Another new Brexit thread

[Vic]

I would suggest that - unless you explain why - you are also not a more valid source of information over Trimble.

Cannot remember your post - but I thought that Trimble explainrd the primacy of consent really well.

And from that it is quite easy to see the Irish and EU games being played

Trimble was there in the thick of it - sorry - but, for me, he is more credible than BM nembers

"Valid source"? I can google. You can't even search BM for my post.

My post was precisely about consent in NI. Happy to repeat it...

Two problems: I think Trimble's argument was rejected in the Miller case (which also dealt with McCord) and if it's consent he's bothered about, where is the consent of the people of NI to leaving the EU?

And that's without his wanting to use arguments from the ERG (hardly a "bottom up" approach in NI) which would not have consent in NI (including from the party he led in 1998).

If it's consent in NI he wants, revoke article 50.

I'll add now that he rubbished Blair and Major when they said before the referendum that Brexit would threaten the GFA, so now he has to pretend the threat isn't real. 2016: "There’s absolutely no connection between the peace process and the European Union ... I think this is just scaremongering.” 2019: going to court because he says the backstop breaks the GFA.

 

[mcfc1632]

You still going on about that.
He was a civil servant acting under the instructions of the government, which is what civil servants do.

He was/is an utter incompetent undertaking a role that he was/is wholly unqualified to perform - that is indeed not unusual for SCS grades

His incompetence has done real damage to the UK

Of course the person giving him direction is equally to blame and I have been clear on my views about May

It seems that he will be replaced by someone that has real experience and capabilities - that profile of person should have been installed at the start. Robbins has done major damage for 3 years and it will now be difficult to unpick the bollocks of an agreement that the EU have been able to dictate.

 

[mcfc1632]

"Valid source"? I can google. You can't even search BM for my post.

My post was precisely about consent in NI. Happy to repeat it...

Two problems: I think Trimble's argument was rejected in the Miller case (which also dealt with McCord) and if it's consent he's bothered about, where is the consent of the people of NI to leaving the EU?

And that's without his wanting to use arguments from the ERG (hardly a "bottom up" approach in NI) which would not have consent in NI (including from the party he led in 1998).

If it's consent in NI he wants, revoke article 50.

I'll add now that he rubbished Blair and Major when they said before the referendum that Brexit would threaten the GFA, so now he has to pretend the threat isn't real. 2016: "There’s absolutely no connection between the peace process and the European Union ... I think this is just scaremongering.” 2019: going to court because he says the backstop breaks the GFA.

I did not try to find it

 

[Rascal]

That's a good point

The more Remainers are honest about the simple and undeniable fact that Remaining = increasing levels of - eventually total Economic, Financial and Political union the better

I don't believe it does. Remain was about the status quo, nobody promoted the vision of what you post, its an assumption driven by the anti -EU lobby.

I am on record here saying that I would have supported exactly that vision, but it was not an option on the ballot. I wish the option was there and that it was possible to be part of a Federal Europe with an elected President, EU armed forces, a powerful and accountable central bank with a singular economic policy. I see that as progress not regression. Remaining/status quo gives us none of that, it would still be a collection of sovereign states with a common goal rather than an integrated state with a common purpose. That's a nuanced difference between remain/status quo and what we could have with a more visionary approach.

I have not seen any argument that says a fully federal state would be a bad thing beyond taking away from British exceptionalism and the mythical view of national sovereignty. If self government was so important why is that the UK act of union proved so successful. We have four disparate and distinct nations sharing a currency, a central bank, armed forces, a common head of state and a singular economic policy. Instead we as a nation have become introspective and isolationist at a time when the rise of China and the re=emergence of Russia are threatening the world stage. A fully federal EU would lessen our reliance on the USA and the EU could become a bulwark between those emergent economies and those established superpowers.

Have you got a cogent argument why a fully federal EU (not the status quo/remain) would be a bad thing?

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Everyone seems very expectant, but I think the short parliamentary timeline between now and Halloween gives Boris the perfect excuse to do nothing at all and blame it on other people.

He's a Tory.... they do fuck all anyway. The last three years has shown that as a party they are inept and useless having achieved nothing but the implementation of legislation that strips dignity and money from the poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the old.

 

[cibaman]

No we wouldn't, it would be as divisive as this fiasco in its own right. We'll not turn down any chance of reunification though.

