigger cause once they had achieved power, so they ended up invading other countries, with fascism it always has to be someone else's fault.
-
Fascism is power ... through belief,
It's power through lying.
-
Fascism is power ... through belief,
It's power through lying.
Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.
-
Fascism is power ... through belief,
It's power through lying.
Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.
Looks like your ' Signature Line ' just went Obsolete...
Congratulations!
& Well Done.
: )
-
Fascism is power ... through belief,
It's power through lying.
Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.
Looks like your ' Signature Line ' just went Obsolete...
Congratulations!
& Well Done.
: )
No, it's just a disclaimer.
-
Fascism is power ... through belief,
It's power through lying.
Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.
Looks like your ' Signature Line ' just went Obsolete...
Congratulations!
& Well Done.
: )
No, it's just a disclaimer.
It's not "just a disclaimer"; It's not true.
-
I was Hoping to see this Change since awhile, hence couldn't resist commenting.
Please do not let my Silly comment manipulate You into going Off Topic.
Wish you will carry on your civilized discussions on the important Subject of BrExit.
Thank Yous!
(u both)
-
From my point of view, Brexit was never a right wing cause.
The EU was set up to protect market prices in Europe, regardless of the consequences to the environment or common sense. It imposed laws based on Roman principles (everything is forbidden except that which is allowed, commanded, or granted as a right) which do not mesh well with our Scandi-Celtic tradition (a few things are forbidden, you have few duties beyond paying tax and serving on a jury, and you don't need many rights). It told lies and set minimum "safety" standards that actually made medical equipment more dangerous. It required privatisation of national assets. It undermined the wages of the poor and made the rich richer. It required the UK to pay for the privilege of an increasingly negative balance of trade. It had a phony parliament with no power but unlimited tax-free expenses, and an unelected executive whose accounts were never signed off by the auditors.
-
...set up to protect market prices ... regardless of the consequences to the environment or common sense.
everything is forbidden
It told lies
set minimum "safety" standards
t required privatisation of national assets.
So... why did the Tories decide to leave it.
You seem to think that it was implementing all their policies.
Yet they say that we had to leave in order to implement those policies.
-
So... why did the Tories decide to leave it.
In order to win a general election. Having made a few quid by buying public assets at knockdown prices but failed to fully privatise the NHS, then realised that the influx of cheap labor wasn't particularly popular with the electorate and could be blamed on Tony B Liar, seen the writing on the toilet wall for the UK's net balance of trade, and being unable to implement strict Laura Norder policies because of Yuman Rites, it occurred to the few Tories with functional brain cells that this was a good time to deploy the Corbyn card (the Left being in total disarray about Europe) and win a few seats north of Watford.
Never accuse the Tory party of being longsighted (joining the Common Market was an obvious longterm trade disaster) or consistent, but you can't fault their opportunism.
-
joining the Common Market was an obvious longterm trade disaster
Less so than leaving has been, but if all your money is in offshore tax havens, the UK's economy doesn't matter much to you.
-
I would argue that the reality of Brexit was a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
As the second largest net contributor to, and largest importer from, the EU, the UK was in a position to get a better deal than Switzerland, Norway or China and blew it away by incompetent negotiation. Margaret Thatcher's only redeeming feature was the ability to say no on behalf of the UK, unlike her successors who were driven only by self-interest.
-
I would argue that the reality of Brexit was a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Many of us would argue that what was called "project fear" was a set of reasonable predictions. They have now happened (or are currently happening).
There was no way for Brexit to be a success- and it isn't one.
As the second largest net contributor to
...until we left.
So they were pissed off at us and refused to give us anything but a bad deal; obviously. To do anything but "punish" the UK would be to encourage other countries to leave and they didn't want that. I can not understand how anyone didn't see that coming.
This was entirely predictable except by those who thought we could stop paying our fees but still enjoy the benefits of being in the club.
the UK was in a position to get a better deal than Switzerland, Norway or China and blew it away by incompetent negotiation.
The UK already had a better deal (In fairness, that was due, in part, to Maggie's hand-bagging) than any of those, but voted to abandon it in the name of "blue passports and sovrinty".
Margaret Thatcher's only redeeming feature was the ability to say no on behalf of the UK, unlike her successors who were driven only by self-interest.
