So where are these 40 trade deals?

[Stevlin]

Its like everything about the EU with you Europhiles - if you just subtly alter a few definitions, don't look too closely at peoples real concerns, and simply pretend that any kind of objection to it is "gleeful misinterpretation", then its about as close to perfect as its possible to get.

You are being overly polite Barry....albeit, being so is preferable to the extreme alternative...however, many of the avid EU supporters, frequently, and stupidly claim that ardent Brexiteers are being racist too.... Many EU 'ardents'  confuse racism with xenophobia, but even that allegation would be incorrect with the majority of Brexiteers.

Quite simply, Brexiteers wish for the UK to be truly independent, just as other non- EU countries are....as there is clearly no need whatsoever for a political entity to conduct advantageous trade. Even now, the EU are insisting that any 'legal disputes' have to be resolved vis the European court!!  

How many trade deals have the EU established with non-EU countries containing that ridiculous condition? Such differences should rightly be sorted via the WTO.

Let's hope Boris has the sphericals to reject such conditions...as May truly declared, "No deal is better than a bad deal" - albeit, she appears to have rejected her own  tenet!!

[DeppityDawg]

And this is precisely where the false battle lines get drawn, with politicians and media sources exploiting it gleefully.  Suddenly a narrative is created that the EU is pro-uncontrolled immigration ...which it isn't...and by extension those who are pro-EU are invariably pro-uncontrolled immigration...which they aren't (though I would concede there are some who might be). Free Movement is still a form of controlled migration, it's simply a less controlled form that was available to the UK's nearest neighbours who statistically provided the highest contributing sector of the migrant population.  But the extremified narratives build and build.  The relaxed controls on migration under Free Movement are suddenly presented as all-out uncontrolled immigration; the idea of the integration of member states is presented as EU Superstateism trying to subsume sovereign countries; a common defence policy is extremified into the idea of single uniformed EU army; the voluntary adoption of the EU treaties by member states and with them the acceptance of EU rules is distorted into the big bad EU bossing the member states around; and regulations designed to maximise the efficiency, legal certainty and predictability required to run something as complex as the Single Market suddenly becomes the EU wanting to ban bendy bananas and force old people into prison if they use imperial measurements.  



And that's where we have the problem — you mourn the death of reasoned debate and yet here you are (and I'm saying this as an illustration more than trying to have a go at you) talking about "uncontrolled immigration" and therefore accidentally demeaning the very thing you claim we are losing.....balanced objective debate.  We end up back in the position where I look like I am defending the EU to the bitter end by simply trying bring the interpretation back down from the dramatism.

I suppose I should have anticipated that "gleeful" defence of all things EU from someone so Eurocentric, even when my post wasn't solely concentrated on EU immigration.



The UKs population has grown by approx. 6.5 million since 2000, over 10% in less than 20 years, fuelled largely (about 80% of it) from immigration, and about half of it from the EU. So, what do you prefer to call it? To you, its a "controlled" expansion of the population? Bollocks. What discussion or even public debate was there about the likely implications (many of which we see daily in our lives now), from pressure on health and education services, to the impact on housing and infrastructure, to the braking effect on the wages of the lowest paid? There is no shortage of "full fact" type reports telling everyone how wonderful and all beneficial mass migration is, and how everyone in the UK is better off as a result - while "migration watch" type reports also exist, typically being dismissed (as you have done) as "scaremongering" "dramatization" and "borderline racist", despite the real life experiences people have of their home towns being changed beyond recognition.



Where is the data showing how many European (or Non EU for that matter) immigrants arriving here are actually sent back to their own countries as a result of failing to meet these "controls"? We see what happens when the government attempt to deport murderers, rapists and drug dealers, so not having a "job" is going to result in mass expulsions? Sure Conchur. I talk about "uncontrolled" immigration because fuelling a 10% increase in the population of any country in such a short (relative) period of time, largely from migration without giving a sh*t about the existing population or the effects it would be likely to have on that country's services and infrastructure (never mind social or cultural issues) is exactly what it is. The EUs wedding to Free Movement isn't something I've imagined, its a matter of policy, and the cursory and wholly inadequate "controls" that do exist are a bit like a placebo so that neo liberals can pretend to the rest of us that, actually, "strict rules" to prevent "uncontrolled" migration do exist, despite the fact that 3 and a half million EU nationals are in the UK, and more than "about 6 or 7" of them will not be in work or a financial burden.



