gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Each other ffs!The thread is mainly inhabited by posters forever quoting economic news. I'm not sure who their audience is tbh.
Each other ffs!The thread is mainly inhabited by posters forever quoting economic news. I'm not sure who their audience is tbh.
20% is a bad guess unless your circle is unusually EU reliant.Think it’s a lot more than some, but to say how many would be a complete guess, so I’ll guess Lets’s pick a number from the air though just going off people I’m friendly with, 20%. So going with 20% are suffering or having difficulties from the previous governments agreement ,and as far as I know nobody has gained anything positive from it, though suppose some might have,.Surely improving the agreement with closer EU co operation and alignment has to be a good thing. At least this government seem to agree.
I know a lot of small business owners, food producers as part of my own business circle. As part of my group of friends a few musicians. So maybe 20% is high or maybe not said it was a guess.20% is a bad guess unless your circle is unusually EU reliant.
Industries that were reliant on EU workers saw increased wages so saying nobody is incorrect.
Anyhow arguing over something that has already happened is pointless.
I have zero problems with co-operation with the EU. It will be interesting to see how things pan out over the course of this parliament.I know a lot of small business owners, food producers as part of my own business circle. As part of my group of friends a few musicians. So maybe 20% is high or maybe not said it was a guess.
Doesn’t change the point though. I, and going off polls, the majority in the country think we’d be better off with closer alignment in many ways from business, to science, climate, defence and security, leisure, which I think we’ll get. Do you think we’ll be better or worse off?
I agree but that's not the point I'm making, my point is about the fundamental of having to join the EU as a political organisation as opposed to a trading bloc. If this was the case then a simple trading relationship would be enough? Political alliance is not why the common market was initially created.
Why do we need a closer military cooperation with the EU? Remember that the EU controls no army, has no generals and has no military capability whatosever so today it offers absolutely nothing in military terms. Why is it required at all other than to enact a power grab so that rather troubingly the EU can exert its own foreign policy?
We already cooperate very easily with other countries militarily and we have done so for nearly 100 years, a political alliance honestly is not required.
Yes and the crux of Brexit is that the UK electorate has always rejected ever closer union and this was reinstated at the referendum so I just ask you how could we therefore possibly remain within it?Political alliance was there from the start.
....DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples, DECIDED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action in eliminating the barriers which divide Europe...
Yes and the crux of Brexit is that the UK electorate has always rejected ever closer union
That argument falls at the start. If "ever closer union" was in the original treaty, then the first referendum (endorsing membership) obviously means the UK electorate has not always rejected ever closer union. Sorry, but I didn't read the rest as it was based on a false premise, so, like your good self, "I'm not too interested in what you say about the intentions of its foundation".Yes and the crux of Brexit is that the UK electorate has always rejected ever closer union and this was reinstated at the referendum so I just ask you how could we therefore possibly remain within it?
I'm not too interested in what you say about the intentions of its foundation because you're basically expressing the view of Europeans and European politicians but it isn't the UK view. I am British, I only care about what the UK intended for the EU given we were a founding member and we never intended for it to become what it is today. The British seemingly support a more conservative and smaller state and this is the opposite of what the EU is.
I think many on here miss that there are few who believe in this further integration of everything. That view isn't representative of the UK electorate where the majority are leavers, skeptics or they just don't care. You can see that in the energy for European elections where turnouts were always well below 40%.
As a result, whatever the EU was or is, the argument to remain a part of it was lost and whatever the EU's founding principles are they just aren't reflected in the UK. So I again can only ask how could we ever remain a part of something that we fundamentally disagreed with and largely couldn't change?
They voted for what you have just said, a common market. A common market of independent nation states, not a federalised collection of vassel states, the latter I say only because what else can 'ever closer union' mean? Why did the electorate then continually vote in Thatcher who spent years restraining European federalists?where is your proof of that? 67% of those who voted chose YES to remain in the common market in 1975. Oh of course then we were on our uppers financially fucked and struggling so needed help unlike now when we have left when everything is ros............ no wait a minute