Maggie's most obvious feature was her dedication to her own self-interest.
-
benefits of being in the club.
Such as....losing money by importing more than we export, importing temporary cheap labor that undermines British wages, compulsory privatisation of public assets, destruction of the fishing industry, restrictions on agricultural species, and paying for "intervention buying" to maintain the market price of food. In short, membership of a club set up to benefit French agriculture, German industry, and the rich.
It is worth asking why the UK was not allowed to join until our economy was already in decline. Nothing to do with the color of passports.
-
I would argue that the reality of Brexit was a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
As the second largest net contributor to, and largest importer from, the EU, the UK was in a position to get a better deal than Switzerland, Norway or China and blew it away by incompetent negotiation. Margaret Thatcher's only redeeming feature was the ability to say no on behalf of the UK, unlike her successors who were driven only by self-interest.
The Corbyn problem, an many liberties are taken out of the EU as where taken in.
-
Such as....losing money
That's what we are doing NOW.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-31/brexit-is-costing-the-uk-100-billion-a-year-in-lost-output?leadSource=uverify%20wall
destruction of the fishing industry,
Again; it's the other way round.
https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/research/brexit-fisheries-deliver/
-
The Corbyn problem
The Corbyn problem was that he told the truth about the Right wing and both, the billionaires, and the folk at the BBC lied about him.
The BBC also made Nigel Farage the most frequent ever guest on Question time.
-
paying for "intervention buying" to maintain the market price of food.
I remember the "wine lake" and the "butter mountain" in the 1970s
I also remember not really hearing about them since. There's a reason for that.
"The butter mountain is a supply surplus of butter produced in the European Union because of government interventionism that began in the 1970s. The size of the surplus changed significantly over time and mostly disappeared by 2017, which led to shortages."
From.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_mountain
-
The NHS is in need of investment, we expect far better service than other countries who pay a significantly greater ammount of tax.
-
"The butter mountain is a supply surplus of butter produced in the European Union because of government interventionism that began in the 1970s. The size of the surplus changed significantly over time and mostly disappeared by 2017, which led to shortages."
Hardly indicative of competent management, eh? Whatever happened to the inherent efficiency of the free market? Oh yes, some bureaucrats and politicians decided to meddle with it to keep the price up whilst buying agricultural votes with taxpayers' money.
I always considered burning or otherwise denaturing food to be a mortal sin. May they all burn in Hell.
-
The BBC also made Nigel Farage the most frequent ever guest on Question time.
And gave Trump even more airtime!
As Goebbels said, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Like it or not, Farage was unique in always answering the question, and being prepared to campaign for the public good at the cost of his own salary (as an MEP).
-
That's what we are doing NOW.
Who "we"?
As for fishing, "Brexit means Brexit" clearly didn't mean Brexit to those responsible for doing it. Abraham Lincoln defined a country as a geographical area protected with lethal force, but if you scrap your navy you can't extend the area very far, and if you have spent the last 50 years giving fishermen compensation for scrapping their boats, there isn't much point anyway. Three years is a long time in politics (how many unelected prime ministers was that?) but the blink of an eye in environmental protection and food production. Iceland and Norway don't seem to have a problem, but then they don't have morons at the helm.
-
That's what we are doing NOW.
Who "we"?
Try reading it in context.
That's what we are doing NOW.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-31/brexit-is-costing-the-uk-100-billion-a-year-in-lost-output?leadSource=uverify%20wall
You will see that the UK is losing money post brexit.
-
but then they don't have morons at the helm.
Have you noticed that we have brexiteers at the helm?
-
Not mutually exclusive.
Joe Root wants to play cricket for England, and so do I, but in the event that I promised the selectors massive tax cuts and he just bored on about legside field placings, I don't think we'd win many games under my brief but hugely popular captaincy.
Anyway, the first few lines say it all. Businesses may be finding it difficult to raise investment or hire workers, but workers and investors (the other "we") can in consequence demand higher wages and smarter management.
And if the country is so bloody unpopular, why do we have such massive and uncontrollable inward migration?
-
Whatever happened to the inherent efficiency of the free market?
It is still here proudly in Britain, with no lorry drivers, unwilling workforce and rail ticket prices.
-
workers and investors (the other "we") can in consequence demand higher wages and smarter management.
