Brexit.
Oct 17, 2016 13:12:36 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 13:12:36 GMT
Not reallly sure why I bother, I'm just an ant trying to move a rubber tree plant......
Cut and pasted from Plankville.
“And above all it means defining principled adherence to the mandate secured on June 23 as wild pursuit of a “Hard Brexit” which, like learning hard lessons, facing a hard landing or doing hard labour, is clearly only attractive to a deluded masochist
Gove. [apparently]"
I think that means that he does *NOT* favour a hard exit? So therefore presumably favours a "soft exit"? How fortunate that he does not need to define what either is.
Isn't "soft exit" seeking something similar to Norway's arrangements? Where the country still contributes to the EU budget, still has to allow free movement in as well as using it out, and still has to give free access to its markets in order to get free access to the EU market? It would mean still adhering to EU rules and standards and maintaining the alignment between those and the national rules and standards.
i.e. being a member of the EU in every way except not being an actual member so not getting a vote?
Bear in mind Gove knows exactly what he is saying and is not confused. He just understands the audience he's trying to appeal to with this speech. And, to be fair, it would seem to be working.
The problem is that the audience he is appealing to largely don't understand the real complexity and so like easy to understand, albeit meaningless, terms which can be written in big letters at the top of a newspaper page such as "Hard Exit".
Try this.....
www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/ditch-the-hard-brexit-fallacy
And understand this...
The UK *WILL* compromise on immigration, free movement, etc in order to maintain the access it does want.
What will happen is that the UK will take ownership of its own immigration rules. And Farage and his minions will cheer and shout from the ramparts about their glorious victory.
And then the UK, with its new found sovereignty will agree to adopt the current EU rules, but only because it wants to, not because the EU told it to. So there, nyaah, nyaah.
Ditto standards and measures. Ditto contractual terms. Ditto labour laws, laws around discrimination and human rights, etc. etc.
Believe me, the rules 10 years from now will be little different to today. But we won't actually be called a member so presumably many will be happy.
Which is OK for me, because as I have said before, what the EU *is* doesn't bother me a jot. Though what the EU wanted to become in the future, did. And this will stop the EU becoming more. I think.
Thus, the thought of leaving the EU doesn't hugely bother me, although I don't think its a good idea. I still believe we could have achieved much more with massively less disruption, by being in the EU and taking the game seriously. I mean, the people we voted in as MEPs pretty much sums up how seriously the majority of the electorate was taking the matter.
www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps/list-meps-by-region.html
But the Daily Mail lookers will realise, if they both look and understand, is that insofar as what they thought they were voting for is concerned, they will have achieved nothing other than changes in names.
And in the meantime, we will have 10 years of perceived 'change'. The problem with change is not actually the change itself, even in a case such as this where there is likely to be little. The problem with 'change' is that it allows and encourages manipulation and speculation.
And economically that is not a good thing. It facilitates and results in unpredictability. The one thing that investors will not deal with.
What does bother me about all this are the fools that voted for it. Not the people that voted for it for reasons they believed to be sound, not those that voted for it out of perceived self-interest, but the "fools" motivated by silly emotional headlines, who get their panties twisted over immigration, and the bogey man in Brussels telling them what to do, and all the rest of the Farage-esque garbage.
And the garbage that Farage comes out with is not so much a reflection on him, its a reflection of his opinion and judgement of his target audience. Farage is not foolish or stupid, he's just targeting those that are.
As with Trump and Clinton, the issue is never the politician, it is the people who vote for them that are the worry.
Cut and pasted from Plankville.
“And above all it means defining principled adherence to the mandate secured on June 23 as wild pursuit of a “Hard Brexit” which, like learning hard lessons, facing a hard landing or doing hard labour, is clearly only attractive to a deluded masochist
Gove. [apparently]"
I think that means that he does *NOT* favour a hard exit? So therefore presumably favours a "soft exit"? How fortunate that he does not need to define what either is.
Isn't "soft exit" seeking something similar to Norway's arrangements? Where the country still contributes to the EU budget, still has to allow free movement in as well as using it out, and still has to give free access to its markets in order to get free access to the EU market? It would mean still adhering to EU rules and standards and maintaining the alignment between those and the national rules and standards.
i.e. being a member of the EU in every way except not being an actual member so not getting a vote?
Bear in mind Gove knows exactly what he is saying and is not confused. He just understands the audience he's trying to appeal to with this speech. And, to be fair, it would seem to be working.
The problem is that the audience he is appealing to largely don't understand the real complexity and so like easy to understand, albeit meaningless, terms which can be written in big letters at the top of a newspaper page such as "Hard Exit".
Try this.....
www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-09/ditch-the-hard-brexit-fallacy
And understand this...
The UK *WILL* compromise on immigration, free movement, etc in order to maintain the access it does want.
What will happen is that the UK will take ownership of its own immigration rules. And Farage and his minions will cheer and shout from the ramparts about their glorious victory.
And then the UK, with its new found sovereignty will agree to adopt the current EU rules, but only because it wants to, not because the EU told it to. So there, nyaah, nyaah.
Ditto standards and measures. Ditto contractual terms. Ditto labour laws, laws around discrimination and human rights, etc. etc.
Believe me, the rules 10 years from now will be little different to today. But we won't actually be called a member so presumably many will be happy.
Which is OK for me, because as I have said before, what the EU *is* doesn't bother me a jot. Though what the EU wanted to become in the future, did. And this will stop the EU becoming more. I think.
Thus, the thought of leaving the EU doesn't hugely bother me, although I don't think its a good idea. I still believe we could have achieved much more with massively less disruption, by being in the EU and taking the game seriously. I mean, the people we voted in as MEPs pretty much sums up how seriously the majority of the electorate was taking the matter.
www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps/list-meps-by-region.html
But the Daily Mail lookers will realise, if they both look and understand, is that insofar as what they thought they were voting for is concerned, they will have achieved nothing other than changes in names.
And in the meantime, we will have 10 years of perceived 'change'. The problem with change is not actually the change itself, even in a case such as this where there is likely to be little. The problem with 'change' is that it allows and encourages manipulation and speculation.
And economically that is not a good thing. It facilitates and results in unpredictability. The one thing that investors will not deal with.
What does bother me about all this are the fools that voted for it. Not the people that voted for it for reasons they believed to be sound, not those that voted for it out of perceived self-interest, but the "fools" motivated by silly emotional headlines, who get their panties twisted over immigration, and the bogey man in Brussels telling them what to do, and all the rest of the Farage-esque garbage.
And the garbage that Farage comes out with is not so much a reflection on him, its a reflection of his opinion and judgement of his target audience. Farage is not foolish or stupid, he's just targeting those that are.
As with Trump and Clinton, the issue is never the politician, it is the people who vote for them that are the worry.