Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Brexit: The road to nowhere

#1
stryder Offline
Currently the UK news has been a buzz with the posed harsh realities of a a Post-Brexit where the UK leaves with a No-deal scenario.  The main problem is that technically no-deal isn't just scaremongering in some respects it can actually be what the UK wants should they actually consider their options a bit more in depth.

It was suggested that Brexit Exit voters wanted better dealings with Europe originally and when that wasn't going to happen the Exit vote came.  For the majority of people it wasn't about racism, just the ineffectiveness of a unionised system due to in part the large number of members and the internal pacts and collations that each had with each other.  

The Brexit remainers like the concept of unity, of co-operation of being in something bigger that has the hope and passion of something good at the end of it.  Unfortunately the European Union has not been it.



So what would be the best strategy for the UK?

Well I've considered this greatly and I realise that if I don't voice my consideration then it will never have the chance to be heard and that Scaremongering in the press will literally become the very thing we don't want it to be be.... Real.  (Also it's alleged that the UK MP's have been busy spending the allocated money on deals that might not even be possible in the future should the following considerations be considered, so really getting this information out is more about them paying heed.)

What the UK needs to have is a strong leader (and this could be the current one not necessarily a replacement) to stand before Europe pre-March (The point of Exit) and literally lay this before them.
They would need to state that the UK is going with a No-Deal (no more need for the press to scaremonger, since it's done and dealt with) however the reason for the No-Deal is that the UK is putting forwards the creation of a New Union, and that the UK's representative is there to offer those in the currently EU the opportunity to switch Unions.

Ideally the countries that are offered would have like-minded considerations about which direction to take this new union, and likely would require to be geographically close.   Any deals between such countries and the EU would have to be reworked between the New Union and the EU  (This is why a Deal or No-Deal becomes less of a deal breaker, since a rework would likely change everything anyway.)

Tighter external borders (With soft internal ones) could be a foundation of the new union (and it's partly the reason why such a union would work better with Geographical neighbours) this would deal with a mixture of the issues caused by immigration and defence.

A New Union with Ireland (Leadership permitting) would allow a Soft Border, so the hardships and problems caused by the current disarray of a Brexit would be completely un-necessary.

Scotland could even join this new union with it's own voice, while still remaining within the UK. (This might be said of other parts of the UK too)

Proverbially Splitting the Baby (wikipedia.org), a new union would fulfil the obligation of Leavers to Exit and quench the need of solidarity with remainers.  In essence this means that it reduces the instability caused by Brexit which could have repercussions for years to come otherwise.

Optional Considerations
(These aren't necessarily to do with Brexit, but I'd considered them in regards to how the EU should have worked)

Leap Taxes  
The concept being that one year in every four a union related country would have a reduction in taxation compared to other countries within the union.  This would cause trade to shift back and forth between the countries in the union as better deals would be available with those countries during that time.  Using such a method reduces the problems of economic stagnation.

(Controversially) Immigration Tax and Immigration Grants.
Immigration isn't something that is ever going to be fully stopped, however it can be curtailed.  If the countries of a union aren't hospitable to immigrants, they should be able to pay a premium to the union to keep the immigrants from their country.  That premium (a tax) can then be used as a grant to those countries within the union (and possibly external to it) to fund the human rights and welfare of immigrants they take in.  This would allow those countries to build the utilities and facilities that are necessary not just for the added immigrants in their country but their own people.  

An immigration policy could be added to be similar to the leap year method, where one year in four would allow immigrants into a country, the other three years that country pays a premium to other countries to take any new immigrants in.  Due to the change in having only a one year window for immigration, immigrants would be expected to file paperwork in advance otherwise the likelihood of them being taken in legally would be extremely thin.

(Incidentally I considered this point during Blair as Prime Minister and it made me realise just how ineffective the politicians at the time were, as they either were incompetent for not having push something similar to this in Europe or they were corrupt having done a back channel deal and pocketed any money for housing immigrants in the UK, while making the immigrant situation look so much worse.)

In a nutshell these are just considerations on how the UK should move forwards, whether it will be heard in time or the countries falls apart in the meantime, that's beyond me.
Reply
#2
C C Offline
(Jan 4, 2019 11:51 AM)stryder Wrote: The main problem is that technically no-deal isn't just scaremongering in some respects it can actually be what the UK wants should they actually consider their options a bit more in depth.

Here one of the sparse conceptions of a "no deal" aftermath, for those having less encountered such:

What is a ‘no deal’ Brexit? The consequences of the UK leaving the EU without a deal: With [now less than] 100 days to go before the UK is due to leave the European Union, the Government has announced it is stepping up preparations for a no-deal Brexit. [...] So what would actually happen with no deal? These are just some of the consequences...

Trade: The UK would revert to World Trade Organisation rules on trade. While Britain would no longer be bound by EU rules, it would have to face the EU’s external tariffs. The price of goods in shops for Britons could go up as businesses would have to place tariffs on goods imported from the EU. Some British-made products may be rejected by the EU as new authorisation and certification might be required. Manufacturers could move their operations to the EU to avoid delays in components coming across the border.

People: The UK would be free to set its own controls on immigration by EU nationals and the bloc could do the same for Britons. There could be long delays at borders if passport and customs checks are heightened. The fate of expats – there are 1.3 million Britons in EU countries and 3.7 million Europeans in Britain – in terms of their rights to live and work would be unclear. Professionals working in the EU might find their qualifications are no longer recognised, meaning they are no longer able to practice. Flights to the EU could be grounded as the necessary safety confirmations to cover both ends of the journey might not be in place.