That's not actually happening and the government is relying on having left the EU to implement anti-worker regulations to stop it doing.
-
Funny, that. I thought lots of workers were striking for higher wages. So it's just an unwillingness to turn up and do a job. Clearly, then, Brexit has turned the country into a paradise where you don't need to work at all.
-
Funny, that. I thought lots of workers were striking for higher wages. So it's just an unwillingness to turn up and do a job. Clearly, then, Brexit has turned the country into a paradise where you don't need to work at all.
Yes, it's an unwillingness to turn up and do a job, the conditions are contested by the unions and by people who look for retirement, have medical retirements, change jobs regularly. Many people who where near retirement age after corona didnt want to come back.
-
Funny, that. I thought lots of workers were striking for higher wages.
Strikes are, as you ought to know, the last resort when reasonable demands are not met.
You say the workers can expect " higher wages and smarter management.".
I'm just pointing out that's not what's happening, is it?
-
No, I said "demand", not "expect".
-
Just curious; if brexit was reversed, which benefit would you miss most?
-
My grandfather (right) at one of your great hospitals in 1942. 51.4977N 2.5249W
-
....before the NHS was established.
-
....before the NHS was established.
Before the NHS, did most working-class and poor Brits rarely, if ever, visit a doctor?
-
....before the NHS was established.
Before the NHS, did most working-class and poor Brits rarely, if ever, visit a doctor?
Yes, before the NHS people had to pay for doctors so the working classes had very little access to non emergency medical attention. There where free hospitals if you where maimed awfully.
-
Farage was unique in always answering the question
It's informative to look at some of his answers.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seb-dance/nigel-farage-seb-dance_b_14591852.html
Sure; he kept repeating the answers.
As Goebbels said, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
He also said "?If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
and being prepared to campaign for the public good
The lies he told were not good for the public. On the other hand, they got him a salary.
-
My grandfather (right) at one of your great hospitals in 1942. 51.4977N 2.5249W
Can you explain the way in which you think this is relevant?
-
Your cordial discussions & civilized conversations on the Topic were very informative n helpful to read & understand the Subject.
If y'all don't mind, i do have a lil follow-up query.
What bout " BrReEntry " ?
Any possibilities whatsoever in the coming decade, century or millenium?
ps - BrEnter(1973) - BrExit(2020) - BrReEntry(?)
-
What bout " BrReEntry " ?
I wondered about that.
Just curious; if brexit was reversed, which benefit would you miss most?
But nobody seemed to answer.
-
I'm disinclined to participate further because I actually find the question a bit offensive. Many of us on the "left" were always skeptical of the Common Market and more so of the EU. It happens that enough folk on the "right" agreed, for whatever reason (assuming that rightwingers are capable of reason) that they were able to push the government into a referendum on the subject, and the majority of the public shared my view.
So far, so good, but thanks to the bizarre means by which the Conservative party elects its parliamentary leader that left us with a series of pro-EU prime ministers contractually obliged to leave the EU, faced with an anti-EU opposition leadership contractually obliged to oppose whatever the government proposed. So the government half-heartedly negotiated our withdrawal from the political trough whilst not actually admitting that the Opposition and their own back benchers really had the public mood but couldn't express it. Meanwhile Romeo, disguised as a princess.....
The effect of incompetent negotiation has been a shambolic mess in Ireland, no benefit from "border control", and a gradual retreat from the potentially beneficial review and abolition of EU-based laws.
-
OK, you and I may well disagree on the merits of the EU. (Though, like you and , for example, Jeremy Corbyn, I'm not that happy with it.)
The EU, on the other hand is clearly in favour of the EU. Whether that's because they genuinely think it's the best for the people, or if they are just on the gravy train, the people in the EU making decisions really support the EU.
Economics happens; it's rare that economists predict its path well but the UK leaving the EU was pretty much guaranteed to have a significant effect on the UK economy. There will have been long arguments about whether the effects will have been good or bad.
But, notwithstanding the economists' ability to predict it, there will have been an effect.
So, imagine it's 5 or 10 years ago and you are a Eurocrat. For one reason or another, you want the EU to continue.
Either you think the Brexit that's being talked about will be good for the UK, or you think it will be bad.
