[Dormeno]

> You can't argue with them. They're all suffering a group hallucination...

What's better, the EU or rest of world?

When you look at GDP growth, markets, trade... Rest of the world looks a lot better than EU nationalism/protectionism. The choice provided for every half-in option is to give up the rest of the world in that matter, but it turns out, that the EU in seemingly every comparison always comes short compared to the rest of the world.

[LatteLazy]

This is exactly what I am talking about when I said "you can't argue with them".

The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world. When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.

And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal? Everyone else wants more sovereignty for less trade.

The Brexiteer position is crazy and doesn't match reality. More reality won't persuade them. All they have is weird slogans like "What's better, the EU or rest of world?" and when you explain why it's nonsense, they stick to it because it sounds good and who needs inconvenient truths?

EU trade deals: https://fullfact.org/election-2019/ask-fullfact-trade-deals/

[Dormeno]

> This is exactly what I am talking about when I said "you can't argue with them".

I'm opening myself up to discussion, you are the one dismissing it.

> The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world.

Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.

> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.

The problem you're not perceiving is a bad deal is a bad deal. For example, the UK has had 50 years of common fisheries policy issues (and note there are many others with the AGP, EEP etc.) and the EU won't fix those, they were so bad that Greenland left it shortly after formation. It led to the destruction of some fishing waters through overfishing and destroying fishing towns and industries across the UK. Now, this is not necessarily the worst, because the benefits may outweigh the losses, right?

The way the CFP arrangement was made is that it requires an unanimous agreement from all countries involved, it is not a majority vote. Unfortunately, no agreement is made because there are parties to the deal who distinctly benefit from the particular rules. This is being confused further as the parts that have flexibility involve the budget and maritime fund, which give the illusion that change actually occurs in these arrangements, they do not. As a fisherman forced out of fishing, this impacts me greatly.

Overall, the EU has been responsible for amplifying economic depressions in the EU, the poor monetary policy in Europe as well. It is hard to forget when the ERM was imposed on the UK because it kept the pound, it is hard to forget the terrible mismanagement of Greece, which the EU government knew ahead of time was a problem and ignored procedures. Then, because they couldn't trust the Greeks, put in foreign banks to manage the money that was 'given' to the Greeks. Of course, the money was mismanaged by the banks and then the Greeks were blamed, while the unaccountable Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commision (which overrode parliamentary decisions in the EU when it came to monetary policies and also is the exclusive organisation to propose new legislation in parliament) now works for Goldman Sachs which for some reason, was able to profit immensely from the decisions made on Greece? It made the EU poorer.

Normally when a country’s economy is overvalued, their currency value is decreased through controlled printing of money, this in turn makes the country cheaper on international markets for services and products and leads to more income during a downtime that allows a country to recover. The EU denied Greece this option. The EU was further meant to protect the EU from entities like China gaining economic control, however, guess who bought a port and expanded it to be the largest shipping port in the EU. In doing so, their economic investment is the primary reason why Greece is in a better position now than before. Now Greece is defending Chinese interests in the EU parliament. The most ridiculous thing is that the EU failed in it’s protectionism and its ability to negotiate or manage economic trade.

I don't expect most people of Britain to have even researched this far, they are unhappy because both the EU and the UK government have failed them and that has lead to wide-spread unhappiness, which is what led to the vote.

> And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal?

The EU prevents the creation of any alternative trade deals with other countries that do not go through it, you do not see that in other trade deals typically. Other trade deals are typically setting the standards of trade between the two entities and not preventing trade with everyone else by removing the abiltiy to create trade deals. That is the difference when it comes to these trade deals. There are exceptions of course.

> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 100 countries with EU trade deals.

Indeed, and it’s unfortunate, but the cost for them is too high. On a positive outlook, we can view this as an opportunity to gain access to the rest of the world. Are you trying to suggest that we would do worse than island nations like Iceland or Greenland? Because, I think they are fine places and I think we could do better.

> More reality won't persuade them. All they have is weird slogans like "What's better, the EU or rest of world?"

I’m honoured you think my idle question was a slogan, I’m still willing to listen and discuss.

> and when you explain why it's nonsense, they stick to it because it sounds good and who needs inconvenient truths?

I have explained some of the issues above and the reality is not so clear cut like you make it out to be.

[LatteLazy]

Wow, what a long comment.

I think this is another perfect example of brexiteer mentality.

In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.

This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion". But if all were doing is spewing crap, doesn't that harm actual discussion? Isn't that exactly the sort of fact free, reality rejecting, cultism that I claimed originally? You're sort of making my point for me.

So what happens next, maybe there is a point here with some content?

>Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.

OK, so you're saying we can get a better deal without the EU? That isn't what you said before so you're changing position, but maybe there is something in that.

So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that. I suspect that's because that would involve facts and details and involve some comparison of the UK (a larger service economy) and Iceland (a tiny economy that mainly exports fish and aluminium).

Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal. This is a bad deal and you do give reasons: it allowed to much fishing damaging fisheries and it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality. You believe we can get a "better deal", but that deal would have to increase and decrease fishing at the same time. Great. You've also missed that the fisheries deal was negotiated not to be perfect, but to better than the free for all previously imposed. Or that the multiple UK governments have repeatedly refused to reopen the matter or to use any of the protection permitted under the deal.

This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault, you don't have a solution because there isn't one, so we have to leave the EU, because you want the people who setup the system you don't like to have less oversight from Brussels.

Also, FYI, Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU. Again, facts bro!

[Dormeno]

> In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.

I don't see how? The current EU membership demands CFP, AGP among other things. This is why Greenland is not in the EU and is actually one of the big reasons why Iceland refuses to become a member.

> This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion".

I'm no intellectual, so you can stick your assumptions on my knowledge of etiquette where the sun doesn't shine.

Iceland: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/17/the-m... Funny Goldman sachs dealings: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greek-debt-c... https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/goldmans-greek-gam... Barroso: https://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/press-releases/... CFP: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en ERM: https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth... Greece: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10110.pdf https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22791248 https://www.wsj.com/articles https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/breaking-greece... /SB10001424127887324299104578527202781667088 https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/02/04/a-very-europea... China: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-china/china-greece... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/world/europe/greece-china... https://www.ekathimerini.com/253122/opinion/ekathimerini/com... https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/06/18/china-greece-relation-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/18/greece-eu-crit...

You can see above I'm not being disingenuous. But, after having read your entire post and the previous posts, I believe you genuinely are being disingenuous with me. You have repeatedly addressed an audience instead of me either directly or indirectly. No matter what class you are, that's rude.

> Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal.

Joining the EU requires agreeing to prior agreements like the CFP. It's why Greenland left https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/if-algeria-and-greenland-... and it's why Iceland expressedly refuses to become an EU member - https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/iceland-of...

> So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that.

I mean, literally didn't go into it because it was already a long comment, who you acknowledged. But.... It's a minimal agreement that does not impose any additional tarifs on the exchange of goods and just requires that each country meets each one's internal standards for sale, no sales tax. Comparatively, the EU despite having a 'free trade deal', is imposing import VAT for protectionism (Iceland does not). Meanwhile, both Chinese citizens and organisations can buy EU goods at lower rates than EU citizens can because they do not impose an import sales tax. Much like how the rest of the world is able to purchase 'excess' (or 'quota') food from the EU cheaper than the EU citizens do.

> it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality.

So, you're going to assume I've left reality because I didn't go out of my way to explain how the Total Allowable Catch works and that basically, they're set without sufficient understanding of the environment which leads to overfishing. Then the UK government, knowing how bad it is, restricts our own people from fishing to save the environment (under their interpretation of TAC) without us actually being in violation of TAC. This is worsened by the fact that roughly half of our local fishing companies are actually owned by foreign companies now, which are some of the same ones that are getting good use of out of the poor TAC policy via other countries. TAC is set by the European Commission, now this might sound confusing because they actually get data from ICES, but what the EC does not have to follow any of ICES recommendations and the only ones who can make proposals is the EC. So if the EC wants to push something through, they can just not propose any better alternatives. EC does the same thing in parliament too and if they want something, they can force it regardless. But, you should know that already, being that you're such a pompous arse towards anyone who holds the 'wrong' view point and you have succeeded in getting under my skin.

> This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault

I have earnestly tried to engage with you, but you have chosen to completely ignore all the issues raised, quickly dismiss arguments by any convenient means possible, including, complaining about not flooding a post with a bunch of links, because you posted a single link that didn't actually show the cost of membership.

> Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU.

Greenland is a self autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and it isn't part of Denmark for trade purposes in the EU, it's heritage is older than the EU...

> Again, facts bro!

Since you want to address an audience, I will do the same.

There is a reason why us in the working class won't engage with middle class/university people/intellectuals (regardless if brexiteer or remainer), they dance around us like we're trash and try to slip us up on petty etiquette instead of actual engagement. They twist everything we say through manipulation as being too ‘simple’ to understand, simply because we don’t have the right articulation and they genuinely don’t really care about our issues, I don’t know what their motives are. We are just disposable subhumans to them, emotional punching bags that they can blame.

Regardless of why I think the EU is bad, I’m certain people voted brexit in a majority, it was because they were massively unhappy, it wasn’t a protest, it was just an attempt to change things for the better, because they are not good right now. Both the EU and UK government failed their citizens. They should have done a better job and unfortunately, remainers are so stuck that on the idea the EU is great, they refuse to acknowledge this very simple fact. What’s worse is that I tried to demonstrate this in my posts and you can see the complete blindness to it, the utter refusal to acknowledge anything could be wrong.