These are largely unremarked side issues anyway. We have more than enough "economically inactive" of our own, but of course no EU country would ever have anything so imperfect, would they  :roll: ? The real problems are the ones above, the constantly deflected argument that immigrants are needed to fill NHS jobs for example, without ever allowing a proper debate on how increasing the population of the country by the equivalent of a whole region like the West Midlands would have on demand for healthcare, or the real effects that immigration on the scale we have seen in the last 20 years would have on low skill wages or the availability (and hence cost) of housing.



Its like everything about the EU with you Europhiles - if you just subtly alter a few definitions, don't look too closely at peoples real concerns, and simply pretend that any kind of objection to it is "gleeful misinterpretation", then its about as close to perfect as its possible to get.

[Barry]

Talking of EU immigration, there's a crisis right now with Greece attempting to stop 75,000 migrants being bussed to their border by Erdogan.

No bus fare necessary.

This tweet: https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1234423397272166400">//https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1234423397272166400

We have to stand by Greece and fight   together Erdogan's blackmail. Europe needs to do this by finally setting up the comprehensive European migration policy we already called for since spring 2015

Not everyone in the EU is an expansionist and globalist, but Verhofstadt is at the extreme end, and he is the one we hear a lot from with his vociferous nature. What exactly would his proposed 2015 policy allow?

[Conchúr]

Ok, I can see that perhaps my question was a little loaded in retrospect (and perhaps directed at the wrong person), but I had an idea I'd get an honest response and I did. That's why I bother with you as a poster, when so many are not worth engaging with. You have identified numerous issues where the EU is less than perfect (and in some cases less than adequate), which I suppose demonstrates that you at least are not talking from a polarised perspective, as many remainers (no names no pack drill) on here do.



Clearly uncontrolled immigration (a central plank of EU orthodoxy) is a problem, and not just for the UK. Pretending it isn't (or adopting the by now discredited "you're nothing but a racist" response to any objections) is not making peoples discomfort about it go away, and is leading to increased support for alt right groups. If the centre ground will not even concede that there is a problem, let alone do anything about it, where else are people who have real concerns about uncontrolled immigration supposed to turn? This is just an example, but is a good one of how the EU is unable to grasp that its fixation with such lines in the sand is actually causing real and potentially fatal damage to itself. The rise of "populism" is decried as if it some corona like virus, rather than people who are so disillusioned and angry about great neo-liberal experiments in social engineering and identity politics.



The reason many people use such language as "EUSSR" and "Brussels bureaucrats" is because they feel helpless. Angry and helpless after years of having their real and sincere values and concerns ignored or even attacked, and being labelled as racists, flat earthers, unicorns etc etc. Cuts both ways Conchur. For many years in this country (the UK) its been impossible to have a balanced conversation (which includes the negatives) about EU membership (which included immigration) without a similar fallout of negative name calling from Europhiles, and that extends to politics, not just the media or internet forums.



I've made my feeling about extremist liberalism known often enough. We now have zealotry growing at an alarming rate. Climate zealots, gender zealots, for example, who display levels of intolerance to any view opposing theirs which is frankly scary. "Safe spaces" while false news abounds, and free speech under serious attack everywhere. We know both sides lied and exaggerated in the EU debate, but its clear which side is utterly convinced of its own moral and intellectual superiority, and which side is considered to be uninformed and "stupid".



You liberals need to look at yourselves too if you want to know why balanced and objective discussion is rapidly disappearing from politics, never mind the media. You have all contributed to it as well. Sadly, we live in an age where societies are fracturing along fault lines that to an extent nations held together. You can see it unfolding in front of your eyes where you live. I didn't want either to leave the EU, or to see the break up of the UK, but I'm realistic enough to know that both are coming. But its far from just that. Even the most basic of human relationships, that our very survival depends on, between the genders, male and female, is under sustained and serious attack. I fear for the future because the only logical end point of identity politics and the increasingly divisive nature of both liberal and extremist viewpoints, can lead only to one place, and that is separate-ism.

