FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Reasons for voting for brexit
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because we had the sweetest deal with all the benefits but with fewer drawbacks being outside the Euro, outside Schengen, with a veto and net benefits to our economy combined with me having freedom of movement to live and work visa free in 27 countries. The tiny loss of sovereignty didn’t impact on my life in any measurable way. " Much of the veto disappeared with treaty of Lisbon in 2009 as for the benefits if you were rich or well educated it was great but if you were not you tended to pay the price as a lot of “low skilled” firms such transport stopped training Brits on assumption they could always Import workers . There are other reasons but I want to keep my post short. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for brexit because I believe we are either all in and that means with everything the EU is offering including the euro, military and everything else, and I believe the Uk would never agree to any of that so what was the point of being half in. And I have never been a tory voter and never will be " Ian in the same mind as you in is in out is out out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because we had the sweetest deal with all the benefits but with fewer drawbacks being outside the Euro, outside Schengen, with a veto and net benefits to our economy combined with me having freedom of movement to live and work visa free in 27 countries. The tiny loss of sovereignty didn’t impact on my life in any measurable way. Much of the veto disappeared with treaty of Lisbon in 2009 as for the benefits if you were rich or well educated it was great but if you were not you tended to pay the price as a lot of “low skilled” firms such transport stopped training Brits on assumption they could always Import workers . There are other reasons but I want to keep my post short." We all hopefully made our decisions based on what we thought was best based on personal experiences vs what sone self serving politician or newspaper proprietor told us! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because we had the sweetest deal with all the benefits but with fewer drawbacks being outside the Euro, outside Schengen, with a veto and net benefits to our economy combined with me having freedom of movement to live and work visa free in 27 countries. The tiny loss of sovereignty didn’t impact on my life in any measurable way. Much of the veto disappeared with treaty of Lisbon in 2009 as for the benefits if you were rich or well educated it was great but if you were not you tended to pay the price as a lot of “low skilled” firms such transport stopped training Brits on assumption they could always Import workers . There are other reasons but I want to keep my post short. We all hopefully made our decisions based on what we thought was best based on personal experiences vs what sone self serving politician or newspaper proprietor told us! " I would hope so too and although I don't have evidence I suspect the majority of people are capable of filtering out extreme claims from both sides and vote for what they want. If that turns out to be right or wrong in time is a different discussion. The thread about media being left or right was very informative | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because we had the sweetest deal with all the benefits but with fewer drawbacks being outside the Euro, outside Schengen, with a veto and net benefits to our economy combined with me having freedom of movement to live and work visa free in 27 countries. The tiny loss of sovereignty didn’t impact on my life in any measurable way. Much of the veto disappeared with treaty of Lisbon in 2009 as for the benefits if you were rich or well educated it was great but if you were not you tended to pay the price as a lot of “low skilled” firms such transport stopped training Brits on assumption they could always Import workers . There are other reasons but I want to keep my post short. We all hopefully made our decisions based on what we thought was best based on personal experiences vs what sone self serving politician or newspaper proprietor told us! " As someone who worked in newspaper wholesale industry the left and right wing papers are packed by the the same people and both are Hypocrites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"To date I have to seee anyone offer any plausible benefits of bring a member. The UK was a net contributor. " An obvious benefit is that it needed fewer pieces of paper to trade before Brexit. Trade was easier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"To date I have to seee anyone offer any plausible benefits of bring a member. The UK was a net contributor. An obvious benefit is that it needed fewer pieces of paper to trade before Brexit. Trade was easier." Indeed, and foreign investment in UK is down 25% since brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Uk exports to EU up 24% Eu imports to UK up 36% https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf" On what page are those figures? Can’t see them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Uk exports to EU up 24% Eu imports to UK up 36% https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf On what page are those figures? Can’t see them?" The numbers are misleading in that they are in cash terms, not volume. Building materials in UK have increased in cost by 60% ( EU 35%). And food in UK up 25% (EU 17%) Brexit has cost us more. In economic terms it has been an error, Rees Mogg on record saying economic benefits may not be seen for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because we had the sweetest deal with all the benefits but with fewer drawbacks being outside the Euro, outside Schengen, with a veto and net benefits to our economy combined with me having freedom of movement to live and work visa free in 27 countries. The tiny loss of sovereignty didn’t impact on my life in any measurable way. Much of the veto disappeared with treaty of Lisbon in 2009 as for the benefits if you were rich or well educated it was great but if you were not you tended to pay the price as a lot of “low skilled” firms such transport stopped training Brits on assumption they could always Import workers . There are other reasons but I want to keep my post short." This was a provable lie at the time and people are still using it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted leave to save having to do what Germany and France wanted us to. After Cameron's 'best deal' if we'd have voted stay they would have said you want to stay, you can do what we want." That’s not how the EU has ever worked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? " Having a pre-referendum published leave strategy ironically would have helped remain immensely, as it would have prevented Brexit being all things to all leavers. Some soft leavers would have backed remain rather than go through with the hard Brexit that we ended up with. And the economics of leaving could have been made clear from the off. You’re absolutely right though - they should have accepted that a leave win was possible and made plans for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted leave to save having to do what Germany and France wanted us to. After Cameron's 'best deal' if we'd have voted stay they would have said you want to stay, you can do what we want." I actually think the opposite. If Remain v Leave result had gone the other way 52 v 48 the British Govt could (should) have used that as leverage to get even more concessions. We will of course never know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted leave to save having to do what Germany and France wanted us to. After Cameron's 'best deal' if we'd have voted stay they would have said you want to stay, you can do what we want. I actually think the opposite. If Remain v Leave result had gone the other way 52 v 48 the British Govt could (should) have used that as leverage to get even more concessions. We will of course never know." the EU always had the option of offering further concessions following the referendum but instead were verry quick to say Ok you are leaving here is your bill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted leave to save having to do what Germany and France wanted us to. After Cameron's 'best deal' if we'd have voted stay they would have said you want to stay, you can do what we want. I actually think the opposite. If Remain v Leave result had gone the other way 52 v 48 the British Govt could (should) have used that as leverage to get even more concessions. We will of course never know. the EU always had the option of offering further concessions following the referendum but instead were verry quick to say Ok you are leaving here is your bill. " The majority opinion in the EU was for a closer union which they have done now the UK has left. The idea of a looser union sadly was mainly a UK one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted leave to save having to do what Germany and France wanted us to. After Cameron's 'best deal' if we'd have voted stay they would have said you want to stay, you can do what we want. I actually think the opposite. If Remain v Leave result had gone the other way 52 v 48 the British Govt could (should) have used that as leverage to get even more concessions. We will of course never know. the EU always had the option of offering further concessions following the referendum but instead were verry quick to say Ok you are leaving here is your bill. " Using the analogy of a divorce, you don’t beg the other person to stay and offer anything they want. You don’t place yourself in a weaker position. You say “right you want to leave then go. These are the consequences and reality of that decision. Jog on!” But if you are discussing being unhappy and how you are “this close to leaving” then you can look at what concessions and changes you can make to improve the situation and stay together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? " So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains." I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted remain because I couldn’t see a benefit in changing what we had, too much of a faff and many unknowns. So it came down to I know more about my world if we remaining than I do about my world if we leave." This is actually called the status quo bias. People will tend to stick with the deal they know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference?" Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk." Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. " Not quite. You'd have had to have settled all disputes with the United Kingdom first. So your oil and gas field disputes and national debt would need to be a settled discussion You'd then have had to have met the criteria for joining the e.u on spending vs budget and tax receipts Etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"[Removed by poster at 07/08/23 12:06:12]" You must have voted Leave | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Leave or remain, we are here now. Truly the path before us isn’t going to be easy, do we rise or do we fall? Just need better leaders I guess." totally agree a better government might have got a better deal although I don't believe labour would have done any better farage was a bit extreme but they might have been better I voted for myself and family and we are seeing benefits.i have family in Italy and Portugal and they understand why we left we have a weak government that could have got better deals so we didn't leave but couldn't trusted them so vote leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference?" Who supported Scottish independence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. Not quite. You'd have had to have settled all disputes with the United Kingdom first. So your oil and gas field disputes and national debt would need to be a settled discussion You'd then have had to have met the criteria for joining the e.u on spending vs budget and tax receipts Etc. " Not quite. Ask Croatia. Yes, tough route but certainly one the SNP would have taken us down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence?" You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for brexit because I believe we are either all in and that means with everything the EU is offering including the euro, military and everything else, and I believe the Uk would never agree to any of that so what was the point of being half in. And I have never been a tory voter and never will be " This is a good example of why we shouldn’t allow everyone to vote. No offence personally , but people that think like you were allowed to fuck things up for millions of people and generations to come. If you didn’t understand the question you should have just said I dont know the answer . No one was forcing anyone to vote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for brexit because I believe we are either all in and that means with everything the EU is offering including the euro, military and everything else, and I believe the Uk would never agree to any of that so what was the point of being half in. And I have never been a tory voter and never will be This is a good example of why we shouldn’t allow everyone to vote. No offence personally , but people that think like you were allowed to fuck things up for millions of people and generations to come. If you didn’t understand the question you should have just said I dont know the answer . No one was forcing anyone to vote " and people wonder why we can't have a sensible debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for brexit because I believe we are either all in and that means with everything the EU is offering including the euro, military and everything else, and I believe the Uk would never agree to any of that so what was the point of being half in. And I have never been a tory voter and never will be This is a good example of why we shouldn’t allow everyone to vote. No offence personally , but people that think like you were allowed to fuck things up for millions of people and generations to come. If you didn’t understand the question you should have just said I dont know the answer . No one was forcing anyone to vote " No offence but you encapsulate the ignorance and masturbatory self aggrandising many associate with remainers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted remain as I wanted to spend most of the year in my Spanish apartment, I can't now do this because some idiot decided to hold a referendum. I'm hanging on to it in the hope we'll have a rejoin referendum after the next election. " You can still do this for a small fee without my taxes funding it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for brexit because I believe we are either all in and that means with everything the EU is offering including the euro, military and everything else, and I believe the Uk would never agree to any of that so what was the point of being half in. And I have never been a tory voter and never will be This is a good example of why we shouldn’t allow everyone to vote. No offence personally , but people that think like you were allowed to fuck things up for millions of people and generations to come. If you didn’t understand the question you should have just said I dont know the answer . No one was forcing anyone to vote " People should be allowed to vote. In the case of the referendum, maybe five basic questions about the EU and how it works. If you don't get them all right, your vote is counted 1/2. Then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. This is tongue in cheek. But especially at the time of the referendum, so many people didn't seem to have the slightest notion about these things. One of the reasons were unlikely to see any other countries leaving the EU is because the kids learn about it in school, what it is, how it works etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. " But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies." I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders " Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! " I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro?" What's wrong with the euro anyway, I lived in eurozone counties for most of my adult life. Work paid me in them, I swapped them for goods, services and beer. Worked just fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU?" No I don't want independence! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro?" The EU as it’s a requirement of joining. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. " As long as Scotland agreed to everything and there were no issues it would take 3 to 5 years to join which is quick for joining the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU? No I don't want independence!" Bur you want back into the EU which is only possible with independence... No wonder I'm fucking confused | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. " I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy " Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. " It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done " Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro?" All new members states must accept it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for Brexit for 1 simple reason. I was kicked in the head by a horse." Knocked some sense into you then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for Brexit for 1 simple reason. I was kicked in the head by a horse. Knocked some sense into you then." lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear"." Erm. Actually during the negotiations. A lot of the new Windsor framework suggested by the uk was earmarked as unfeasible by the e.u. Now it's feasible , when the e.u realised they'd made a HUGE error in their negotiating allowing the UK unilateral control over the Northern Irish border to allow imports and we used that power. Suddenly the e.u decided light touch could be done and prior processing, along with border checks at delivery depots not at port. Along with not making the uk account for 25% of all 3rd party good checks entering the e.u | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear"." Debunked meaning the opposite arguments were given? Just because someone said something, that doesn't make it true. BTW, it was Project Fear. You should ask some remain campaigners who have since said so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Erm. Actually during the negotiations. A lot of the new Windsor framework suggested by the uk was earmarked as unfeasible by the e.u. Now it's feasible , when the e.u realised they'd made a HUGE error in their negotiating allowing the UK unilateral control over the Northern Irish border to allow imports and we used that power. Suddenly the e.u decided light touch could be done and prior processing, along with border checks at delivery depots not at port. Along with not making the uk account for 25% of all 3rd party good checks entering the e.u " Not sure what this has got to do with anything. Meanwhile Brexit has been a logistical nightmare since the day after the referendum. Which is as expected. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Debunked meaning the opposite arguments were given? Just because someone said something, that doesn't make it true. BTW, it was Project Fear. You should ask some remain campaigners who have since said so." In this case, it was true, because it was explained in great detail and the steps for how complex it would be were layed out. Then, reality has happened, and has shown it to be true. On the other hand we had meaningless slogans and sound bites, which were debunked, and have since proven to be bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Erm. Actually during the negotiations. A lot of the new Windsor framework suggested by the uk was earmarked as unfeasible by the e.u. Now it's feasible , when the e.u realised they'd made a HUGE error in their negotiating allowing the UK unilateral control over the Northern Irish border to allow imports and we used that power. Suddenly the e.u decided light touch could be done and prior processing, along with border checks at delivery depots not at port. Along with not making the uk account for 25% of all 3rd party good checks entering the e.u Not sure what this has got to do with anything. Meanwhile Brexit has been a logistical nightmare since the day after the referendum. Which is as expected." Because Ireland has been the main stick the e.u attempted to use in negotiations. Hence whay the NIP had to be drawn up first before other discussions. The rest of the deal was actually quite easy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Erm. Actually during the negotiations. A lot of the new Windsor framework suggested by the uk was earmarked as unfeasible by the e.u. Now it's feasible , when the e.u realised they'd made a HUGE error in their negotiating allowing the UK unilateral control over the Northern Irish border to allow imports