But you really don't want any country's departure from the EU to be any sort of success, because that will destabilise the EU (and harm your gravy train or the benefits of the EU depending on your personal opinion).
And the other EU ministers all think the same way about Brexit being a bad thing for the EU.
So... if you think that Brexit will harm the UK, your view is "**** them! Let them leave. It will crash their economy and all the other countries thinking of leaving will learn that it's not a good option".
On the other hand, if you are scared that Brexit will be a success, you will think "the EU really needs to pull together on this and screw over the UK if it leaves. (Just to make sure that nobody thinks leaving is a good move)".
And, of course, if the UK's biggest trading partner wants to screw our economy, they can. They are simply much bigger.
So, either the UK economy is screwed because of Brexit directly, or the UK's economy is crewed because the rest of the EU sabotage it.
One way or another, Brexit screws the UK; simply because the EU thinks the EU is a good thing.
No strategy that the UK could employ to address that is relevant. At best, it chooses the other path for our act of self-harm.
And, fast forward to today, it has done.
Why is anyone surprised?
And then there's the master stroke of setting out your battle plan by announcing that you will leave.
Only a total idiot tells "the other side" what their negotiating strategy is before they start.
But Cameron, who was essentially pro EU, decided to announce that the UK would leave.
There wasn't a political reason for that. He could have called for a second (non- advisory) referendum.
He could have said to the EU "we are thinking of leaving; make it worth our while to stay".
But the decision was announced (to many people's surprise) that we would go regardless of how bad a deal they offered us.
And that decision was essentially made before the vote.
The claim had already been made; "sunlit uplands" "considerable upside" "we hold all the cards".
And So the EU knew that all they had to do was wait until we realised that we had to trade with someone and they could dictate terms.
And that was predicted before the vote took place.
So you can't really blame the negotiators- their hands were already tied.
I accept they were incompetent, but they were also irrelevant.
The other side of the table simply had to wait until the UK was desperate for a deal, and then offer them a poor one.
And, by that stage it was true, not just of the EU, but of everywhere else.
The thing is, I'm no genius politician. I'm not some prestige diplomat. But I worked that out. I knew Brexit would fail.
And, while I don't think the Tories are necessarily wonderfully clever, I accept that, even if they are less bright than me, they can hire someone brighter.
So, they went into this knowing what would happen.
And they did it anyway.
And a lot of them have made a stack of cash from doing it.
They have also given the USA a trade deal that lets the US "bid" for the NHS and trash our environmental and welfare (or humans and animals) laws.
So they stand to make even more money
Do you think they did that by accident?
-
The effect of incompetent negotiation has been a shambolic mess in Ireland
No negotiation could solve the "Schrodinger's border" problem.
The brexiteers simply lied about it.
-
Switzerland solved the land border problem many years ago. AFAIK all goods that meet EU standards may be traded in Switzerland and anything manufactured in Switzerland (or China, for that matter) to EU standards may be placed on the market in the EU. I don't see queues of trucks at the border, but they do retain the authority to stop and interrogate anyone or anything they consider suspicious. Given that Switzerland has four official languages and borders with umpteen other countries, it shouldn't be difficult to come to a similar arrangement across a single border in Ireland, where there are only two official languages, including a common business language, on each side.
Anyway, we seem to agree that the Tories are corrupt and incompetent, that the EU Commission is probably corrupt and vindictive, that Brexit isn't a left- or right-wing plot, and that the status quo is a shambles.
I rest my case.
-
Switzerland solved the land border problem
I didn't realise Switzerland had a comparable history of political violence.
Or were you trying to say that two very different things are the same?
that Brexit isn't a left- or right-wing plot,
Support (or not) for the EU isn't a Right or Left thing.
But Brexit was done by, and for the Right.
Anyway, perhaps you can get back to answering this
Just curious; if brexit was reversed, which benefit would you miss most?
-
I think it is too early to say nothing will happen because of brexit, we have not seen what would happen with a government prepared to shake things up a bit. The current government did act on the ukraine, but the majority of support for the ukraine has come from the USA, the EU would probably be having a very expensive debate in Brussels at this point on how to appease Putin.
If a government was prepared to invest, tax and legislate, brexit opens up numerous possibilities. For example the fishing industry should be nationalised, the catches monitored and the fishing areas allowed to rejuvenate. Imports of foodstuffs produced in a cruel, explotitative or environmentally unfriendly way should be banned. Products produced from polluting sources (coal fired electricity, chemical discharge etc) should be legislated against.
