Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grunge said:
we had already opted out of "ever closer political ties", it was one of the concessions that Cameron got from the EU before the referendum.
Click to expand...
Another one missing the point, entirely.

I am one of many NOT HAPPY about these decisions that "Europe" keeps making, and doesn't want to see "Europe" become. Clearly they think differently to what they want "Europe" to be. I am not satisfied with "Oh just use a veto" I want them to STOP.

So unless they scale back these plans, I do not advocate being a member.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
Yeah but it would be for the people of Scotland to decide for themselves if they fancied a shitshow or not
Click to expand...
Hmmmm - and in these last few pages lies the start of people realising why those that think Scotland is less likely to leave the UK if the UK has already left the EU - might have some idea of reality

And, therefore, those that decry that opinion...………….
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Another one missing the point, entirely.

I am one of many NOT HAPPY about these decisions that "Europe" keeps making, and doesn't want to see "Europe" become. Clearly they think differently to what they want "Europe" to be. I am not satisfied with "Oh just use a veto" I want them to STOP.

So unless they scale back these plans, I do not advocate being a member.
Click to expand...

If I can be so bold as to add an edit to that so that people understand crystal clearly how us leavers, still on this bloody thread , feel.

So unless they scale back these plans I do not advocate being a member of the political union. I don’t need more politics, I don’t want to live in a federal Europe with an army , flag , national anthem etc. I just don’t see why it needs to integrate further politically and culturally

However that said I do see the benefits of the economic club and that is why I am not opposed to economic alignment and have campaigned for being a member of efta which is a good compromise.

Political integration nah

Economic alignment tick.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Who on earth would say the English should have a vote on Scottish independence?

that would be plainly wrong

So this poster who suggested that had been said is either lying or being very disingenuous

What might have been commented upon is the simple fact that 'if' the English did have a say (of course entirely hypothetically and inappropriate) then a different view might come forward

The 'misrepresentation' of what other people say is (another) 'last resort of the scoundrel' IMO
Click to expand...
Of course, if that's the case, the poster who keeps commenting on what would happen in the event that English voters could vote in a Scottish independence referendum must really want to see the back of Scotland or assumes that a majority of the English population wants to.
 
‘Take it or leave it’ lasted as long as Johnson’s other ‘firm’ promises. Ms Arcuri being the exception.

‘No10: PM to call leaders of Sweden, Denmark and Poland today. Still no plans for any trips to European capitals, and no EU counter offer yet. I hear Cabinet ministers are expecting one though, by Thursday/Friday’ @TomNewtonDunn
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
If I can be so bold as to add an edit to that so that people understand crystal clearly how us leavers, still on this bloody thread , feel.

So unless they scale back these plans I do not advocate being a member of the political union. I don’t need more politics, I don’t want to live in a federal Europe with an army , flag , national anthem etc. I just don’t see why it needs to integrate further politically and culturally

However that said I do see the benefits of the economic club and that is why I am not opposed to economic alignment and have campaigned for being a member of efta which is a good compromise.

Political integration nah

Economic alignment tick.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for all remainers, but the political alignment is either so minimal, or in some cases has improved standards, that its a small price to pay for being in the single market and the benefits that brings.

Which I guess is at the heart of the divide. Each side sees the same thing as fundamentally positive or negative.
 
joe123 said:
Can't speak for all remainers, but the political alignment is either so minimal, or in some cases has improved standards, that its a small price to pay for being in the single market and the benefits that brings.

Which I guess is at the heart of the divide. Each side sees the same thing as fundamentally positive or negative.
Click to expand...
It is now. But then they said that before, and Maastricht came along. Then Lisbon. What will the next treaty order it's members to do in order to remain part of the "club"?

If your answer to this is "but we have a veto", i'm afraid you'll never quite understand leaver's ire about this topic.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
If I can be so bold as to add an edit to that so that people understand crystal clearly how us leavers, still on this bloody thread , feel.

So unless they scale back these plans I do not advocate being a member of the political union. I don’t need more politics, I don’t want to live in a federal Europe with an army , flag , national anthem etc. I just don’t see why it needs to integrate further politically and culturally

However that said I do see the benefits of the economic club and that is why I am not opposed to economic alignment and have campaigned for being a member of efta which is a good compromise.