A very good post — but you have demonstrated the very thing I mentioned in my previous post about people extremifying the nature of the EU and now it actually functions in practice.  You allude to the fact that having concerns about uncontrolled immigration is legitimate and people shouldn't be made to feel like racists or xenophobes for it.  You're dead right — and so I would point out at this juncture that the EU agrees with you on this, because there is nothing in EU law which provides for uncontrolled immigration.  The assertion that "uncontrolled immigration is a central plank of EU orthodoxy" is simply just not correct, because Free Movement is itself subject to controls and derogations.  It only applies to EEA nationals firstly and then those EEA nationals are subject to restrictions on how long they can stay in another member state without finding a job or otherwise having the financial means not to be a burden on the State.    That is not "uncontrolled" immigration at all.  Outside of the EEA, where Free Movement cannot be availed of when entering it, the EU has spent billions in attempting to tighten the external borders of the Union particularly in light of the Syrian crisis — during which the EU had to deal with one of the largest war-fleeing movements of people during our lifetimes.  Again, the extremities went into overdrive whereby, suddenly, needing to find some sort of response to a humanitarian crisis was akin to just wanting uncontrolled immigration and subsequently people got this all mixed up with the concept of Free Movement which was a different thing entirely.



And this is precisely where the false battle lines get drawn, with politicians and media sources exploiting it gleefully.  Suddenly a narrative is created that the EU is pro-uncontrolled immigration ...which it isn't...and by extension those who are pro-EU are invariably pro-uncontrolled immigration...which they aren't (though I would concede there are some who might be). Free Movement is still a form of controlled migration, it's simply a less controlled form that was available to the UK's nearest neighbours who statistically provided the highest contributing sector of the migrant population.  But the extremified narratives build and build.  The relaxed controls on migration under Free Movement are suddenly presented as all-out uncontrolled immigration; the idea of the integration of member states is presented as EU Superstateism trying to subsume sovereign countries; a common defence policy is extremified into the idea of single uniformed EU army; the voluntary adoption of the EU treaties by member states and with them the acceptance of EU rules is distorted into the big bad EU bossing the member states around; and regulations designed to maximise the efficiency, legal certainty and predictability required to run something as complex as the Single Market suddenly becomes the EU wanting to ban bendy bananas and force old people into prison if they use imperial measurements.  



And that's where we have the problem — you mourn the death of reasoned debate and yet here you are (and I'm saying this as an illustration more than trying to have a go at you) talking about "uncontrolled immigration" and therefore accidentally demeaning the very thing you claim we are losing.....balanced objective debate.  We end up back in the position where I look like I am defending the EU to the bitter end by simply trying bring the interpretation back down from the dramatism.

[DeppityDawg]

Did you see the tv with Ed testicles on his travel around Europe,didn't see all of it but there were some Germans on painted in the way you describe,they really didn't look it.

Sorry, no I didn't see it. But I spent a lot of time in Germany, and I can say emphatically that the Germans are NOT Nazis and racists, anymore than all Turkish immigrants are Islamic extremists. What is so fecking annoying is that I have to make a point here about being balanced about this by pointing it out, when is should be obvious. Would the Independent publish a plea like this from an ordinary German after an Islamic terrorist outrage, basically suggesting that the problem lay with all immigrants rather than with a few extremists? Yet here they are allowing an article which suggests "Germany" (that a whole country, mind) is basically Nazi? Is it only me that notices this shite ffs?

[cromwell]

Here is an example for you - originally in the "Independent", would you have asked could any publication have been considered more "liberal"?



