Canyon pauses shipments to UK customers, blaming Brexit uncertainty

Fair point, but this works both ways. I don't hear much to actually inform me of what is so good about the E.U. and never have in my entire adult life (all 38 years of it). I don't have any links. I don't feel the need to justify my thoughts and feelings to anyone else. I do not say this with any animosity at all, it's just the way it is. If we met in person, then perhaps I would be happy to discuss my thoughts on the matter, but not here. I'm a bit tired of the whole thing now, but (unfortunately) do allow myself to get wound up sometimes by the insults directed at Pro Brexit folks by those who (on the face of it) seem so full of themselves and their 'right on' views that they come across as just arrogant and naive fools (this is not directed at you, by the way). My problems with the E.U. are probably more to do with the organisation itself rather than anything else. I am a great believer in free trade and friendly cooperation wherever possible, but do not seee the need for a huge political body to 'look after' this. More politicians = more lies and corruption; they are simply not needed.  Have a happy Christmas and healthy and prosperous New Year.

The simplest pro-EU argument is to keep frictionless trade with our nearest neighbours which is not really an endorsement of the EU per se (I have mixed feelings about the EU as an organisation).

My simplistic way of looking at it was that we faced a choice between "keep things as they are" and "change things" and the public reasons behind wanting to "change things" seemed to be hidden or based on made up facts designed to ellicit an emotional response (e.g. giving money to the NHS) though I'm not going to sing the praises of the pro-EU campaign either. I (naively) would expect that a campaign to change things would have clear, measurable outcomes so that people could discuss the advantages.

Also:

1. Having a human rights framework that even the UK government couldn't ignore, thus giving us more rights than we'd likely have had without.

2. Funding and EU wide cooperation on scientific and medical research (declaration of interest: I used to work on some of it).

3. The opportunity to travel and work throughout the EU, with reciprocal rights on benefits and healthcare, without having to arrange visas etc.

4. An invisible-enough border that was a huge help in the peace deal in Northern Ireland.

There are counter-arguments, of course:

1. Whilst the human rights framework is broadly positive, it was designed for and has been more useful to citizens of former European dictatorships rather than the UK whose criminal laws evolved from the principle of habaeus corpus long before many of Europe's current nation states took on their current guises. Within my political lifetime these countries have included Spain, Portugal, Greece, the Visegrad states, and then the Baltic States... 

2. UK R&D through it's network of world-class universities* has always been strong, and I'd argue that we gave at least as much as we benefitted from.  I doubt that t his will stop. It will be done outside the framework of the EU. BTW, I don't see too many EU universities in the global top 100 - and less in the top 50 (*one of the few things in the UK which are genuinely world class);

3. Agreed. I'm all for the free movement of labour, but since Lisbon and the aborted European Constitution this has been the free movement of people and Britain and latterly and to a lesser extent Germany became the safety valve for rampant, Euro inflicted unemployment in the EU's peripheries.  Of course, the UK benefits from this and many of the brightest and best head this way for work, but successive UK governments have not created the housing, school-places, built enough hospitals and increased the capacity of our infrastructure to house 3-400,000 extra citizens every year for the past decade of so.  That's a city the size of Newcastle every year - and in this respect those Governments must take their share of the responsibility for the outcome of the 2016 referendum; 

4. Agree on the Irish border too.  But it was only Theresa May's agreement to sequencing; i.e. signing a withdrawal agreement before a trade deal that out this border in any doubt.  This was foreseen at the time and May ignored it. If the two had been negotiated in parallel, this would could have been avoided.

Wow...politics, cycling and a few post ride and dinner beers don't mix - and I don't entirely disagree with you....it's a shame it had to come to this.  I studied history and latterly political science and learned from the mid-1990s referendums held throughout Europe that referendums don't solve anything: they divide societies more or less down the middle on issues where there is no common ground - opening what political scientists call cleavages.  Some of these cleavages lie atop other cleavages and run very deep and take a long time to heal.

Right...where are the mince pies...

hawkinspeter wrote:

The simplest pro-EU argument is to keep frictionless trade with our nearest neighbours which is not really an endorsement of the EU per se (I have mixed feelings about the EU as an organisation).

My simplistic way of looking at it was that we faced a choice between "keep things as they are" and "change things" and the public reasons behind wanting to "change things" seemed to be hidden or based on made up facts designed to ellicit an emotional response (e.g. giving money to the NHS) though I'm not going to sing the praises of the pro-EU campaign either. I (naively) would expect that a campaign to change things would have clear, measurable outcomes so that people could discuss the advantages.

Also a strong EU is a worthwhile counterbalance to significant less benign superpowers in the world.