I doubt we will see any government have the bravery to do anything meaningful, I suppose brexit was a white elephant.
-
I think it is too early to say nothing will happen because of brexit,
Nobody was saying that.EU would probably be having a very expensive debate in Brussels at this point on how to appease Putin.
They didn't. They sent support.
If a government was prepared to invest, tax and legislate, brexit opens up numerous possibilities.
Those possibilities were open, but the government didn't do them anyway.
Imports of foodstuffs produced in a cruel, explotitative or environmentally unfriendly way should be banned.
In reality, Brexit means we will probably end up eating American stuff that doesn't meet our (or EU) standards of quality, safety or animal welfare.
Products produced from polluting sources (coal fired electricity, chemical discharge etc) should be legislated against.
Not really because that would stop other people trading with us.
I doubt we will see any government have the bravery to do anything meaningful,
They "bravely" made themselves an their friends much richer.
You could argue that illegally proroguing parliament was brave.
-
But Brexit was done by, and for the Right.
I have consistently campaigned and voted against the UK's association with the Common Market and the EU. I resigned from the Labour Party because the B Liar government had disgraced the name of socialism. Special Branch (remember them?) took a particular interest in me as a radical anti-nuclear weapons activist, and I spent many years as a trade union representative. As an accredited expert to EU scientific panels, I spent a fair bit of your money opposing legislation based on rights and duties instead of wrongs. Brexit was done as much by and for lefty people like me as anyone else, but it was done badly because those charged with doing it did not stand to gain personally.
-
Anyway, perhaps you can get back to answering this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2023 12:24:15
Just curious; if brexit was reversed, which benefit would you miss most?
The benefits I'm already missing are lower food prices, and a return to wrongs-based statute law and public ownership of infrastructure services. These could have flowed from Brexit but require a competent and uncorrupt government.
-
Anyway, perhaps you can get back to answering this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2023 12:24:15
Just curious; if brexit was reversed, which benefit would you miss most?
The benefits I'm already missing are lower food prices,
You can have lower food prices, if we hormone the beef and chlorinated the chicken, or better still would be eating insects or perhaps rat?
I do not understand why the substance you ingest to maintain your body is one where people are obsessed with it being cheap, or why they expect the workers in that industry to be lowly and badly paid. Why people want to pay just enough money for badly tasting strawberrys rather than more for nice tasting ones. I suppose it's so they can afford sky sports and watch the champions league, see all the people that they are paying millions of pounds to kick a ball about, rather than paying farmer Giles and his wife 20 pence a litre for milk rather than 10.
-
But Brexit was done by, and for the Right.
I have consistently campaigned and voted against the UK's association with the Common Market and the EU. I resigned from the Labour Party because the B Liar government had disgraced the name of socialism. Special Branch (remember them?) took a particular interest in me as a radical anti-nuclear weapons activist, and I spent many years as a trade union representative. As an accredited expert to EU scientific panels, I spent a fair bit of your money opposing legislation based on rights and duties instead of wrongs. Brexit was done as much by and for lefty people like me as anyone else, but it was done badly because those charged with doing it did not stand to gain personally.
So, the Brexit which was actually done was not done the way you have done it.
A magic hypothetical "beneficial brexit" would have been done by you and others like you.
But the actual, real Brexit was, as I said, done by, and for, the Right.
The benefits I'm already missing are lower food prices, and a return to wrongs-based statute law and public ownership of infrastructure services.
You can't miss what you don't have.
Those ideas were a fairy tale for the reason I explained earlier. The EU wouldn't allow them.
These could have flowed from Brexit but require a competent and uncorrupt government.
It would require at least two such governments, ours and the EU's.
But that wasn't going to happen in the real world, was it?
So no "good brexit" was actually ever going to be possible.
It should have been the Monster raving loony party's policy alongside every day being Christmas.
So, if Brexit (the real one, not a fantasy) was revoked, what would we lose?
-
Those ideas were a fairy tale for the reason I explained earlier. The EU wouldn't allow them.
Which is why we left the EU.
It would require at least two such governments, ours and the EU's.
No, just one. Like almost every other independent country.