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-hanau-shooting-shows-how-germany-is-returning-to-its-nazi-past/ar-BB10Ak1M?ocid=spartanntp">https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/th ... spartanntp">https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-hanau-shooting-shows-how-germany-is-returning-to-its-nazi-past/ar-BB10Ak1M?ocid=spartanntp



The article makes no bones about where its authors beliefs lie - basically, that Germany is really a Nazi country, and ethnic minorities have always known that. His "party" (that he founded), was founded on the principles of "Multiculturalism and respect", so all the right credentials there then. Lots in the article about the recent shootings, about "far right groups", and "Nazis" hiding around every corner. No mention whatsoever about attacks by Islamic extremists, people being mown down by trucks in street markets, rapes and molestations by gangs of so called immigrants, or anything whatsoever that doesn't paint mass immigration in anything less than a perfect light. Its sickening. Its like the EU/Brexit debate. Completely polarised, all one sides fault, with "racists and Nazis" everywhere. Notice how it uses the word "virus" to describe the return of "far right" views to "German society and culture"? There is no argument against mass immigration because who could possibly be against it if you don't EVER mention the negatives?



There is no room for honest and open debate when articles like this divide the argument into "good guys versus bad guys" There is no room for honest and open debate when one side presents its own case as faultless, and the other as bad people. This is a liberalist argument, Cromwell. It is a blatant one sided narrative that is no better than the one sided narratives of the far right or the far left. I thought we were all supposed to be against one sided narratives, but apparently the Independent is neither against them nor independent.

Did you see the tv with Ed testicles on his travel around Europe,didn't see all of it but there were some Germans on painted in the way you describe,they really didn't look it.

[DeppityDawg]

Great post DD,and funnily enough you have sometimes seen me as a liberal :-P  whilst (and I might be wrong) I get the feeling Conor sees me as one of the rabid rabble.

Here is an example for you - originally in the "Independent", would you have asked could any publication have been considered more "liberal"?



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-hanau-shooting-shows-how-germany-is-returning-to-its-nazi-past/ar-BB10Ak1M?ocid=spartanntp">https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/th ... spartanntp">https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-hanau-shooting-shows-how-germany-is-returning-to-its-nazi-past/ar-BB10Ak1M?ocid=spartanntp



The article makes no bones about where its authors beliefs lie - basically, that Germany is really a Nazi country, and ethnic minorities have always known that. His "party" (that he founded), was founded on the principles of "Multiculturalism and respect", so all the right credentials there then. Lots in the article about the recent shootings, about "far right groups", and "Nazis" hiding around every corner. No mention whatsoever about attacks by Islamic extremists, people being mown down by trucks in street markets, rapes and molestations by gangs of so called immigrants, or anything whatsoever that doesn't paint mass immigration in anything less than a perfect light. Its sickening. Its like the EU/Brexit debate. Completely polarised, all one sides fault, with "racists and Nazis" everywhere. Notice how it uses the word "virus" to describe the return of "far right" views to "German society and culture"? There is no argument against mass immigration because who could possibly be against it if you don't EVER mention the negatives?



There is no room for honest and open debate when articles like this divide the argument into "good guys versus bad guys" There is no room for honest and open debate when one side presents its own case as faultless, and the other as bad people. This is a liberalist argument, Cromwell. It is a blatant one sided narrative that is no better than the one sided narratives of the far right or the far left. I thought we were all supposed to be against one sided narratives, but apparently the Independent is neither against them nor independent.

[cromwell]

Great post DD,and funnily enough you have sometimes seen me as a liberal :-P  whilst (and I might be wrong) I get the feeling Conor sees me as one of the rabid rabble.

[DeppityDawg]

I think this is an unfair interpretation to be honest, and to be even more honest it's not a matter of there not being a lot of pro-EU people who advocate reform — I just think you simply aren't aware of them. If you base your views on this on what you read on forums or what you see in the papers, then you will never find objectivity.   It's quite easy to find plenty of material from academics and commentators, many of whom are very much pro-EU, who take simple data-based and empirical opinions towards various aspects of the EU and find criticism or praise where there is something to be objectively criticised or praised (rather than the media approach which is to skew everything to suit the narrative).  In fact, the EU institutions actually post many of the criticisms from think thanks and commentators themselves : https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/organisation/cer-centre-european-reformopen-society-european-policy-institute_en">https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/o ... stitute_en">https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/organisation/cer-centre-european-reformopen-society-european-policy-institute_en



