Enter the ePHOTOzine Christmas Prize Draw extravaganza!

Brexit Fiasco


Carabosse 16 41.3k 270 England
3 Feb 2019 1:31PM
I think the mistake Remainers make is thinking Brexit was primarily about economics - it wasn't.

It was about (a) uncontrolled migration from the former Soviet bloc and (b) a desire to not to be associated with "ever closer union" which would eventually see nation states reduced to the status of county councils: with an EU budget, EU army etc and power exercised by bureaucrats with, of course, a nod to democracy with a toothless parliament whose 'legislators' are not allowed to propose legislation!

Why do we need an EU army, some say? Surely it duplicates NATO. No it doesn't. NATO is about external threats. An EU army is about control of the population of member states and NATO cannot be used for that. Some of these populations are getting mighty restive, as we have noticed! An EU army will increasingly be needed to keep things in check because indigenous armies may be reluctant to act against their own populations. It actually makes perfect sense.

It is a delusion to think a vote to Leave meant change and a vote to Remain meant the status quo. Utterly wrong: BOTH were votes for change. Changes of different types and on different timescales, but change nevertherless.



Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

thewilliam2 2 1.3k
3 Feb 2019 2:00PM
With the very different birth-rate between Protestant and Roman Catholic communities, does Ulster now have enough Nationalists to vote through a re-unification? The Good Friday Agreement provided for such a referendum.

That would remove the need for a hard border!
rhody 17 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2019 2:28PM

Quote:The point that the article is making is that the infamous backstop was only contrived because of the underlying problems, and there is still no sign of a solution to those problems.


In 1971 Paul McCartney wrote his song "Give Ireland back to the Irish". In 1997, Hong Kong was returned to China.
3 Feb 2019 4:01PM
Ive just read a post on a another site where a lady has been told that as an older cancer patient she wont be a priority after 29th March, and shes apparently not alone. Why? Because the isotopes she needs for treatment are made in the EU by Euratom and to use them the UK needs to be a member of the EU. No other company has come forward to make them so the NHS has no choice but to ration and prioritise treatment.
saltireblue Plus
9 9.9k 38 Norway
3 Feb 2019 4:15PM

Quote:I’ve just read a post on a another site where a lady has been told that as an older cancer patient she won’t be a priority after 29th March, and she’s apparently not alone. Why? Because the isotopes she needs for treatment are made in the EU by Euratom and to use them the UK needs to be a member of the EU. No other company has come forward to make them so the NHS has no choice but to ration and prioritise treatment.

Unfortunately, this type of issue isn't making any headlines nationally...I wonder why not?

Also, this is the type of situation nobody knew would occur when they were deciding whether to vote stay or leave in 2016...perhaps the idea of a new referendum isn't so daft after all - this is just the sort of things the people need to know when making up their minds.
rhody 17 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2019 4:54PM

Quote:Ive just read a post on a another site where a lady has been told that as an older cancer patient she wont be a priority after 29th March, and shes apparently not alone. Why? Because the isotopes she needs for treatment are made in the EU by Euratom and to use them the UK needs to be a member of the EU. No other company has come forward to make them so the NHS has no choice but to ration and prioritise treatment.


I've no idea what the current situation is but back in May 2018, Mrs May stated that the UK will pay to save links with the EU Nuclear Agency. She said that the UK would seek to fully associate itself with Euratoms R&D arm, whilst not being a member of the EU itself, to ensure supplies to our nuclear power stations and radioactive isotopes for treating cancer patients would be maintained.

It seems a bit early to ration and prioritize treatment considering we haven't even left yet and are still members of the EU.
keith selmes 16 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2019 5:18PM

Quote:She said that the UK would seek to fully associate itself with Euratoms R&D arm, whilst not being a member of the EU itself


She's got until March 29th to sort it out. Not to have contingency plans in place now would be irresponsible.

rhody 17 2.8k 2 United Kingdom
3 Feb 2019 5:51PM

Quote:
Quote:She said that the UK would seek to fully associate itself with Euratoms R&D arm, whilst not being a member of the EU itself


She's got until March 29th to sort it out. Not to have contingency plans in place now would be irresponsible.



Assuming of course that it is indeed an outstanding issue and not just another projection of fear.
If it is not sorted and our nuclear power stations stop providing power and cancer patients can not get treatment - that would indeed be a terrible scenario and political dynamite.
Sadly, nothing surprises me any more about high level political incompetence.
strawman 16 22.1k 16 United Kingdom
4 Feb 2019 5:16PM
I think at the current moment there is a need for a bit of restraint. There is fear mongering on both sides on the PR front, and sadly some of the more extreme dramatisations of the leave problems can be challenged and then some people say "see it is all fear etc" and they can then happily ignore all of the other issues. So where are we?

1 Immigration. It is clear that about half of immigration is from outside the EU and that the EU has controls that can be applied that Westminster chose not to. Simple conclusion, immigration concerns could be mainly resolved within EU membership. Unless our economy totally tanks get used to immigration.

2 Sovereignty. Tricky one but does leaving the EU make us more of a rule taker? In our existing role in the EU we have a lot of influence on rules, many of which we will end up having to take with no influence once we leave. Also the US and China use economic might to assert their rules on countries. End conclusion, I believe that we reduce our control in many areas, s o net loss in event of Brexit.

3 Economy, it is becoming clear that very few do not dispute that Brexit will damage the UK economy, so lets park it. WTO terms are not great, and that is why Japan is celebrating the deal with the EU and the US and China are locked in their battle. Will the UK sink, no it will continue but it will be worse off and less able to trade on the world stage ironically.

4 EU Army, a minority worry about this, but then do we worry about the UN forces. If we thought about it we could work in a way to live with it, but it would need full agreement of all states in the EU and while we were in the EU we had a veto. It is a non-issue till we leave. We can close it. this was one of the leave bits of made up to a threat where none existed, like the line of Turkish people heading to the UK because they were in the EU (Ironic give the UK was pushing to allow them in)

5 Closer EU integration. Yes there are those who want greater EU integration and those who do not. Not all of the EU wants greater integration and countries like the UK and Sweden were good at arguing why this should not occur. Again through our deal we avoided the Euro and probably had the best of all worlds. The Euro does increase the push for greater integration, and personally I would like to see the EU stay at its current level of integration.

So all in all, I think it is in the countries best interest to call off Brexit and to change some policies. But sadly I am not the dictator in charge. The current situation is a mess because of a lack of thought planning and criminal incompetence on behalf of the leavers, the Conservative and Labour parties. Leave for not having the faintest idea of what the logic of leave was and lying to people. Government for failing to plan and manage the negotiations and putting short term internal politics ahead of the country . Labour for putting their political desires above the countries interests.

As it is we now see May going back on a deal she negotiated, is that a way of going forwards? The UK as a country where their word means nothing and the cannot be trusted to honour deals. And what does Brexit now offer? A reduction of the economic performance of the country. A reduction of influence and independence. A situation where immigration will be a toy of barter we use to get trade deals at nearly the same level. In short we will have given a lot away and achieved nothing.

Is that good?



Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.