[LatteLazy]

You're right that I address the wider audience rather than you directly. I apologize if that seems rude. There are a few reasons for this:

* First, it's not personal. I am sure you're a lovely person. Addressing the audience instead of you makes it easier to keep that in mind. And they are the ones who will be convinced or not by anything either of us say. * Second, this isn't about brexit as a subject. It's about people's justification of brexit. That's what my first comment said. I didn't say brexit was right or wrong, I said people supported it for illogical reasons. Go back and look. Your comments are literally evidence of that from your own mouth. So what am I meant to say? I provided simple rebuttal with citation. You replied with very familiar brexiter discussion strategies: * You didn't cite anything, you just made claims (Greenland is a nation?) * You added subjects that were not under discussion (Greece and Goldmans?) * You wrote at great length (a whole paragraph on fisheries, without addressing my question: how will brexit let us fish more without fishing more?)

So what am I meant to do? Keep pointing out that Greenland is not a nation and does fall under EU trade law (citation below)? And then work through all the other issues? Including anymore you add to the list (sovereignty, immigration, CAP)? Plus all the articles you piled in as sources (4 articles about greek debt and goldman sachs)? Or assume that you are trying to "bury me in paperwork"? What is anyone to do faced with all this? I could reasonably call this disingenuous but I don't (see later in this comment).

I am not offended by any of this, nor do I imagine you will change your mind or that if I did we could somehow prevent brexit. I think you're clearly reasonable, you write well, you do NOT seem to be trolling or otherwise acting disingenuously. Quite the opposite: I think you honestly believe what you said ("What's better, the EU or rest of world?") despite evidence to the contrary. I think your rational capable brain is pursuing the bullet points above as a defense mechanism against being proven wrong ("losing" an argument is such a crap phrase because there is nothing too lose on here is there?)

So how does a reasonable person come to this position? How are beliefs formed and what makes them stick in the face of evidence? Is this facit of the human mind being abused (Cambridge analytics etc)? what does it mean for democracy and our society, based on the assumption of rational decision making? That's what I am addressing. That's why I am asking open questions. I've had this exact same discussion before. The same feeling comes when I watch a junior politician defend a party position he argued against last week or when Jehovah's witnesses come to my door or trump supporters railing against Obama. What drives people to need to believe something they don't really believe?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Political_system

> However, EU law largely does not apply to Greenland except in the area of trade.

[trekrich]

I am sure that most if not all of the countries are in the WTO and have a framework for trading. Another inconvenient truth is that not everyone will agree with you.

[LatteLazy]

Everyone and their dog says WTO isn't enough but you're "sure". No source for that surety, you don't even know enough about the WTO to know how many countries are members. But it's fine, we can trust you. And I'm the bad guy for not being agreeable enough.

This is exactly what is so interesting about brexit, even fundamentalist cults don't have these sort of delusions.

[trekrich]

https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/wto-terms-understanding-th... Does not seem that bad to me.

I would read some articles on here https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/ to try and understand the "cult" that you are so quick to vilify. The tribalism around brexit does no one any favours. This account will soon be useless on here, given the amount of down votes for daring to have a different opinion to the majority of the people on here.

[LatteLazy]

briefingsforbritain is a pro brexit site that pretends not to be. Their whole Advisory Committee are hardcore brexiteers as are the editors etc.

This is another CLASSIC case of Brexiteer-ism. A very bias source pretending it's not. I'm honestly struggling to think of or find an honest, Pro-Brexit source at this point.

The BBC and WTO both have pages on this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41859691

The WTO have one too:

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_king...

Not good...

[trekrich]

This reply is another CLASSIC case of remainer-ism. Quoting biased sources like the BBC. At this point there is no point carrying on with this.

[jankiehodgpodge]

Failing to mention the massive tariffs on many products.

[hocuspocus]

> Rest of the world looks a lot better than EU nationalism/protectionism.

The EU has literally the least nationalism and protectionism in the world. To an extent so extreme most of its people wish we'd go back to more reasonable levels.

> The choice provided for every half-in option is to give up the rest of the world in that matter

That's absolutely untrue. The UK could be part of the EFTA and have any kind of bilateral agreement with the rest of the world it wants.

Anyway don't worry, you'll have a deal worse than Ukraine or Turkey, since it's what you want.

[Dormeno]

> The EU has literally the least nationalism and protectionism in the world.

When people immigrate, we don't judge people by their skills, their criminality in the EU, just their geographic nationality. It's one rule for EU and a different rule for everyone else. We could have the same immigration policy for everyone instead of this racism/bigotry.

> To an extent so extreme most of its people wish we'd go back to more reasonable levels.

The only reason you say that is because the EU's policy is considered to be unsustainable, I'm for equality.

> That's absolutely untrue. The UK could be part of the EFTA and have any kind of bilateral agreement with the rest of the world it wants.

EFTA is European, but not EU, not a half-in option with the EU, and I also agree, it could definately be an option.

> Anyway don't worry, you'll have a deal worse than Ukraine

Are you trying to say that us having an alternative deal, much like when Ukraine moved to change its' existing one would cause a war and partial occupation as happened with the Russo-Ukrainian war due to the EU? If you aren't familar, I'd highly recommend reading: https://www.worldcat.org/title/ukrainian-crisis-the-role-of-...

[jen20]

> What's better, the EU or rest of world?

For Britain, the EU.