Hasn't the ROI government also said that they wouldn't want unification to take place as a result of a very slim majority in NI? They've seen the divisiveness created by a 52/48 vote and would want a much clearer majority in the north before proceeding. Given that the UK government are required to call a border poll if there's likely to be a majority in NI in favour of unification, no matter how small that majority, doesn't it create the situation whereby it could be Dublin that resists the border poll?

The other issue of course, is that we've seen the problems of a simple yes/no vote without agreeing future arrangements. Wouldn't it be sensible to have an extensive debate on how the north would be governed (ie the degree of devolvement) before proceeding with a poll?

 

[Saddleworth2]

I don't believe it does. Remain was about the status quo, nobody promoted the vision of what you post, its an assumption driven by the anti -EU lobby.

I am on record here saying that I would have supported exactly that vision, but it was not an option on the ballot. I wish the option was there and that it was possible to be part of a Federal Europe with an elected President, EU armed forces, a powerful and accountable central bank with a singular economic policy. I see that as progress not regression. Remaining/status quo gives us none of that, it would still be a collection of sovereign states with a common goal rather than an integrated state with a common purpose. That's a nuanced difference between remain/status quo and what we could have with a more visionary approach.

I have not seen any argument that says a fully federal state would be a bad thing beyond taking away from British exceptionalism and the mythical view of national sovereignty. If self government was so important why is that the UK act of union proved so successful. We have four disparate and distinct nations sharing a currency, a central bank, armed forces, a common head of state and a singular economic policy. Instead we as a nation have become introspective and isolationist at a time when the rise of China and the re=emergence of Russia are threatening the world stage. A fully federal EU would lessen our reliance on the USA and the EU could become a bulwark between those emergent economies and those established superpowers.

Have you got a cogent argument why a fully federal EU (not the status quo/remain) would be a bad thing?

I asked exactly the same question a week or so ago without a response from our Brexit chums.

 

[George Hannah]

So Hollande was telling the truth to suit your agenda and Juncker was lying to suit your agenda.

I really don't have one, just a point of view. It's that Juncker is simply the PR frontman, the EU's federal agenda is determined in Berlin and to a lesser degree in Paris and elsewhere.

 

[Rascal]

I really don't have one, just a point of view. It's that Juncker is simply the PR frontman, the EU's federal agenda is determined in Berlin and to a lesser degree in Paris and elsewhere.

To say it is determined in Berlin is just plain wrong. It is this sort of idiocy that has totally side tracked any reasonable debate on the EU.

Trump blames German influence on the malignancy of the EU central banks loose monetary policy which he says hurts American exporters, Southern European countries blame Germany for austerity, Fucking idiots like Bill Cash described German dominance as a grave concern, obviously harking back to the days of Nazism because the man is a fucking lunatic. Other European nations are fearful of Germany rising again but its bollox. In Brussels there are more French, Spanish, Italian and Belgian citizens working in the commission and Parliament than Germans. The Italians hold more of the commissions top posts than Germany. The Germans in Brussels tend to be Francophile and do not report back to Berlin. Selmayer is viewed with suspicion by Berlin and he is fucking German. It was Macron who proposed Von Der Leyen and it was the German Social Democrats and Greens who opposed her.

The ECBs loose monetary policy is abhorred by German savers, on other matters such as emissions targets, takeover rulings and energy policy have all been decided against Berlins wishes. Lagarde , a Frenchie will take over at the ECB.

You totally misunderstand how power works in German, it does not have the centralised core that the UK has, it is regional and it is marginal and in 2011 the Polish foreign minister was more concerned with German inaction than anything else. And you must be aware of those two countries history.

How can people like yourself ever hope to convince people Brexit is in the best interests of the people when you do not even understand how the EU works.

 

[Vic]

I did not try to find it

Is this a thing now? Responding at length to posts you haven't read, and to posts you haven't even seen to explain why, and still don't respond to the points made.

 

[George Hannah]

To say it is determined in Berlin is just plain wrong. It is this sort of idiocy that has totally side tracked any reasonable debate on the EU.

Trump blames German influence on the malignancy of the EU central banks loose monetary policy which he says hurts American exporters, Southern European countries blame Germany for austerity, Fucking idiots like Bill Cash described German dominance as a grave concern, obviously harking back to the days of Nazism because the man is a fucking lunatic. Other European nations are fearful of Germany rising again but its bollox. In Brussels there are more French, Spanish, Italian and Belgian citizens working in the commission and Parliament than Germans. The Italians hold more of the commissions top posts than Germany. The Germans in Brussels tend to be Francophile and do not report back to Berlin. Selmayer is viewed with suspicion by Berlin and he is fucking German. It was Macron who proposed Von Der Leyen and it was the German Social Democrats and Greens who opposed her.

The ECBs loose monetary policy is abhorred by German savers, on other matters such as emissions targets, takeover rulings and energy policy have all been decided against Berlins wishes. Lagarde , a Frenchie will take over at the ECB.

You totally misunderstand how power works in German, it does not have the centralised core that the UK has, it is regional and it is marginal and in 2011 the Polish foreign minister was more concerned with German inaction than anything else. And you must be aware of those two countries history.

How can people like yourself ever hope to convince people Brexit is in the best interests of the people when you do not even understand how the EU works.

It is your first sentence that is 'just plain wrong'. Who blames who for what changes daily and systems of government do indeed differ but your total failure to understand the fundamental federalist purpose of the EU is the real 'idiocy' and renders sensible discussion virtually impossible. Read the treaties.

 

[Vic]

I really don't have one, just a point of view. It's that Juncker is simply the PR frontman, the EU's federal agenda is determined in Berlin and to a lesser degree in Paris and elsewhere.

So he's a lackey and a frontman for Berlin and Paris so when he says that a United States of Europe isn't at all likely it's to throw us all off the scent? Too complicated for me.

 

[dave_blue12]

To say it is determined in Berlin is just plain wrong. It is this sort of idiocy that has totally side tracked any reasonable debate on the EU.

Trump blames German influence on the malignancy of the EU central banks loose monetary policy which he says hurts American exporters, Southern European countries blame Germany for austerity, Fucking idiots like Bill Cash described German dominance as a grave concern, obviously harking back to the days of Nazism because the man is a fucking lunatic. Other European nations are fearful of Germany rising again but its bollox. In Brussels there are more French, Spanish, Italian and Belgian citizens working in the commission and Parliament than Germans. The Italians hold more of the commissions top posts than Germany. The Germans in Brussels tend to be Francophile and do not report back to Berlin. Selmayer is viewed with suspicion by Berlin and he is fucking German. It was Macron who proposed Von Der Leyen and it was the German Social Democrats and Greens who opposed her.

The ECBs loose monetary policy is abhorred by German savers, on other matters such as emissions targets, takeover rulings and energy policy have all been decided against Berlins wishes. Lagarde , a Frenchie will take over at the ECB.

You totally misunderstand how power works in German, it does not have the centralised core that the UK has, it is regional and it is marginal and in 2011 the Polish foreign minister was more concerned with German inaction than anything else. And you must be aware of those two countries history.

How can people like yourself ever hope to convince people Brexit is in the best interests of the people when you do not even understand how the EU works.

Pro Brexit poster in no idea what he’s talking about shocker !

This thread and the previous iterations are full of them.

Well done for taking the time but I fear your effort will be wasted.

 

[blueinsa]

Pro Brexit poster in no idea what he’s talking about shocker !

This thread and the previous iterations are full of them.

Well done for taking the time but I fear your effort will be wasted.

Well it’s an opinion I suppose but that’s all it is.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

It is your first sentence that is 'just plain wrong'. Who blames who for what changes daily and systems of government do indeed differ but your total failure to understand the fundamental federalist purpose of the EU is the real 'idiocy' and renders sensible discussion virtually impossible. Read the treaties.

You can rest assured tho...... it will never be the UK's fault always someone else.

 

[Vic]

I probably shouldn't bother as no Leave voter was influenced by anything that Banks and others spent loads of money on to influence them, but here's a review of The Great Hack about what Cambridge Analytica did.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...il&utm_campaign=FilmToday&CMP=filmtoday_email

 

[BobKowalski]

To say it is determined in Berlin is just plain wrong. It is this sort of idiocy that has totally side tracked any reasonable debate on the EU.

Trump blames German influence on the malignancy of the EU central banks loose monetary policy which he says hurts American exporters, Southern European countries blame Germany for austerity, Fucking idiots like Bill Cash described German dominance as a grave concern, obviously harking back to the days of Nazism because the man is a fucking lunatic. Other European nations are fearful of Germany rising again but its bollox. In Brussels there are more French, Spanish, Italian and Belgian citizens working in the commission and Parliament than Germans. The Italians hold more of the commissions top posts than Germany. The Germans in Brussels tend to be Francophile and do not report back to Berlin. Selmayer is viewed with suspicion by Berlin and he is fucking German. It was Macron who proposed Von Der Leyen and it was the German Social Democrats and Greens who opposed her.

The ECBs loose monetary policy is abhorred by German savers, on other matters such as emissions targets, takeover rulings and energy policy have all been decided against Berlins wishes. Lagarde , a Frenchie will take over at the ECB.

You totally misunderstand how power works in German, it does not have the centralised core that the UK has, it is regional and it is marginal and in 2011 the Polish foreign minister was more concerned with German inaction than anything else. And you must be aware of those two countries history.

How can people like yourself ever hope to convince people Brexit is in the best interests of the people when you do not even understand how the EU works.

Welcome to the last three years. Literally no one advocating Brexit on here understands how the EU works. You tell them and they dismiss it out of hand. It’s not so much the not knowing but the absolute refusal to find out or learn that is so bizarre.

 

[blueinsa]

I probably shouldn't bother as no Leave voter was influenced by anything that Banks and others spent loads of money on to influence them, but here's a review of The Great Hack about what Cambridge Analytica did.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/23/the-great-hack-review-cambridge-analytica-facebook-carole-cadwalladr-arron-banks?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0ZpbG1Ub2RheS0xOTA3MjM=&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=FilmToday&CMP=filmtoday_email

You really shouldn't bother unless you are willing to admit that all parties, all campaigns and all elections are targeted by social media to gain votes.

Do that and its a discussion as to whether we as a society should allow it or not.

Bemoan because you lost rather than won because of it and its just sour grapes im afraid.

 

[Rascal]

It is your first sentence that is 'just plain wrong'. Who blames who for what changes daily and systems of government do indeed differ but your total failure to understand the fundamental federalist purpose of the EU is the real 'idiocy' and renders sensible discussion virtually impossible. Read the treaties.

You blamed Germany.

I have just shown you why that is bollox. I wouldn't mind if I was a rabid remainer which I am not, I just don't think making scurrilous remarks helps any debate at all.

The culture of blame for this countries inadequacy is rather stupid, look inwards to find the real culprits of it.

 

[johnnytapia]

I don't believe it does. Remain was about the status quo, nobody promoted the vision of what you post, its an assumption driven by the anti -EU lobby.

I am on record here saying that I would have supported exactly that vision, but it was not an option on the ballot. I wish the option was there and that it was possible to be part of a Federal Europe with an elected President, EU armed forces, a powerful and accountable central bank with a singular economic policy. I see that as progress not regression. Remaining/status quo gives us none of that, it would still be a collection of sovereign states with a common goal rather than an integrated state with a common purpose. That's a nuanced difference between remain/status quo and what we could have with a more visionary approach.

I have not seen any argument that says a fully federal state would be a bad thing beyond taking away from British exceptionalism and the mythical view of national sovereignty. If self government was so important why is that the UK act of union proved so successful. We have four disparate and distinct nations sharing a currency, a central bank, armed forces, a common head of state and a singular economic policy. Instead we as a nation have become introspective and isolationist at a time when the rise of China and the re=emergence of Russia are threatening the world stage. A fully federal EU would lessen our reliance on the USA and the EU could become a bulwark between those emergent economies and those established superpowers.

Have you got a cogent argument why a fully federal EU (not the status quo/remain) would be a bad thing?

Yes to more of this please (from The Guardian, that well-known supporter of all things Brexit):
"It can be frustratingly difficult to establish exactly what the EU's money is spent on in any one year, especially if it is more recent. Many programmes or projects are advertised according to their multiyear budgets, there is an inevitable time lag between each stage of awarding money, spending it and assessing how well it was spent, and the main "beneficiaries" website which enables anybody to search out how money was spent gives project titles in their original language only and no links to details of what the money was actually spent on.

Search that website for "golf", for example, to discover that the European taxpayer doled out €381,000 in grants to a long list of mostly sports and other hobby clubs in several member states in 2011, including tennis, climbing, bridge, petanque, a hotel and golf resort in Ireland and what looks like a restaurant in Belgium. There is no explanation as to why these payments were warranted.

The EU staged a seven-year PR campaign in the province of Andalucia in southern Spain. A search to find out how much this cost unexpectedly showed a long list of grants to unions including football associations in countries such as Spain, France and the UK (and, curiously, the BBC) – again with no indication as to why these highly-paid representatives needed public support.

Such spending makes it easy for critics to find laughable or shocking examples of ridiculous EU-funded projects. The Eurosceptic thinktank Open Europe, for example, publishes an annual list of the most wasteful schemes. Past examples include money for Austrian farmers to feel greater emotional connection with their land, and funding for a ski slope on a flat and unusually warm island off the coast of Denmark."