Laws: Relevant EU laws would be transferred over so there would be no black holes in Britain’s lawbook. Britain would no longer have to adhere to the rulings of the European Court of Justice but it would be bound to the European Court of Human Rights, a non-EU body.

Money: The Government would not have to pay the annual £13 billion contribution to the EU budget. However Britain would lose out on some EU subsidies – the Common Agricultural Policy gives £3 billion to farmers.

The Irish border: The issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would remain unresolved. While physical infrastructure has been vetoed, the border would become an external frontier for the EU in the event of a no deal Brexit. There would be pressure to enforce customs and immigration controls.


Quote:. . . however the reason for the No-Deal is that the UK is putting forwards the creation of a New Union, and that the UK's representative is there to offer those in the currently EU the opportunity to switch Unions.

Ideally the countries that are offered would have like-minded considerations about which direction to take this new union, and likely would require to be geographically close. Any deals between such countries and the EU would have to be reworked between the New Union and the EU (This is why a Deal or No-Deal becomes less of a deal breaker, since a rework would likely change everything anyway.)


Plus -- in terms of establishing or reshaping socioeconomic alliances and where being geographically close is not the case -- the "conservative" orientation now has the (farfetched?) opportunity for its Anglosphere or indirect "Commonwealth nostalgia" -- despite whatever disdain still festers about the idea on either side of the pond (i.e., Britain, Time to Let Go of the ‘Anglosphere’). Since a post-EU situation is now going to be reality and there's no getting around that "dream" being at least a partial impetus for Brexit in the minds of some political activists and leaders advocating it:

The rise of the Anglosphere - how the right dreamed up a new conservative world order (2015): The concept of an Anglosphere reflects the long-held belief that Britain’s best interests lie in forging closer relationships (and perhaps even some kind of institutionalised alliance) with those countries that have broadly similar political structures and systems; and that also tend to cherish the values of parliamentary government, individual liberty, the rule of law and the free market. [...] But what gives the concept of the Anglosphere striking modern-day appeal for conservatives and dispels any lingering cold-war revanchist overtones is that it frames an account of how an independent UK can prosper in a global economy dominated by the rise of Asia. Liberated from the EU and allied with the rest of the Anglosphere, the argument runs, Britain could reinvent its open trading heritage, harnessing its colonial history to integrate itself into the new global economy of the Asian century.


---
Reply
#3
confused2 Offline
I live and work in a small towns many miles from ‘the centre’ (London) - I just say what (I think) I see.

Personally I think the Brexit vote was a combination of racism and nationalism - neither alone would be sufficient but together you get the 52%.

I don’t think corruption had much to do with it - we‘re used to that but we want it to work in our favour.

Corruption across EU 'breathtaking' - EU Commission

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26014387

[subsidy,French,farmer] would win a few percent.

The real power in the UK is London. [arms dealing.,money laundering,tax evasion]. Looking at the whole planet - some percentage of every tax levied (or evaded) will end up in London.

London ruled an empire and won a war for us, brought us allies (either English speaking or Empire) - we may hate/despise London (I do) but that is where the power lies.

We may think we can rebuild ties with the nations and industries we shat on nearly half a century ago but do they need us or even want us? The same Japanese car I bought in the UK is sold in India.

An Anglosphere? I think most would see that as a deal with the devil.

Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the World (we've got loads of friends):-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho...25351.html
Reply
Reply
#5
C C Offline
Speculation elsewhere that she may be leaving political commentary after only 2-3 years and running to become a target of it again.

Peta Credlin: My god, we have the fiercest debates about ideas. I grew up in a household where Mum would put food on the table at half-past-six and we would still be there at ten-thirty, thumping on the table, thrashing out an issue.

This was when I was 12, 13, and 14. My Dad used to like having feisty girls. There were three girls and a boy in my family, and now another boy.

Feisty family, lots of debates. You're always encouraged to have an opinion, nothing is off limits. You just have to back it up, you have to bring it. And we would shred each other, we would shred arguments if they couldn't be substantiated.

So it's a debating tradition in my family, it's a Christmas tradition. That we run around the table and we talk about big ideas. We talk about the big issues... And we take no prisoners.


--transcribed from a Christmas video interview; Paul Murray the host

~
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Brexit: regret for leaving European Union reaches all time high (UK) C C 1 79 Aug 5, 2023 06:07 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Migrants after Brexit: 'If you don't want me, I don't want you either' C C 1 82 Jun 29, 2023 12:02 AM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn
  The word hunting appears nowhere in the second amendment C C 7 231 Dec 12, 2022 02:01 AM
Last Post: C C
  Brexit / Russian conspiracy + Red states poised to cash in on Dems’ green energy bill C C 0 72 Aug 25, 2022 04:05 PM
Last Post: C C
  Hope fades for Brexit deal + UK opens HK ctz path + UK response to Covid-19 is tops? C C 1 127 Jul 22, 2020 06:55 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Brexit deals threaten UK standards via harmful chemicals in food & environment C C 0 123 Jun 21, 2020 03:24 AM
Last Post: C C
  EU upset with sluggish Brexit negotiations + Upset social distance can't be enforced C C 0 124 Apr 26, 2020 09:31 PM
Last Post: C C
  Conservatives headed for commanding majority in U.K. vote: ‘Brexit will happen’ C C 0 197 Dec 13, 2019 03:32 AM
Last Post: C C
  New Brexit deal agreed, says Boris Johnson C C 5 534 Oct 22, 2019 11:06 PM
Last Post: Syne
  UK foreign policy + Brexit fails again: What next? + Polyamory C C 0 232 Mar 29, 2019 07:00 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)