You can certainly make enviromental arguments against global business and the endless transporting of stuff and arguably even against persuing economic growth as this is generally supported by ever increasing consumerism, which is not environmentally sustainable. It's amazing that the economy was always more important than the certain effects of climate change which will have a substantial impact on their entire population, but that a disease which kills approximately 1% of the population, and those mainly in the old is enough to stop the economy everywhere.

Against this I would say there are a number of multinational corporations strong enough to ignore most individual countires but the strength of the EU is sufficient to take action against them. Weaker international cooperation by governments gives greater power to these businesses which care primarily about their shareholders.

However environmental concerns as raised above and relating to ever expanding consumerism were not the central pillar of the leave campagin, instead it was soveriegnty (the UK being on the winning side in somewhere around 90% of EU votes), freedom of movement and fish.

I'm not sure that the preservation of our environment requires the federal, political, and fiscal union of Europe's nation states to achieve it.

Okay - Europe speaking as one would give it greater volume on the world stage, but it rarely speaks as one and when it does it is in the language of lowest common denominator platitudes.  And this is because Europe's member states do not agree with each other on key issues such as power supply, with certain countries eschewing lower carbon forms of energy such as nuclear (controvertial, I admit) in favour of coal-and-gas-fired power: nothwithstanding that the gas is supplied by a beligerent Russia. 

The UK has been at the forefront of on environmental issues - both globally and within Europe. It has adopted solar and offshore wind enthusiastically and with great effect - backed by - indeed financed by it's world-leading finance sector. I do not see this changing because we're losing our yellow star on a blue flag. 

....Lastly, when it comes to multinationals - the EU would need increased political and fiscal integration to present a more united front against multinationals.  At the moment multinationals treaty shop between EU member states to ensure their goods and services have low fiscal friction - Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands being favoured destinations.  It goes without saying that a common rate of corporation and other taxes throws these states under the bus - not that I care about that and nor should you.  The German constitutional courts are the major brake on monetary and fiscal union - ironically. 

Interestingly, one of the biggest environmental scandals of late involving a multinational was over VWAG vehicle emissions - and I can't recall any significant sanction from the EU - yet.  They have, of course, bolted the door a little belatedly by introducing emissions criteria with fines for non-compliance starting in 2021-2, I think - but the most vociferous response to VWAG's cheating came from the US - it's government hammered VWAG and its consumers have responded with class actions: good old Anglo-Saxon law! 

Why don't you just list your top ten reasons for leaving the EU - and the benefits. There must be some? 

Why don't you try addressing people in a civil manner and stop assuming your opinions are correct. That is all they are after all, opinions. I do not have to justify anything to you, or anyone else. Moreover, I couldn't give a monkey's whether you agree or not. My opinions are based on research and hard won experience , hopefully the same applies to yours.

njblackadder wrote:

It is very odd to encounter so many people who wish for the U.K. to fail simply to be able to say, 'I told you so'. This is a really strange attitude. 

Have you genuinely encountered anyone like this?   I've only ever heard it from brexit voters accusingly to anyone expressing that they are worried about the consequences of Brexit. 

David9694 wrote:

we did. But tell me why we did it, what you see as being better in our lives next year - and I'll consider your suggestions.  
Tenuous link back to cycling: I was going to ask for some GP 5000s for my birthday next year - what are my chances? 

Sunlit upland
Taking back control
Fed up of experts
Sovrinty
Blue pass ports
Vacuum cleaners
NHS

Aren't you feeling the benefits yet?.....

njblackadder wrote:

We left. Get over it and get on with it!

Nearly four years on it still confounds me why Brexiteers still think this is in any way a valid argument. When we joined (with a far higher pro vote), did they say, "we've joined, we'll get over it and get on with it?" No, they whined about it for over forty years and turned it into a fatal distraction for several governments. I've yet to find the section in my "How Democracy Works" handbook where it says that after a single non-bindng narrow vote one has to accept the outcome as set in stone for eternity.

We did not join with a vote, but were taken in illegally by Edward Heath. The vote occurred afterwards. I am sure you will have an answer that disagrees though. Please look up the English (latterly UK) Bill of Rights of 1689 and how it relates to Britain's initial entry into the Common Market. I suggest you study your handbooks a little more closely and get your facts right before criticizing others.

njblackadder wrote:

We did not join with a vote, but were taken in illegally by Edward Heath.

Silly man, you know nothing of the law of the UK. There is a convention that a constitutional change should be ratified by referendum or election, but there is no law, as we do not have a written constitution, and therefore it was not illegal. A lot of very stupid people have tried to claim it was illegal, but the Eurpoean Communities Act 1972 was passed by both houses of Parliament and given Royal Assent by Her Majesty on October 17th 1972. That's not illegal, sorry.

