View Full Version : Historic day for Great Britain!
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 16:18
We all had the choice given to us and we voted and the majority won. That's democracy. There wont be any change, we're out and what's done is done. My personal hope is for the undemocratic EC to come tumbling down now by other nations doing the same thing so that European nations can get back to the EFTA, a common market, and when that happens, I'm confident that we will be welcomed back to the new improved club and would be nuts not to. The British vote is just the tip of a very deep and very troubled iceberg waiting to hit the good ship EU.
That's one scenario but another is that we will be left out in the cold because after giving them the big finger they decide that actually they don't need us
The EU will certainly learn from Brexit and start developing reforms to address the emerging discontent to ensure the future of the union, but only after the UK has invoked article 50.
In the meantime they will seek to strenghten the EU economy by securing a significant amount of the UK's banking and finance business and offer incentives to global companies to relocate
The problem is that we have chosen to go down a path without knowing where that path leads and have no map or compass to guide us, only a leap of faith based on the assurances of those fine upstanding fellows Boris & Nigel.
Sure the Sunday Spurt can help,you out there Martin? :)
Ah yes, the builders favourite... A nice cup of char, a copy of the 'Daily Spurt'....and after a few 'chugs', there's no need to return to the snack van for extra milk! :D
Marco.
Well I for one can't wait to see ther return of "On The Buses" "The Comedians" with Shep's Banjo Boys, Benny Hill and "Doctor in Charge"
Racial stereotyping R'Us....
(ps totally fancied the french burd....)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlsvwv_mind-your-language-02_fun
walpurgis
25-06-2016, 16:26
Racial stereotyping R'Us....
(ps totally fancied the french burd....)
She is no longer as you remember.
http://i67.tinypic.com/3088r4y.jpg
The EU will certainly learn from Brexit and start developing reforms to address the emerging discontent to ensure the future of the union, but only after the UK has invoked article 50.
.
I bet they don't. They are far to arrogant. And they are not elected by the populations so no need for then to listen in any case. This is a disaster for the European Project and they know it. But they will press on the same way regardless.
She is no longer as you remember.
http://i67.tinypic.com/3088r4y.jpg
Well thats me going to bed tonight mildly unsatisfied....
ps...
wrong Pascal Geoff?
*EDIT* Thats her Mother btw!
She looks like 'dis
https://plus.google.com/112223942343445678129
still going to bed equally unchuffed....
Rothchild
25-06-2016, 16:40
I bet they don't. They are far to arrogant. And they are not elected by the populations so no need for then to listen in any case. This is a disaster for the European Project and they know it. But they will press on the same way regardless.
The only 'they' that isn't elected is the commission, they are nominated by our elected representatives (MEPs) but of course these sort of facts can't be allowed to stand in the was of a good cucumber story.
Speaking of unelected representatives, apparently we don't have enough of them to negotiate our winning trade deal (the one where the folk who couldn't negotiate with Europe as a member will have better negotiating powers as a non-member....)
I heard the NHS are already planning what to do with the extra £350m a week they've been promised (of course minus the new negotiators salaries).
It's true though we should look forward; to the dissolution of the United Kingdom (with exits by both Scotland and Ireland), our exodus from the EEA (the only way that the immigration policy can be delivered), Spain taking Gibraltar, a ghost town that used to be a financial capital (as if London wasn't bad enough already) and to top it off all being led by politics' answer to the chuckle brothers, Boris the Turk and Michael 'Facts not Skills' Gove.
She is no longer as you remember.
http://i67.tinypic.com/3088r4y.jpg
Jeez, I wouldn't touch that with yours! ;) :spew:
Unless you're into 'moisturising' old grans.
Marco.
Naa..
different person Marco.
Back in the day the right person looked like this:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AvfajSGo5f8/hqdefault.jpg
Imagine that as a 13 Yr old...
walpurgis
25-06-2016, 16:49
That is the same person.
That's one scenario but another is that we will be left out in the cold because after giving them the big finger they decide that actually they don't need us
The EU will certainly learn from Brexit and start developing reforms to address the emerging discontent to ensure the future of the union, but only after the UK has invoked article 50.
In the meantime they will seek to strenghten the EU economy by securing a significant amount of the UK's banking and finance business and offer incentives to global companies to relocate
The problem is that we have chosen to go down a path without knowing where that path leads and have no map or compass to guide us, only a leap of faith based on the assurances of those fine upstanding fellows Boris & Nigel.
No. It was not a leap of faith based on what assurances by what any of the campaign nitwits said. That is completely and utterly incorrect. I used to think that Boris was a bit of a wit, until I realised that he's only actually half a one.
It's so typical that people are still refusing to believe that many of us voted with our consciences wanting nothing more to do with an undemocratic dictatorship that was accountable to no-one but a small handful of elitists. The whole point here is that the EU was and still is doing what it considers best for its federalist agenda and did not have Britain's best interests at heart any more than it has Germany's best interests at heart or the Netherlands or any other single member state. The Euro is sliding on world markets as a general trend and would have continued to do so as the economic realities of the completely skewed and disparate economies of a majority of member states tugged at the purse strings, offering nothing much in return. It was and is a bubble only going one way and that is to burst. The so called ideology of freedom of movement is also fine in theory but the reality is that as these nations are admitted who have nothing to offer, they simply migrate to where the money and opportunities are instead of creating their own wealth and contributing to a stronger union. It was and is never going to work that way and can only lead to the ultimate downfall economically of their own nations.
It is also completely naive to think that no-one in Europe wants to do business with us. You obviously have not read the papers as it has been widely reported that the Germans (surprise surprise) and French do wish to continue trading but it is the elitist in control including that awful man Junckers who are denying the European people and their industries that possibility at the minute in spite of the mutually beneficial nature of continued trading, and all out of bloody minded spite. We have taken our ball and gone home because the leaders of the EU keep moving the goal posts and it's become possible for us to play the game any more because despite being on the team, we were also, in reality, on the sidelines. Why? Because the UK would never have acceded to become part of a Federal state with a federal army, federal bank and unelected, unaccountable people running the whole show. That and the economic reality of what the Eurozone was becoming left us with no other choice. Yes, we will feel the cost and the pinch for years to come, but we shall also at least have a government democratically accountable, armed forces that are not governed by some faceless Eurocrat and control over our own budgets. We shall also have complete freedom to negotiate and trade with whomever we wish, and the financial markets need not be crippled to the same extent with the massive financial burden of compliance.
The EU leaders may well make things as hard as possible, but in doing so, they run a very high risk of alienating their own members, creating even deeper feelings of disenfranchisement and perhaps even making the decisions for other member states to implement Article 50 that much easier. It will happen, sooner or later. The German economy cannot stand an additional £3Billion annually, and maintain current growth. The other nations are in a far worse economic position so they really do still need our trade. Even Merkel has come out and warned against any nastiness towards the UK for a decision taken by the electorate. We have spoken, we are Europeans, but we do not wish to be run any longer by a corrupted and unaccountable Commission. I remain convinced that when the EU experiment does collapse, the only way that Europe will survive economically is to reintroduce a common Market EFTA but without the trappings of federalism or central control. It could be administered by MEPs democratically elected and with a European civil service, much as the original concept. Where it went wrong was its arrogance in stripping ever more control and identity from its member states. Had that not been true, there would not have been any referendum.
That is the same person.
Aye, 40 years and 10 stone later! :D
Marco.
Aye, 40 years and 10 stone later! :D
Marco.
dammit, cant stop now....need to keep going...
The only 'they' that isn't elected is the commission, they are nominated by our elected representatives (MEPs) but of course these sort of facts can't be allowed to stand in the was of a good cucumber story.
.
s
I was talking about the Commission. or do you imagine that they are not the people who are calling the shots? They decide all policy, The EMPs just get to vote on it.
Naa..
different person Marco.
Back in the day the right person looked like this:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AvfajSGo5f8/hqdefault.jpg
Yeah, she was cute, but only as she looked THEN! :cool:
She actually looks rather like someone I 'rate' now, Jenna Coleman, from Dr Who:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/923/Kwxq1F.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnKwxq1Fj)
Marco.
Yeah, she was cute, but only as she looked THEN! :cool:
She actually looks rather like someone I 'rate' now, Jenna Coleman, from Dr Who:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/923/Kwxq1F.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/pnKwxq1Fj)
Marco.
Jenna Coleman struck me when I first saw her, now I know why!
ps. I was cute 30 years ago. (So they tell me!) :eyebrows:
She has a look of Michael Jackson about her.
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 17:23
No. It was not a leap of faith based on what assurances by what any of the campaign nitwits said. That is completely and utterly incorrect. I used to think that Boris was a bit of a wit, until I realised that he's only actually half a one.
It's so typical that people are still refusing to believe that many of us voted with our consciences wanting nothing more to do with an undemocratic dictatorship that was accountable to no-one but a small handful of elitists. The whole point here is that the EU was and still is doing what it considers best for its federalist agenda and did not have Britain's best interests at heart any more than it has Germany's best interests at heart or the Netherlands or any other single member state. The Euro is sliding on world markets as a general trend and would have continued to do so as the economic realities of the completely skewed and disparate economies of a majority of member states tugged at the purse strings, offering nothing much in return. It was and is a bubble only going one way and that is to burst. The so called ideology of freedom of movement is also fine in theory but the reality is that as these nations are admitted who have nothing to offer, they simply migrate to where the money and opportunities are instead of creating their own wealth and contributing to a stronger union. It was and is never going to work that way and can only lead to the ultimate downfall economically of their own nations.
It is also completely naive to think that no-one in Europe wants to do business with us. You obviously have not read the papers as it has been widely reported that the Germans (surprise surprise) and French do wish to continue trading but it is the elitist in control including that awful man Junckers who are denying the European people and their industries that possibility at the minute in spite of the mutually beneficial nature of continued trading, and all out of bloody minded spite. We have taken our ball and gone home because the leaders of the EU keep moving the goal posts and it's become possible for us to play the game any more because despite being on the team, we were also, in reality, on the sidelines. Why? Because the UK would never have acceded to become part of a Federal state with a federal army, federal bank and unelected, unaccountable people running the whole show. That and the economic reality of what the Eurozone was becoming left us with no other choice. Yes, we will feel the cost and the pinch for years to come, but we shall also at least have a government democratically accountable, armed forces that are not governed by some faceless Eurocrat and control over our own budgets. We shall also have complete freedom to negotiate and trade with whomever we wish, and the financial markets need not be crippled to the same extent with the massive financial burden of compliance.
The EU leaders may well make things as hard as possible, but in doing so, they run a very high risk of alienating their own members, creating even deeper feelings of disenfranchisement and perhaps even making the decisions for other member states to implement Article 50. It will happen, sooner or later. The German economy cannot stand an additional £3Billion annually, and maintain current growth. The other nations are in a far worse economic position so they really do still need our trade. Even Merkel has come out and warned against any nastiness towards the UK for a decision taken by the electorate. We have spoken, we are Europeans, but we do not wish to be run any longer by a corrupted and unaccountable Commission. I remain convinced that when the EU experiment does collapse, the only way that Europe will survive economically is to reintroduce a common Market EFTA but without the trappings of federalism or central control. I could be administered by MEPs democratically elected and with a European civil service, much as the original concept. Where it went wrong was its arrogance in stripping ever more control and identity from its member states. Had that not been true, there would not have been any referendum.
The fact is you don't know what the outcome of Brexit will be on the UK economy or future any more than the rest of us therefore it was a leap of faith that it would result n your hoped for scenario of the EU breaking up.
Whilst there are no doubt many countries and individuals who are eager to continue trading with the UK it is the negotiations with the EU that will determine the terms of that trading. Any of the 27 remaining member states have the power of veto so the scenario I presented is just as valid as yours and to suggest it is naive strikes of arrogance of a lack of understanding of the facts. Lord Hill who has a far greater insight into the intent of the EU than both of us has already stated that they are not going to give us a favourable deal. I sincerely hope he's wrong.
She has a look of Michael Jackson about her.
Would you have banged Michael Jackson?
Marco.
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 17:27
She has a look of Michael Jackson about her.
More Janet I would say but there's little difference between either of them
Other than a pair of balls and six nose-jobs.
Marco.
Would you have banged Michael Jackson?
Marco.
Deffo. Then claimed compensation.
The fact is you don't know what the outcome of Brexit will be on the UK economy or future any more than the rest of us therefore it was a leap of faith that it would result n your hoped for scenario of the EU breaking up.
. Lord Hill who has a far greater insight into the intent of the EU than both of us has already stated that they are not going to give us a favourable deal. I sincerely hope he's wrong.
So Lord Hill can predict the future but no-one who voted to leave can?
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 17:55
Other than a pair of balls and six nose-jobs.
Marco.
How do you know :eyebrows:
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 18:12
So Lord Hill can predict the future but no-one who voted to leave can?
Where did I say Lord Hill can predict the future? I only repeated what he has stated.
Trying to manipulate what I said by selectively quoting me is poor form particularly as you are a mod on the forum :nono:
The fact is you don't know what the outcome of Brexit will be on the UK economy or future any more than the rest of us therefore it was a leap of faith that it would result n your hoped for scenario of the EU breaking up.
Whilst there are no doubt many countries and individuals who are eager to continue trading with the UK it is the negotiations with the EU that will determine the terms of that trading. Any of the 27 remaining member states have the power of veto so the scenario I presented is just as valid as yours and to suggest it is naive strikes of arrogance of a lack of understanding of the facts. Lord Hill who has a far greater insight into the intent of the EU than both of us has already stated that they are not going to give us a favourable deal. I sincerely hope he's wrong.
I'm pretty sure you're right and that they won't entertain a favourable deal but a deal has to be made and we have to exit. Lets not forget that our leaving also means financial strife for the EU, to the tune of our current import values plus £270m/week contribution. They'll want to make an example of us, but my point is that the EUs days are numbered in its present form and everything could well be up for grabs in the years to come.
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 18:16
The chaos continues
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-lammy-mp-calls-parliament-8281488
One thing I can't stand are bad losers or folk who can't make up their minds.
Marco.
walpurgis
25-06-2016, 18:24
the EUs days are numbered in its present form and everything could well be up for grabs in the years to come.
Yup!
Where did I say Lord Hill can predict the future? I only repeated what he has stated.
Trying to manipulate what I said by selectively quoting me is poor form particularly as you are a mod on the forum :nono:
You quoted him predicting the future right after stating that no-one could:
The fact is you don't know what the outcome of Brexit will be on the UK economy or future any more than the rest of us
If you'd added 'except Lord Hill' then quoting his prediciton would have made more sense
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 18:32
I'm pretty sure you're right and that they won't entertain a favourable deal but a deal has to be made and we have to exit. Lets not forget that our leaving also means financial strife for the EU, to the tune of our current import values plus £270m/week contribution. They'll want to make an example of us, but my point is that the EUs days are numbered in its present form and everything could well be up for grabs in the years to come.
Yes Brexit has left the EU in a dire position. There is the possibility that after 2 years no deal is brokered resulting in the UK having to rely on WTO tariffs and no financial passport https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/25/wto-eu-uk-consumers-trade-deals
I also agree that the EU will implode without reform but we have to be aware that we may invoke article 50 and then the EU announces an intent to reform to both balance the budgets and appease the dissenters. Too late for us though
One ray of light is that Merkel seems to be sympathetic to the UK but how much sway does she hold?
anthonyTD
25-06-2016, 18:36
Excelent post Paul.:clapclapclap:
No. It was not a leap of faith based on what assurances by what any of the campaign nitwits said. That is completely and utterly incorrect. I used to think that Boris was a bit of a wit, until I realised that he's only actually half a one.
It's so typical that people are still refusing to believe that many of us voted with our consciences wanting nothing more to do with an undemocratic dictatorship that was accountable to no-one but a small handful of elitists. The whole point here is that the EU was and still is doing what it considers best for its federalist agenda and did not have Britain's best interests at heart any more than it has Germany's best interests at heart or the Netherlands or any other single member state. The Euro is sliding on world markets as a general trend and would have continued to do so as the economic realities of the completely skewed and disparate economies of a majority of member states tugged at the purse strings, offering nothing much in return. It was and is a bubble only going one way and that is to burst. The so called ideology of freedom of movement is also fine in theory but the reality is that as these nations are admitted who have nothing to offer, they simply migrate to where the money and opportunities are instead of creating their own wealth and contributing to a stronger union. It was and is never going to work that way and can only lead to the ultimate downfall economically of their own nations.
It is also completely naive to think that no-one in Europe wants to do business with us. You obviously have not read the papers as it has been widely reported that the Germans (surprise surprise) and French do wish to continue trading but it is the elitist in control including that awful man Junckers who are denying the European people and their industries that possibility at the minute in spite of the mutually beneficial nature of continued trading, and all out of bloody minded spite. We have taken our ball and gone home because the leaders of the EU keep moving the goal posts and it's become possible for us to play the game any more because despite being on the team, we were also, in reality, on the sidelines. Why? Because the UK would never have acceded to become part of a Federal state with a federal army, federal bank and unelected, unaccountable people running the whole show. That and the economic reality of what the Eurozone was becoming left us with no other choice. Yes, we will feel the cost and the pinch for years to come, but we shall also at least have a government democratically accountable, armed forces that are not governed by some faceless Eurocrat and control over our own budgets. We shall also have complete freedom to negotiate and trade with whomever we wish, and the financial markets need not be crippled to the same extent with the massive financial burden of compliance.
The EU leaders may well make things as hard as possible, but in doing so, they run a very high risk of alienating their own members, creating even deeper feelings of disenfranchisement and perhaps even making the decisions for other member states to implement Article 50 that much easier. It will happen, sooner or later. The German economy cannot stand an additional £3Billion annually, and maintain current growth. The other nations are in a far worse economic position so they really do still need our trade. Even Merkel has come out and warned against any nastiness towards the UK for a decision taken by the electorate. We have spoken, we are Europeans, but we do not wish to be run any longer by a corrupted and unaccountable Commission. I remain convinced that when the EU experiment does collapse, the only way that Europe will survive economically is to reintroduce a common Market EFTA but without the trappings of federalism or central control. It could be administered by MEPs democratically elected and with a European civil service, much as the original concept. Where it went wrong was its arrogance in stripping ever more control and identity from its member states. Had that not been true, there would not have been any referendum.
Change is always good.
(Know both sides of argument, my way is to keep it simple)
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 18:46
You quoted him predicting the future right after stating that no-one could:
The fact is you don't know what the outcome of Brexit will be on the UK economy or future any more than the rest of us
If you'd added 'except Lord Hill' then quoting his prediciton would have made more sense
I merely quoted Lord Hill on the negotiating position of the EU of which he most likely had empirical knowledge. I certainly didn't say he was predicting the outcome of Brexit on the economy or the future
Rothchild
25-06-2016, 18:59
s
I was talking about the Commission. or do you imagine that they are not the people who are calling the shots? They decide all policy, The EMPs just get to vote on it.
They call the shots because we're bad at holding our politicians to account and the only Europe stories we ever got were of the cucumber variety.
But hey, now we've 'reclaimed our country' (what ever that means) we don't have to put up with an un-elected chamber with veto powers because the House of Lords isn't really there, and of course all our politicians develop and write their own policies, the civil service just enacts the will of the people.
The fact is the European Commission are unelected. And they decide policy. Neither the House of Lords or the Civil Service decide policy.
In any case I am not defending our current system which I accept has flaws. One of my objections to the EU is that it is a whole additional layer of flawed system that we can do without.
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 19:27
This will come as a shock to many as nearly all of the leave voters I know cited this as the primary reason for their decision
Now apparently it's all been a misunderstanding
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629300
Shurely a politician wouldn't tell porkies?? :lies: :baa:
Marco.
walpurgis
25-06-2016, 19:52
What a squirming piece of sh.. that Nigel Evans is. I could cheerfully take an axe to people like that! :steam:
One of that aims of leaving was to end unlimited access to other EU citizens to come and work and or claim benefits here. There was never any question of stopping immigration. Since no-one can predict how many immigrants we will want/need to allow in to work then it would not make sense to give a hostage to fortune by quoting a figure.
anubisgrau
25-06-2016, 20:05
What is a historical, pre-EU shape of an UK cucumber?
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 20:14
One of that aims of leaving was to end unlimited access to other EU citizens to come and work and or claim benefits here. There was never any question of stopping immigration. Since no-one can predict how many immigrants we will want/need to allow in to work then it would not make sense to give a hostage to fortune by quoting a figure.
But that's not necessarily what the voters wanted. It appears they don't want any immigrants taking their jobs, changing the character of their towns and villages and putting pressure on schools and services and it seems that that was how it was sold to them but alas it was all a misunderstanding :oops:
NPR article seems to offer some impartial insight on the subject
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/06/25/483362200/brexit-whats-race-got-to-do-with-it
What a squirming piece of sh.. that Nigel Evans is. I could cheerfully take an axe to people like that! :steam:
When you've finished, I bagsie a wing.
Marco.
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 20:15
What is a historical, pre-EU shape of an UK cucumber?
Like a nine bob note :D
Being serious for a moment....
An announcement has been posted at the top of this section of the forum, outlining what is required now and in future, should you wish to start a political discussion/debate, or simply participate in one.
**** PLEASE ENSURE THAT ALL MEMBERS READ, UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE CONTENTS OF THIS NEW ANNOUNCEMENT ****
See here: http://theartofsound.net/forum/announcement.php?f=10
Also note that the rules stipulated within are not up for debate.
Ta! :cool:
Marco.
But that's not necessarily what the voters wanted. It appears they don't want any immigrants taking their jobs, changing the character of their towns and villages and putting pressure on schools and services and it seems that that was how it was sold to them but alas it was all a misunderstanding :oops:
More correctly they didn't want that. Past tense. It has already happened for some and I am sure they felt they were registering a protest. But how many leave voters was that? By no means all of them. There are a lot of good reasons for the UK to leave the EU. There were some reasons why it was good to stay.
I do find these attempts to characterise leave voters interesting. I'm not poor, uneducated or thick and I'm not bothered about living in an area of high immigration. So there is no easy way to characterise why I voted out and I will not be the only one. And I didn't watch a second of the campaigns or watch or read the news for the entire campaign period. So I can't have been swayed by that either.
walpurgis
25-06-2016, 21:26
Seems I am not the only one who sees the EU as doomed now.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-25/investor-george-soros-destruction-of-eu-irreversible/
One thing I can't stand are bad losers or folk who can't make up their minds.
Marco.
That's two things.
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 21:32
More correctly they didn't want that. Past tense. It has already happened for some and I am sure they felt they were registering a protest. But how many leave voters was that? By no means all of them. There are a lot of good reasons for the UK to leave the EU. There were some reasons why it was good to stay.
I do find these attempts to characterise leave voters interesting. I'm not poor, uneducated or thick and I'm not bothered about living in an area of high immigration. So there is no easy way to characterise why I voted out and I will not be the only one. And I didn't watch a second of the campaigns or watch or read the news for the entire campaign period. So I can't have been swayed by that either.
I think you'll find they sill don't want it.
I'd say if you add up those who thought that in voting for Brexit they'd get a) lots more money for the NHS and b) a swift, large reduction in immigration, you'd account for the vast majority (leaving aside the morons who thought their vote would make no odds and are now bleating about the result).
BTH K10A
25-06-2016, 21:41
Seems I am not the only one who sees the EU as doomed now.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-25/investor-george-soros-destruction-of-eu-irreversible/
He also thinks there are no winners
I'd say if you add up those who thought that in voting for Brexit they'd get a) lots more money for the NHS and b) a swift, large reduction in immigration, you'd account for the vast majority (leaving aside the morons who thought their vote would make no odds and are now bleating about the result).
I'd say most of those who voted out had made up their minds long before the campaign 'promises'. They probably figured, as I did, that it would make no difference to anything even on the off chance it won but having been disenfranchised for so long to be able to have a go at direct democracy, as a protest if nothing more, was too good to miss.
Channel 4 news, all the EU leaders and ex leaders interviewed are furious. They are going to string the UK up and beat the shit out of us all. One Polish guy said he felt betrayed. His Dad fought here in the war, he said no more will Polish pilots shed blood and die for you.
There will be no 3 months, or two years the EU is going to kick us to the curb asap. The next few days and weeks news is going to be very hard to watch.
If they are furious I can only interpret that as their frustration with the loss of revenue.
Shame about the Polish bloke, he seems rather confused. surely his dad was fighting to get the Germans out of Poland. We were good enough and brave enough to give him that opportunity.
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 06:11
One of that aims of leaving was to end unlimited access to other EU citizens to come and work and or claim benefits here. There was never any question of stopping immigration. Since no-one can predict how many immigrants we will want/need to allow in to work then it would not make sense to give a hostage to fortune by quoting a figure.
Almost certainly that won't happen. It is clear most leave voters didn't know what they were voting for because there were at least 3 broad choices, and nobody in the campaign attempted to clarify which option they hoped to promise, and no leave supporter I engaged with would clarify their expectation either. That included you Martin. The nearest I got were responses which ignored international laws and treaties and hoped for some unachievable cocktail.
Now the silly vote is in, whilst it is early days, a few probables are emerging.
1) farage has already been told to crawl back into his hole and have no role in the exit discussion
2) Johnson and Gove, perhaps the 2 most dishonest men in politics, a field where the competition is strong, will likely lead the negotiation unless a general election is called first
3) Johnson has made a speech saying Britain will remain enthusiastically in Europe. Gove has indicated he expects us to stay in the common market. Most of the rest likely to be involved have indicated that they have no problem with free movement of people in the EU being retained.
So...
(to make sense of what I am about to say you need to have watched the Michael dougan video because I'm not going to rewrite it here)
I think Mr dougan, an expert in constitutional, eu, and international law, but not a politician made just one mistake in his analysis. He assumed it would be politically unacceptable for the leave campaign to accept no change in EU immigration. Men as dishonest as Johnson don't even flinch. It seems clear that the likely negotiators have no qualms about keeping eu free movement of people.
So..
The options were
1) April fool. Leave means remain, but is used to negotiate a better eu deal. This is what Johnson and Gove intended and apparently intend to try for (delay /avoid article 50 and negotiate better terms)
2) leave the EU but retain the common market. This means eea membership. Be like Norway. Given Scotland will seek independence and eu membership, at least the England that is left has a flag which needs little change. This is what Johnson will go for if forced to invoke article 50 and is the outcome I expect
3) invoke article 50 and reject the common market. Accepting politicians are dishonest, it nonetheless appears none of the likely negotiators want or intend this, so it is only likely to happen as a result of bungling incompetence. It was the outcome dougan expects but he failed to take account of the lies politicians tell. Just the need to rewrite 40 years legislation in less than 2 years is enough to make this something the negotiators seek to avoid (once they are made aware of the issue)
So, they will try for 1 and fail. They then have a binary choice
A) put tail between legs, say April fool, and get Parliament to vote not to invoke article 50 and stay in the EU as before without the recent concessions Cameron negotiated.
B) invoke article 50 and make the best of a bad job. This means the Norway deal or carnage.
I don't completely rule out A - this is Johnson and Gove we are talking about, but B seems more likely.
We get to be like Norway. Pay in more, get no financial investment back, keep all the rules including free movement of people, and lose our vote, veto, meps, and ministerial influence. Instead of being at the centre of Europe influencing what we tell them to do, we move to the edge and truly allow Brussels to dictate to us (with no UK participation l
And interesting choice. It wasn't mine
I don't disagree with any of that Richard, except for your suggestion that we had some influence on Europe (other than our veto), as it is clear from their attitudes now that we didn't, and that as long as we are outside the political and financial union it doesn't matter what the rest of Europe does in the future in those directions since we will not be involved. That will include the inevitable future bail outs.
There is also a third, less likely possibility, which is that this causes the EU to unravel as more referendums are held.
The important thing is that we have said no to 'ever closer union' since that is the one thing we really don't want or need.
On the immigration situation it has been stated that there will be 'controls' which is all I was personally asking for on that score in any case.
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 08:10
I don't disagree with any of that Richard, except for your suggestion that we had some influence on Europe (other than our veto), as it is clear from their attitudes now that we didn't, and that as long as we are outside the political and financial union it doesn't matter what the rest of Europe does in the future in those directions since we will not be involved. That will include the inevitable future bail outs.
There is also a third, less likely possibility, which is that this causes the EU to unravel as more referendums are held.
The important thing is that we have said no to 'ever closer union' since that is the one thing we really don't want or need.
On the immigration situation it has been stated that there will be 'controls' which is all I was personally asking for on that score in any case.
If we accept EEA membership like Norway there will NOT be any more border controls than there already are.
We are already outside the financial union if by that you mean the Eurozone - although we may end up joining it to preserve the city's rights which Cameron negotiated and we have now lost. Frankly, if we are not preserving the City (and Johnson and Co will view that as a priority) we might as well come out of the common market and go WTO (apart from the rule writing headache)
So we won't do that. The more I look at this the more option A seems credible. "Oops - sorry - can we stay please?" Although the EU would only allow that on a "no more deals" basis, in practice once we were back in, and we would be thoroughly in, because the nation now appears to be waking up very pro-EU, then we would be able to exert our influence
Undoubtedly the EU has had a wake-up call and is minded to reform. A UK back in the EU would strongly influence those reforms.
A long shot - I didnt originally really mean it as a credible option, but the more I look at it....
As for influence. At the moment we are an integral and central part of "Them" in Brussels - you know, the ones who tell "Us" what to do. As EEA members we will have achieved the glorious situation that we are no longer part of "Them" and it truly will be Brussels as an outside body dictating to us
Yes - a day for rejoicing, I can see that now :doh:
I did say on the other thread that it was my opinion that even if we voted out we wouldn't actually end up leaving. Please don't make me go through 80 odd posts to find it.
I can see a deal, but I can't see a deal that does not include border controls. Let's face it, right or wrong, for most who voted out this vote was about immigration and the majority have stated they are not happy with the existing situation
And it was a day for rejoicing because in more general terms the progressive movement has received a hearty shock that will set them back years. There are still millions upon millions of us who don't think like they do. The amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth is a joy to behold and worth it for that alone.
Virtual-Symmetry
26-06-2016, 09:16
yawn
a) lots more money for the NHS
see Farage interview:
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305
I’d say you’ve been had by your own political caste …
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 10:00
I did say on the other thread that it was my opinion that even if we voted out we wouldn't actually end up leaving. Please don't make me go through 80 odd posts to find it.
I can see a deal, but I can't see a deal that does not include border controls. Let's face it, right or wrong, for most who voted out this vote was about immigration and the majority have stated they are not happy with the existing situation
And it was a day for rejoicing because in more general terms the progressive movement has received a hearty shock that will set them back years. There are still millions upon millions of us who don't think like they do. The amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth is a joy to behold and worth it for that alone.
i think if you read the posts on the Daily Mail site it is Leave campaigners who are looking a bit shocked. Control of borders is not compatible with single market membership - and if you look at the comments made by mainstream leave supporters who are likely to influence what happens, it is clear that they are not bothered about keeping completely free movement of people
I agree with you, that is a con - it runs contrary to what most people thought they were voting for. But the expression RTFQ comes to mind. But the boxes were not "Remain in the EU" or "Take back control of our borders". The box said "leave". We can leave and become like Norway. We probably will. That will have fulfilled the will of the people as voted for in the referendum. It will have made no difference whatsoever to control of our borders. Indeed - there is the risk that the EU digs in its heels if we keep pissing them off by playing games and fan-dancing about actually leaving, and insists on Shengen. Norway is in Shengen. So is Switzerland.
This was basically the point I kept trying to make to you before the vote. Broadly - we knew what "Remain" meant. But nobody was prepared to clarify what "Leave" meant - and so all it meant was what it said - Leave. There was no obligation, moral or otherwise, for it mean "take control of our borders" or "Use £350 million a week for the NHS" instead. Legitimately I could think "Leave" meant "transition to Norway". Thing is, if I had explained that to the mob wanting immigration control - if I had been honest and said I no we have raised it as an issue, but all I am promising here is to leave the EU - not do anything about EU immigration except perhaps remove passport controls - would voters have voted for it?
anubisgrau
26-06-2016, 10:17
....
the best post on topic, hands down.
The reduction of the social state may well help close the borders anyways. Not so attractive now that Britain is financially ruined... They will probably join you in France
anubisgrau
26-06-2016, 10:21
what immigrants LEAVERS have in mind when they complain?
those from the remains of empire, eastern europe or refugees?
i can't see which group of these a qualified government in london couldn't control. actually whenever i see calais pics (for which UK is much more responsible than anyone else, in every possible meaning of the word) i really wonder what is the problem.
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 10:21
see Farage interview:
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/746218028195426305
I’d say you’ve been had by your own political caste …
It would seem so
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-leave-u-turns_uk_576e9c3ce4b08d2c56394817 :bog:
Richard - Switzerland is in Shengen but my understanding is that EU/EFTA nationals are not able to claim welfare benefits there. And if you wanted to move there to retire - i.e obtain a residence permit - you would need to prove you have sufficient financial resources to live without being dependant on Swiss taxpayers.
I agree some leave voters are going to be a little disappointed that the reality will not match their imaginings. However at this point we don't know what sort of deal will be made so the suggestion that it is a Norway deal or nothing is premature. Sure the EU Commission can talk tough, they are not facing re-election like Merkel is. Germany will want to screw over a major trading partner and themselves in the process? I think not. In short I think we hold a better hand of cards than you do. How we play them is another matter.
anubisgrau
26-06-2016, 10:36
Richard - Switzerland is in Shengen but my understanding is that EU/EFTA nationals are not able to claim welfare benefits there. And if you wanted to move there to retire - i.e obtain a residence permit - you would need to prove you have sufficient financial resources to live without being dependant on Swiss taxpayers.
who told you that the UK haven't had a right to make a welfare regulation what suits the best? the more LEAVERS talk about reasons, the more they show how misinformed they are. it seems like LEAVERS believe someone someone else, not tony blair, decided to keep a UK job market open for everyone in 2004 (after the last big enlargement of the EU) while germany, france, austria and other big players imposed a 5-7 years employment ban for the citizens of the new members (or a heavy regulation).
what immigrants LEAVERS have in mind when they complain?
those from the remains of empire, eastern europe or refugees?
i can't see which group of these a qualified government in london couldn't control. actually whenever i see calais pics (for which UK is much more responsible than anyone else, in every possible meaning of the word) i really wonder what is the problem.
We can control immigration from outside the EU. For whatever reasons successive governments since 1997 have not done that - problem 1
We cannot control immigration from the EU. If the entire population from all the other member states turned up here tomorrow and signed on to claim benefits we couldn't do a damn thing about it. - problem 2
The massive imbalance in wages/benefits between UK and many of the EU states means that the UK is a magnet for immigration from the EU. Once there is a level playing field between all the EU nations in terms of wages and benefits, which will eventually happen, then that will no longer be an issue. Until then we need to have control over how many come in and who comes in.
walpurgis
26-06-2016, 10:47
It seems the Scots are discussing a blocking of Britain's exit from the EU. Could get interesting.
who told you that the UK haven't had a right to make a welfare regulation what suits the best? the more LEAVERS talk about reasons, the more they show how misinformed they are. it seems like LEAVERS believe someone someone else, not tony blair, decided to keep a UK job market open for everyone in 2004 (after the last big enlargement of the EU) while germany, france, austria and other big players imposed a 5-7 years employment ban for the citizens of the new members (or a heavy regulation).
There are no big players other than the UK and Germany. And yes I take your point and you are correct in that there were options at that point, but they were at best short term and would have expired long ago, leaving us with the same problem we have now.
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 11:00
Richard - Switzerland is in Shengen but my understanding is that EU/EFTA nationals are not able to claim welfare benefits there. And if you wanted to move there to retire - i.e obtain a residence permit - you would need to prove you have sufficient financial resources to live without being dependant on Swiss taxpayers.
I agree some leave voters are going to be a little disappointed that the reality will not match their imaginings. However at this point we don't know what sort of deal will be made so the suggestion that it is a Norway deal or nothing is premature. Sure the EU Commission can talk tough, they are not facing re-election like Merkel is. Germany will want to screw over a major trading partner and themselves in the process? I think not. In short I think we hold a better hand of cards than you do. How we play them is another matter.
What's your hand of cards? Cars are not relevant. What Volkswagen want is low /no tarrifs and one set of rules for the whole market. Those could fairly easily be negotiated in a trade agreement separate from EEA - they are low brow. Frankly, the biggest barrier to trade - diferential production to different specs for different markets is already buggered by us having the steering wheel on the wrong side. If we decide that the ignition keys all have to be bright yellow to sell in the UK this is small beer to a manufacturer having to run a completely different version for each model in the range with the steering wheel on the wrong side anyway. If we stick a 5% tarrif on its not a big deal. And we can sell all the Morris Oxfords and Austin Cambridges we like with the same deal.
No - what we want is to sell our services. We're not interested in trade (goods). Services are 80% of our economy. They have a balance of payments surplus when our overall position is a massive defecit. The City of London contributes £70bn a year to an exchequer with a fiscal defecit. We are not interested in markets for our turnips or even our JCB's. We want a free market for services in Europe. Critically, we want passporting for Financial Services. Because we want those export revenues, and...
because we want firms doing business in London. When Merrill Lynch or HSBC look where to operate they come to London as a centre of expertise, a vast pool of trained and talented people, excellent connections and infrastructure, a light regulatory regime, and an attractive place for their executives to live and work. None of that is going to change - immediately. But in addition they want to be able to operate in every EU country. Passporting means if you have an office in one EU state, you effectively have one in every other EU state and you can trade there. If the UK comes out of that single market for services, no trade deal is going to help. Switzerland doesn't have that deal. Norway does (although Norway sells phones, oil and fish - not financial services). Currently though, Switzerland does have to give free movement of people from the EU. Now, if the UK loses its passporting, as said, it will be no less attractive for the list of reasons given, but it will be necessary to also open an office in Frankfurt, Dublin, maybe Amsterdam or Luxembourg (only one of those, or anywhere else in the EU / EEA area). And that takes some of the business that was in London away from London. It starts long term to weaken London. And immediate short term it affects employment tax revenues - and really critically balance of payments. If the EU business is now being done from Dublin, its not a UK export. THAT is the fundamental need the UK has - and it is only available from full-on club membership. There will be no exceptions. We can slap a tarrif and quota on German cars but Germany can't negotiate on its own, its not that bothered, and so we have no cards to play.
Once we hit article 50 we are going to need 2 years to sort out the divorce. That's not trade deals. Mostly its what happens to EU citizens already in the UK, and what happens to UK citizens elsewhere in the EU, but all the other details of how to leave. It's something the EU can focus on, but the UK may be a bit distracted having to write and enact 60000 pages of new laws to replace 43 years of EU laws which automatically expire 2 years after we invoke article 50. Not until that process is complete can we start to negotiate a trade deal. On average they take 10 years. Switzerlands is an ongoing work in progress after more than 20 years from when it started. Assuming we fail to negotiate anything better, the default is WTO rules - and that means no passporting for the City. It is inconcievable that Johnson and Gove will accept that
So - April fool probably
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 11:03
Just how many didn't understand the potential implications of their vote?
Surely there were sufficient warnings from pretty much every financial and economic institution in the world
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zjmdp
Once there is a level playing field between all the EU nations in terms of wages and benefits, which will eventually happen, then that will no longer be an issue. Until then we need to have control over how many come in and who comes in.
tbh the level playing field will no longer affect the UK after you will have left …
Just how many didn't understand the potential implications of their vote?
Surely there were sufficient warnings from pretty much every financial and economic institution in the world
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zjmdp
Those things only matter if you have something to lose. What the political elite/progressives discovered on Friday morning was that there are a lot of people who feel they have nothing to lose. The progressives thought their message had got through. They thought that the vast majority of people thought like them. It hadn't and they don't. The blame is on them, not those who voted out.
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 11:16
What's your hand of cards? Cars are not relevant. What Volkswagen want is low /no tarrifs and one set of rules for the whole market. Those could fairly easily be negotiated in a trade agreement separate from EEA - they are low brow. Frankly, the biggest barrier to trade - diferential production to different specs for different markets is already buggered by us having the steering wheel on the wrong side. If we decide that the ignition keys all have to be bright yellow to sell in the UK this is small beer to a manufacturer having to run a completely different version for each model in the range with the steering wheel on the wrong side anyway. If we stick a 5% tarrif on its not a big deal. And we can sell all the Morris Oxfords and Austin Cambridges we like with the same deal.
No - what we want is to sell our services. We're not interested in trade (goods). Services are 80% of our economy. They have a balance of payments surplus when our overall position is a massive defecit. The City of London contributes £70bn a year to an exchequer with a fiscal defecit. We are not interested in markets for our turnips or even our JCB's. We want a free market for services in Europe. Critically, we want passporting for Financial Services. Because we want those export revenues, and...
because we want firms doing business in London. When Merrill Lynch or HSBC look where to operate they come to London as a centre of expertise, a vast pool of trained and talented people, excellent connections and infrastructure, a light regulatory regime, and an attractive place for their executives to live and work. None of that is going to change - immediately. But in addition they want to be able to operate in every EU country. Passporting means if you have an office in one EU state, you effectively have one in every other EU state and you can trade there. If the UK comes out of that single market for services, no trade deal is going to help. Switzerland doesn't have that deal. Norway does (although Norway sells phones, oil and fish - not financial services). Currently though, Switzerland does have to give free movement of people from the EU. Now, if the UK loses its passporting, as said, it will be no less attractive for the list of reasons given, but it will be necessary to also open an office in Frankfurt, Dublin, maybe Amsterdam or Luxembourg (only one of those, or anywhere else in the EU / EEA area). And that takes some of the business that was in London away from London. It starts long term to weaken London. And immediate short term it affects employment tax revenues - and really critically balance of payments. If the EU business is now being done from Dublin, its not a UK export. THAT is the fundamental need the UK has - and it is only available from full-on club membership. There will be no exceptions. We can slap a tarrif and quota on German cars but Germany can't negotiate on its own, its not that bothered, and so we have no cards to play.
Once we hit article 50 we are going to need 2 years to sort out the divorce. That's not trade deals. Mostly its what happens to EU citizens already in the UK, and what happens to UK citizens elsewhere in the EU, but all the other details of how to leave. It's something the EU can focus on, but the UK may be a bit distracted having to write and enact 60000 pages of new laws to replace 43 years of EU laws which automatically expire 2 years after we invoke article 50. Not until that process is complete can we start to negotiate a trade deal. On average they take 10 years. Switzerlands is an ongoing work in progress after more than 20 years from when it started. Assuming we fail to negotiate anything better, the default is WTO rules - and that means no passporting for the City. It is inconcievable that Johnson and Gove will accept that
So - April fool probably
And the end of their political careers for not upholding the will of the people, unless of course there is the unlikely event of another reforendum with a different outcome.
Given the complexity of extracting ourselves from the EU in a couple of years WO is a real possibility. The good news for the leavers will be that there's a good chance our economy will no longer be so attractive and the migrants will desert us.
What do people feel the implications of reneging on the vote are?
There are no legal issues, Parliament can reject the result. I doubt there would be riots on the streets. Maybe a few idiotic rallies and protests but so what?
The only thing I can see would be a lower turnout for future referendums and indeed for participation in the political process generally, which I think the politicians secretly regard as a good thing anyway.
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 11:37
And the end of their political careers for not upholding the will of the people, unless of course there is the unlikely event of another reforendum with a different outcome.
Given the complexity of extracting ourselves from the EU in a couple of years WO is a real possibility. The good news for the leavers will be that there's a good chance our economy will no longer be so attractive and the migrants will desert us.
Yes. It was a brilliant ploy by Cameron. I may view his decision to hold the referendum in the first place to bring his party to unity as a disgrace, but credit where due - he has stitched up Johnson, or whoever his successor is, good and proper. The problem is - even Farage seems to think there is an option to leave other than by invoking article 50 (even though Farage insisted that "Leave" had to mean article 50 would be invoked)
Hard to avoid the conclusion that nobody really thought this through. It was just a big angry frustrated disenfranchised protest vote, without any clear consideration of the consequences. It may be that the lovely Nicola Sturgeon comes to our and his aid by refusing to allow the Scottish parliament to ratify the move - which after all affects Scotland. She has a clear mandate for that. Which could mean the UK can't legally leave the EU as a whole unless Scotland also agrees to it. That will be interesting
Meantime, Johnson and co are going to try to find a way to blame someone else for their reluctance to invoke article 50. But its political suicide either way. As you say - if they play April fool and don't invoke it there will be uproar. And as I am sure is just beginning to dawn on them, if they do invoke it, and start a 2 year process in which the British public day by day realise what a rubbish stupid thing it was to do - they are toast for being the man responsible
It was a brilliant Cameron ploy
Filterlab
26-06-2016, 11:39
Sorry Jez, but labelling all who were against being in the EU as "racist bigots" is not reasonable.
Well said chap.
I voted leave. My wife is from Uganda, more than half my family live there too, some in Kenya, I have close friends from South Africa, Poland, Albania, Hungary and Slovakia. I support a charity for orphans based in Mozambique to the tune of £500 a year, I also support a charity which looks after Jews who went through the Hungarian Holocaust.
That's the life of a "racist bigot" eh Jez? But I MUST be a racist bigot because I voted leave.
How pathetic.
Far right loonies out in Newcastle
https://twitter.com/DWxLW/status/746684492073558017/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 11:45
Those things only matter if you have something to lose. What the political elite/progressives discovered on Friday morning was that there are a lot of people who feel they have nothing to lose. The progressives thought their message had got through. They thought that the vast majority of people thought like them. It hadn't and they don't. The blame is on them, not those who voted out.
Just as you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink,there were clear messages from most of the western world as to the implications of leaving the EU. If people choose to ignore those warnings then so be it, but, how many voters were influenced by the leave campaigners claiming it all to be scaremongering and have now had to face up to reality in the cold light of dawn.
But of course its all the fault of the progressives as you call them :rfl:
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 12:01
Yes. It was a brilliant ploy by Cameron. I may view his decision to hold the referendum in the first place to bring his party to unity as a disgrace, but credit where due - he has stitched up Johnson, or whoever his successor is, good and proper. The problem is - even Farage seems to think there is an option to leave other than by invoking article 50 (even though Farage insisted that "Leave" had to mean article 50 would be invoked)
Hard to avoid the conclusion that nobody really thought this through. It was just a big angry frustrated disenfranchised protest vote, without any clear consideration of the consequences. It may be that the lovely Nicola Sturgeon comes to our and his aid by refusing to allow the Scottish parliament to ratify the move - which after all affects Scotland. She has a clear mandate for that. Which could mean the UK can't legally leave the EU as a whole unless Scotland also agrees to it. That will be interesting
Meantime, Johnson and co are going to try to find a way to blame someone else for their reluctance to invoke article 50. But its political suicide either way. As you say - if they play April fool and don't invoke it there will be uproar. And as I am sure is just beginning to dawn on them, if they do invoke it, and start a 2 year process in which the British public day by day realise what a rubbish stupid thing it was to do - they are toast for being the man responsible
It was a brilliant Cameron ploy
There may be a residual right for the UK Parliament to legislate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament in non-normal circumstances.
Just as you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink,there were clear messages from most of the western world as to the implications of leaving the EU. If people choose to ignore those warnings then so be it, but, how many voters were influenced by the leave campaigners claiming it all to be scaremongering and have now had to face up to reality in the cold light of dawn.
But of course its all the fault of the progressives as you call them :rfl:
'Progressive' is what they call themselves. I have another word for them. And the warnings may yet turn out to be scaremongering in any case.
My point is that the wishes of many millions of people in this country have been ignored for far too long. For whatever obscure reasons they were finally given a chance to speak and they spoke. The Progressives don't like the result and they have only themselves to blame. They created the country that delivered it.
Well said chap. Jez is obviously not a mentally well person.
I voted leave. My wife is from Uganda, more than half my family live there too, some in Kenya, I have close friends from South Africa, Poland, Albania, Hungary and Slovakia. I support a charity for orphans based in Mozambique to the tune of £500 a year, I also support a charity which looks after Jews who went through the Hungarian Holocaust.
That's the life of a "racist bigot" eh Jez? But I MUST be a racist bigot because I voted leave.
How pathetic.
Hi Rob,
How's it going? Hope your good lady and you are well :)
Yep, as you'll see (if you scroll back) that undoubtedly unacceptable post of Jez's has now been deleted. I meant to do it at the time, as it was one of the primary reasons for the thread being locked earlier, but forgot to do so (as there was so much else going on at the time) before I reopened the thread later, so my apologies, and also to others who've complained about the same thing.
Jez has since been told that his rather 'abrasive' style of expressing his views on subjects such as this are unacceptable, which he's taken on board, and were also largely the reasons for me posting an announcement at the top of this section of the forum, outlining the behaviour we expect in future on threads such as this, which you'll no doubt have seen :)
Anyway, rest assured folks that no-one here will be referred to in such an unjustified and derogatory manner again in future.
Marco.
anubisgrau
26-06-2016, 12:05
There are no big players other than the UK and Germany. And yes I take your point and you are correct in that there were options at that point, but they were at best short term and would have expired long ago, leaving us with the same problem we have now.
what you are complaining about was (and still is, but probably not for a long time) the best thing about the EU - free movement of people and labour meaning victory over economic nationalisms. but whenever there is a crisis, people turn to closing doors and becoming selfish nationalists.
a clear fact is that a cheap eastern european labour didn't ruin working class in england, if you've lived long enough there you know it better than me. everyone else could only benefit from it.
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 12:06
What do people feel the implications of reneging on the vote are?
There are no legal issues, Parliament can reject the result. I doubt there would be riots on the streets. Maybe a few idiotic rallies and protests but so what?
The only thing I can see would be a lower turnout for future referendums and indeed for participation in the political process generally, which I think the politicians secretly regard as a good thing anyway.
It depends how fervent the populace are with regards to democracy
There is also the issue of repetitional damage which may or may not have serious implications
what you are complaining about was (and still is, but probably not for a long time) the best thing about the EU - free movement of people and labour meaning victory over economic nationalisms. but whenever there is a crisis, people turn to closing doors and becoming selfish nationalists.
a clear fact is that a cheap eastern european labour didn't ruin working class in england, if you've lived long enough there you know it better than me. everyone else could only benefit from it.
This is where we differ then as I see 'economic nationalism' as you call it as still being essential. If we do move on from that then it needs to occur naturally, over time, over generations, and not to be forced through in a misguided attempt to 'make the world a better place.' Such efforts always end up making the world a worse place.
As to cheap eastern European labour - there is a lot of it around here. Many big distribution warehouses and lots of unskilled jobs. 10 years ago they struggled to recruit as they were only offering minimum wage. One (a 'household name') was later prosecuted for employing a large number of illegal workers. I'm afraid I cannot hold to the opinion that massively expanding the unskilled labour pool was good for the surplus of unskilled workers we already had in this area, or for the wages they can expect for their work.
anubisgrau
26-06-2016, 12:25
As to cheap eastern European labour - there is a lot of it around here. Many big distribution warehouses and lots of unskilled jobs. 10 years ago they struggled to recruit as they were only offering minimum wage. One (a 'household name') was later prosecuted for employing a large number of illegal workers. I'm afraid I cannot hold to the opinion that massively expanding the unskilled labour pool was good for the surplus of unskilled workers we already had in this area, or for the wages they can expect for their work.
my point is that these people haven't stolen any significant number of the UK nationals jobs and on top this process could have been beneficial in areas where you still need an unskilled labour like constructing, recycling etc. you don't get this kind of complaints in economies even stronger than the UK - like german for example.
i also don't see a guaranteed wage a problem, it's a human achievement to protect from exploitation. i wish it existed back in 1982 when i spent a month in scotland picking strawberries. the worst month in my life (at least these 10 or so hours at work).... i've never looked back to the UK as a place to live and work.
I also think the minimum wage is a good thing. But whether the large increase in unskilled people seeking work is a good thing or bad thing is entirely dependant on the area. In some places I am sure it has been a necessity, and has harmed no-one's chances. That isn't the case in a lot of places including round here where I live. 'Out' was over 80% here. As with the example I gave above, there was a general feeling that the warehouses would need to pay more than the minimum wage or they would struggle to employ. Which was true. If you are holding out for them to up their offer but then a Polish bloke turns up and says 'I'll do it for the minimum' how are you going to feel about that?
And bear in mind to the Pole this is not minimum wage - it is a lot more than he will make in a warehouse in Poland. So he can save, eventually returning to Poland to buy property or start a business or whatever. Whereas the local, if he takes the job, is barely any better off than he was on benefits, since he now has to pay his rent and council tax himself.
And let me make it clear that no-one is blaming the Polish bloke. He's got the opportunity and he's taking it. The feeling is that he should not have had the opportunity in the first place.
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 12:43
What do people feel the implications of reneging on the vote are?
There are no legal issues, Parliament can reject the result. I doubt there would be riots on the streets. Maybe a few idiotic rallies and protests but so what?
The only thing I can see would be a lower turnout for future referendums and indeed for participation in the political process generally, which I think the politicians secretly regard as a good thing anyway.
I think it depends a bit how things play out. If there is a popular outcry along the lines of the Mail readers all saying "oh gosh - it wasn't scaremongering by Remain", and the pound dives further, Bank of England intervention increases, and generally the realisation dawns that the shit has hit the fan, then the longer its dragged out by not invoking article 50 - the more feasible an April Fool scenario becomes.
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 12:47
There may be a residual right for the UK Parliament to legislate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament in non-normal circumstances.
And there may be a blond buffoon looking to get the PM job and keep it for more than a month, who is desperate for a get-out of jail card, who doesn't seek to invoke that residual right, but opts for pragmatic one-nation magnanimity and respects the rights of the Scottish people. I suspect there are absolutely no limits to his hypocrisy
I think it depends a bit how things play out. If there is a popular outcry along the lines of the Mail readers all saying "oh gosh - it wasn't scaremongering by Remain", and the pound dives further, Bank of England intervention increases, and generally the realisation dawns that the shit has hit the fan, then the longer its dragged out by not invoking article 50 - the more feasible an April Fool scenario becomes.
You realise that there is no stipulation in the Treaty as to how Article 50 is invoked? The seceding nation has to notify the Commission. It doesn't say how. Three is some doubt as to when the clock actually starts ticking. Although I suspect they won't push the point as given some time, as you say, a fudge of sorts might well happen.
Light Dependant Resistor
26-06-2016, 13:15
The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union
carries some interesting words,
"In contrast to other organisations, the EU's style of integration has "become a highly developed system for mutual interference in each other's domestic affairs".[31] However, on defence and foreign policy issues (and, pre-Lisbon Treaty, police and judicial matters) less sovereignty is transferred, with issues being dealt with by unanimity and cooperation. Very early on in the history of the EU, the unique state of its establishment and pooling of sovereignty was emphasised by the Court of Justice"
Concentrating on the reasons for why the EU likes to have member states which also include human rights, Is it
a sign that the EU should progress itself a lot more to be an attractive entity in these times ?,
From a person who lives far away, I see the decision to exit the EU as a sign of Britons wanting leadership
from within, and not as has been going on from external bodies far away. If anything this is a very good thing, but needs
that to actually happen. Cameron being a good example of poor leadership at a time when it was obviously needed.
What would Winston do ? :rolleyes:
Cheers / Chris
SteveTheShadow
26-06-2016, 13:16
TBH the behaviour of all these spoilt brat remainers is becoming increasingly disgusting.
I voted remain and accept that democracy has had its way.
What with mass resignations in the Labour party, Sturgeon making threats to veto the British exit
(yeah right) Osborne locking himself in the bathroom and refusing to come out and the load of bollocks fraud riddled "petition, these entitled, tossers throwing their toys about make me ashamed to be British.
If by now we are not the laughing stock of the civilised world, we damned well ought to be.:doh:
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 13:42
You realise that there is no stipulation in the Treaty as to how Article 50 is invoked? The seceding nation has to notify the Commission. It doesn't say how. Three is some doubt as to when the clock actually starts ticking. Although I suspect they won't push the point as given some time, as you say, a fudge of sorts might well happen.
The treaty says that the member state must notify the European council. I don't think the European council is entitled to say "we saw your referendum vote and took that as notice". No, somebody has to deliberately make the notification - and the other states can do nothing to make them, however frustrating and damaging it may be for them to have to wait. They can of course take their revenge once the article is invoked since the balance of power shifts totally to the remaining members. This is why BJ and co think they want a negotiation first as to what will be agreed once they invoke the article. But they won't get it - it is just not something that the EU can negotiate on without a treaty change. So it will just be time wasting - of the sort where a wasp is trapped in a jar. Careful when you have to let the wasp out.
The treaty says that the member state must notify the European council. I don't think the European council is entitled to say "we saw your referendum vote and took that as notice". No, somebody has to deliberately make the notification - and the other states can do nothing to make them, however frustrating and damaging it may be for them to have to wait. They can of course take their revenge once the article is invoked since the balance of power shifts totally to the remaining members. This is why BJ and co think they want a negotiation first as to what will be agreed once they invoke the article. But they won't get it - it is just not something that the EU can negotiate on without a treaty change. So it will just be time wasting - of the sort where a wasp is trapped in a jar. Careful when you have to let the wasp out.
Except it doesn't. Both sides have a strong hand in the negotiation. We can't ask for too much, they will need to give something. Don't underestimate how important the UK economy is to the rest of Europe. Europe is not 28 separate equal slices. it is not in their interests to crash our economy.
walpurgis
26-06-2016, 13:48
I'm going to have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit! :)
When a marriage is on the rocks and one partner says to other.... Your not happy and thinking of leaving, and other says then just f off and i will try and make life so difficult for you, then you know you are right to be leaving as they dont want YOU. Just what you bring to the party.
If they say, ok your not happy, lets see if we can fix it, cos i still want you, then your maybe wrong to jump. Ball in many ways is in the EU's court. Did they ever really want us for anything bar cash?
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 14:17
Except it doesn't. Both sides have a strong hand in the negotiation. We can't ask for too much, they will need to give something. Don't underestimate how important the UK economy is to the rest of Europe. Europe is not 28 separate equal slices. it is not in their interests to crash our economy.
The remaining 27 members are the ones who determine what needs to be done how the exit takes place. Discussions regarding free trade access are a separate issue. Given the disarray we are in, I personally see our position as weak and we will be lucky if we come out of this with any form of free trade agreement at all unless we pay through the nose and buy into compliance with all the EU legislation we voted to rid ourselves of. If we pay enough we might even get to keep a financial passport. However, we could find that 2 years is not long enough and if we are not granted an extension the WTO will be our only haven and all the euro clearing business will disappear along with quite a chunk of the other financial services. Whilst you may not give a toss about the Bankers, you will feel the pinch from the reduction in tax collected by HMRC.
I'm going to have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit! :)
I have just had a cuppa , and an Eccles Cake !! yum yum . All this hand wringing over the result has got me well peeded off with it all
walpurgis
26-06-2016, 14:35
I have just had a cuppa , and an Eccles Cake !! yum yum . All this hand wringing over the result has got me well peeded off with it all
Yeah. I love Eccles Cakes. One of my favourites. Rather fond of Tunnocks chocolate caramel wafer bars too.
southall-1998
26-06-2016, 14:36
I'm going to have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit! :)
No Geoff. I order you eat 2 boxes of jaffa cakes!!!
S.
walpurgis
26-06-2016, 14:39
No Geoff. I order you eat 2 boxes of jaffa cakes!!!
S.
They're OK, but not my first choice.
Better with Tottenham cake, especially when offered by a true Spurs lass ;). We used to call it iced sponge but apparently it Tottenham cake... Got to get these things right now.
Virtual-Symmetry
26-06-2016, 15:27
Wagon Wheels, just gone thru four
walpurgis
26-06-2016, 15:31
Wagon Wheels, just gone thru four
Oooh Yes. I used to love those. Not had one for years and years. Four's just being piggy though! ;)
Ye cannae beat a nice wee Tunnock's Tea Cake! :)
Marco.
Never liked tea cakes or wagon wheels... Preferred the tunnocks coconut covered caramel wafery things. Oh and jammy dodgers too. Magic they were when i was a lad
southall-1998
26-06-2016, 16:25
Better with Tottenham cake, especially when offered by a true Spurs lass ;). We used to call it iced sponge but apparently it Tottenham cake... Got to get these things right now.
I love the pink roof tops of those cakes. Had one 2 months ago. Gosh it was sweet, sent my teeth buzzzzzzing!
S.
Virtual-Symmetry
26-06-2016, 16:31
Gosh! :lol: You from Southall or Chelsea? :D
Wagon Wheels !!! Do they still do 2 different types ? Are tunnocks the ones with that lovely bit of red jam in the top of the mallow?
Virtual-Symmetry
26-06-2016, 16:49
Aye its the Blue packet with Jam ive just scoff but have some of the original type in the red packet..
Virtual-Symmetry
26-06-2016, 16:50
We have Tunnocks Coconut snowballs
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 17:02
Except it doesn't. Both sides have a strong hand in the negotiation. We can't ask for too much, they will need to give something. Don't underestimate how important the UK economy is to the rest of Europe. Europe is not 28 separate equal slices. it is not in their interests to crash our economy.
That's incorrect Martin, and shows you didn't have 24 minutes to watch a very informative video. The negotiations in the 2 year period are not about our trade relations. There is no question of them seeking to crash our economy. These negotiations are law and boring admin. The trade deals could be negotiated in the period or after - there is no time limit. The 2 year clock is for us to sort out the divorce - mostly the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. It is also the period during which the UK has to rewrite all its EU laws (for 43 years we have introduced laws automatically - European laws became UK law and we didn't have specific legislation on each point - the 1972 EEC act just meant certain EU law became UK law. All of that needs to be re-written. Or rather replacement legislation needs to be written to fill the hole. It will be impossible to do it in 10 years never mind 2 years with parliamentary scrutiny, so the power will have to be delegated to government (the civil service) to rewrite 60000 pages of law. That is going to keep us busy.
At the end of 2 years, unless ALL 27 other countries agree, regardless of whether we have finished negotiating or not, we are out of the EU and the EEC Act 1972 is de facto repealled (it has no context for a country which is not an EU member). So the rest of the EU can sit on its hands, because at the end of 2 years we are out, and start negotiating trade deals or whatever. They don't have to give anything at all in these negotiations - I think you are muddling them with the VW/BMW tarrif negotiations. It is likely they will want to negotiate. But we will be negotiating about whether you have an E111 card when you visit Europe on holiday, and whether passports have to be reissued as UK rather than EU passports, and whether our EU driving licences are still valid across Europe, whether UK licences have to be issued, and a bunch of stuff like that
The trade deals come afterwards. And they have the upper hand because we are unable to extend the 2 year timeframe - only they can. If we are still dithering then we are just out with whatever we have negotiated at that stage
It's article 50.3 you need "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
And from the EC act 1972 "Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 states that:
All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly; and the expression 'enforceable Community right' and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this subsection applies."
Its automatic - nothing to negotiate, nothing negotiable. After 2 years, we are out, and the EC act 1972 is meaningless in law.
That's why even Farage is trying to pre-negotiate before pressing the article 50 button. And why they may dither in perpetuity
I think thread-crapping like the post above goes against the spirit of not the letter of the guidelines on 'political' threads. If not, presumably there'd be no problem if I posted lots of 'political' comments on the Euro football thread?
Wilfred of Ivanhoe
26-06-2016, 17:10
All WE that pay tax in this country have to be very, very smart now.
Yeah, soz Andre, but Joe has a point, so best swerve this thread, dude, if it bores ya....
Marco.
That's incorrect Martin, and shows you didn't have 24 minutes to watch a very informative video.
No it isn't incorrect. Nothing you posted there has anything to do with what I said and I knew all that already in any case.
Do you imagine that the UK just vanishes from world trade and it effects no-one except the UK? That's your scenario. It is a two way street, we are a huge part of the European market for their goods, not just one twenty-eighth of it. If you don't see that as a big bargaining chip then I would ask you to explain why since your previous post did not.
All WE that pay tax in this country have to be very, very smart now.
just the current ones? not the ones that did eh... or ones that will
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 17:42
I think thread-crapping like the post above goes against the spirit of not the letter of the guidelines on 'political' threads. If not, presumably there'd be no problem if I posted lots of 'political' comments on the Euro football thread?
The worst culprits are a both Mods, oh and a mods mate :unfair::adminpower: :rolleyes:
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 17:44
just the current ones? not the ones that did eh... or ones that will
A lot of the ones that will probably won't now and blame the NHS for keeping alive the ones that did
walpurgis
26-06-2016, 17:53
The worst culprits are a both Mods, oh and a mods mate :unfair::adminpower: :rolleyes:
:sorry: (:lol:)
Richard,
I think this is all correct and we really need to consider carefully how to play the trade relations. We should sort the divorce aspects out fast and unrelated to trade.
For what its worth, on trade I think we should take all the pain quickly - trigger article 50 and signal our intent to rely on the WTO arrangments and sit back, ostensibly without an opening gambit. I doubt if Mrs Merkel would have more than five minutes before the BDI was on the blower telling her to sort it out. We could at that point link passporting of financial services to beneficial commercial arrangments on Siemens cookers and Audis. But, tactically, we need to force the Euros to come to us. If they feel they don't need to, we're going to get a crap deal anyway.
If the political will is to stiff us, well, the WTO rules are in place, require no negotiation and work perfectly well enough for many other economies. We would simply have to look outwards sooner, as we will anyway when the EU implodes in due course (I give it five years).
P
That's incorrect Martin, and shows you didn't have 24 minutes to watch a very informative video. The negotiations in the 2 year period are not about our trade relations. There is no question of them seeking to crash our economy. These negotiations are law and boring admin. The trade deals could be negotiated in the period or after - there is no time limit. The 2 year clock is for us to sort out the divorce - mostly the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. It is also the period during which the UK has to rewrite all its EU laws (for 43 years we have introduced laws automatically - European laws became UK law and we didn't have specific legislation on each point - the 1972 EEC act just meant certain EU law became UK law. All of that needs to be re-written. Or rather replacement legislation needs to be written to fill the hole. It will be impossible to do it in 10 years never mind 2 years with parliamentary scrutiny, so the power will have to be delegated to government (the civil service) to rewrite 60000 pages of law. That is going to keep us busy.
At the end of 2 years, unless ALL 27 other countries agree, regardless of whether we have finished negotiating or not, we are out of the EU and the EEC Act 1972 is de facto repealled (it has no context for a country which is not an EU member). So the rest of the EU can sit on its hands, because at the end of 2 years we are out, and start negotiating trade deals or whatever. They don't have to give anything at all in these negotiations - I think you are muddling them with the VW/BMW tarrif negotiations. It is likely they will want to negotiate. But we will be negotiating about whether you have an E111 card when you visit Europe on holiday, and whether passports have to be reissued as UK rather than EU passports, and whether our EU driving licences are still valid across Europe, whether UK licences have to be issued, and a bunch of stuff like that
The trade deals come afterwards. And they have the upper hand because we are unable to extend the 2 year timeframe - only they can. If we are still dithering then we are just out with whatever we have negotiated at that stage
It's article 50.3 you need "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
And from the EC act 1972 "Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 states that:
All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly; and the expression 'enforceable Community right' and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this subsection applies."
Its automatic - nothing to negotiate, nothing negotiable. After 2 years, we are out, and the EC act 1972 is meaningless in law.
That's why even Farage is trying to pre-negotiate before pressing the article 50 button. And why they may dither in perpetuity
BTH K10A
26-06-2016, 18:18
:doh::sorry::stupid::facepull:
:lol:
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 18:33
No it isn't incorrect. Nothing you posted there has anything to do with what I said and I knew all that already in any case.
Do you imagine that the UK just vanishes from world trade and it effects no-one except the UK? That's your scenario. It is a two way street, we are a huge part of the European market for their goods, not just one twenty-eighth of it. If you don't see that as a big bargaining chip then I would ask you to explain why since your previous post did not.
No. But there are 2 issues. I said the EU had the upper hand in the 2 year divorce negotiations - and they do for the reasons I explained
Regarding your insistence in trying to turn this back to the trade deals and "hanging a notice of business as usual" the problem is that anyone wanting to a deal wants to know what they are dealing with. Until we have sorted out our administrative and legal relationship with the EU we can't start negotiating trade deals, because they don't know what we have to offer. And the rest of the world (well China, India, America and Japan specifically, plus others presumably tacitly) don't want to negotiate trade deals with the UK until after we have negotiated our deal with the EU. You are looking at 2 years for the divorce, once we press the button, then probably 5 years minimum for a trade deal with Europe, before we start negotiating deals with the rest of the world.
But in the 2 year divorce negotiation, once we press the button, we have 2 years, and there is no obligation for the EU to extend that. They can just smoke us out
Oldpinkman
26-06-2016, 18:39
Sorry Martin
I just realised I didn't specifically answer your 1 in 28 bargaining chip question, and you obviously didn't understand it from my post
ITS NOT A TRADE DEAL AT THIS STAGE. We are a significant economy and that will have an influence when we get round to the trade deal bit, but at this stage that's not even on the table. First we have to sort out the divorce - then we can START to talk about the trade stuff. For 2 years its business as usual. After that, start negotiating from a clean sheet. And in that negotiation, once we trigger article 50 - the advantage passes to the rest of the EU who can just wait for the 2 year clock to stop ticking.
But back on trade, tarrifs are a non-issue. Barriers to trade - we are an open market in the UK anyway. We have very little to trade (apart from agreeing to drive on the left) . Our negotiating strategy is to concede access to other closed EU markets like Italy or Spain , in return for access to other markets (like China or Canada). We aren't going to be able to bargain like that any more - which is a bummer because it was our core strategy for the last 30 years.
But back on trade, tarrifs are a non-issue. Barriers to trade - we are an open market in the UK anyway. We have very little to trade (apart from agreeing to drive on the left) . Our negotiating strategy is to concede access to other closed EU markets like Italy or Spain , in return for access to other markets (like China or Canada). We aren't going to be able to bargain like that any more - which is a bummer because it was our core strategy for the last 30 years.
What we have, though, is the ability to put tariffs on incoming goods. Coupled with an exchange rate depreciation, a 10% addition to the list price of a new Porsche might just be swallowed by a typical Porsche buyer: less so for a Merc and probably fatal for a Fiat or Seat and even more so for bottom of the range sh*theap Renault. Given our balance of trade deficit with the rest of the EU, that is worth something, surely?
… the UK had a very special deal going, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
Plus some other favorable adjustments I did not succeed in summing up on the interweb.
I very much doubt the possible options after BREXIT will be considerable more favorable than the special deal the UK already had.
Personally I’d be really pissed if my Austrian tax money went to subsidy the UK rather than Greece, Hungary or whatever other country really needs help for their citizens.
So whatever the UK will negotiate with EU expect it to be worse not better than what the UK had up to now.
Frankfurt is waiting for UKs finance industry, Austria, Slovakia and Poland for any remaining car assembly plants.
The remaining 27 will grudgingly but gladly accept any windfalls, redistribute subsidies and try to restabilise the core economic zone.
tbh we have the same issue here in Austria - right wing populists blaming everything on the EU and migrants. Plus pretending that doing an ÖXIT will get native Austrians from the dole onto jobs they don’t want. Cleaning offices and driving delivery vans being below their personal dignity level.
If all the 500.000 people on the dole in Austria took the jobs from the 400.000plus migrant workers, unemployment would be virtually zero. Plus all the turkish nationals would have to leave after half a year or so unemployment …
:doh:
Michael
PS:
What we have, though, is the ability to put tariffs on incoming goods. Coupled with an exchange rate depreciation, a 10% addition to the list price of a new Porsche might just be swallowed by a typical Porsche buyer: less so for a Merc and probably fatal for a Fiat or Seat and even more so for bottom of the range sh*theap Renault. Given our balance of trade deficit with the rest of the EU, that is worth something, surely?
sorry, but this will not bring back Austin, Wolseley, Riley, Morris, Hillman, Triumph, Rover plus some other car manufacturers I might have forgotten to designing and manufacturing cars in the UK
Michael,
that was not my point: As the stock market slumps across Europe post-Brexit show, Europe has more to lose short term than Britain from trade disruption.
And your point on subsidy is well made - one of the reasons I suspect for the leave vote was our paying massive subsidies into bits of Europe which are little more than kleptocracies and the Commission doing nothing about it, if not actively colluding.
sorry, but this will not bring back Austin, Wolseley, Riley, Morris, Hillman, Triumph, Rover plus some other car manufacturers I might have forgotten to designing and manufacturing cars in the UK
Peter,
please accept my apologies for being overly sarcastic.
Joining the EU in 1995 was a success for Austria, as was introducing the EURO.
Not everything is perfect in the EU, but "It could be worse" as the Irish say when talking about the weather.
Michael
Wilfred of Ivanhoe
26-06-2016, 20:41
just the current ones? not the ones that did eh... or ones that will
Of course, all. I'm not gonna miss the bunch of EU bureaucrats, but there is a lot to do for the next PM.
Light Dependant Resistor
27-06-2016, 01:11
… the UK had a very special deal going, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
Plus some other favorable adjustments I did not succeed in summing up on the interweb.
I very much doubt the possible options after BREXIT will be considerable more favorable than the special deal the UK already had.
Personally I’d be really pissed if my Austrian tax money went to subsidy the UK rather than Greece, Hungary or whatever other country really needs help for their citizens.
So whatever the UK will negotiate with EU expect it to be worse not better than what the UK had up to now.
Frankfurt is waiting for UKs finance industry, Austria, Slovakia and Poland for any remaining car assembly plants.
The remaining 27 will grudgingly but gladly accept any windfalls, redistribute subsidies and try to restabilise the core economic zone.
tbh we have the same issue here in Austria - right wing populists blaming everything on the EU and migrants. Plus pretending that doing an ÖXIT will get native Austrians from the dole onto jobs they don’t want. Cleaning offices and driving delivery vans being below their personal dignity level.
If all the 500.000 people on the dole in Austria took the jobs from the 400.000plus migrant workers, unemployment would be virtually zero. Plus all the turkish nationals would have to leave after half a year or so unemployment …
:doh:
Michael
PS:
sorry, but this will not bring back Austin, Wolseley, Riley, Morris, Hillman, Triumph, Rover plus some other car manufacturers I might have forgotten to designing and manufacturing cars in the UK
Basing the prosperity or future of the UK on petrol and diesel car manufacture is very short sighted
if that was what was being referred to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Rather expansion is needed in Hydro Electric power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity_in_the_United_Kingdom
and manufacture of electric vehicles and change to them, as is already done in Norway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_Norway
Export of electric vehicles is a great idea, in comparison export of petrol and diesel vehicles has a limited
future.
Heavy loads transport should be by train, Individuals who are fit and able should view the
bicycle as a local means of transportation.
Cheers / Chris
Oldpinkman
27-06-2016, 05:00
Richard,
I think this is all correct and we really need to consider carefully how to play the trade relations. We should sort the divorce aspects out fast and unrelated to trade.
For what its worth, on trade I think we should take all the pain quickly - trigger article 50 and signal our intent to rely on the WTO arrangments and sit back, ostensibly without an opening gambit. I doubt if Mrs Merkel would have more than five minutes before the BDI was on the blower telling her to sort it out. We could at that point link passporting of financial services to beneficial commercial arrangments on Siemens cookers and Audis. But, tactically, we need to force the Euros to come to us. If they feel they don't need to, we're going to get a crap deal anyway.
If the political will is to stiff us, well, the WTO rules are in place, require no negotiation and work perfectly well enough for many other economies. We would simply have to look outwards sooner, as we will anyway when the EU implodes in due course (I give it five years).
P
It's a lovely thought which reflects a lack of understanding of the mechanics. The EU is unique. It is a free trade area (there are lots of those) and a common market (no other on the planet). For passporting of F S we need membership of the common market. For that we have to follow all its rules. Norway or bust.
For German industry to change that they have to get their government to achieve treaty change. Ain't happening. If it did it would take 10 years. The only people saying otherwise have no experience or understanding of the technicalities. Those with technical expertise, knowledge and experience are unanimous
Oldpinkman
27-06-2016, 05:57
I've just watched my mate Mark Kirby (Johnson fan, and leave supporter) on BBC' s politics. And then just read Boris Johnsons Telegraph column, and interpretation of Brexit and what it means. I'd vote for it - if I thought it even conceivable that it could be delivered. If there was a one in 2 million chance of delivering what Boris promised, I'd vote for it.
But there isn't. Staying part of the common market, but doing away with EU legislation, is like "learning to speak French, but not using any French words". The legislation -common laws, free movement of people capital etc, is what the common market is. Its why Norway is part of it when its not an EU member. But you can't be part of common universal laws if some of yours (even some of them) are different. Never mind all of them.
And I realised where Martin, Peter and I are at odds over Brexit negotiations. Muddling trade deals (worldwide) with a common market (unique to Europe). And all this well meaning nonsense about German industry looking to protect itself. Even if we really piss them off, I expect the EU's opening bid to be "no tarrifs, no quotas - just like we are now". Because that will let them sell their VW's to us, and they won't mind buying our Austins and Morris's. They will expect a level playing field for that of course - the same tarrifs and other arrangements with non EU countries as the rest of the EU has. Otherwise Kia cars could enter the EU market on more favourable terms by laundering the cars they sell to Germany through the UK first, so bypassing the EU tarrif with Korea. So level playing field - keep things EXACTLY as they are now - no internal tarrifs or quotas, universal European external tarrifs and quotas - would be the EU opening bid.
Ah - but we want to negotiate separate deals with the rest of the world. So how does my Korean car laundering scheme become fair? And this is the easy stuff. Trade deals.
But that does 3/8 of 5/16 of f*** all for our main interest - the services sector, and in particular, the City and the Financial services sector. Totally irrelevant. What do you think the import duty on a foreign exchange futures contract is?
This my friends is the problem. Lovely vision - no understanding of the mechanics.
Pinky, I thought you were a football fan (Liverpool and England supporter), so how come we've not heard your views on EURO 16, or are you interested in politics more than football?
Fair enough, if that's the case, but it's just strange that a supposed football fan is spending all his time waxing lyrical over the EU, without one single comment on the EUROS in France - and it's all taking place in your newly new adopted country, too..... :scratch:
Come on, let's hear some of your thoughts on the footy. How do you think England will get on tonight against Iceland? Please answer that one on the EURO 16 thread :)
Marco.
I've just watched my mate Mark Kirby (Johnson fan, and leave supporter) on BBC' s politics. And then just read Boris Johnsons Telegraph column, and interpretation of Brexit and what it means. I'd vote for it - if I thought it even conceivable that it could be delivered. If there was a one in 2 million chance of delivering what Boris promised, I'd vote for it.
But there isn't. Staying part of the common market, but doing away with EU legislation, is like "learning to speak French, but not using any French words". The legislation -common laws, free movement of people capital etc, is what the common market is. Its why Norway is part of it when its not an EU member. But you can't be part of common universal laws if some of yours (even some of them) are different. Never mind all of them.
And I realised where Martin, Peter and I are at odds over Brexit negotiations. Muddling trade deals (worldwide) with a common market (unique to Europe). And all this well meaning nonsense about German industry looking to protect itself. Even if we really piss them off, I expect the EU's opening bid to be "no tarrifs, no quotas - just like we are now". Because that will let them sell their VW's to us, and they won't mind buying our Austins and Morris's. They will expect a level playing field for that of course - the same tarrifs and other arrangements with non EU countries as the rest of the EU has. Otherwise Kia cars could enter the EU market on more favourable terms by laundering the cars they sell to Germany through the UK first, so bypassing the EU tarrif with Korea. So level playing field - keep things EXACTLY as they are now - no internal tarrifs or quotas, universal European external tarrifs and quotas - would be the EU opening bid.
Ah - but we want to negotiate separate deals with the rest of the world. So how does my Korean car laundering scheme become fair? And this is the easy stuff. Trade deals.
But that does 3/8 of 5/16 of f*** all for our main interest - the services sector, and in particular, the City and the Financial services sector. Totally irrelevant. What do you think the import duty on a foreign exchange futures contract is?
This my friends is the problem. Lovely vision - no understanding of the mechanics.
:scratch:
:yay::yay::yay:
Am surprised people didn't understand that this wouldn't trigger another Scottish independence referendum.
It's a historic day for dividing Great Britain, that's for sure.
Oh, and this was also expected: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-racial-racism-abuse-hate-crime-reported-latest-leave-immigration-a7104191.html
...Facebook link deleted as it wasn't working for everyone.
walpurgis
27-06-2016, 10:25
Bev was entitled to be happy with the result, regardless of whether others share that view, so although you have a valid point to make, I'm not sure why you included a quote of her post here. That implies some sort of criticism.
Oh. And your facebook link is no good. The page has been removed.
Bev was entitled to be happy with the result, regardless of whether others share that view, so although you have a valid point to make, I'm not sure why you included a quote of her post here. That implies some sort of criticism.
Oh. And your facebook link is no good. The page has been removed.
It was Bev's thread. I didn't criticise her, but I did criticise some unintended fallout from the result.
FB link is working for me, basically it's a collection of racist / nationalist fallout over social media.
There were many "out" voters that are not racist, and not nasty people at all, but there's also the other side...
Oldpinkman
27-06-2016, 11:14
Like a stuck record, I return to my theme, that "Leave" didn't mean something. It meant not remaining. There was no coherent strategy - no specific plan being voted FOR. So loads will be disappointed, because it might legitimately mean
no change to immigration
no change to EU laws
no change to EU payments
and quite possibly a permanently deferred change to our membership at all
It didn't even mean we would leave the EU if you read Boris article - which is an extreme I thought even he would find hard to try to work.
So it was a historic day. It trashed the pound, will damage the EU, will severely hurt the UK, has almost certainly brought down the Labour opposition, has left the Conservatives leaderless, probably finished the careers of Gove and Johnson (there had to be something good come out of it) made an election likely, and from this side of the channel, it appears increasingly likely that the Calais camps will be relocated to Dover. The calming moderate voices against the Calais mayor's tweet are being drowned out.
The European position would appear to be "if you want out - you can have it"
Like a stuck record, I return to my theme, that "Leave" didn't mean something. It meant not remaining. There was no coherent strategy - no specific plan being voted FOR. So loads will be disappointed, because it might legitimately mean
no change to immigration
no change to EU laws
no change to EU payments
and quite possibly a permanently deferred change to our membership at all
It didn't even mean we would leave the EU if you read Boris article - which is an extreme I thought even he would find hard to try to work.
So it was a historic day. It trashed the pound, will damage the EU, will severely hurt the UK, has almost certainly brought down the Labour opposition, has left the Conservatives leaderless, probably finished the careers of Gove and Johnson (there had to be something good come out of it) made an election likely, and from this side of the channel, it appears increasingly likely that the Calais camps will be relocated to Dover. The calming moderate voices against the Calais mayor's tweet are being drowned out.
The European position would appear to be "if you want out - you can have it"
Conjecture at best.
The fact is that the EU are horrified that their cash cow and major trading partner and major market for their goods no longer wants to be part of their 'ever closer union'.
They are scared - and well they should be - the majority of Europeans do not want 'ever closer union'. They are happy with a trading block and retaining their national independence. This will have great negative ramifications for the disaster that is 'The European Project', a project that has already effectively bankrupted half a dozen of its member states.
So it is a great and historic event, not just for the UK but for Europe as well. Regardless of how it all pans out, the important message has been delivered. Of course it took the English to have the balls to do it but that's nothing new.
walpurgis
27-06-2016, 11:24
Like a stuck record, I return to my theme
I'm glad it was you who said that. ;) :)
FB link is working for me, basically it's a collection of racist / nationalist fallout over social media.
Not working for me, Neil. Getting a message saying that "this information is currently unavailable".
Can you fix it? Maybe it's working for you, because you're signed into your Facebook page, dunno..... I don't use Facebook.
Marco.
Would imagine that may be reason... Not a fb user either
I automatically discount anything on facebook because, well, it's on facebook.
Some people still seem to be confusing the dissatisfaction with the immigration situation with racism. This is one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, that we had the vote in the first place and that Remain lost. I'm wondering how long it will take for the lesson to sink in. I suspect never.
Firebottle
27-06-2016, 12:34
If you are essentially bored or not particularly interested in UK politics, or are fed up to the back teeth with the ping pong nature of the (practically) two party system, then maybe the present furore might bring some much needed alteration?
walpurgis
27-06-2016, 14:58
If you are essentially bored or not particularly interested in UK politics, or are fed up to the back teeth with the ping pong nature of the (practically) two party system, then maybe the present furore might bring some much needed alteration?
Yeah. We can privatise the government and let the yanks run the UK instead (or do they already? :hmm:). I'm sure the tender can be wangled in the customary fashion so they get the contract. Dick Cheney's lot would like that.
That would protect us from any UK post Brexit TTIP type agreement. They'd have to sue themselves then.
.
Seems to me the EU has turned into a club that tries to punish any country with the temerity to leave rather than aspire to join.
On that basis I would conclude that it has lost its way and would give them all the finger.
BTH K10A
27-06-2016, 17:41
Like a stuck record, I return to my theme, that "Leave" didn't mean something. It meant not remaining. There was no coherent strategy - no specific plan being voted FOR. So loads will be disappointed, because it might legitimately mean
no change to immigration
no change to EU laws
no change to EU payments
and quite possibly a permanently deferred change to our membership at all
It didn't even mean we would leave the EU if you read Boris article - which is an extreme I thought even he would find hard to try to work.
So it was a historic day. It trashed the pound, will damage the EU, will severely hurt the UK, has almost certainly brought down the Labour opposition, has left the Conservatives leaderless, probably finished the careers of Gove and Johnson (there had to be something good come out of it) made an election likely, and from this side of the channel, it appears increasingly likely that the Calais camps will be relocated to Dover. The calming moderate voices against the Calais mayor's tweet are being drowned out.
The European position would appear to be "if you want out - you can have it"
Comments from Merkel & Fuchs appear to indicate the above is far from conjecture, and our supposedly strong hand has been well and truly trumped by Merkel who immediately dismisses any notion of pre Article 50 notification discussions
Merkel has thrown what may be her only lifeline http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-rethink-idUKKCN0ZC0HV but with the exception of a lone Tottenham MP the British Parliament will be too proud to accept it
Ah someone got the comments on imgur https://m.imgur.com/gallery/vU6oU
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Oldpinkman
27-06-2016, 21:23
Comments from Merkel & Fuchs appear to indicate the above is far from conjecture, and our supposedly strong hand has been well and truly trumped by Merkel who immediately dismisses any notion of pre Article 50 notification discussions
Merkel has thrown what may be her only lifeline http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany-rethink-idUKKCN0ZC0HV but with the exception of a lone Tottenham MP the British Parliament will be too proud to accept it
I think they accept that the UK must elect a new prime minister before (if) we invoke Article 50. They would prefer, if we are going to go, that we get on with it as soon as possible, but there is nothing they can do to force it.
As for "punishing any country" (previous comment) , there can be no pre article 50 discussions. I mean, they can have them round for a cup of tea, but the EU has no authority to negotiate anything that would be legally binding other than after article 50 has been invoked. It would need a treaty change. So we can buy a bit of time for us to find out how the rules really work, and decide what we think we'd like to do(and whether we can hire enough lawyers to write 43 years worth of legislation in 2 years) but they are not able to actually agree or negotiate anything regarding exit terms until article 50 is invoked when there is a procedure (qualified majority vote) and timetable and constitutional framework
ANything different needs a treaty change, and that needs unanimous consent (and takes decades)
PS - the EU can't just negotiate our exit as MP's (and Martin) are deceiving us they can because THEY ARE NOT A SOVEREIGN ENTITY. They are not even THEY they are US. It is a members club with no sovereignty. So it can only act with the collective authority of the members, either through procedures already agreed (like article 50) or by creating a procedure which needs a treaty change. When we talk about "negotiating with Europe" its not like "negotiating with Canada". Canada is a single sovereign entity (its a sovereign state) and can act as it wishes (within international laws and existing treaty obligations). The EU has zero sovereignty, and is therefore not a body that can negotiate in that way.
As such, any discussions we might have before invoking article 50 could help to tell each other what we've got in mind, and how we plan to play it, and how the EU might accomodate it, but they have no EU binding authority, and once article 50 is invoked, and only then, can they start to actually work through the implications.
Some things are clear though. They wasted huge resources, and all of their remaining goodwill, agreeing exceptional terms for Cameron, and they have better things to do with their time than negotiate another deal that the UK just ignores without even saying thank you. And they are not going to fundamentally change their rules regarding the single market for the UK however big a market it is - anymore than they would allow such a thing to China or the USA (also big markets). So Boris Johnsons speech promises, are completely undeliverable
For me, it is time to seek dual nationality. It's going to cost me €55, but it could be money well spent.
The Black Adder
28-06-2016, 08:34
Can somebody tell me why Farage is sitting in the EU Parliament? To say I don't like the man is an understatement but I really feel that he should NOT be there.
Because he is an elected MEP.
Originally elected in 1999. Re-elected in 2004, 2009 and 2014.
If Brexit happens, has he done himself out of a job?
Can somebody tell me why Farage is sitting in the EU Parliament? To say I don't like the man is an understatement but I really feel that he should NOT be there.
He is the leader of the UK Independence Party, an MEP, and we have a prime minister who has thrown in the towel, that's why.
He also best represents the out voters, make of that what you will.
Can somebody tell me why Farage is sitting in the EU Parliament? To say I don't like the man is an understatement but I really feel that he should NOT be there.
I don't understand the aversion towards Mr Farage... the mainstream media systematically blocks out the parts of videos or sound clips which represent him best... so just look at this to the END ... and Mr Schulz and Junkers what a pair of perfect democrats ..
https://youtu.be/T4ZTuh52wXE
I'm not a massive fan of Farage but at least he is in opposition to these awful people and my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Does surprise me reading various comments over the past few days, not here specifically, as to how naïve people are about the EU and its intentions. I first took an interest during Mastericht back in '92 and have been in opposition to it ever since. Not to the trading block, which I have no issue with, but to the stated intention of eventually creating an EUSSR. I'm pretty much willing to pay any price to prevent that from happening.
The last desperate gasp of a dying Utopian idealist dream?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit
(http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit)
....and just in case someone shouts "don't believe all you read in the Express", then there's this:
http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-superstate-plan%E2%80%99-by-France-Germany-report
Virtual-Symmetry
28-06-2016, 19:24
It will no doubt be an historic day for AOS when people STFU about this crap
Just saying :kiss:
No-one's forcing you to take part ;) but it remains one of the most important events we're probably likely to encounter in our lifetimes, hence deserves scrutiny and discussion.
It will no doubt be an historic day for AOS when people STFU about this crap
Just saying :kiss:
Quite the most pathetic post on AOS for years....
Virtual-Symmetry
28-06-2016, 20:28
Quite the most pathetic post on AOS for years....
Little like the belly aching in this thread
The last desperate gasp of a dying Utopian idealist dream?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit
(http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit)
....and just in case someone shouts "don't believe all you read in the Express", then there's this:
http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-superstate-plan%E2%80%99-by-France-Germany-report
Thing is Paul there are quite few people even in this country who actually want that to happen. Not easy to understand why, but they do.
Little like the belly aching in this thread
Says the king of the belly-achers!
Thing is Paul there are quite few people even in this country who actually want that to happen. Not easy to understand why, but they do.
It's coz we've been brainwashed by Zog, the NWO and Big Pharma.
Virtual-Symmetry
28-06-2016, 21:25
Says the king of the belly-achers!:whistle:
BTH K10A
29-06-2016, 05:37
The last desperate gasp of a dying Utopian idealist dream?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit
(http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-Brexit)
....and just in case someone shouts "don't believe all you read in the Express", then there's this:
http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-superstate-plan%E2%80%99-by-France-Germany-report
Are you saying that you believe this to be true?
Are you saying that you believe this to be true?
Are you saying that the Polish Public Broadcaster TVP is lying? If so, you'd better take it up with them :rolleyes:
The principles of the shape that the unified EU will take have long been known. It is grossly naive to suggest that the ideology behind this report is untrue, unless you have factual evidence to suggest the the EU has changed direction? The Lisbon Treaty was the start of closer integration but perhaps that one passed you by ;)
Of course it is true! They have never made a secret of it. 'Ever Closer Union' - it is right there in the mission statement.
The problem is Martin that many Remain voters are totally in denial about an EU Superstate, or even worse, want to actively embrace such a solution. The reports are now widespread about this leaked document:
https://www.rt.com/news/348615-france-germany-eu-reform/
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/united-states-of-europe-eu-superstate.html
(http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/united-states-of-europe-eu-superstate.html)
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160628/1042075609/poland-france-germany-eu-superstate.html
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/europe/27-06-2016/134834-france_germany_superstate-0/
The problem is Martin that many Remain voters are totally in denial about an EU Superstate, or even worse, want to actively embrace such a solution. The reports are now widespread about this leaked document:
https://www.rt.com/news/348615-france-germany-eu-reform/
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/united-states-of-europe-eu-superstate.html
(http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/united-states-of-europe-eu-superstate.html)
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160628/1042075609/poland-france-germany-eu-superstate.html
http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/europe/27-06-2016/134834-france_germany_superstate-0/
Russia Today and Pravda, eh? Well, I'm convinced.
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 09:08
Will Brexit actually happen in the expected form?
Will Brexit actually happen in the expected form?
I'm not sure what the 'expected form' was (not even the various leading Brexiters can agree on that), but it won't happen quickly.
In further news: there won't be an extra £350 million a week for the NHS, and immigration will not be much lower than it is now, though attacks on migrants may increase.
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 09:21
I'm not sure what the 'expected form' was (not even the various leading Brexiters can agree on that), but it won't happen quickly.
The basics would be a true separation from EU ties and an end to compliance with EU regulation. And new trade deals being developed.
Russia Today and Pravda, eh? Well, I'm convinced.
People can believe what they want. I am merely highlighting that a document has been leaked to polish radio, the contents of which are described consistently across ALL the reports from UK daily newspapers, to the links highlighted above.
As for your point Geoff, I think there will be an attempt at fudging the exit given that no concessions will be offered to the UK and there will be no movement by the EU on free movement of people. I, for one, am less concerned about free movement and immigration and far more concerned about remaining in a super state governed by Brussels, and I think that a great many people voted leave for that reason. I think it unlikely at this juncture that we will be given any special trade deals by Europe unless we concede free movement.
Personally I think it is all still to play for.
It does amuse me that some people think the EU is all fluffy bunnies and unicorns when it is actually far closer to Orwell's '1984' both in concept and realisation.
Arkless Electronics
29-06-2016, 11:24
I would welcome an EU superstate with total union and complete loss of British sovereignty! The less nationalism, statehood, patriotism and jingoism the world sees the better. They are all negatives that play to the little Englanders jumped up Alf Garnet-ism!
Best hope is for another referendum!
I would welcome an EU superstate with total union and complete loss of British sovereignty! The less nationalism, statehood, patriotism and jingoism the world sees the better. They are all negatives that play to the little Englanders jumped up Alf Garnet-ism!
!
Why just a an EU superstate then.? Why not a world superstate? Surely if we just have an EU superstate we will have EU sovereignty, EU nationality and EU jingoism. Won't we be discriminating against the rest of the world?
Apply logic to that argument and it all breaks down. Why are we discriminating now against non EU countries? EU citizens have the right to free movement of labour. Why are we not extending that to the rest of the world? Why can a Polish person come and live and work here but not a Chinese or an Indonesian? Isn't that 'racist'? Please explain how far we have to extend the free movement of labour before it ceases to be racist.
Once we apply logic we see that the whole idea is nonsense. We can't let everyone who wants to live in the EU into the EU because the amount of migration that resulted would collapse the whole thing. So the EU sensibly has laws to prevent this. But somehow it is wrong for Britain to want to do the same thing. How can one be right and the other wrong?
Nothing to do with Alf Garnet and everything to do with plain common-sense. But of course once people get up on their moral high horse common-sense is the first casualty.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0260242c-370b-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#ixzz4CySqDYzT
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0260242c-370b-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#ixzz4CySqDYzT
Too late - we already voted out.
Just wondering if we did a survey of economists prior to declaring war on Nazi Germany in 1939 and, if so, did they suggest that it would be bad for our economy? Would they have recommended not declaring war on Nazi Germany based on the prediction that it would be bad for our economy?
Too late - we already voted out.
Just wondering if we did a survey of economists prior to declaring war on Nazi Germany in 1939 and, if so, did they suggest that it would be bad for our economy? Would they have recommended not declaring war on Nazi Germany based on the prediction that it would be bad for our economy?
Perhaps not exactly the best of comparisons , Macca :D , but I see what you mean
they would have been right too. it was bad for our economy. ... didnt do much for rest of Europes, either though
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 14:49
Why just a an EU superstate then.? Why not a world superstate? Surely if we just have an EU superstate we will have EU sovereignty, EU nationality and EU jingoism. Won't we be discriminating against the rest of the world?
Apply logic to that argument and it all breaks down. Why are we discriminating now against non EU countries? EU citizens have the right to free movement of labour. Why are we not extending that to the rest of the world? Why can a Polish person come and live and work here but not a Chinese or an Indonesian? Isn't that 'racist'? Please explain how far we have to extend the free movement of labour before it ceases to be racist.
Once we apply logic we see that the whole idea is nonsense. We can't let everyone who wants to live in the EU into the EU because the amount of migration that resulted would collapse the whole thing. So the EU sensibly has laws to prevent this. But somehow it is wrong for Britain to want to do the same thing. How can one be right and the other wrong?
Nothing to do with Alf Garnet and everything to do with plain common-sense. But of course once people get up on their moral high horse common-sense is the first casualty.
Nice post Martin. One that deserves some answers (just be careful who you get them from ;)).
they would have been right too. it was bad for our economy. ... didnt do much for rest of Europes, either though
Yes, war is always terrible for economies, despite the populist view that it is good for them.
As the man said, war is the equivalent of taking a whole years output of vehicles from Ford and General Motors, smashing them up, and burying them in a field. Would that be good for the economy?
Too late - we already voted out.
How can it be too late to post an article that was written on Monday discussing what might happen next?
I'm not sure that I understand what you think you mean.
How can it be too late to post an article that was written on Monday discussing what might happen next?
I'm not sure that I understand what you think you mean.
Some of the comments under the article were 10 days old, and some, from their content, were clearly made prior to the vote. Although going back into it now I see there are now no comments visible. Maybe they just re-reprinted an article from earlier in the month?
Anyway my point stands, no good saying now it will be economically bad. Alea ejacta est.
Anyway my point stands, no good saying now it will be economically bad. Alea ejacta est.
Maybe you should write a letter to The Financial Times?
(NB: jacta)
Sorry, O level Latin was a long time ago.
BTH K10A
29-06-2016, 17:11
People can believe what they want. I am merely highlighting that a document has been leaked to polish radio, the contents of which are described consistently across ALL the reports from UK daily newspapers, to the links highlighted above.
As for your point Geoff, I think there will be an attempt at fudging the exit given that no concessions will be offered to the UK and there will be no movement by the EU on free movement of people. I, for one, am less concerned about free movement and immigration and far more concerned about remaining in a super state governed by Brussels, and I think that a great many people voted leave for that reason. I think it unlikely at this juncture that we will be given any special trade deals by Europe unless we concede free movement.
I ask you again, do you believe that report to be true? A simple yes or no answer will suffice ;)
Unfortunately I think those who voted leave due to concerns of a European super state are in the minority compared to those whose vote was simply anti immigration and its consequences. This is now the conundrum for whoever ratifies any agreement, free movement to safeguard the economic future or WTO http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 and satisfy the masses. I can see why Cameron ducked out and Boris who made claims that we can have our cake and eat it has been scarcely seen since.
Arkless Electronics
29-06-2016, 17:12
Why just a an EU superstate then.? Why not a world superstate? Surely if we just have an EU superstate we will have EU sovereignty, EU nationality and EU jingoism. Won't we be discriminating against the rest of the world?
Apply logic to that argument and it all breaks down. Why are we discriminating now against non EU countries? EU citizens have the right to free movement of labour. Why are we not extending that to the rest of the world? Why can a Polish person come and live and work here but not a Chinese or an Indonesian? Isn't that 'racist'? Please explain how far we have to extend the free movement of labour before it ceases to be racist.
Once we apply logic we see that the whole idea is nonsense. We can't let everyone who wants to live in the EU into the EU because the amount of migration that resulted would collapse the whole thing. So the EU sensibly has laws to prevent this. But somehow it is wrong for Britain to want to do the same thing. How can one be right and the other wrong?
Nothing to do with Alf Garnet and everything to do with plain common-sense. But of course once people get up on their moral high horse common-sense is the first casualty.
A one world socialist superstate would be the ultimate yes. Personally I am against nationhood.
I reject the referendum and hope for another one in which it will go the right way this time. Many mp's are calling for one and are saying they will vote against actual exit. The electorate was told a pack of lies by brexit, which they are now realising. Another referendum in a weeks time would likely have the opposite outcome.
As the original outcome was largely down to racism and xenophobia I regard it as void anyway. No referendum should ever have been offered anyway on a matter so complex that no one understood the implications of it in the first place. No referendum is offered on hanging precisely because the public would vote the wrong way, and this was the same. You don't give children a vote on free sweeties.....
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 17:25
You don't give children a vote on free sweeties.....
Ah. Well of course governments know best.
Arkless Electronics
29-06-2016, 17:32
Ah. Well of course governments know best.
far better than the public who, as an entity, I regard as retarded! They will always go for the lowest common denominator.....
Wilfred of Ivanhoe
29-06-2016, 17:37
Why just a an EU superstate then.? Why not a world superstate? Surely if we just have an EU superstate we will have EU sovereignty, EU nationality and EU jingoism. Won't we be discriminating against the rest of the world?
Apply logic to that argument and it all breaks down. Why are we discriminating now against non EU countries? EU citizens have the right to free movement of labour. Why are we not extending that to the rest of the world? Why can a Polish person come and live and work here but not a Chinese or an Indonesian? Isn't that 'racist'? Please explain how far we have to extend the free movement of labour before it ceases to be racist.
Once we apply logic we see that the whole idea is nonsense. We can't let everyone who wants to live in the EU into the EU because the amount of migration that resulted would collapse the whole thing. So the EU sensibly has laws to prevent this. But somehow it is wrong for Britain to want to do the same thing. How can one be right and the other wrong?...
Who says is wrong? UK has plenty the right to decide own rules now that is out of the EU agreement. Is still not clear who go to discuss the negotiations.
Not even Farage seems in a hurry to leave his lavish salary at the EU parliament.
Originally Posted by walpurgis http://theartofsound.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=769827#post769827)
Ah. Well of course governments know best.
far better than the public who, as an entity, I regard as retarded! They will always go for the lowest common denominator.....
politicians seem to know more than they would like to admit ... ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks
When revealed, LuxLeaks impact on the public opinion was particularly high, as it put in front line the controversial role of Jean-Claude Juncker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Juncker), president of the European Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission) newly appointed a few days before LuxLeaks revelations. Juncker was Luxembourg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg)'s prime minister at the time when many of his country's tax-avoidance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance) rules were enacted.[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks#cite_note-ICIJ-27) The LuxLeaks raised discussion on tax avoidance in Luxembourg and other countries.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks#cite_note-cbc.ca-8)[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks#cite_note-28)[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks#cite_note-29)[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks#cite_note-30)[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks#cite_note-31)
I ask you again, do you believe that report to be true? A simple yes or no answer will suffice ;)
Unfortunately I think those who voted leave due to concerns of a European super state are in the minority compared to those whose vote was simply anti immigration and its consequences. This is now the conundrum for whoever ratifies any agreement, free movement to safeguard the economic future or WTO http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128 and satisfy the masses. I can see why Cameron ducked out and Boris who made claims that we can have our cake and eat it has been scarcely seen since.
You can ask all you want. What I wrote was what I meant. It is simply highlighting a document leaked to Polish Radio, reported widely across the world. Is is true? As in were the contents of a document leaked to Polish Radio? It seems likely unless you can provide some evidence to suggest that the substance of what was reported is untrue. You can't, so it's a pretty circular argument isn't it so pointless repeating your question. It wont get any further response by me. My view is that it the reporting probably embroiders the truth as with most of these things but that the substance of what it is reporting is hardly a state secret since the Lisbon Treaty is set up to allow/promote closer integration of member states. It is also a matter of fact and on record that an EU army has been tabled as has full tax harmonisation so draw your own conclusions.
Spectral Morn
29-06-2016, 18:06
I would welcome an EU superstate with total union and complete loss of British sovereignty! The less nationalism, statehood, patriotism and jingoism the world sees the better. They are all negatives that play to the little Englanders jumped up Alf Garnet-ism!
Best hope is for another referendum!
One World Government and then all that is to follow..... :(
[QUOTE=Arkless Electronics;769826]A one world socialist superstate would be the ultimate yes. Personally I am against nationhood.
QUOTE]
Let's assume then that is the ultimate. Not some awful 1984 Soviet nightmare but more like Star Trek with all the world's people working and co-operating, no borders, no nations, and so forth.
It may be, that gradually we wend our way towards that in much the same way as we got to where we are now. But trying to force it onto people before they are ready for it could actually prevent that from happening, or delay it badly. Men who set out to change the world may well end up changing it. Just not in the way they intended.
[QUOTE=Arkless Electronics;769826]A one world socialist superstate would be the ultimate yes. Personally I am against nationhood.
QUOTE]
Let's assume then that is the ultimate. Not some awful 1984 Soviet nightmare but more like Star Trek with all the world's people working and co-operating, no borders, no nations, and so forth.
It may be, that gradually we wend our way towards that in much the same way as we got to where we are now. But trying to force it onto people before they are ready for it could actually prevent that from happening, or delay it badly. Men who set out to change the world may well end up changing it. Just not in the way they intended.
As much as a one world tribe, world peace and fluffy dolphins appeal to some, it is an impossibility. Man is a tribal creature and we ought to be celebrating our differences and respecting others, not all trying to conform to an ideal which can never work. Nationalism can be a very positive thing and nations naturally feel proud of their histories and cultures. However it is increasingly apparent that the UK and the rest of Europe's increasingly secularised, liberal, and politically correct ways of thinking that by social engineering they have attempted to vilify any form of nationalism in an attempt to inch forwards with every passing year the ultimate goal of federalisation whether we like it or not, and many don't like it. There is increasing unrest within the EU on this one issue. It started with the changing of terms to refer to member nations in terms of their countries. They are no longer referred to as nations but "member states" and this is an example of the insidious and very much planned slide towards a federal united states of Europe. In spite of what some of us think, it was not what the UK electorate signed up for. Heath lied and never revealed the true and appalling scale of his duplicity until it was too late and the wheels were in motion.
As much as I and many who want no part in a super-state respect the opinions of those that see some merit in it, what becomes tiresome and very irksome is in having to justify our position. It doesn't need any justification.
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 18:33
Nicely said Paul.
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 18:41
A Euro 'superstate' pushing us towards dwindling national, cultural and personal identification, is a horrific idea.
What next, RFID implants at birth along with DNA 'fingerprinting'?
It's not benevolence that's driving this. It's corporate greed and lust for control.
Arkless Electronics
29-06-2016, 18:43
[QUOTE=Macca;769842]
As much as a one world tribe, world peace and fluffy dolphins appeal to some, it is an impossibility. Man is a tribal creature and we ought to be celebrating our differences and respecting others, not all trying to conform to an ideal which can never work. Nationalism can be a very positive thing and nations naturally feel proud of their histories and cultures. However it is increasingly apparent that the UK and the rest of Europe's increasingly secularised, liberal, and politically correct ways of thinking that by social engineering they have attempted to vilify any form of nationalism in an attempt to inch forwards with every passing year the ultimate goal of federalisation whether we like it or not, and many don't like it. There is increasing unrest within the EU on this one issue. It started with the changing of terms to refer to member nations in terms of their countries. They are no longer referred to as nations but "member states" and this is an example of the insidious and very much planned slide towards a federal united states of Europe. In spite of what some of us think, it was not what the UK electorate signed up for. Heath lied and never revealed the true and appalling scale of his duplicity until it was too late and the wheels were in motion.
As much as I and many who want no part in a super-state respect the opinions of those that see some merit in it, what becomes tiresome and very irksome is in having to justify our position. It doesn't need any justification.
Nationalism, illiberalism, religion and political in-correctness are exactly what stirs war, conflict, racism etc!! Unless you want the latter You have infinite justification to do!
A united federal Europe is what we need to bring people together and not force them further apart through national and religious division. This is why Churchill wanted an EU and it's worked well up till now....
tribalism and sectarianism are precisely the sort of negative aspects of the human condition we should be rising above, with our supposed greater intelligence than mere animals....
lust for control.
I've seen that film. IIRC 'Lust For Control 2: Lust Harder' is better.
Arkless Electronics
29-06-2016, 18:49
A Euro 'superstate' pushing us towards dwindling national, cultural and personal identification, is a horrific idea.
What next, RFID implants at birth along with DNA 'fingerprinting'?
It's not benevolence that's driving this. It's corporate greed and lust for control.
I was local rep for the NO2ID campaign actually so no to all that!!
As for the "corporate greed and lust for control" well that's where socialism comes in...
I don't want to live in a country where one is "ID'ed" by their colour, religion, nationality or wealth either.
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 19:01
I don't want to live in a country where one is "ID'ed" by their colour, religion, nationality or wealth either.
Human individuality we're stuck with and racial, national and whatever other awareness is not racism or predjudice.
Dunno about the religion bit though. I'm an athiest and can't take collective superstition seriously.
.
BTH K10A
29-06-2016, 19:16
You can ask all you want. What I wrote was what I meant. It is simply highlighting a document leaked to Polish Radio, reported widely across the world. Is is true? As in were the contents of a document leaked to Polish Radio? It seems likely unless you can provide some evidence to suggest that the substance of what was reported is untrue. You can't, so it's a pretty circular argument isn't it so pointless repeating your question. It wont get any further response by me. My view is that it the reporting probably embroiders the truth as with most of these things but that the substance of what it is reporting is hardly a state secret since the Lisbon Treaty is set up to allow/promote closer integration of member states. It is also a matter of fact and on record that an EU army has been tabled as has full tax harmonisation so draw your own conclusions.
Here we are http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-germany-france-idUSKCN0ZC0BQ
Closer integration yes but also it's also about closer co-operation for the common good. I can understand it upsetting right wing nationalists, but an agenda for a super state it's not.
Why can't we just have the co-operation for the common good and leave the closer union until enough people actually want it? The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you want to know why it is not only right wing nationalists who don't like the idea of a superstate I give you the history of the USSR.
Oldpinkman
29-06-2016, 20:11
Why can't we just have the co-operation for the common good and leave the closer union until enough people actually want it? The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you want to know why it is not only right wing nationalists who don't like the idea of a superstate I give you the history of the USSR.
Because the EU is a private members club who don't want to let the public in to play with the facilities without following all the rules and without paying the membership fee. They made that clear today - and it was no surprise. At all. It is a fundamental principle, always has been, and was obvious, and pointed out by me before the referendum
No - internal market a la carte. No surprises. And no its not a trade deal thing - we cant force them to change their mind just by not buying Mercedes
- we cant force them to change their mind just by not buying Mercedes
You still haven't explained why not. The UK is Germany's third largest market. Watch the money start to talk. This is early days yet. Just watched Junkers being interviewed. He was talking tough but he was also sweating like a pig.
One question you may be able to answer for me ;) If membership of EFTA is such a bad deal why are the EFTA countries not full members? I don't understand this.
Oldpinkman
29-06-2016, 20:42
You still haven't explained why not. The UK is Germany's third largest market. Watch the money start to talk. This is early days yet. Just watched Junkers being interviewed. He was talking tough but he was also sweating like a pig.
One question you may be able to answer for me ;) If membership of EFTA is such a bad deal why are the EFTA countries not full members? I don't understand this.
Because we will still trade under wto rules. If we are outside the single market we will still be able to buy Mercedes like the USA and China do. But if meryl lynch want to sell fs in Europe they will need another office in the EU in addition to their London office, and the earnings of that office in Europe will no longer be part of our invisible earnings, and no longer part of the 70 billion tax revenues from the city in the UK.
The effect on financial services - if any - is far from certain yet. In any case a financial passport may be the price we ask for not putting import tax on German goods. It's horse trading. It has to be; what else can it be in a situation where both sides have the potential to lose out? You think the EU can afford to dictate from an absolute position of strength. They cannot. In or out the UK is too big to fail. Granted it may come down in the end to an international game of chicken, which would be interesting.
So what is the deal with EFTA?
A little earlier today as the talks get underway:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iMdQfNWuGdk/V3Oc3epBQSI/AAAAAAAC9s8/aLhEMIN3IDASyOznVsxkblJNBhUCWRPmgCLcB/s400/BREXIT.gif
walpurgis
29-06-2016, 20:57
That'll be the renegotiation of fishing concessions.
A little earlier today as the talks get underway:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iMdQfNWuGdk/V3Oc3epBQSI/AAAAAAAC9s8/aLhEMIN3IDASyOznVsxkblJNBhUCWRPmgCLcB/s400/BREXIT.gif
Thanks Paul, really enjoyed that :D
Ninanina
29-06-2016, 22:19
A little earlier today as the talks get underway:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iMdQfNWuGdk/V3Oc3epBQSI/AAAAAAAC9s8/aLhEMIN3IDASyOznVsxkblJNBhUCWRPmgCLcB/s400/BREXIT.gif
This is the best Paul...:lol::lol:
BTH K10A
30-06-2016, 04:10
The effect on financial services - if any - is far from certain yet. In any case a financial passport may be the price we ask for not putting import tax on German goods. It's horse trading. It has to be; what else can it be in a situation where both sides have the potential to lose out? You think the EU can afford to dictate from an absolute position of strength. They cannot. In or out the UK is too big to fail. Granted it may come down in the end to an international game of chicken, which would be interesting.
So what is the deal with EFTA?
Martin
you mistaken if you think there will be no effect on financial services. :rolleyes:
Brexit means the removal of the City’s right to clear euro-denominated trades. The European Central Bank in Frankfurt previously tried to take this away from the city but were thwarted by the UK in the EU courts
https://next.ft.com/content/e8e0c44a-3d89-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a
The jobs, income and tax revenue will all move to out of the UK
I also think you overestimate our bargaining position. Your game of chicken has us sitting on a moped with an EU juggernaut bearing down upon us. The UE have set their stall. Take all four principles of freedom or nothing.
BTH K10A
30-06-2016, 04:24
Why can't we just have the co-operation for the common good and leave the closer union until enough people actually want it? The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you want to know why it is not only right wing nationalists who don't like the idea of a superstate I give you the history of the USSR.
Do you seriously believe the aims of the EU are analogous to those of the old Soviet regime? :scratch:
The EU aims:
To establish European citizenship. This means protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
To ensure freedom, security and justice.
To promote economic and social progress.
To assert Europe's role in the world.
Martin
you mistaken if you think there will be no effect on financial services. :rolleyes:
Brexit means the removal of the City’s right to clear euro-denominated trades. The European Central Bank in Frankfurt previously tried to take this away from the city but were thwarted by the UK in the EU courts
https://next.ft.com/content/e8e0c44a-3d89-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a
The jobs, income and tax revenue will all move to out of the UK
I also think you overestimate our bargaining position. Your game of chicken has us sitting on a moped with an EU juggernaut bearing down upon us. The UE have set their stall. Take all four principles of freedom or nothing.
I didn't say there would be no effect on financial services. I said that the effects are far from certain. And the EU is not a juggernaut. It is 25 mopeds, a couple of buses and one juggernaut (Germany) and the loss of the UK will cripple that juggernaut.
Why do people persist in imagining that we are some small, irrelevant country? I suppose it suits their narrative but it is far from the truth. If we get sick Europe will catch a cold and they can't afford that as they are, with the sole exception of Germany, already sick due to the idiotic Euro. Indeed some of them are pretty much terminal cases. The dream was dying long before this vote took place.
Do you seriously believe the aims of the EU are analogous to those of the old Soviet regime? :scratch:
The EU aims:
To establish European citizenship. This means protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
To ensure freedom, security and justice.
To promote economic and social progress.
To assert Europe's role in the world.
Yes, that is what is in the brochure so of course it must be true. They have actually broken all of those promises already. The attempt to expand into Ukraine has threatened security. The European economy has not grown in more than a decade. 'Social Progress' is just a meaningless buzz-phrase. As the UK we already had freedom and justice and as to 'asserting Europe's role in the world', what does that actually mean? As the UK we were already pretty assertive.
Furthermore take a look at the current situation. They have to agree a strategy re Brexit. That is 27 equal voices sat around a table trying to decide on one course of action. Anyone who wasn't born yesterday will know how difficult it is to get a consensus of 27 people. Do you think they intend to carry on like that indefinitely? At some point that practice is intended to end. One man will make the decisions for all, because that is the only way any decision will get taken. And then you have dictatorship.
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.” ― Mikhail Gorbachev
anthonyTD
30-06-2016, 10:11
No one except you it would seem!
Jez, you'l be telling us next you wont mind a chip in your arm with all your personal info on it, and a credit system where' if you step out of line with the establishment,it gets wiped out, and you have nothing!
Get real for goodness sake mate!
A one world socialist superstate would be the ultimate yes. Personally I am against nationhood.
No referendum should ever have been offered anyway on a matter so complex that no one understood the implications of it in the first place.
Guys, if you don't want this thread locked, and permanently, please ensure that opinions expressed are not so 'extreme', such as to provoke an angry response from the person you're debating with.
Either that, or the person responsible for provoking that reaction, by expressing such extreme views (currently you, Jez), will be given the task of moderating the thread, with those rules in mind, and see how much of their day it wastes...! ;)
I'm deadly serious, btw.
Here are some things to carefully think about before posting on this thread again:
1) Is what I'm about to write liable to seriously piss off anyone here, especially Marco, if he has to tidy up the resultant mess?
2) Will it therefore create a lot of unwanted hassle for Marco (and/or the mod team) to have to deal with?
If the answer to the above is likely to be 'yes', then best not post it! Above all, however, understand that your views carry no more 'authority' or are necessarily any more 'correct', 'worthy' or 'intelligent', than anyone else's.
Some folk here need to stop being selfish and start being more considerate of others, if they wish to retain their membership of this forum. You can't just say or do what you like, without repercussions, one way or another, here or on ANY other forum. That is the reality.
I will NOT be spending hours of my time here every day dealing with folks' stupid arguing. I trust that I've made myself blatantly clear!
Marco.
Here are some things to think about before posting on this thread again:
1) Is what I'm about to post libel to seriously piss off someone here.
Libel or liable?
Libel or liable?
Liable, though if extreme might be seen to be libelous. If the latter, the post would be deleted immediately.
Yes, that is what is in the brochure so of course it must be true. They have actually broken all of those promises already. The attempt to expand into Ukraine has threatened security. The European economy has not grown in more than a decade. 'Social Progress' is just a meaningless buzz-phrase. As the UK we already had freedom and justice and as to 'asserting Europe's role in the world', what does that actually mean? As the UK we were already pretty assertive.
Furthermore take a look at the current situation. They have to agree a strategy re Brexit. That is 27 equal voices sat around a table trying to decide on one course of action. Anyone who wasn't born yesterday will know how difficult it is to get a consensus of 27 people. Do you think they intend to carry on like that indefinitely? At some point that practice is intended to end. One man will make the decisions for all, because that is the only way any decision will get taken. And then you have dictatorship.
“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.” ― Mikhail Gorbachev
Good post Martin. The other buzz-phrase which keeps cropping up in debate and taken straight from the EU mandate is "for the common good".
Who decides what the "Common Good" is? What if for "The Common Good", freedoms that we enjoy in the UK at present are heavily curtailed or even banned? I can think of several already which the EU is working towards banning, and if it gets its way, will do. I strongly object to an unlelected Council deciding for me and my family what must be for our "Common Good" when the reality is that it is a much over-used and mis-used phrase as a catch all to push whatever agenda that they see fit to run with.
We don't need to establish any sort of citizenship other than UK citizenship. Why do we have to be labelled and coerced into being European Citizens, and why as UK citizens, or for that matter Italians, Germans etc not all considered as citizens for their own countries all working together for a common market and sharing of intelligence and resources/co-operation for security? That is exactly how it was, and I predict, the way it will ultimately end.
The problem with an ever-expanding EU with greater powers, and fewer nation vetos is that everyone is forced down a one-size-fits-all alley which plainly can never fit all or work. As Martin has said, the expansionism, more than likely with the entry criteria certain to be fudged for geo-political reasons following the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement (2014) , resulted in the Russian Bear being woken, and now we see Russian war planes buzzing US warships at 100 feet off the deck, something not seen since the cold war.
Thanks to the arrogance and postulating of the EU, we are entering another cold war, and what they are doing RE expansionism-wise and on control of "member states" is little different to the old Soviet Union. Why people can't see that is beyond me. The EU needs to wind its neck in and stop this prevarication. Letting Turkey enter (which as we all know has nothing to do with the agreement between Turkey and the USA to site new medium range missiles in Turkey :rolleyes:) will be the straw that breaks the Russian Bear's back, little different to the Soviets and Cuba, creating a new nuclear crisis. But of course, that's all for the "Common Good" so just do as you're all told and everything will be fine. " Trust us, we know what we're doing".
I don't trust the EU's foreign policy nor it's security policies which were examined by UK and mainland European think tanks back in the 80's (when I was still a member of our armed forces). Whilst terrorism threat is currently the largest threat we face, that is changing (or being added to) rapidly with the advent of another cold war. Back in then '80's they concluded then that a Rapid Reaction force governed from Brussels wouldn't work efficiently enough due to differences in communications standards and systems, and due to confusion over lines of control. The cost of re-equipping a whole EU armed forces and centralising the chain of command would be far more inefficient than tactical planning between national forces, with joint operations and the control dictated by a small committee of leading military nations. That was the conclusion back then, before Bliar jumped upon the Rapid Reaction Force bandwagon in the 90's again and started decimating our armed forces strength in readiness. It hasn't recovered since but has adapted to maximise the strength it has and is better equipped to handle many situations now although tactically is incapable of fighting any major war without support due to lack of funding, numbers and kit.
A superstate cannot work. We are better off out of such a state even though we are inextricably linked by consequence of geopolitical boundaries and agreements. The more autonomy we retain, the more flexible we are to changes down the line without having to negotiate with 27 other nations.
Libel or liable?
Typo. Now fixed.
Marco.
Thanks to the arrogance and postulating of the EU, we are entering another cold war, and what they are doing RE expansionism-wise and on control of "member states" is little different to the old Soviet Union. Why people can't see that is beyond me. .
They don't want to see it Paul, so they don't. They'd rather read the brochure than engage with the reality because the reality is actually a bit frightening and not at all the daisy-rainbow, multi-culti, prizes for everyone future that is painted in the literature.
The EU is nothing like the USSR, and anyone who thinks it is, has been watching too many conspiracy theory videos.
Point one: joining the EU is voluntary on both sides; i.e. countries have to apply to join and (as in the case of Turkey) may have to wait decades to join, if they ever do. No country has been forced to join.
Point two: membership is reversible, as the Brexit vote has just demonstrated. We won't have German tanks on the lawn outside Parliament 'encouraging' us to reconsider our decision to leave.
The EU is nothing like the USSR, and anyone who thinks it is, has been watching too many conspiracy theory videos.[/B]
Point one: joining the EU is voluntary on both sides; i.e. countries have to apply to join and (as in the ecase of Turkey) may have to wait decades to join, if they ever do. No country has been forced to join.
Point two: membership is reversible, as the Brexit vote has just demonstrated. We won't have German tanks on the lawn outside Parliament 'encouraging' us to reconsider our decision to leave.
Or not enough....as for tanks. Well there is more than one way to skin a cat
I agree. Indeed my main objection to the EU was how they forced us to accept the Euro as our currency and to be part of the Schengen area, when we didn't want either.
I am also baffled as to why this very convincing and worrying "superstate" argument was not a part of the LEAVE campaign, and they just let everyone vote thinking it was only about free movement, a vague notion of sovereignty, and taking money away from our NHS.
The rest of the EU want us out asap; the pressure from them is for a quick Brexit rather than for the UK to change its decision. Imagine the reaction of Moscow if one of the member states voted to leave; the tanks would have rolled in overnight. (Not that Russia would have allowed such a vote, so another difference between the EU and the USSR).
What's especially amusing is that the conspiracy theorists use Russian propaganda sites to 'prove' that the EU is like the USSR. It's laughable.
The EU is nothing like the USSR, and anyone who thinks it, has been watching too many conspiracy theory videos.
Point one: joining the EU is voluntary on both sides; i.e. countries have to apply to join and (as in the case of Turkey) may have to wait decades to join, if they ever do. No country has been forced to join.
Point two: membership is reversible, as the Brexit vote has just demonstrated. We won't have German tanks on the lawn outside Parliament 'encouraging' us to reconsider our decision to leave.
Clearly, the sentiments are completely lost on some. No-one has EVER stated that EU tanks would invade the UK or anything quite so ridiculous. What is being said, is simply this: Whether joining or leaving is voluntary, the REALITY OF WHAT THE EU IS BECOMING is little different any other superstate including the soviet republic and far from enhancing security, is destabilising the west due the response of Russia to what it views as aggressive expansionism. The subtleties of Turkey and the Ukraine are lost on many it would seem.
As for Russia invading if member states started pulling out, absolute tosh. It is NATO and all the members of the Security Council which keep that threat in check and not the EU.
Joining may be voluntary. Compliance is not. The EU is socially engineering to prepare for super-state and that is also pretty obvious to anyone with eyes, who has read the history behind the expansion of the EU and it's aims. It is incomprehensible to me why some not realise this, given all the evidence to the contrary which is the reason why many voted to leave. Once again though we have some that voted the other way refusing to accept this view point and insulting those of us who hold a different view point with emotive language can hurling insults such as "delusional" despite Marco's previous comments :rolleyes:
Frankly, it seems that debate on this subject is utterly pointless as the degree of personal abuse and entrenchment simply undermines any meaningful and civilised intelligent, grown up debate. Better to have the thread locked than for any further ill feeling souring the AoS membership it seems.
anthonyTD
30-06-2016, 12:25
Again, a good post Paul, whether it will make any diffrence or' change the way some folk see things is another thing, And no, I am not saying that I am in any position to even think I have a right to expect that!
Clearly, the sentiments are completely lost on some. No-one has EVER stated that EU tanks would invade the UK or anything quite so ridiculous. What is being said, is simply this: Whether joining or leaving is voluntary, the REALITY OF WHAT THE EU IS BECOMING is little different any other superstate including the soviet republic and far from enhancing security, is destabilising the west due the response of Russia to what it views as aggressive expansionism. The subtleties of Turkey and the Ukraine are lost on many it would seem.
As for Russia invading if member states started pulling out, absolute tosh. It is NATO and all the members of the Security Council which keep that threat in check and not the EU.
Joining may be voluntary. Compliance is not. The EU is socially engineering to prepare for super-state and that is also pretty obvious to anyone with eyes, who has read the history behind the expansion of the EU and it's aims. It is incomprehensible to me why some not realise this, given all the evidence to the contrary which is the reason why many voted to leave. Once again though we have some that voted the other way refusing to accept this view point and insulting those of us who hold a different view point with emotive language can hurling insults such as "delusional" despite Marco's previous comments :rolleyes:
Frankly, it seems that debate on this subject is utterly pointless as the degree of personal abuse and entrenchment simply undermines any meaningful and civilised intelligent, grown up debate. Better to have the thread locked than for any further ill feeling souring the AoS membership it seems.
Once again though we have some that voted the other way refusing to accept this view point and insulting those of us who hold a different view point with emotive language can hurling insults such as "delusional" despite Marco's previous comments :rolleyes:
I see no difference between me saying the "EUSSR' viewpoint is 'delusional' and Macca saying that those who don't see that the EU = the USSR have been brainwashed. But then, I'm not a moderator.
Frankly, it seems that debate on this subject is utterly pointless as the degree of personal abuse and entrenchment simply undermines any meaningful and civilised intelligent, grown up debate. Better to have the thread locked than for any further ill feeling souring the AoS membership it seems.
I disagree. I'm sure the EU would like the thread locked. I'm sure the EU would like no more discussion and for everyone to accept their propaganda without question.
People like things to be simple. 'The EU is a good thing' and leave it at that. That is why when you suggest this may not be the case they jump to knee jerk responses like 'tanks outside Parliament' and so forth. I agree with you that is not intelligent debate, it is rhetoric born of fear and of a lack of understanding, indeed a willingness not to want to understand.
The EU is well aware that their plans for the future are unpopular with a majority of Europe's people. There have been enough polls to show this. Consequently they institute their changes in small steps. Comparable to boiling a frog. Unless you are paying attention to all the angles, and not accepting what you are told at face value, you will not realise you are being boiled alive.
And Joe, the EU do not want Britain to leave at once. What they say and what they actually believe are two different things. We are in the talking tough stage. They still think they can rectify the situation and that there is a chance of keeping their cash cow in the field.
How many times does it have to be said? Only Germany and the UK pay in! The other 26 states just take out. With us gone Germany pays for everything. Do you think the Germans want to increase their contribution by £175 million per week?
Do you think the other states will be happy with 50% less handouts? That is the only reason they joined in the first place! Like they give a shit about the human rights and free movement of labour and the rest of it! They just want the free money. It is always all about the money.
And Joe, the EU do not want Britain to leave at once. What they say and what they actually believe are two different things. We are in the talking tough stage. They still think they can rectify the situation and that there is a chance of keeping their cash cow in the field.
I bow to your superior knowledge of the mental processes of the leaders of 27 states. Maybe I'll wake up tomorrow and find that the Brexit vote was all a bad dream and that we can stay in the EU after all.
Not a question of mental processes. It is game theory and regardless of what they might want to do there are only a couple of options open to them.
Because we get to decide when to initiate Article 50 we actually have more options than they do. Personally I favour a tactic of delaying indefinitely whilst encouraging other EU states to hold their own votes. We could actually bring the EU down that way, without ever leaving the single market.
After all, with one of the two paymasters going, staying in the EU for the smaller states starts to look a lot less attractive
I have a bad dream where I wake up to find we are staying in the existing EU. That is still, regrettably, a possibility.
Arkless Electronics
30-06-2016, 13:34
No one except you it would seem!
Jez, you'l be telling us next you wont mind a chip in your arm with all your personal info on it, and a credit system where' if you step out of line with the establishment,it gets wiped out, and you have nothing!
Get real for goodness sake mate!
Eh???? you couldn't have got me more wrong! As I said I was local rep for no to ID cards and consider personal freedom, and anonymity if I choose it, to be sacrosanct!
I am 100% anti establishment and would like a socialist superstate of the people, definitely NOT of the establishment, corporations etc who can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. I have little interest in wealth creation. Much more in wealth redistribution. Creating forever more means forever more exploitation of people and planet. There is more than enough wealth around already, it just needs to be more fairly distributed.
I'm still hopeful that brexit will end up being blocked by MP's/parliament as it is not legally binding.
Arkless Electronics
30-06-2016, 13:43
Another point for all the anti federalists.... America seems to have done rather well as a federation of states! Pity it's so capitalist!
I'll also just point out that I am not a communist but a socialist democrat ;)
anthonyTD
30-06-2016, 14:20
If I have indeed mistaken the direction of your posts Jez, then I appologise, however, you do seem to conflict with yourself sometimes, :eyebrows: or is that just the way I interoperate what your writing.:scratch:
Eh???? you couldn't have got me more wrong! As I said I was local rep for no to ID cards and consider personal freedom, and anonymity if I choose it, to be sacrosanct!
I am 100% anti establishment and would like a socialist superstate of the people, definitely NOT of the establishment, corporations etc who can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. I have little interest in wealth creation. Much more in wealth redistribution. Creating forever more means forever more exploitation of people and planet. There is more than enough wealth around already, it just needs to be more fairly distributed.
I'm still hopeful that brexit will end up being blocked by MP's/parliament as it is not legally binding.
walpurgis
30-06-2016, 14:39
the REALITY OF WHAT THE EU IS BECOMING is little different any other superstate including the soviet republic.
Of course. There are definitely parallels.
Many things being imposed by the EU that were never in people's minds at the time of joining.
How many times does it have to be said? Only Germany and the UK pay in! The other 26 states just take out.
Really? I think you will find that there are 5 major contributing member states. With us gone, there will be less going in, and less coming out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm
Arkless Electronics
30-06-2016, 16:29
If I have indeed mistaken the direction of your posts Jez, then I appologise, however, you do seem to conflict with yourself sometimes, :eyebrows: or is that just the way I interoperate what your writing.:scratch:
I may well have appeared contradictory in some areas:) I'm only human and this is a very complex situation we are in as a nation. I believe that we are better off working together for the good of everyone rather than nation against nation, all believing they are in some way superior to other nations/religions/ethnic groupings etc. I am strongly against the "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" approach to politics and commerce, domestic or international. I support a socialist democracy with Keynesian economics. A healthy degree of state control in economics to ensure an even playing field eg limiting the wage of a CEO to say 20 times that of the companies lowest paid employee, greater taxes on big corporations etc to redistribute wealth. No one needs to be wealthy enough to own ocean going yachts and to virtually buy countries..... especially whilst others starve.
My politics are basically those of the left of the Labour party but I stop short of wanting to scrap Trident, allow unlimited immigration and unilateral disarmament.
I do think however that genuine refugees should be made welcome whilst war makes it too dangerous for them to return home. It just wouldn't be British to do otherwise :D
anthonyTD
30-06-2016, 16:43
We seem to be in agreement on many things,:) However' being part of the current EU system IMHO is far from what we signed up to all those years ago, and I fear if we stay, the reigns will tighten even more so, being part of a united europe is' in theory a good thing, unfortunetly those who get to run the show are Human, and therefore are inflicted with certain Human traits that more often than not lead to coruption, greed, and selfishness.
Maybe someone should develope an unbiased super computer that could run the show instead!;)
I may well have appeared contradictory in some areas:) I'm only human and this is a very complex situation we are in as a nation. I believe that we are better off working together for the good of everyone rather than nation against nation, all believing they are in some way superior to other nations/religions/ethnic groupings etc. I am strongly against the "dog eat dog", "survival of the fittest" approach to politics and commerce, domestic or international. I support a socialist democracy with Keynesian economics. A healthy degree of state control in economics to ensure an even playing field eg limiting the wage of a CEO to say 20 times that of the companies lowest paid employee, greater taxes on big corporations etc to redistribute wealth. No one needs to be wealthy enough to own ocean going yachts and to virtually buy countries..... especially whilst others starve.
My politics are basically those of the left of the Labour party but I stop short of wanting to scrap Trident, allow unlimited immigration and unilateral disarmament.
I do think however that genuine refugees should be made welcome whilst war makes it too dangerous for them to return home. It just wouldn't be British to do otherwise :D
walpurgis
30-06-2016, 16:46
I do think however that genuine refugees should be made welcome whilst war makes it too dangerous for them to return home. It just wouldn't be British to do otherwise :D
Perhaps it might seem more reasonable for refugees to seek immediate safety in one of the twelve countries they may have passed on their way here.
Really? I think you will find that there are 5 major contributing member states. With us gone, there will be less going in, and less coming out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/interactive/index_en.cfm
All countries pay in and all countries get a pay out. But only UK and Germany are net contributors i.e pay in more than we get back. A lot more in our case, about £175 million a week deficit. You really think they won't miss that?
All countries pay in and all countries get a pay out. But only UK and Germany are net contributors i.e pay in more than we get back. A lot more in our case, about £175 million a week deficit. You really think they won't miss that?
If you actually look at those charts, you'll realize there are 12 net contributors. UK the 2nd biggest of them after Germany. Per population, only 7th biggest it seems. Of course in a case like this the absolute amount of net contribution is more important, but it does show there are many countries who actually pay relatively more than the UK in that respect. Their impact on the whole of union is obviously much smaller, but the impact to those countries is not.
The contribution is based on various economic indicators. So population isn't a factor. I think my point that they will miss our net contribution considerably still stands. And that is before you get to the damage that trade tariffs on their exports to the UK will do to their already struggling economies. They sell a lot of their products to us. Then you have the rest of the world putting pressure on the EU. They don't want to see a major world economy tank. That will ripple around globally.
In short it is in no-one's interest to cut the UK a raw deal. They will cut off their nose to spite their face? No. too much money at stake.
If you look at the chart, the UK are the 7th biggest net contributor by population.
Thee is free movement of people so why should individual 'states' population matter? Although it would be funny if we all decided to go and sign on in Luxembourg.
BTH K10A
30-06-2016, 20:48
The contribution is based on various economic indicators. So population isn't a factor. I think my point that they will miss our net contribution considerably still stands. And that is before you get to the damage that trade tariffs on their exports to the UK will do to their already struggling economies. They sell a lot of their products to us. Then you have the rest of the world putting pressure on the EU. They don't want to see a major world economy tank. That will ripple around globally.
In short it is in no-one's interest to cut the UK a raw deal. They will cut off their nose to spite their face? No. too much money at stake.
Martin, this is the reality as prescribed by EU law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
Until we can ratify a trading agreement we will only be able to trade with the EU under WTO rules. The EU accept that this will hurt them but that'd the way it is.
Even the Leave Alliance said "One can say, unequivocally, that the UK could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and no responsible government would allow it"
http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=128
:mental:
An agreement that would be signed the second the 2 years was up. You don't really believe the 'no negotiation' thing?
Of course this assumes that 50 is invoked at some point. I predict if that does happen/ which is by no means certain, a deal will have been cut in the backrooms by that point. The EU does have a track record of breaking its own rules when it suits.
Spectral Morn
30-06-2016, 21:15
So Boris has helped wreck the country and now slinks off, and the Ice Queen wants to be prime minister :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.