I would be delighted to have balanced objective discussions about the EU ... but there isn't much balanced objectivity to be found.  It's hard to appear balanced when it's a constant game on here of the EU being portrayed as a tyrannical bully, protectionist cartel, empire-desiring superstate ....all being run by shadowy faceless gargoyle Eurocrats in underground bunkers in Brussels forever nefariously planning the downfall of liberty. That's where my opposition to Brexit stemmed from — not from any deep sentimental love for the EU — but from the fact that (a) I always simply felt that it was a generally benign concept that had worked well and (b) notwithstanding the fact there are many valid criticisms of the EU, the criticisms the Leave campaign used were a patchwork of lies and half-truths designed to extremify the argument beyond any semblance of reason.



As I have mentioned on here before, I do a bit of lecturing and exam marking on EU law (not super high-end academic stuff by any means, but for trainee solicitors) .  It is literally part of the syllabus to discuss the flaws of the EU system ....so far from being someone who engages in uncritical love-worshipping of the EU....I actually teach graduates about the downsides.  There is plenty to criticise about the EU.   It is a collection of 27 states each with their own sovereign interests and problems — thus making it difficult to centralise the focus of the Union and to efficiently formulate policy.  The EU suffers the downsides of trying to reconcile different economic cultures — whereby for example the historical profligacy of a country like Greece interacts in a single market with a ultra-prudent country like, say, the Netherlands.  There are still transparency issues. There are still administrative issues — the idiotic oscillation of the Parliament between Strasbourg and Luxembourg being just one.    There is still a problem with proactive versus reactive policymaking — for example the regulation of the Eurozone being highly inadequate in the run-up to the financial crisis and the migration and external EU border control issues exposed by the Syrian crisis.  In both cases, much needed reform only came after the fact.  EU membership comes with trade-offs in sovereignty and occasionally a country will find itself on the wrong end of an EU measure which that country opposed.  There still remains an issue with the power of the Commission and there still remains work to be done to enhance the accountability of the institutions.  I'm also opposed to ongoing attempts to harmonise corporation tax as I believe it damages the ability of the smaller member states to act competitively.  



I could go on for a while more, and if people raised fair objective criticisms then I would happily engage in it.   But when people come with overdramatised views about the EU, it's very hard not to be seen as having a love-in with when you're constantly trying to bring the discussion down from the "EUSSR / evil superstate / Brussels bureaucrats / globalist conspiracy stuff.  When people take entrenched negative views of the EU, then the natural corollary is that opponents will sing the EU's praises. If people were a bit fairer, and a bit less dramatic and paranoid about what the EU actually is (i.e. a far more boring thing than the theatrical narrative which Eurosceptics have nurtured over the years) then we could all have healthy discussions about it. I can't way that I will be holding my breath.

Ok, I can see that perhaps my question was a little loaded in retrospect (and perhaps directed at the wrong person), but I had an idea I'd get an honest response and I did. That's why I bother with you as a poster, when so many are not worth engaging with. You have identified numerous issues where the EU is less than perfect (and in some cases less than adequate), which I suppose demonstrates that you at least are not talking from a polarised perspective, as many remainers (no names no pack drill) on here do.



Clearly uncontrolled immigration (a central plank of EU orthodoxy) is a problem, and not just for the UK. Pretending it isn't (or adopting the by now discredited "you're nothing but a racist" response to any objections) is not making peoples discomfort about it go away, and is leading to increased support for alt right groups. If the centre ground will not even concede that there is a problem, let alone do anything about it, where else are people who have real concerns about uncontrolled immigration supposed to turn? This is just an example, but is a good one of how the EU is unable to grasp that its fixation with such lines in the sand is actually causing real and potentially fatal damage to itself. The rise of "populism" is decried as if it some corona like virus, rather than people who are so disillusioned and angry about great neo-liberal experiments in social engineering and identity politics.



The reason many people use such language as "EUSSR" and "Brussels bureaucrats" is because they feel helpless. Angry and helpless after years of having their real and sincere values and concerns ignored or even attacked, and being labelled as racists, flat earthers, unicorns etc etc. Cuts both ways Conchur. For many years in this country (the UK) its been impossible to have a balanced conversation (which includes the negatives) about EU membership (which included immigration) without a similar fallout of negative name calling from Europhiles, and that extends to politics, not just the media or internet forums.