This is exactly what I was referring to with my earlier posts. The arrogance is breath-taking. You have now stooped to personal insults because you believe you know it all. I can assure you that I am not a 'silly man', nor am I stupid. At no point did I say joining was illegal because of the lack of a precursor vote. I pointed out that the vote you quoted as taking us into the Common Market was actually held after we had joined and was not held to ask whether the UK should join. I did ask you to look at the Bill of Rights, which you don't appear to have done. If you do examine the Bill of Rights you will find that joining the Common Market contravenes it. There is also the matter of the 'bribe' paid to Edward Heath. I don't suppose you have the decency to apologise for insulting me. I am now finished with this sorry 'debate'. You have simply confirmed what I described earlier. Bye, bye.

njblackadder wrote:

This is exactly what I was referring to with my earlier posts. The arrogance is breath-taking. You have now stooped to personal insults because you believe you know it all. I can assure you that I am not a 'silly man', nor am I stupid. At no point did I say joining was illegal because of the lack of a precursor vote. I pointed out that the vote you quoted as taking us into the Common Market was actually held after we had joined and was not held to ask whether the UK should join. I did ask you to look at the Bill of Rights, which you don't appear to have done. If you do examine the Bill of Rights you will find that joining the Common Market contravenes it. There is also the matter of the 'bribe' paid to Edward Heath. I don't suppose you have the decency to apologise for insulting me. I am now finished with this sorry 'debate'. You have simply confirmed what I described earlier. Bye, bye.

I certainly will not apologise for insulting you, you deserve all the insults coming your way. You claimed that the decision to join the Common Market was illegal, I have shown you that it was entirely legal under the law of the UK, i.e. it was ratified by both Houses of Parliament and given Royal Assent, and yet you persist in claiming that it contravenes UK law. It didn't, and doesn't. If it's ratified by both houses and Her Majesty, it cannot be.  Do you actually ride a bike by the way, or are you just an insane person who spews drivel over any site that dares disagree with your ill-informed and entirely erroneous opinion? You are a silly man and very stupid. Hope you stick to your promise to stay away now, it would be much appreciated.

I will make just a couple more comments, then uphold my promise to say no more. As you would appreciate me staying away, it seems only right to not do so immediately. Please do not take my next remark as a threat - it is not. I would be willing to bet a substantial sum that you would not speak to me (or probably anyone else) in the manner you have here in 'real life'. You seem to be represenative of the intolerant, self-obsessed and self-appointed 'intelligent elite' and obviously the crticism you make of me for 'spewing drivel' over anyone who disagrees with me is quite acceptable as a trait in yourself. It is not possible to have an 'erroneous opinion' - BY THE WAY. 

The Bill of Rights - you still have no idea what it says have you?

njblackadder wrote:

I will make just a couple more comments, then uphold my promise to say no more. As you would appreciate me staying away, it seems only right to not do so immediately. Please do not take my next remark as a threat - it is not. I would be willing to bet a substantial sum that you would not speak to me (or probably anyone else) in the manner you have here in 'real life'. You seem to be represenative of the intolerant, self-obsessed and self-appointed 'intelligent elite' and obviously the crticism you make of me for 'spewing drivel' over anyone who disagrees with me is quite acceptable as a trait in yourself. It is not possible to have an 'erroneous opinion' - BY THE WAY. 

The Bill of Rights - you still have no idea what it says have you?

I knew you wouldn't keep your promise, your sort never can. Just for your information, yes I have read the 1689 Bill of Rights and its primary requirement is that laws may not be enacted without the consent of the people through their duly elected Parliament. It's not difficult to understand if you engage whatever brain you may have. Now please do "uphold your promise to say no more", there's a good chap.

You don't have to accept it for eternity but you do have to accept it initially.

Loser's consent is an integral part of a functioning democracy.

Rich_cb wrote:

You don't have to accept it for eternity but you do have to accept it initially. Loser's consent is an integral part of a functioning democracy.

"There could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said. 'In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.'" - BBC News, May 17th, 2016

So your side wouldn't have accepted a 52-48 loss against them, but as you won by 52-48, the losers must consent? Jesus, do you people actually listen to yourselves?

Firstly, please don't assume Nigel Farage speaks for all Leave voters.

We have no idea how the Leave campaign would have responded to losing by a mere 1 million votes as it didn't happen.

We know exactly how the Remain campaign reacted, there was a concerted effort to stop Brexit ever happening. That was most certainly not an example of Loser's Consent.

Loser's Consent is an integral part of a functioning democracy. Without it democracy simply does not function. If you want to live in a democracy then Loser's Consent is part of the bargain.

Rich_cb wrote:

Firstly, please don't assume Nigel Farage speaks for all Leave voters. We have no idea how the Leave campaign would have responded to losing by a mere 1 million votes as it didn't happen. We know exactly how the Remain campaign reacted, there was a concerted effort to stop Brexit ever happening. That was most certainly not an example of Loser's Consent. Loser's Consent is an integral part of a functioning democracy. Without it democracy simply does not function. If you want to live in a democracy then Loser's Consent is part of the bargain.

