Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueHammer85 said:
Farage Show. LBC just now

Caller : ‘Just want to thank you for everything you’ve done in Politics the last couple of years. erm basically I was an avid remainer and then it occurred to me, leaving was the best course of action. Something monumental happened and I realised we had to leave.’

Farage ‘Thankyou - And what was that Monumental moment ?’

Caller : ‘Well basically I got kicked in the head by a horse ‘
Click to expand...


 
Should stoke have the vote removed from them on a second referendum? Feel for that presenter she must of wanted to just scream cut



 
Chris in London said:
Almost certainly, but at what cost? We would probably lose the rebate. We would probably be required to join the Eurozone. We would probably be required to join the Schengen zone. There would probably be a reduction on our current ability to veto certain EU legislation.

We would be in a substantially weaker position than we are in now, and (paradoxically) would be far less able than we currently are to ensure we do not become part of a federal union.

And we would have achieved precisely nothing other than to voluntarily weaken our own position.
Click to expand...

So we would decide to re join the EU and be expected to follow its direction, no problem with that as long as it’s the will of the people. If you want to be in a union you shouldn’t have veto’s anyhow. At some point people have to decide what they want. Get out and trade or go fully in.
 
hilts said:
So we would decide to re join the EU and be expected to follow its direction, no problem with that as long as it’s the will of the people. If you want to be in a union you shouldn’t have veto’s anyhow. At some point people have to decide what they want. Get out and trade or go fully in.
Click to expand...

Why?

We are a sovereign nation. If for instance a number of other countries want to enter into a common travel area why should we be dragged into that?
 
Chris in London said:
Why?

We are a sovereign nation. If for instance a number of other countries want to enter into a common travel area why should we be dragged into that?
Click to expand...

The answer is in the post it’s not a hard concept, democracy should be simple. The Eu should be federal it becomes more democratic. Pick and choosing what you want and expecting the electorate to accept decisions made on their behalf without asking them will always lead to trouble.
 
hilts said:
The answer is in the post it’s not a hard concept, democracy should be simple. The Eu should be federal it becomes more democratic. Pick and choosing what you want and expecting the electorate to accept decisions made on their behalf without asking them will always lead to trouble.
Click to expand...

The answer isn’t in the post in the slightest. The arrangements we have at the moment have been arrived at by way of agreement between the UK and the rest of the EU. Those arrangements include our opt outs, out vetoes, our rebate. There is nothing unfair or undemocratic about an agreement reached between two parties (us and the EU27), both of whom had democratic mandates to enter into those arrangements. In many respects we have the best of both worlds. We certainly place that at great risk by leaving even we’re we to rejoin.

I repeat, why should either all out or all in be the only options, especially when the current arrangements actually serve us very well as a nation?
 
hgblue said:
In other news, Germany teetering on the brink of recession, maybe those German car manufacturers need us after all eh?
Click to expand...

I posted about this a couple of weeks ago and its not just Germany, there are indicators in the American bond market that a worldwide recession is possible. The indicators in the yield curve are rarely wrong as far as I know and they are negative in a few European countries like Holland and Switzerland as well, it is estimated that if the bonds are held to maturity the losses will be in the trillions. India one of the major emerging markets has had the 4th consecutive quarterly slow down, and Chinese growth is slowing down not helped of course by the trade war with America. And most of the G7 has little room for Fiscal intervention because interest rates are so low. There is more to it but it would need someone far more savvy than me to explain it all.

If a worldwide recession does happen, then everyone is affected not just German car makers.
 
Chris in London said:
The answer isn’t in the post in the slightest. The arrangements we have at the moment have been arrived at by way of agreement between the UK and the rest of the EU. Those arrangements include our opt outs, out vetoes, our rebate. There is nothing unfair or undemocratic about an agreement reached between two parties (us and the EU27), both of whom had democratic mandates to enter into those arrangements. In many respects we have the best of both worlds. We certainly place that at great risk by leaving even we’re we to rejoin.

I repeat, why should either all out or all in be the only options, especially when the current arrangements actually serve us very well as a nation?
Click to expand...

Out of all the countries in the eu would you say we get more benefits or less than other nations?

Secondly if we decided today we didn't like a certain policy of the eu could we get rid of it?
 
hilts said:
Out of all the countries in the eu would you say we get more benefits or less than other nations?

Secondly if we decided today we didn't like a certain policy of the eu could we get rid of it?
Click to expand...
We are net contributors to the budget rather than net recipients but our GDP growth has done better overall than most over the last 30 years so our position of not being all in and having a few opt outs seems to work well for us. It’s a shame the government has been so fervent in keeping austerity going for too long causing a backlash against the wrong target. If there’s one thing to be learned from this whole shit show it’s that you can’t carry on treating large sections of the population like shit because there will be consequences.
 
Blue Hefner said:
I'm not one for usually quoting Collymore but i quite like this

Click to expand...

raw
 
Ban-jani said:
I’ve been thinking about the backstop over the weekend. Would you consider taking the backstop if the power of releasing us from it was taken away from the EU and given to a third party? Possibly an independent panel in the UN or potentially signed over to the US to make the final call?
Click to expand...
That would, in principle, at least reflect a sense of control, supported by arbitration, against which progress could be monitored etc.

But, to be effective it would need to be supported by pre-determined criteria which confirmed what a 'minimum viable border' would look like - you cannot arbitrate against the achievement of something that is not described

Currently the EU stance is essentially nothing that is physical...….. that is not a remotely realistic and exposes the real intention of having the backstop 'unfettered' - total and unlimited control over the setting of the UK's economic and trade policy for as long the EU sees fit.
 
Last edited:
mancity2012_eamo said:
I hear what you're saying mcfc1632 and you have said it often enough. It is an opinion that I saw echoed in the CH4 program last night; Tories at War.
To me the bit in blue above however is the part that gives away the insincerity of the British government's position. They have negotiated all along saying there are answers
and believe these would be easily put in place, while at the same time saying that we need the backstop taken out (the one we asked for) as it will tie us up for God knows how long. Undermines our sovereignty.
As the program also showed, the faction that are trying to take over the Tory Party would actually prefer No Deal. They are not negotiating anything in good faith.
There is a very sinister game being played out in your government and everyone knows it. That's why I can never quite understand your point of view of insisting No Deal is on the table.
I understand the strategy, I just don't accept that point of view, as being a credible way of sorting the actual problem out.

It's all games and power struggles in Westminster and beyond. See who their paymasters are, who is really orchestrating proceedings.
It has little or nothing to do with the lives of people living in a border county in Ireland.
Click to expand...
See my previous reply to BJ about the definition of border controls and arbitration in answer to the first part of your post

Re:

"That's why I can never quite understand your point of view of insisting No Deal is on the table.
I understand the strategy, I just don't accept that point of view, as being a credible way of sorting the actual problem out."

That is how you get pre-determined criteria agreed and not just some bland statement of 'no infrastructure' at or near the border

You may see 'bogeymen' in the background/shadows of the Tory party and I can understand that - I have that concern as well

They are as nothing though to the absolute clear and present danger posed to the health of the UK's interests by the leading ideologues of the EU - who are not in the shadows and control the EU's strategies. They, through the unfettered backstop, would exercise total control of 'an independent' UK's economic and trading policies for as long as they wanted and cause major damage to the UK

For me, as a UK citizen, that is far more concerning than risks in the shadows

IMO, all UK citizens that wish to see the UK's interests protected and the nation prosper should share my views.

Some that don't simply do not understand the topic, some others are just too pig-headed to be objective, whilst others...…..​
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top