I've made my feeling about extremist liberalism known often enough. We now have zealotry growing at an alarming rate. Climate zealots, gender zealots, for example, who display levels of intolerance to any view opposing theirs which is frankly scary. "Safe spaces" while false news abounds, and free speech under serious attack everywhere. We know both sides lied and exaggerated in the EU debate, but its clear which side is utterly convinced of its own moral and intellectual superiority, and which side is considered to be uninformed and "stupid".



You liberals need to look at yourselves too if you want to know why balanced and objective discussion is rapidly disappearing from politics, never mind the media. You have all contributed to it as well. Sadly, we live in an age where societies are fracturing along fault lines that to an extent nations held together. You can see it unfolding in front of your eyes where you live. I didn't want either to leave the EU, or to see the break up of the UK, but I'm realistic enough to know that both are coming. But its far from just that. Even the most basic of human relationships, that our very survival depends on, between the genders, male and female, is under sustained and serious attack. I fear for the future because the only logical end point of identity politics and the increasingly divisive nature of both liberal and extremist viewpoints, can lead only to one place, and that is separate-ism.

[Conchúr]

Firstly, we had Teressa Maybe at the helm who didn't really want to leave and didn't really hide the fact.



Secondly, the first opportunity Boris had was pulled from under him by the 2 faced remainer MP's.



So I think your comments there are a tad unfair.

Yes, and when Boris got a majority he signed the Withdrawal Agreement — but of course claimed victory by removing the backstop when in reality he had simply accepted the frontstop! Far from being hamstrung by Remainers, even when Johnson had complete control he signed a deal that even Theresa refused to cave on.  



What do you think the "get Brexit done" slogan was designed to achieve? It was designed to create a parallel narrative to the fact that the Withdrawal Agreement was one of the most self-defeating agreements ever signed by a developed nation in modern peacetime history (i.e. an agreement that effectively carved up its own internal market, leaving part of within a legal and regulatory sphere over which the domestic government would have no say).  



'Get Brexit Done' was an immensely clever and ultimately successful mantra that took people's eyes away from the actual content of what Boris had actually done.  He caved further on the backstop than even Theresa May ever dared — the difference is that Boris has more charisma, has a better spin team, and has carefully eliminated anyone from top roles who would suggest any form of discord in the high levels of office.

[Conchúr]

Can I ask a question? Bearing in mind I voted to remain myself?



Is there anything about the EU that you feel is/was bad or at least, needs serious reform? Because what I keep "hearing" is remainers bitching about the result, about Boris Johnson etc etc, and a lot about the misinformation (eg people were misled) that influenced the outcome. About the doom that awaits the UK when the transition expires, and of course, lots of arguments for the EU and a kind of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" reverence towards it. Its as if the EU is a kind of Greta Thunberg state. It always seems like a 100-0 argument to remainers. No suggestion at all that there might be anything wrong with the EU, or that it might have pursued policies that at least contributed to its own demise, if that actually happens.



Is there anything about the EU that the 17 million or so who voted to leave might be justified on? Or were all 17 million idiots? Because this awful uncritical love-worship of absolutely everything EU (you know, has kept the peace, invented penicillin, fights fascism, gives us a zillion pounds back for every pound we put in, turns water into wine, etc etc), it just feels a bit pukey at times?