You keep saying "losers' consent" as if this has some legal or philosophical standing, it does not. It implies that after a vote those who were on the losing side should stop campaigning for their beliefs. Can you not see how that would throttle the entire democratic process? In a democracy, those who are outvoted have every right to continue to campaign to reverse whatever vote they lost - just as those who lost a democratic vote in 1975 did for forty tiresome years.

Loser's Consent is a well established democratic principle.

A quick Google should be enough to familiarise yourself with the concept.

It does not imply that you should stop campaigning.

It does require the losing side to accept the result and to allow the result of the vote to take place.

Rich_cb wrote:

Loser's Consent is a well established democratic principle. A quick Google should be enough to familiarise yourself with the concept. It does not imply that you should stop campaigning. It does require the losing side to accept the result and to allow the result of the vote to take place.

It just isn't a "well established democratic principle" and a quick Google yourself would show you it's something that wasn't even mentioned, in thousands of years of democratic philosophy, before the Bush/Gore election in 2000. Do prove me wrong if you can.

I do enjoy conversing with the 'well informed' Remain voters.

You're wrong.

Here's an article from 1993 which itself references the principle in articles from the 1960s.

Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers' Consent
Richard Nadeau and Andre Blais
British Journal of Political Science
Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 553-563 (11 pages)
Published By: Cambridge University Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/194217

References:

'Benjamin Ginsberg and Robert Weissberg. 'Elections and the Mobilization of Group Support', American Journal of Political Science, 22 (1978), 31-55. p. 34.

For similar statements, see E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi Sovereign People: A Realistic's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960); David Easton, A System Aalysis of Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965); Jack Dennis, 'Support for the Institution of Elections in the Mass Public', American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 819-36; Allan J. Cigler and Russell Getter, 'Confict Reduction in the Post-Election Period: A Test of the Depolarization Thesis, Western Political Quarterly, 30 (1977), 363-76: Steven E. Finkel, "Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Eficacy: A Panel Analysis", American Journal of Political Science

Rich_cb wrote:

I do enjoy conversing with the 'well informed' Remain voters. You're wrong. Here's an article from 1993 which itself references the principle in articles from the 1960s. Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers' Consent Richard Nadeau and Andre Blais British Journal of Political Science Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 553-563 (11 pages) Published By: Cambridge University Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/194217 References: 'Benjamin Ginsberg and Robert Weissberg. 'Elections and the Mobilization of Group Support', American Journal of Political Science, 22 (1978), 31-55. p. 34. For similar statements, see E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi Sovereign People: A Realistic's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960); David Easton, A System Aalysis of Political Life (New York: Wiley, 1965); Jack Dennis, 'Support for the Institution of Elections in the Mass Public', American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 819-36; Allan J. Cigler and Russell Getter, 'Confict Reduction in the Post-Election Period: A Test of the Depolarization Thesis, Western Political Quarterly, 30 (1977), 363-76: Steven E. Finkel, "Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Eficacy: A Panel Analysis", American Journal of Political Science

You appear to be confusing "a well established principle"  with "something someone once said." They're not quite the same thing.

You seem to be backtracking somewhat from your claim that it was never mentioned before the year 2000?

Anyway here is a discussion of the principle of loser's consent in the Federalist Papers.

https://cses.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/LoewenBlais2006.pdf

If the principle has been discussed for over 250 years then I think it can be safely described as 'well established'.

Consider yourself proven wrong.

Rich_cb wrote:

You seem to be backtracking somewhat from your claim that it was never mentioned before the year 2000? Anyway here is a discussion of the principle of loser's consent in the Federalist Papers. https://cses.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/LoewenBlais2006.pdf If the principle has been discussed for over 250 years then I think it can be safely described as 'well established'. Consider yourself proven wrong.

No, I absolutely concede you are right, it has been discussed prior to 2000, I was wrong. However, the evidence you provide does not show that it has been discussed for 250 years, it shows that some people have applied it to events of 250 years ago. Again, not the same thing. In any event, the fact that some people have said something for any amount of time does not make it a "well established principle." Many Greco-Roman philosophers defended the principles of slavery, does the fact that people have been talking about something for 2000 years mean that we must accept said principles now? I'm afraid you simply cannot support your argument, and it's not one that even the sillest of Brexiteers have raised, as far as I'm aware. But congratulations on being really, really desperate to be right, everyone likes a trier. However, enough time wasted on your nonsense. Cheerio!

The Federalist Papers are a seminal work, they've been continuously discussed since they were published.

They contain the principle of loser's consent so it's entirely safe to assume that principle has been discussed regularly for the last quarter of a century.

Amusingly you seem to have taken being proved wrong quite badly.

Quite fitting really.

"For sure we were on the losing side; not so sure it was the wrong side" - Mal Reynolds (paraphrased)