| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Brexit impass | |
| Posted by: | Andy Riley | |
| Date/Time: | 11/03/19 18:52:00 |
| The EC that we joined in 1972 and ratified by referendum in 1975 was, I believe, seen by many voters as a trading arrangement (the Common Market) although a closer scrutiny of its aims and values would have revealed an ambition towards a European state (see the Declaration of 1982 - "progress towards an ever closer union"). If we consider the trajectory of the organisation since then we see continuous progression towards this ideal (Euro, fiscal harmonisation, EU army, border management etc). So firstly one has to decide whether this is desirable or not and if not, how can the UK best stay out of these elements of unification. It's my view that the nation state is the best guarantor of a peoples liberties and we should therefore view with scepticism any moves to transfer power to another entity. There are arguments to be made against this but most remainers I've spoken to seem shy of expressing these, preferring to concentrate on the economic. Trade agreements should not in principle affect sovereignty as such, therefore I would be in favour of any that are mutually beneficial. I suspect membership of the EU is marginal in affecting skills, productivity etc. Debate on this forum about these issues would I'm sure be more positive that rerunning the Brexit debate. For example, what should be the role of the state in promoting regional development? Is HS2 a good investment? Is the drive to massively increase the number degrees for young people sensible? Does the banking system serve businesses well? You are right - Britain has always been a trading country and I do not believe that after we leave the EU this will stop. Trade goes on with or without deals - I don't believe New Zealand has a deal with the EU but I will enjoy a glass of excellent wine from that country this evening because their producers make excellent products at a good price. |