and we used that power. Suddenly the e.u decided light touch could be done and prior processing, along with border checks at delivery depots not at port. Along with not making the uk account for 25% of all 3rd party good checks entering the e.u Not sure what this has got to do with anything. Meanwhile Brexit has been a logistical nightmare since the day after the referendum. Which is as expected. Because Ireland has been the main stick the e.u attempted to use in negotiations. Hence whay the NIP had to be drawn up first before other discussions. The rest of the deal was actually quite easy. " "The rest of the deal was actually quite easy" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Erm. Actually during the negotiations. A lot of the new Windsor framework suggested by the uk was earmarked as unfeasible by the e.u. Now it's feasible , when the e.u realised they'd made a HUGE error in their negotiating allowing the UK unilateral control over the Northern Irish border to allow imports and we used that power. Suddenly the e.u decided light touch could be done and prior processing, along with border checks at delivery depots not at port. Along with not making the uk account for 25% of all 3rd party good checks entering the e.u Not sure what this has got to do with anything. Meanwhile Brexit has been a logistical nightmare since the day after the referendum. Which is as expected. Because Ireland has been the main stick the e.u attempted to use in negotiations. Hence whay the NIP had to be drawn up first before other discussions. The rest of the deal was actually quite easy. "The rest of the deal was actually quite easy" " Yes. The rest of the deal fell into place very quickly after nip signed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU? No I don't want independence! Bur you want back into the EU which is only possible with independence... No wonder I'm fucking confused " Did I say I wanted back or that I voted remain? Yes, I do want back in. I want UK back in the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Erm. Actually during the negotiations. A lot of the new Windsor framework suggested by the uk was earmarked as unfeasible by the e.u. Now it's feasible , when the e.u realised they'd made a HUGE error in their negotiating allowing the UK unilateral control over the Northern Irish border to allow imports and we used that power. Suddenly the e.u decided light touch could be done and prior processing, along with border checks at delivery depots not at port. Along with not making the uk account for 25% of all 3rd party good checks entering the e.u Not sure what this has got to do with anything. Meanwhile Brexit has been a logistical nightmare since the day after the referendum. Which is as expected. Because Ireland has been the main stick the e.u attempted to use in negotiations. Hence whay the NIP had to be drawn up first before other discussions. The rest of the deal was actually quite easy. "The rest of the deal was actually quite easy" Yes. The rest of the deal fell into place very quickly after nip signed." Are you saying that Brexit has all fallen into place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it." Since when? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU? No I don't want independence! Bur you want back into the EU which is only possible with independence... No wonder I'm fucking confused Did I say I wanted back or that I voted remain? Yes, I do want back in. I want UK back in the EU." The UK isn't going back in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Debunked meaning the opposite arguments were given? Just because someone said something, that doesn't make it true. BTW, it was Project Fear. You should ask some remain campaigners who have since said so. In this case, it was true, because it was explained in great detail and the steps for how complex it would be were layed out. Then, reality has happened, and has shown it to be true. On the other hand we had meaningless slogans and sound bites, which were debunked, and have since proven to be bollocks. " In which case? Did you expect either side to show their hand? As you said, 'have since proven' ie. were not known to be guaranteed at the time. You believed one side, other people believed the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Debunked meaning the opposite arguments were given? Just because someone said something, that doesn't make it true. BTW, it was Project Fear. You should ask some remain campaigners who have since said so. In this case, it was true, because it was explained in great detail and the steps for how complex it would be were layed out. Then, reality has happened, and has shown it to be true. On the other hand we had meaningless slogans and sound bites, which were debunked, and have since proven to be bollocks. In which case? Did you expect either side to show their hand? As you said, 'have since proven' ie. were not known to be guaranteed at the time. You believed one side, other people believed the other. " One side had information, and an explanation of why it would be difficult, long and complex. The other had catchphrases. I don't know what you mean by "show their hand", in this context. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Debunked meaning the opposite arguments were given? Just because someone said something, that doesn't make it true. BTW, it was Project Fear. You should ask some remain campaigners who have since said so. In this case, it was true, because it was explained in great detail and the steps for how complex it would be were layed out. Then, reality has happened, and has shown it to be true. On the other hand we had meaningless slogans and sound bites, which were debunked, and have since proven to be bollocks. In which case? Did you expect either side to show their hand? As you said, 'have since proven' ie. were not known to be guaranteed at the time. You believed one side, other people believed the other. One side had information, and an explanation of why it would be difficult, long and complex. The other had catchphrases. I don't know what you mean by "show their hand", in this context. " Give me some 'information' that remain had and a 'catchphrase' that leave had. Let's see if you've been paying attention. If you don't understand 'show their hand' in this context, you're definitely not as critical thinking as you like to portray. I could explain it to you but its so simple I really shouldn't need to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Erm. Actually during the negotiations. A lot of the new Windsor framework suggested by the uk was earmarked as unfeasible by the e.u. Now it's feasible , when the e.u realised they'd made a HUGE error in their negotiating allowing the UK unilateral control over the Northern Irish border to allow imports and we used that power. Suddenly the e.u decided light touch could be done and prior processing, along with border checks at delivery depots not at port. Along with not making the uk account for 25% of all 3rd party good checks entering the e.u Not sure what this has got to do with anything. Meanwhile Brexit has been a logistical nightmare since the day after the referendum. Which is as expected. Because Ireland has been the main stick the e.u attempted to use in negotiations. Hence whay the NIP had to be drawn up first before other discussions. The rest of the deal was actually quite easy. "The rest of the deal was actually quite easy" Yes. The rest of the deal fell into place very quickly after nip signed. Are you saying that Brexit has all fallen into place?" The deal with the e.u did. Multiple other trade deals are falling wonderfully into place. Whats there not to like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when?" since about 2000 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000" they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's " All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro." I believe only Denmark has a special deal int his sense, there are others who haven't yet adopted it but they 'must'. There are no dates for that though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU? No I don't want independence! Bur you want back into the EU which is only possible with independence... No wonder I'm fucking confused Did I say I wanted back or that I voted remain? Yes, I do want back in. I want UK back in the EU. The UK isn't going back in. " Never ever? Your opinion. I see it happening one day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro." "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU? No I don't want independence! Bur you want back into the EU which is only possible with independence... No wonder I'm fucking confused Did I say I wanted back or that I voted remain? Yes, I do want back in. I want UK back in the EU. The UK isn't going back in. Never ever? Your opinion. I see it happening one day." My opinion at present, I wouldn't say never but I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Debunked meaning the opposite arguments were given? Just because someone said something, that doesn't make it true. BTW, it was Project Fear. You should ask some remain campaigners who have since said so. In this case, it was true, because it was explained in great detail and the steps for how complex it would be were layed out. Then, reality has happened, and has shown it to be true. On the other hand we had meaningless slogans and sound bites, which were debunked, and have since proven to be bollocks. In which case? Did you expect either side to show their hand? As you said, 'have since proven' ie. were not known to be guaranteed at the time. You believed one side, other people believed the other. One side had information, and an explanation of why it would be difficult, long and complex. The other had catchphrases. I don't know what you mean by "show their hand", in this context. Give me some 'information' that remain had and a 'catchphrase' that leave had. Let's see if you've been paying attention. If you don't understand 'show their hand' in this context, you're definitely not as critical thinking as you like to portray. I could explain it to you but its so simple I really shouldn't need to. " Back to playing the player instead of the ball. I'll leave you to what could have been an otherwise interesting conversation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The only regret I have for voting leave (when it was not aligned with a party) is that the government did not have a leave strategy. How many years did it actually take? So they didnt have a strategy but you