Political integration nah

Economic alignment tick.
Click to expand...

Economic alignment requires a level of political integration. You can be out of the EU and be in the Single Market like Norway but Norway still has to abide by the rules and laws that govern the Single Market. And the rules and laws are set by 27 other countries not Norway. Absenting the political side of the coin just means you can’t influence, propose or set those rules and laws.

Don’t get me wrong I can live with that as it means Freedom of Movement etc and maybe even a majority of the country can live with it but the Brexit Party et al would not live with it.

Even a bog standard FTA means we have to accept EU rules and standards as a pre-requisite ie the ‘level playing field’ plus we would still have Dublin demanding the border status quo be maintained otherwise no FTA.

This is an argument and fight over power and who wields it. Trade is incidental. Even the U.K. Govt accepts we will not get what our economy requires. There will be barriers and there will be increased friction on trade. The only question is how much, who gets to set the terms and how do we prevent the peace accord in NI unravelling. And we have about 10 days to do this is in.
 
BobKowalski said:
Economic alignment requires a level of political integration. You can be out of the EU and be in the Single Market like Norway but Norway still has to abide by the rules and laws that govern the Single Market. And the rules and laws are set by 27 other countries not Norway. Absenting the political side of the coin just means you can’t influence, propose or set those rules and laws.

Don’t get me wrong I can live with that as it means Freedom of Movement etc and maybe even a majority of the country can live with it but the Brexit Party et al would not live with it.

Even a bog standard FTA means we have to accept EU rules and standards as a pre-requisite ie the ‘level playing field’ plus we would still have Dublin demanding the border status quo be maintained otherwise no FTA.

This is an argument and fight over power and who wields it. Trade is incidental. Even the U.K. Govt accepts we will not get what our economy requires. There will be barriers and there will be increased friction on trade. The only question is how much, who gets to set the terms and how do we prevent the peace accord in NI unravelling. And we have about 10 days to do this is in.
Click to expand...
When did Mexico, Japan and Canada become members of the EU?
 
blueinsa said:
Doesn't stop you and others pretending you do.
Click to expand...
What a daft response.

"I don't know what he's proposing."

"You're pretending you do know."

Go on then, what am I pretending to know?
 
Last edited:
west didsblue said:
You possibly don't remember but the nationalists were forced to say exactly how it would be implemented and wrote a 1000 page document with a lot of technical detail, so the population knew exactly what they were voting for (or at least had the opportunity to find out).
For Brexit, the means of departure were kept deliberately vague which has directly resulted in the mess we're in now where no-one can get a majority for the means of implementation. If the Brexit vote was run along the same lines as the Indyref vote there would be no argument.
Click to expand...

Of course, the reason why the means of departure were kept vague during the EU referendum was precisely because during Indyref the wheels started to come off the Yes campaign as soon as they started to drill down into the detail.
 
SWP's back said:
Am I right in thinking that Boris has to take his deal to the EU on the 17th and it's likely they won't accept it.

Then he has to take it to UK Parliament (if the EU have accepted it) and it's likely to get voted down anyway?

Then he'd be forced into asking for another extension?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's not a "deal". Please stop calling it that. It's simply a cunning plan to present something that's knowingly unacceptable to the EU/ROI but will buy support at home. This then puts the blame for "no deal" on the EU/ROI.

The only "deal" in town is May's WA, this lot aren't getting anything else that's acceptable to the EU and Parliament, and haven't actually been trying. Also "No deal" isn't happening and therefore we're left with Extension, by hook or by crook, or revoke A50.


grunge said:
https://infacts.org/if-pm-breaks-la...tyyeKrSGoIX_hhS1MhJhchhNHjq1KwXz0vsOghKx3FqRA

From a lawyer I know, this seems legally sound.

hold on to your butts.
Click to expand...



giphy.gif
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Well done for not explaining it yourself.
Click to expand...

I think the reason those type of deals were rejected out of hand at the time was being at odds with having a land border with the EU/the GFA (would need to re-read up on them tho to be certain)

edit, yeah, the tariff-free trade comes at the cost of meeting EU regs, enforced at the border, so we'd still need that solution for Ireland. without being a trade expert, seems like we're putting red tape in place to replicate what we've already got.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top