I think this is an unfair interpretation to be honest, and to be even more honest it's not a matter of there not being a lot of pro-EU people who advocate reform — I just think you simply aren't aware of them. If you base your views on this on what you read on forums or what you see in the papers, then you will never find objectivity.   It's quite easy to find plenty of material from academics and commentators, many of whom are very much pro-EU, who take simple data-based and empirical opinions towards various aspects of the EU and find criticism or praise where there is something to be objectively criticised or praised (rather than the media approach which is to skew everything to suit the narrative).  In fact, the EU institutions actually post many of the criticisms from think thanks and commentators themselves : https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/organisation/cer-centre-european-reformopen-society-european-policy-institute_en">https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/o ... stitute_en">https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/organisation/cer-centre-european-reformopen-society-european-policy-institute_en



I would be delighted to have balanced objective discussions about the EU ... but there isn't much balanced objectivity to be found.  It's hard to appear balanced when it's a constant game on here of the EU being portrayed as a tyrannical bully, protectionist cartel, empire-desiring superstate ....all being run by shadowy faceless gargoyle Eurocrats in underground bunkers in Brussels forever nefariously planning the downfall of liberty. That's where my opposition to Brexit stemmed from — not from any deep sentimental love for the EU — but from the fact that (a) I always simply felt that it was a generally benign concept that had worked well and (b) notwithstanding the fact there are many valid criticisms of the EU, the criticisms the Leave campaign used were a patchwork of lies and half-truths designed to extremify the argument beyond any semblance of reason.



As I have mentioned on here before, I do a bit of lecturing and exam marking on EU law (not super high-end academic stuff by any means, but for trainee solicitors) .  It is literally part of the syllabus to discuss the flaws of the EU system ....so far from being someone who engages in uncritical love-worshipping of the EU....I actually teach graduates about the downsides.  There is plenty to criticise about the EU.   It is a collection of 27 states each with their own sovereign interests and problems — thus making it difficult to centralise the focus of the Union and to efficiently formulate policy.  The EU suffers the downsides of trying to reconcile different economic cultures — whereby for example the historical profligacy of a country like Greece interacts in a single market with a ultra-prudent country like, say, the Netherlands.  There are still transparency issues. There are still administrative issues — the idiotic oscillation of the Parliament between Strasbourg and Luxembourg being just one.    There is still a problem with proactive versus reactive policymaking — for example the regulation of the Eurozone being highly inadequate in the run-up to the financial crisis and the migration and external EU border control issues exposed by the Syrian crisis.  In both cases, much needed reform only came after the fact.  EU membership comes with trade-offs in sovereignty and occasionally a country will find itself on the wrong end of an EU measure which that country opposed.  There still remains an issue with the power of the Commission and there still remains work to be done to enhance the accountability of the institutions.  I'm also opposed to ongoing attempts to harmonise corporation tax as I believe it damages the ability of the smaller member states to act competitively.  



I could go on for a while more, and if people raised fair objective criticisms then I would happily engage in it.   But when people come with overdramatised views about the EU, it's very hard not to be seen as having a love-in with when you're constantly trying to bring the discussion down from the "EUSSR / evil superstate / Brussels bureaucrats / globalist conspiracy stuff.  When people take entrenched negative views of the EU, then the natural corollary is that opponents will sing the EU's praises. If people were a bit fairer, and a bit less dramatic and paranoid about what the EU actually is (i.e. a far more boring thing than the theatrical narrative which Eurosceptics have nurtured over the years) then we could all have healthy discussions about it. I can't way that I will be holding my breath.

[T00ts]

I've resorted to sticking a gold star on the screen next to posts I want to thank. I can't see much now.  ::

Take an aspirin!  ::

[Barry]

I've resorted to sticking a gold star on the screen next to posts I want to thank. I can't see much now.  ::

[T00ts]

Sorry, on another forum I frequent, and two others I used to run, "^^^^ this" means "hear hear", "what he said" and so on...



I tried restoring the thanks button by the way.



You know that bit in the opening bit of Quantum Of Solace where someone asks Bond "how did he die" and Bond says "not well"



That's how my fight with this damn button went.



I may have to rewrite the script. It's that bad...

No worries it occurred to me if we could have the use of a thanks button without keeping a score. Would that make a difference? Not that I know anything at all about how this thing works.

[johnofgwent]

What? I don't follow.

Sorry, on another forum I frequent, and two others I used to run, "^^^^ this" means "hear hear", "what he said" and so on...



I tried restoring the thanks button by the way.



You know that bit in the opening bit of Quantum Of Solace where someone asks Bond "how did he die" and Bond says "not well"



That's how my fight with this damn button went.



I may have to rewrite the script. It's that bad...