voted leave anyway? This is exactly why a second confirmation vote should have taken place. I'm sure I'm not alone in not knowing they didn't have a leave strategy Probably true. However it was widely discussed and pointed out how long and complex leaving the EU would be, how difficult it would be, and how many problems it would cause. None of the parties had any suggestions how, aside from the hard Brexiteers who just wanted it to be as brutal and damaging as possible. It was also widely discussed as being 'the easiest deal in history'. No one could've expected them to show their cards (if they had any). You didn't fall for it, well done Yes. The media definitely influenced people with short sound bites of easy solutions to complex problems. But that was debunked a million times over, and real life information was provided. For some reason it was ignored, disregarded when labelled "project fear". Debunked meaning the opposite arguments were given? Just because someone said something, that doesn't make it true. BTW, it was Project Fear. You should ask some remain campaigners who have since said so. In this case, it was true, because it was explained in great detail and the steps for how complex it would be were layed out. Then, reality has happened, and has shown it to be true. On the other hand we had meaningless slogans and sound bites, which were debunked, and have since proven to be bollocks. In which case? Did you expect either side to show their hand? As you said, 'have since proven' ie. were not known to be guaranteed at the time. You believed one side, other people believed the other. One side had information, and an explanation of why it would be difficult, long and complex. The other had catchphrases. I don't know what you mean by "show their hand", in this context. Give me some 'information' that remain had and a 'catchphrase' that leave had. Let's see if you've been paying attention. If you don't understand 'show their hand' in this context, you're definitely not as critical thinking as you like to portray. I could explain it to you but its so simple I really shouldn't need to. Back to playing the player instead of the ball. I'll leave you to what could have been an otherwise interesting conversation." You flounce far too much mate. You could try engaging rather than playing the victim once in a while. Then we may have interesting conversations Can you give me some 'information' that remain had and a 'catchphrase' that leave had? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Who supported Scottish independence? You didn't? You're a SNP supporter so I made an assumption tbf. If I was wrong then apologies. I am not an SNP supporter!!!! Double apology please!!!!!! I've read you're comments wrong in that case. Apologies. So you didn't vote for independence and you don't support the SNP? But now want independence and would like the SNP to take you back intot the EU? No I don't want independence! Bur you want back into the EU which is only possible with independence... No wonder I'm fucking confused Did I say I wanted back or that I voted remain? Yes, I do want back in. I want UK back in the EU. The UK isn't going back in. Never ever? Your opinion. I see it happening one day." Then brits must accept a different deal than what we had originally including no control over currency debt issuance and many other things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state." That's an interesting point about not meeting the criteria and therefore not joining the euro currency. I'm pretty sure that joining the euro is a pre condition and applicants must work towards meeting the required levels. But can a country join and deliberately not meet the required levels. If they do is there anything the EU can do about it. Can they say that the country has not met the conditions so therefore is no longer a member or are they stuck. I'm not sure deliberately not meeting the requirements is going to be a good look for any potential member and may bring about EU punishment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state. That's an interesting point about not meeting the criteria and therefore not joining the euro currency. I'm pretty sure that joining the euro is a pre condition and applicants must work towards meeting the required levels. But can a country join and deliberately not meet the required levels. If they do is there anything the EU can do about it. Can they say that the country has not met the conditions so therefore is no longer a member or are they stuck. I'm not sure deliberately not meeting the requirements is going to be a good look for any potential member and may bring about EU punishment." If they don't work toward meeting it. The e.u can withhold funds. This is currently the ongoing tactic with Poland and Hungary who have decided ecj doesn't have supremacy over their domestic courts If you do not fall in line you will eventually be removed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state. That's an interesting point about not meeting the criteria and therefore not joining the euro currency. I'm pretty sure that joining the euro is a pre condition and applicants must work towards meeting the required levels. But can a country join and deliberately not meet the required levels. If they do is there anything the EU can do about it. Can they say that the country has not met the conditions so therefore is no longer a member or are they stuck. I'm not sure deliberately not meeting the requirements is going to be a good look for any potential member and may bring about EU punishment. If they don't work toward meeting it. The e.u can withhold funds. This is currently the ongoing tactic with Poland and Hungary who have decided ecj doesn't have supremacy over their domestic courts If you do not fall in line you will eventually be removed." Can you point me in the direction of something supporting your claim? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state. That's an interesting point about not meeting the criteria and therefore not joining the euro currency. I'm pretty sure that joining the euro is a pre condition and applicants must work towards meeting the required levels. But can a country join and deliberately not meet the required levels. If they do is there anything the EU can do about it. Can they say that the country has not met the conditions so therefore is no longer a member or are they stuck. I'm not sure deliberately not meeting the requirements is going to be a good look for any potential member and may bring about EU punishment. If they don't work toward meeting it. The e.u can withhold funds. This is currently the ongoing tactic with Poland and Hungary who have decided ecj doesn't have supremacy over their domestic courts If you do not fall in line you will eventually be removed. Can you point me in the direction of something supporting your claim?" No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state. That's an interesting point about not meeting the criteria and therefore not joining the euro currency. I'm pretty sure that joining the euro is a pre condition and applicants must work towards meeting the required levels. But can a country join and deliberately not meet the required levels. If they do is there anything the EU can do about it. Can they say that the country has not met the conditions so therefore is no longer a member or are they stuck. I'm not sure deliberately not meeting the requirements is going to be a good look for any potential member and may bring about EU punishment. If they don't work toward meeting it. The e.u can withhold funds. This is currently the ongoing tactic with Poland and Hungary who have decided ecj doesn't have supremacy over their domestic courts If you do not fall in line you will eventually be removed. Can you point me in the direction of something supporting your claim?" "Legally speaking, we don't have the apparatus to expel a member state — unlike the Council of Europe, for instance, where Russia was expelled a few weeks ago," Adam Lazowski, a professor of EU law at the University of Westminster, explained to Euronews. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state. That's an interesting point about not meeting the criteria and therefore not joining the euro currency. I'm pretty sure that joining the euro is a pre condition and applicants must work towards meeting the required levels. But can a country join and deliberately not meet the required levels. If they do is there anything the EU can do about it. Can they say that the country has not met the conditions so therefore is no longer a member or are they stuck. I'm not sure deliberately not meeting the requirements is going to be a good look for any potential member and may bring about EU punishment. If they don't work toward meeting it. The e.u can withhold funds. This is currently the ongoing tactic with Poland and Hungary who have decided ecj doesn't have supremacy over their domestic courts If you do not fall in line you will eventually be removed. Can you point me in the direction of something supporting your claim? "Legally speaking, we don't have the apparatus to expel a member state — unlike the Council of Europe, for instance, where Russia was expelled a few weeks ago," Adam Lazowski, a professor of EU law at the University of Westminster, explained to Euronews." It would require the for example if the EU wanted to expel Hungary a 26 to 0 vote which is highly unlikely as Poland or other eastern would veto it as this is an area where the veto remains. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I wanted the end of the ecj ruling over our courts. " What's wrong with the supremacy of EU law? It's a good idea. It ensures consistency. It's no use having a shared body of EU law if it's going to mean different things in different places. Then you don't have consistency, you have an incoherent mess and no-one knows where they are. The EU's two-stage court doesn't deal with criminal or family law. The EU's courts only answer questions about the things that are covered in the treaties. To make things like the single market work, there has to be a way to clarify what it means in practice. For that to work it has to be accepted by all the member countries, so national law has to be set aside and the EU law used instead when there is a conflict between national law and EU law. It makes sense and it's a good idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I support a federal Europe, with a single trading bloc, ultimately one army ..." What benefits do you see in a federal Europe with one army? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted Remain because there was absolutely no reason to vote to Leave. I could also see though the leave BS and it was obvious that the likes of Farage were purely interested in their own financial gains. I get confused by this view from someone who supported Scottish independence. What's the difference? Ironically Scotland would have been forced to leave the e.u had they voted to leave uk. Possibly, but as we were fully aligned and an indie state the rejoin process would have been swift. But you would have had to except the Euro and would be in the same Boat as Ireland re borders Who said scotland would have to accept the euro? All new members states must accept it. Since when? since about 2000 they are given a few years to change I think Poland still runs 2 currency's All countries who didn't join before a certain date must accede to the euro. Yes it takes time as to do so you must align your currency and national debt and deficits to the e.u But all must eventually accept the euro. "On average, it takes just under five years from the opening of accession negotiations to becoming a full member state of the EU, however countries such as Finland and Sweden took less time - with Sweden still not using the euro. While there is an agreement in principle to join the euro as part of EU membership, countries such as Denmark have an opt out clause and others have not joined - either through choice or through failure to meet the criteria. Since 1999 all new EU members are obliged to commit in principle to joining the euro once they meet certain criteria. It is also important to note that currently there is also no mechanism that actually forces a new EU member to adopt the currency." So, there is an obligation to join which is not the same as having to accept as you state. That's an interesting point about not meeting the criteria and therefore not joining the euro currency. I'm pretty sure that joining the euro is a pre condition and applicants must work towards meeting the required levels. But can a country join and deliberately not meet the required levels. If they do is there anything the EU can do about it. Can they say that the country has not met the conditions so therefore is no longer a member or are they stuck. I'm not sure deliberately not meeting the requirements is going to be a good look for any potential member and may bring about EU punishment. If they don't work toward meeting it. The e.u can withhold funds. This is currently the ongoing tactic with Poland and Hungary who have decided ecj doesn't have supremacy over their domestic courts If you do not fall in line you will eventually be removed." I can understand the EU annoyance at such behaviour and suspect they would go down the withholding funds route. They often like to say that they are a rules based organisation so would have to act. It looks like one way or another, Scotland will have to adopt the euro and the last I heard that's exactly what they plan if they gain independence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" I didn't agree with the budget contributions and where the money went from the e.u back into the UK. " Mm. The UK government spent 1% of its budget on the EU budget. That was less than the spending on government debt interest. Please see the Office for Budget Responsibility's report for 2016. The EU's budget is small. Two thirds is spent on regional development and farming. Admin is about 6%. What's wrong with a successful peace project? What's wrong with treating people equally? Some of that money came back. Rural development. Science fund. Apprenticeships. Social fund. Farm support. The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. Now all that has been lost. Being in the EU is a bargain. Now Cornwall is worse off than before. So are farmers, fishermen, academics, scientists... What's wrong with improving Liverpool, a place that Thatcher forgot, and the EU never did? Now look at the unimaginable costs! Handicapped by customs charges, customs bureaucracy, customs delays, regulatory barriers, rules of origin, VAT barriers, difficulty finding staff, demanding passports instead of ID cards, the drop in the value of the pound, loss of reputation, the xenophobic abuse of EU citizens in the UK in public and online, the shameful so called online-only "settled status" scheme... Young Brits working in the rest of Europe are now all "experts on visas" -- they're second class citizens in their own Continent. No wonder ungreat Britain in its disunited Kingdom is swirling down the toilet... Northern Ireland is protected to some extent by the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland - but only partly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I support a federal Europe, with a single trading bloc, ultimately one army ... What benefits do you see in a federal Europe with one army?" we spend more on deffence than almost any other country in Europe we used to have loads of troops etc in Germany when it had a border with the USSR , so a European army might have saved us money but would have been less in our control | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"having to do what Germany and France wanted us to." Er, no, that is nonsense. Only the European Commission makes proposals. It has to be independent. Its independence is PRECISELY there to STOP any one country acting unfairly. That's just one of the safeguards. Germany and France are both MINORITIES in the EU's voting system. Even the big four together - France, Germany, Italy and the UK - don't have enough voting weight to pass ANYTHING on their own. The EU is set up to give the smaller countries more voting weight. That's government ministers' votes. Then there's the seats in the European Parliament. Smaller countries get more seats per head of population. The idea that the UK was steamrollered in the EU is a myth, "it's a total myth, it's an absolute myth". Look at Steve Bullock's video on Youtube at Final Say For All in Brussels. If the UK really wanted something then it often got it. If it was really against and put in the effort then it often wouldn't get as far as going to a vote. Besides, if both France and Germany have agreed on something then it's usually because it's a good idea. Germany doesn't want to "lead" because of its history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Because the EU was a stealth project." Mmmmmm, "stealth" means publishing everything in PUBLIC treaties signed by every national leader and approved by every national parliament. Where everything decided is all written up in PUBLIC in the Official Journal. The European Commission is so "stealthy" it even publishes its meeting minutes online. Government diplomats and ministers meet behind closed doors. It's so STEALTHY it's all in academic textbooks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for brexit because I believe we are either all in and that means with everything the EU is offering including the euro, military and everything else, and I believe the Uk would never agree to any of that so what was the point of being half in. And I have never been a tory voter and never will be " I mean...that isn't going to happen. It never was with us in and it won't with us out. Some in Europe have pushed for militsry integration but it is NATO that sees us cooperate and share common policy and military support with our European allies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Some in Europe have pushed for militsry integration but it is NATO that sees us cooperate" Defence ministers meet informally at EU meetings. That's important. Permanent Structured Cooperation aka Pesco is an EU thing. Soft power is important and that's why NATO says the EU is an essential partner. The European Parliament has an EU-NATO committee. Losing the UK from the EU is a disaster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Because the EU was a stealth project. We joined a European trading bloc (great idea) but it morphed into a superstate. They just forgot to ask us if we minded. Turns out we did. Or at least enough to make a difference did." There were speeches made prior to joining the EEC in the 70’s which mentioned closer union and such. It was never just a trade-bloc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"superstate" Poppycock. Who runs national security? Every member country is in charge of its own national security. Who runs income tax? That's the job of each country. Who runs schools, police, planning permission, elections, citizenship, local transport, television, radio and post? Each country does all those things itself. On policing and security the EU helps with things like the Schengen Information System and Europol. Yes, the EU goes far beyond any other international body that has ever existed. No countries have ever tried to combine their currencies in this way before. No other bloc has an independent Commission and a two stage court with appeal like the EU does. The European Parliament is still the only directly elected international legislative chamber in the world. But to call it a superstate is ludicrous. It doesn't even have an overall president. There are four presidencies and one of them is a country. At the moment it's Spain's turn, supported by Belgium and Hungary. The three are called the trio. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"superstate Poppycock. Who runs national security? Every member country is in charge of its own national security. Who runs income tax? That's the job of each country. Who runs schools, police, planning permission, elections, citizenship, local transport, television, radio and post? Each country does all those things itself. On policing and security the EU helps with things like the Schengen Information System and Europol. Yes, the EU goes far beyond any other international body that has ever existed. No countries have ever tried to combine their currencies in this way before. No other bloc has an independent Commission and a two stage court with appeal like the EU does. The European Parliament is still the only directly elected international legislative chamber in the world. But to call it a superstate is ludicrous. It doesn't even have an overall president. There are four presidencies and one of them is a country. At the moment it's Spain's turn, supported by Belgium and Hungary. The three are called the trio." So if it's not a superstate, how come it needs a parliament, a president, a flag, an anthem, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors? If it look like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"superstate Poppycock. Who runs national security? Every member country is in charge of its own national security. Who runs income tax? That's the job of each country. Who runs schools, police, planning permission, elections, citizenship, local transport, television, radio and post? Each country does all those things itself. On policing and security the EU helps with things like the Schengen Information System and Europol. Yes, the EU goes far beyond any other international body that has ever existed. No countries have ever tried to combine their currencies in this way before. No other bloc has an independent Commission and a two stage court with appeal like the EU does. The European Parliament is still the only directly elected international legislative chamber in the world. But to call it a superstate is ludicrous. It doesn't even have an overall president. There are four presidencies and one of them is a country. At the moment it's Spain's turn, supported by Belgium and Hungary. The three are called the trio. So if it's not a superstate, how come it needs a parliament, a president, a flag, an anthem, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors? If it look like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. " Or a goose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"show come it needs a parliament, a president, a flag, an anthem, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors?" It needs a Parliament because it stands for democratic values. The people have their concerns about what the governments are doing. For most things that are covered by the EU, elected citizens in the European Parliament have equal powers with government ministers. Both Houses can amend proposals and both have to agree. There are four presidencies. There's no overall president. The balance of power is there to make sure that what is agreed is within what is allowed by the treaties, and has a high level of agreement. It shares a flag with the older, non-EU, Council of Europe. The circle of stars represents unity. It needs an anthem because music is part of Europe's heritage and harmony is beautiful. The music represents peace. What's wrong with being recognisable? It needs laws because the things that have been agreed need to be understood. Things that have been agreed should be honoured. Every country takes on the obligations of membership. It needs courts to give people, governments and businesses an effective way to complain. Max Schrems got EU privacy law struck down by the EU courts with the help of a government agency in Ireland. It needs judges to settle disputes, and to overturn Commission decisions because they're not final. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"overseas ambassadors?" Because on some things the EU countries negotiate as a bloc. That's what the EU - Canada deal is about. And the EU - Japan deal. And the EU - New Zealand deal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" If it look like a duck " The EU is not yet a superstate because the word means having power over subordinate states. Membership is voluntary. There are no subordinate states. There is only a group of independent countries who have chosen to take part. That's what you'll read in academic textbooks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"show come it needs a parliament, a president, a flag, an anthem, laws, courts, judges, overseas ambassadors? It needs a Parliament because it stands for democratic values. The people have their concerns about what the governments are doing. For most things that are covered by the EU, elected citizens in the European Parliament have equal powers with government ministers. Both Houses can amend proposals and both have to agree. There are four presidencies. There's no overall president. The balance of power is there to make sure that what is agreed is within what is allowed by the treaties, and has a high level of agreement. It shares a flag with the older, non-EU, Council of Europe. The circle of stars represents unity. It needs an anthem because music is part of Europe's heritage and harmony is beautiful. The music represents peace. What's wrong with being recognisable? It needs laws because the things that have been agreed need to be understood. Things that have been agreed should be honoured. Every country takes on the obligations of membership. It needs courts to give people, governments and businesses an effective way to complain. Max Schrems got EU privacy law struck down by the EU courts with the help of a government agency in Ireland. It needs judges to settle disputes, and to overturn Commission decisions because they're not final. " Thanks for the explanation. I'm convinced. It's definitely a superstate. Look the USMCA trade deal has a bigger population than the EU. But the presidents of US, Canada and Mexico don't find it necessary to rock-up with a 4th person for every summit. The EU is a blatant con-trick. Only the Brits were sensible enough to see through it (so far). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted leave to save having to do what Germany and France wanted us to. After Cameron's 'best deal' if we'd have voted stay they would have said you want to stay, you can do what we want. That’s not how the EU has ever worked." It's actually what has been said since, with an increasing tendency to a Federal Govt, with fiscal independence no longer possible, a European Army, an increasing interference in Member States (witness threats against Poland because they won't accept immigrants). And frankly Germany and France are SO dominant in the EU that in time they'll de facto run it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Just how much more “sovereignty” did we need?" I'll give an example and it's about IMMIGRATION and Tory meanness about it. Oh yes, immigration, that the anti-EU brigade talked about so much. Now they seem to be avoiding the subject. Why is that? Who is a family dependent? Should the adult daughter of a Philipino woman in the Philippines be allowed to join her mother and her new German husband in Sweden? In the famous Rayes case, the EU court ruled yes, basically. Can you imagine how much some mean-spirited Tories might have disliked that? They wanted a narrower, stingier definition of "family dependent". The EU's court was inclined to be more generous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The presidents of US, Canada and Mexico don't find it necessary to rock-up with a 4th person for every summit" The USA is a federation with an overall elected president. The EU doesn't have that. National leaders vote for someone who is asked to do a job. The European Parliament has a consent vote. That's how Ursula got her job. (Did you know Ursula opened her home to a Syrian refugee? She said, "He changed our lives". The Times didn't mention that humanising story. Why not?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The presidents of US, Canada and Mexico don't find it necessary to rock-up with a 4th person for every summit The USA is a federation with an overall elected president. The EU doesn't have that. National leaders vote for someone who is asked to do a job. The European Parliament has a consent vote. That's how Ursula got her job. (Did you know Ursula opened her home to a Syrian refugee? She said, "He changed our lives". The Times didn't mention that humanising story. Why not?)" A federation is exactly what the EU is, they just haven't told their 450 mil. citizens yet. The difference is that US citizens get to vote for their president, EU citizens do not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The presidents of US, Canada and Mexico don't find it necessary to rock-up with a 4th person for every summit The USA is a federation with an overall elected president. The EU doesn't have that. National leaders vote for someone who is asked to do a job. The European Parliament has a consent vote. That's how Ursula got her job. (Did you know Ursula opened her home to a Syrian refugee? She said, "He changed our lives". The Times didn't mention that humanising story. Why not?) A federation is exactly what the EU is, they just haven't told their 450 mil. citizens yet. The difference is that US citizens get to vote for their president, EU citizens do not." So other than the evidence that the EU isn’t a federation, it definitely is? And nobody has been told this great secret democratic cover up? Seems legit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The presidents of US, Canada and Mexico don't find it necessary to rock-up with a 4th person for every summit The USA is a federation with an overall elected president. The EU doesn't have that. National leaders vote for someone who is asked to do a job. The European Parliament has a consent vote. That's how Ursula got her job. (Did you know Ursula opened her home to a Syrian refugee? She said, "He changed our lives". The Times didn't mention that humanising story. Why not?) A federation is exactly what the EU is, they just haven't told their 450 mil. citizens yet. The difference is that US citizens get to vote for their president, EU citizens do not. So other than the evidence that the EU isn’t a federation, it definitely is? And nobody has been told this great secret democratic cover up? Seems legit. " What evidence? All the evidence points to the EU being a federation in all but name. Of course the EU aren't going to call it that because they don't have a democratic mandate. Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I voted for brexit because I believe we are either all in and that means with everything the EU is offering including the euro, military and everything else, and I believe the Uk would never agree to any of that so what was the point of being half in. And I have never been a tory voter and never will be " You know the uk specifically negotiated a “currency” and “defence” opt out… we were doing well for being half in! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"the evidence points to the EU being a federation in all but name" What about the evidence in the treaties? Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union says, the EU is only for the things that are cross-border, or the things that can only be best done together. Everything else is the job of each country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
" Germany and France are SO dominant in the EU" I don't think so, because of the way the EU's voting system is set up. That's just two countries with a combined population of 148 million out of a total of 448 million. Only two countries. Only 33% of the total population. The qualified majority vote needs 15 out of 27 countries in favour, representing 65% of the population. France and Germany don't have enough voting weight to pass anything on their own. Losing the UK from the EU has shifted the voting weights slightly towards... Germany. I think it *is* fair to say that when Germany's chancellor speaks, there's lots of press attention. When it's Malta's turn, not so much. But then, a lot of what the EU does is quite bland. A lot of it is about farming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain." I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The presidents of US, Canada and Mexico don't find it necessary to rock-up with a 4th person for every summit The USA is a federation with an overall elected president. The EU doesn't have that. National leaders vote for someone who is asked to do a job. The European Parliament has a consent vote. That's how Ursula got her job. (Did you know Ursula opened her home to a Syrian refugee? She said, "He changed our lives". The Times didn't mention that humanising story. Why not?) A federation is exactly what the EU is, they just haven't told their 450 mil. citizens yet. The difference is that US citizens get to vote for their president, EU citizens do not. So other than the evidence that the EU isn’t a federation, it definitely is? And nobody has been told this great secret democratic cover up? Seems legit. What evidence? All the evidence points to the EU being a federation in all but name. Of course the EU aren't going to call it that because they don't have a democratic mandate. Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain." Support for leaving the EU has fallen across the bloc, including in Italy and Spain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The presidents of US, Canada and Mexico don't find it necessary to rock-up with a 4th person for every summit The USA is a federation with an overall elected president. The EU doesn't have that. National leaders vote for someone who is asked to do a job. The European Parliament has a consent vote. That's how Ursula got her job. (Did you know Ursula opened her home to a Syrian refugee? She said, "He changed our lives". The Times didn't mention that humanising story. Why not?) A federation is exactly what the EU is, they just haven't told their 450 mil. citizens yet. The difference is that US citizens get to vote for their president, EU citizens do not. So other than the evidence that the EU isn’t a federation, it definitely is? And nobody has been told this great secret democratic cover up? Seems legit. What evidence? All the evidence points to the EU being a federation in all but name. Of course the EU aren't going to call it that because they don't have a democratic mandate. Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. Support for leaving the EU has fallen across the bloc, including in Italy and Spain. " People on the continent are much more clued in on what the EU is, what it does and how it works. It'll be much more difficult to mislead their populations to want to leave. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich." So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook." I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots." Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. " “Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” He added: “The EU does not take any position on such issues without a council mandate.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. " Either name could be considered political posturing. They have to call it something if it's being discussed. Bummer we're not part of this aligned group of 27 countries. That sounds like a position of power that we'd want to be on the inside of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. “Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” He added: “The EU does not take any position on such issues without a council mandate.” " You're just reinforcing to me EU arrogance. Here we have Peter Stano (who he?) making pronouncements on behalf of 27 nations regarding sensitive political policies. Did he consult with them? Do they all agree? This absolutely typifies EU 'one size fits all' attitude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. " I tend to criticise the EU from time to time but this isn't one of those times. In my opinion what the EU done in that treaty was to refer to the islands as Islas Malvinas for political reasons, something we would expect. Remember the deal was with Argentina so something minor to keep them happy. The way the UK have pushed back is nothing short of 'noise'. Just a load of politicians making noise over nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. “Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” He added: “The EU does not take any position on such issues without a council mandate.” You're just reinforcing to me EU arrogance. Here we have Peter Stano (who he?) making pronouncements on behalf of 27 nations regarding sensitive political policies. Did he consult with them? Do they all agree? This absolutely typifies EU 'one size fits all' attitude." “On Wednesday, British diplomats requested that the European Council president, Charles Michel, “clarify” the bloc’s position. However, citing Brexit, an EU official reportedly told the Financial Times: “This was agreed by 27 member states and the Celac countries.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. I tend to criticise the EU from time to time but this isn't one of those times. In my opinion what the EU done in that treaty was to refer to the islands as Islas Malvinas for political reasons, something we would expect. Remember the deal was with Argentina so something minor to keep them happy. The way the UK have pushed back is nothing short of 'noise'. Just a load of politicians making noise over nothing. " Agreed. It’s nonsense posturing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"their MEP!" Hey, their MEPs! Plural. There were 6 seats for the South West of England including Gibraltar. There were 10 seats for the South East of England. It was so much more democratic. With only a small share of the vote needed to get one seat, if you liked Green you could vote Green and there was a good chance someone would get a job and represent you. If your party has two or more seats you could contact one of all of them. As an EU country you had a right to contact any EU institution or body and get a reply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"vote leave and would do everyday for the rest of my life. I never believed in a unelected set two hats creaming of us and EU citizens and making decisions to line there own pockets. I voted on what i believed not what any politician told me either. Problem is, those in charge did not do what the people asked for. Again own agendas and own pockets. If we had a real bexiteer in charge making hard tough but decisions that might cause some nervy moments we would be a far stronger country now. I fear starmer and his no policy party getting in now, any good that came from brexit will be undone and back to SQ 1 " Do you have an example of "any good that came from brexit"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Problem is, those in charge did not do what the people asked for. " The people asked to leave the EU. We did so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The new trade deals been sort. The UK economy is on the up faster than major eu players like Germany. But as i said and your right it could be loads better if it wasn't for weak leaders in this country stopping the will of the people. We should have triggered article 50 the next day and by now we would have been in a far better place, but too many MP's would not accept the result and caused delay and doubt. BIDEN didnt help either, a UK hating idiot thats now the most powerful man in the world, scary!" How would triggering article 50 immediately have helped? We weren’t ready to leave when we enacted it at the time we did. And what was Biden’s role in Brexit negotiations? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. “Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” He added: “The EU does not take any position on such issues without a council mandate.” You're just reinforcing to me EU arrogance. Here we have Peter Stano (who he?) making pronouncements on behalf of 27 nations regarding sensitive political policies. Did he consult with them? Do they all agree? This absolutely typifies EU 'one size fits all' attitude. “On Wednesday, British diplomats requested that the European Council president, Charles Michel, “clarify” the bloc’s position. However, citing Brexit, an EU official reportedly told the Financial Times: “This was agreed by 27 member states and the Celac countries.”" Well in the unlikely event every nation was consulted and agreed it shows EU interests are not aligned with the UK. We fought a war to secure the independence of the Falkland Islands. The inhabitants wanted to remain linked to the UK. But democracy and the EU never sit well together. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Anyway, Europeans are slowly waking up to the reality as we see in Italy, Spain. I think you'll find it's called the Fourth Reich. So democracy when it's inconvenient is labelled the Fourth Reich? Straight out the EU playbook. I feel you misunderstand. The ‘fourth reich’ is a label given to the EU by some anti-EU zealots. Well I couldn't possibly comment on that. But if you wanted an example of EU's true colours, look how it's now referring to The Falkland Islands as Islas Malvinas. That's straight forward political posturing, nothing to do with trade whatsoever. But in one act, they've aligned 27 nations against UK interests whether individual member states are in-line or not. “Peter Stano, a spokesperson for the European External Action Service – the EU’s diplomatic service – said: “The EU member states have not changed their views/positions concerning the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The EU is not in a situation to express any position on the Falklands/Malvinas, as there has not been any council [of member states] discussion or decision on this matter.” He added: “The EU does not take any position on such issues without a council mandate.” You're just reinforcing to me EU arrogance. Here we have Peter Stano (who he?) making pronouncements on behalf of 27 nations regarding sensitive political policies. Did he consult with them? Do they all agree? This absolutely typifies EU 'one size fits all' attitude. “On Wednesday, British diplomats requested that the European Council president, Charles Michel, “clarify” the bloc’s position. However, citing Brexit, an EU official reportedly told the Financial Times: “This was agreed by 27 member states and the Celac countries.” Well in the unlikely event every nation was consulted and agreed it shows EU interests are not aligned with the UK. We fought a war to secure the independence of the Falkland Islands. The inhabitants wanted to remain linked to the UK. But democracy and the EU never sit well together." How does the EU recognising the name Malvinas *alongside* Falklands in any way impact the link between the islands and the U.K? I’m British and have no problem with Malvinas being used if people choose to do so. And what are EU interests? It’s a bloc of 27 sovereign countries. Do none of their interests align with the U.K? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Falkland Islands" Mm, isn't it terrible that the EU has diplomatic courtesy and uses both names? Falkland Islanders got no vote in the EU referendum in 2016. The Falkland Island Government wanted to stay in the EU. Quote from the Falkland Islands Association: "- Falkland Islanders might lose the right, as British citizens, to free access and movement within the EU; - Quota and tariff-free access to the European single market would be put at risk; - EU funding, particularly for environmental conservation, would probably be lost; and - Argentina might be encouraged to take advantage of the loss of protection that the Falkland Islands enjoy from the Treaty of Rome and its successor treaties. Economically, the EU is the largest single market for Falkland Islands' exports of fish, meat, wool and other agricultural products. These total about £180 million a year, representing over 70% of the Falkland Islands' GDP. Restricted access of any form could, the FIG paper said, be 'catastrophic' to the Falkland Islands' economy and future development." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"spot on, this country lost our youth in 2 world wars and have never been thanked. They just want to pull us down all the time. THE LEFT WING AGENDA IS MID BOGGLING" You know who else lost their youth in WW2? The USA. Russia. Poland. France. Germany. Japan. Italy. Canada. Belgium. Finland etc etc. I’m not sure what a conflict from 80 years ago has to do with anything now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Biden stopped all trade negotiations with the US, pretends hes Irish and hates the UK He also wants us back in the EU So we can be his puppet under one roof and control europe easier. Dont ever forget what he did to the Afgan people and UK TROOPS by ordering a midnight runner" Are you aware that literally none of this is true? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"spot on, this country lost our youth in 2 world wars and have never been thanked. They just want to pull us down all the time. THE LEFT WING AGENDA IS MID BOGGLING" Do you have any details on "THE LEFT WING AGENDA"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Biden stopped all trade negotiations with the US, pretends hes Irish and hates the UK He also wants us back in the EU So we can be his puppet under one roof and control europe easier. Dont ever forget what he did to the Afgan people and UK TROOPS by ordering a midnight runner" Trump negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan, cut out the Afghan govt and allowed the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners but other than that, yeah, Biden | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Biden stopped all trade negotiations with the US, pretends hes Irish and hates the UK He also wants us back in the EU So we can be his puppet under one roof and control europe easier. Dont ever forget what he did to the Afgan people and UK TROOPS by ordering a midnight runner" "Are you aware that literally none of this is true?" Well, Biden did stop any trade negotiations between the UK and the US, which I assume is what the poster meant. And Biden does keep claiming that he's Irish, despite him being a third-generation American, and having a job that non-US citizens are barred from. And there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he hates the UK, though he hasn't explicitly said so. But the EU and puppet and control bits might not be true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The new trade deals been sort. The UK economy is on the up faster than major eu players like Germany. But as i said and your right it could be loads better if it wasn't for weak leaders in this country stopping the will of the people. We should have triggered article 50 the next day and by now we would have been in a far better place, but too many MP's would not accept the result and caused delay and doubt. BIDEN didnt help either, a UK hating idiot thats now the most powerful man in the world, scary! How would triggering article 50 immediately have helped? We weren’t ready to leave when we enacted it at the time we did. And what was Biden’s role in Brexit negotiations? " We should have stayed in the single market upon leaving the EU. Literally noone said anything about leaving the single market. The lies from the brexit side have been laid bare and still people refuse to accept the reality of what has happened since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"Biden stopped all trade negotiations with the US, pretends hes Irish and hates the UK He also wants us back in the EU So we can be his puppet under one roof and control europe easier. Dont ever forget what he did to the Afgan people and UK TROOPS by ordering a midnight runner Are you aware that literally none of this is true? Well, Biden did stop any trade negotiations between the UK and the US, which I assume is what the poster meant. And Biden does keep claiming that he's Irish, despite him being a third-generation American, and having a job that non-US citizens are barred from. And there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he hates the UK, though he hasn't explicitly said so. But the EU and puppet and control bits might not be true." I’d like to see this circumstantial ‘evidence’ that Biden ‘hates the U.K’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"We should have stayed in the single market upon leaving the EU." That would have been an appalling decision, achieving nothing and pissing off both sides. The main reason for leaving was to release the UK from EU restrictions, and to make new trading partnerships. Leaving the EU but staying in the single market would mean that we were still subject to EU regulations and restrictions, but we no longer had any say in how they were created. I can see why some people wanted to remain in the EU, and I can see why some wanted to leave, but giving up our top table seat and then clinging on to the EU's apron strings would have been the worst possible choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The new trade deals been sort. The UK economy is on the up faster than major eu players like Germany. But as i said and your right it could be loads better if it wasn't for weak leaders in this country stopping the will of the people. We should have triggered article 50 the next day and by now we would have been in a far better place, but too many MP's would not accept the result and caused delay and doubt. BIDEN didnt help either, a UK hating idiot thats now the most powerful man in the world, scary! How would triggering article 50 immediately have helped? We weren’t ready to leave when we enacted it at the time we did. And what was Biden’s role in Brexit negotiations? We should have stayed in the single market upon leaving the EU. Literally noone said anything about leaving the single market. The lies from the brexit side have been laid bare and still people refuse to accept the reality of what has happened since. " Indeed many brexiters reassured us that we’d not leave the single market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"The new trade deals been sort. The UK economy is on the up faster than major eu players like Germany. But as i said and your right it could be loads better if it wasn't for weak leaders in this country stopping the will of the people. We should have triggered article 50 the next day and by now we would have been in a far better place, but too many MP's would not accept the result and caused delay and doubt. BIDEN didnt help either, a UK hating idiot thats now the most powerful man in the world, scary! How would triggering article 50 immediately have helped? We weren’t ready to leave when we enacted it at the time we did. And what was Biden’s role in Brexit negotiations? We should have stayed in the single market upon leaving the EU. Literally noone said anything about leaving the single market. The lies from the brexit side have been laid bare and still people refuse to accept the reality of what has happened since. " Yougov survey last month found that 71% of people who voted leave, would do so again should they have another vote. What can you do, people just don't want to face reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"We should have stayed in the single market upon leaving the EU. That would have been an appalling decision, achieving nothing and pissing off both sides. The main reason for leaving was to release the UK from EU restrictions, and to make new trading partnerships. Leaving the EU but staying in the single market would mean that we were still subject to EU regulations and restrictions, but we no longer had any say in how they were created. I can see why some people wanted to remain in the EU, and I can see why some wanted to leave, but giving up our top table seat and then clinging on to the EU's apron strings would have been the worst possible choice." We’d have been economically far better off remaining in the SM. And we’d not have lost our rights. We’d have left the EU, and thus achieved Brexit. Of course the arch brexiters would have hated it, but they’re all keen now to say that Brexit has been mishandled anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"I’d like to see this circumstantial ‘evidence’ that Biden ‘hates the U.K’" The obvious example is that he refused to talk to the BBC, saying "BBC? I'm Irish". You can look it up on YouTube if you want to check the context and decide for yourself what he meant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |