PDA

View Full Version : Brexit: The telephone box hampsterwheel


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Peter-RB
10th Aug 2016, 12:40
Now the VOTES ARE ALL COUNTED..and being a Democratic Country
My personal opinion is that Great Britain joined a Common Market, for which some people voted for and others against..but we joined, we can all throw problems that arose but basically it served a purpose and allowed the Common Market to get stronger... along the way some things improved others didn't but we all carried on....
However many people started to see EU decisions happening but also realised if they were not liked..well then you needed/had to put up with it, various Prime Ministers led us deeper and deeper into what became the European Union to the point where the last PM was so peeed of at the carpers, he rashly promised a referendum on " IN or OUT" of the EU, IMO the right answer came forth from that referendum.

But we now find a sort of Limbo Land where the powers that be, have had to admit they were not expecting the common herd to vote OUT..in fact it came as such a shock the then PM and his Cabel of school chums who ran the GB Ltd didn't have a clue what to do, so like all beaten schoolboys they ran orf in all different directions, leaving the new arrangement to the "new people" who stepped in willingly or not to sort out the matters of State that seemed to be rudderless, and indeed we have some new to the Diplomatic core, men and women who seem to be unable to grasp the nettle as to what needs to be done..! in fact it still seem to me that the unelected heads of the EU are actually trying to "Bully the UK into some quick agreement" so they can carry on with the EU business without much worry about other states copying the example of "people power" over non elected heads of the EU... !

Shouldn't the UK start by saying/asking how much trade do the EU states want to do with us(the UK)... take for example Mercedes Benz, BMW,VW, Scania, they supply billions of Euro/£ sterling per month into the UK, using that as a starting point, then look at Beer and Alcohol product and food product, steel/Aluminium, Glass,Paper, wood, clothes, Food, Luxury Goods. it seems, if that market( the UK) was lost to the EU it would be them who would be looking down the barrel of a gun, for those markets mentioned if lost to the EU would bust some of the companies thus involved.......

Or is it not that simple...?

meadowrun
10th Aug 2016, 13:28
As far as organizing the unknown territory of Exit - even for newbies thrown into it - it is like any problem - one step at a time. In other words - develop procedural checklists and then check off tasks accomplished/monitor results.


The government should be focused on the political disengagement from the unwanted EU diktats, maintaining beneficial diplomatic ties and keep at arms length from the business of business (the minutiae) other than working with business to develop trade agreements.


Let business (for the most part) sort out what is produced, what is for sale/exported and what is to be bought/imported.

Exrigger
10th Aug 2016, 13:35
Meadowrun, good post and agree, hopefully we will see the new government move forward and exit in a calm stately manner to the benefit of this country and Europe through continuing trade without being fixated on the 'free trade deal' that apparently comes with continued 'free movement'.

Sue Vêtements
10th Aug 2016, 14:36
As far as organizing the unknown territory of Exit - even for newbies thrown into it - it is like any problem - one step at a time. In other words - develop procedural checklists and then check off tasks accomplished/monitor results.

Absolutely incorrect. What it SHOULD be is: break it down into a series of steps, work out the ramifications and costs of each step and only THEN decide whether or not to go ahead with the process.

As was pointed out in the original post it appears that the decisions was made before any of the ramifications or costs were worked out with the result that the proponents when faced with the referendum response (not vote) had absolutely no idea what to do.

Pace
10th Aug 2016, 15:08
I tend to agree with Sue this vote was Infact a protest vote against the EU and not so much a vote to leave the EU
The questions in or out did not satisfy the large grey areas between and many thought remain was a certainty so why not a protest ?
Sadly a Brexit is not planned for and many are running around like headless chickens
There is a court case in October December on whether the government can instigate art 50 without a vote in parliament
If the government are so convinced that will be passed why the court case ?
The EU needs massive reform before it becomes acceptable to the UKs interest
A Brexit has plus but many minus too so we are politically stuck with two unnacceptable options either which could have disasterous results for the UK

Uncontrolled immigration was the major factor of discontentment and TM won't give a projected reduction! Again indicating no plans no immigration policy

With 1 million illegal immigrants in the UK ( our fault ) where from here
With as reported at Reuters a cover up of the Syrian problem with a 15% increase in movement neither option looks great ((

Damned if you do damned if you don't

meadowrun
10th Aug 2016, 15:19
A Brexit has plus but many minus too so we are politically stuck with two unnacceptable options either which could have disasterous results for the UK


Well, fact is the vote has been taken. A decision has been made. Time to stop moaning about how woe is me, stop twiddling thumbs and get weaving.

Nemrytter
10th Aug 2016, 16:18
A decision has been made.Based upon lies an deceit. If this were a court case it'd go to a retrial.

UniFoxOs
10th Aug 2016, 16:41
Based upon lies an deceit.

Would have been the same if the result had gone the other way.

ExXB
10th Aug 2016, 16:57
Do we really need another thread on this topic?

Sue Vêtements
10th Aug 2016, 17:05
It actually wasn't a vote, it was a referendum and therefore not binding. Given the subsequent reactions of many of the people who referendumed to leave (including the organisers) perhaps the entire business should be simply shoved off to the side and forgotten.


And if immigration was really the issue, immigration from where and whom? European citizens, non Europeans who had made it into Europe but shouldn't have been there, or perhaps people from former British colonies? Those are three very different categories.

I also don't understand this statement: exit in a calm stately manner to the benefit of this countryWe could perhaps control how calmly anything is done, but will end up getting whatever is negotiated by all parties. To say otherwise is like saying I'll quit my job but I'm not worried because I'll still get half my paycheck. That would be nice, but I'll actually get whatever severance I can negotiate with my former employer and I don't think anyone would expect otherwise regardless of what ever brave face I put on it.

funfly
10th Aug 2016, 17:12
the brexit vote seemed to have been swayed by the immigration issue, the argument was that being in the EU forced us to accept imigrants without question.
What people did not understand was that the UK was not a signatory to the EU freedom of borders agreement therefore we had control of our borders anyway.
However the 'other' thread has degenerated into an exchange of personal abuse between a small number of ppruners and maybe there is a need for more adult discussion.

Exrigger
10th Aug 2016, 17:34
Hi Sue Vetements. Maybe you would of understood it better if you had read/quoted the whole of the sentence: hopefully we will see the new government move forward and exit in a calm stately manner to the benefit of this country and Europe through continuing trade without being fixated on the 'free trade deal' that apparently comes with continued 'free movement' and if you would still like me to explain better what I was trying to convey in the quote then I will consider whether it would be of any benefit to try, although if my views are opposite to your's then it is not likely.

Funfly, whilst I admire your conviction with regard to; However the 'other' thread has degenerated into an exchange of personal abuse between a small number of ppruners and maybe there is a need for more adult discussion., you could find that this one could go the same way eventually, especially considering the comment already posted; Based upon lies an deceit. If this were a court case it'd go to a retrial., just a thought that's all.

Nemrytter
10th Aug 2016, 17:41
just a thought that's all.Thanks. for. that.

Some of the statistics regarding who voted for what in the EU Ref make very interesting reading.:E

Exrigger
10th Aug 2016, 17:49
Nemrytter: Your welcome, and agree with your quote up to a point as you know what they say about statistics, they can be made to prove anyone's point even if they are correct in the first place, even if they are not reasoned debate could still be feasible. ;)

Sue Vêtements
10th Aug 2016, 17:58
We can try. I'm definitely up for keeping threads civil regardless of any divergence of opinion. I try, but probably don't always succeed.

I recognise the use of the word 'hopefully' in that quote and I would hope so too. The point I would make is that it's a hope that is reliant also on other parties so the final result is far from a foregone conclusion.

I'm not 100% sure of your definition of 'free movement'. It could mean either 'legal' EU residents moving to Britain or 'illegal' residents doing the same thing. The two are quite different and I suspect the latter is up to Britain to be solved rather than Britain required to go along with. Plus as has been pointed out earlier I had to show my passport on the Eurostar, so AFAIK the British border is not as permeable as other European borders for the movements of people ... but others could probably explain that better.

The third category was citizens from former, or if we still have any, current colonies. I expect that sort of immigration is a completely different discussion.

In summation, I'm afraid I look at this from an American perspective now and the thought that I can get a job in Oregon, California, Colorado, Maine or Florida and simply move and take up that job is a flexibility I cannot imagine living without. I understand Europe is historically different, but l'm not sure that's a reason to deter the ability to easily move between vountries.

Geordie_Expat
10th Aug 2016, 18:09
Do we really need another thread on this topic?

Particularly as, so far, we have basically the same people making the same points.

Pace
10th Aug 2016, 18:25
This was the most disgusting lead up to the referendum with lies turned out from both sides
Until the public were confused and didn't know what to believe from either side
I am sure in the end most voted on a gut instinct

Regarding freedom of movement and borders many where alarmed with the influx of 4 million Syrians with the knowledge that once residency was established freedom of movement would follow and we knew where too
People were alarmed at the government figures when they were shown to be false and realised the immigration level would be the size of a city a year
In some ways DC shot himself in the foot with the fear campaign and there was a backlash to that too

LowNSlow
10th Aug 2016, 18:27
Sue, the big difference between free movement in the USA and Europe is that English is spoken and understood throughout the USA but this is very much not the case in Europe. One example is a job that advertised for an engineer to work in a refinery in Holland, understandably the ability to speak Dutch was a non negotiable requirement as the majority of the existing employees wouldn't be able to understand a non-Dutch speaker.

Given the above would be applicable in pretty much every position advertised in Europe, I feel the much vaunted freedom of movement within Europe is a moot point to a monolingual person regardless of their nationality.

Lonewolf_50
10th Aug 2016, 18:34
In an attempt to offer an objective view (I have no dog in this fight):


It would seem more constructive to argue about the vote itself in the previous thread(s), where the routine casting of aspersions on motives, campaigns, voters, sales jobs and politicians is already well established.


I would suggest that, if one is worried about a merge or a lock or a deletion from the mods, Peter could perhaps edit the title of the thread and the discussion focus on "now that the vote's over how to get there from here?" (which will also have a variety of points and opinions). I think is what Peter may have meant with Pro and Con. (If wrong, I apologize to Peter for that).

I now withdraw as it's not my issue. Best wishes to all.

NutLoose
10th Aug 2016, 18:50
My vote to leave was not based on immigration but in the belief the EU had become an unelected nightmare and it was right to wrestle control of the U.K back so that we can plan our own destiny.

I agree with the free movement of EU people across borders, though I think Germany has created half of the problems and backlash the EU is facing by allowing 1 million refugees to enter the country and the EU unchecked or controlled. And although our government pointed out that the migrants would be controlled entering the UK, that " protectionism" dissapears the moment they are accepted, registered and become citizens in Germany, at that point the barriers come down. That is what lost it for them.

Unfortunately Europe is beginning to reap what it sowed by allowing this to happen in both sexual attacks and terrorism. As for the economic migrants from Africa, until you start collecting refugees off the seas and landing them from whence they came, more will come. The idea that picking them up off the seas closer to Libya etc simply means they will risk setting sail in even more dubious vessels, dropping them off on a beach back in Libya word will get around that spending xyz with people smugglers is wasted money as those landed tell their tale.

I just wish the press and every man and his dog would simply stop running Brexit and the UK's future down as it only serves to feed the negativeness of it all, we need positive stories that encourage investment not scare it away.

VP959
10th Aug 2016, 19:02
Do we REALLY need another thread on this?

The hamsterwheel thread has really said all of the above, often several times over, and no amount of debating the finer points of human nature is going to change anything.

I think it's blindingly obvious that for many (most?) who voted for Brexit it was driven by a general discomfort with EU domination, be it daft regulations, fears about immigration, concerns over loss of sovereignty or even just a bit of plain, old-fashioned jingoism.

Both sides lied (oh, what a surprise, politicians not telling the truth when they are campaigning for votes..............), some people made misjudgements, some have been astute enough to profit from the uncertainty.

There may well be legal arguments that amount to debating the number of fairies that will fit on the head of a pin, but I really can't see our government not abiding by the decision of the people in a referendum, whether it is legally binding or not. That's the sort of thing other countries may do, but in the good old UK such a governmental tactic would be political suicide for whoever backed it.

The only certain thing is that we are in for a couple of years of uncertainty. End of.

B Fraser
11th Aug 2016, 09:37
My shares are doing very well at the moment. The remain camp said we were in for the economic equivalent of a nuclear winter.

This was not a protest vote. The ballot papers were very clearly worded and no amount of excuses will change the outcome. As a starter, we have the entire commonwealth to trade with. They want to trade with us and we want to trade with them.

ATNotts
11th Aug 2016, 13:54
My shares are doing very well at the moment. The remain camp said we were in for the economic equivalent of a nuclear winter.

So are mine, but that's hardly surprising since with the fall in value of sterling against all major currencies UK shares are effectively between 10 and 20% cheaper than they were for foreign buyers - and everyone likes a bargain. To markets a month is long term and that money could flow out as quickly as it is flowing in.

In dollar or euro terms my shares are worth significantly less than they were on 23.6.16. Fortunately I have no plans to sell them and move abroad in the next few weeks!

NutLoose
11th Aug 2016, 22:49
So are mine, I bought canon Ef500mm on part of the profits, can't be bad :)

Peter-RB
27th Aug 2016, 12:16
It seems the German Business conglomerates(cars, Chemicals & Plastics) are getting worried,...they have suddenly totted up what the UK purchased from them last year pre the Referendum result ( it was 71Bn Euro) they are asking what happens if Frau Merkel and he gang of three act tough on the market conditions the UK will be able to agree on.....for obviously if they hike import taxes on the Brits, then their purchases will cost them more to buy....:D

What a paradox for the EU..seems as more days go by they are realising that some serious problems are coming their way, really just through allowing un elected idiots to control the entire EU political field..

Oh dear ..What a shame...Never mind....!!..:p:D

Just for the remainers Houses are selling faster now than last year, Car registrations in the UK are up nearly 7 %, export enquires from the old Empire/Commonwealth states are huge, and many small to medium companies are excited at the amount of work/enquiries they are receiving since the Vote to leave....:ok:

G-CPTN
27th Aug 2016, 12:41
if they hike import taxes on the Brits, then their purchases will cost them more to buy....
How can the EU apply import taxes on an independent Britain?

Andy_S
27th Aug 2016, 12:51
It seems the German Business conglomerates(cars, Chemicals & Plastics) are getting worried,...they have suddenly totted up what the UK purchased from them last year pre the Referendum result ( it was 71Bn Euro) they are asking what happens if Frau Merkel and he gang of three act tough on the market conditions the UK will be able to agree on.....

It's already hurting them!

Brexit pushes Opel to cut staff hours in Germany - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37133037)

I think it's most unlikely that the EU would impose taxes on EU goods exported to the UK. What they could do, of course, is tax EU imports from the UK. In which case we could respond in kind.

Rosevidney1
27th Aug 2016, 13:29
Indeed we could and certainly would!

ATNotts
27th Aug 2016, 15:28
It's already hurting them!

Brexit pushes Opel to cut staff hours in Germany - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37133037)

I think it's most unlikely that the EU would impose taxes on EU goods exported to the UK. What they could do, of course, is tax EU imports from the UK. In which case we could respond in kind.
Of course it's not! UK hasn't left the EU so absolutely nothing has changed. This nothing more than Opel offering up excuses to it's workforce for it's inability to offer a product range that is a hit with European car buyers, including those in UK.

As people have said in various threads before, commerce are presently using Brexit as a fig leaf to cover for their own commercial inadequacies.

Pace
27th Aug 2016, 15:32
fears about immigration, concerns over loss of sovereignty or even just a bit of plain, old-fashioned jingoism.


But as feared the government seem to be ignoring EU immigration and firing their attention toward people like the 80,000 ex EU here on student visas
Of course there is an uproar from the colleges who rely on that income
The EU are putting their foot down on freedom of movement and my guess is the UK will back down and do more than tinkering at the edges
My guess also is that they will do little with the 1 million illegal immigrants here so will tighten up immigration laws on the law abiding genuine immigrants making more hoops for them to jump through while the people we should not want will continue to flow as will EU citizens

Andy_S
27th Aug 2016, 16:08
Of course it's not! UK hasn't left the EU so absolutely nothing has changed.

Fair comment. But it is indicative of the hit that EU exports to the UK could take if they choose to embark upon a trade war.

Pontius Navigator
27th Aug 2016, 20:34
Imposition of import taxes BENEFITS the country imposing the tax at the COST to its OWN citizens. It might affect the exporting country's manufacturer s and thus indirectly the exporting exchequer. It might also benefit its home producers IF they produce the same Good.

However the French are not noted for preferring imports over home product and neither are the Germans

Seldomfitforpurpose
27th Aug 2016, 21:15
The vote was basically a question about whether the UK would be better off IN or OUT of the EU.

Virtually every single person I know who voted Remain was concerned about the effect a Brexit decision would affect their own personal circumstances.

Read any thread on here or any other social media source and the same thing is blindingly apparent, the 'Haves' are are bitching like stuck pigs in the classically 'me me me and [email protected]@k the poor folk' mindset that they have.

I am more 'have' than many many many people, not going to go into details as it riles our resident Komrade, but I voted Brexit because there is a massively bigger picture out there.

Pontius Navigator
27th Aug 2016, 21:57
SFP, I was simply bemused by the contradictory outpourings from both camps, each demonstrably lying, or distorting the facts.

It was, as you said, a vote for me or them. I am not unhappy at the present situation but that may change.

yakker
28th Aug 2016, 11:32
Since the referendum a manufacturer in Northampton has seen its order book grow (mainly due to the £/$) and has taken on 5 workers to keep up with demand. But you won't see these stories on the BBC.

How about being positive a doing something like this https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/161999

Gertrude the Wombat
28th Aug 2016, 12:18
This family's #brexit costs are only around £100 so far (around £95 in direct costs and £5 in worse currency exchange rates). But that's only the start, of course.


Benefits? - well, they don't seem to be working out as promised, do they: this week's news seems to be about NHS cuts, not the £350m/week that #brexit promised.

Wingswinger
28th Aug 2016, 14:18
Nobody in #Brexit promised £350m a week for the NHS. How could they. They weren't in Government. It was merely suggested but it would compete with other departments and with tax cuts.

Effluent Man
28th Aug 2016, 14:26
Ok it wasn't a promise, but it was a direct implication delivered with enough chutzpah to fool the gullible. I intended to vote leave then hesitated in the booth and put my paper in sans cross. Something just told me I was being conned. If the referendum was rerun I would vote remain.

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 14:38
So you believed the bit about the Emergency Budget EM? Both sides were blagging it, you need to make your own minds up, not listen to politicians spouting ballhooks

ATNotts
28th Aug 2016, 14:54
Nobody in #Brexit promised £350m a week for the NHS. How could they. They weren't in Government. It was merely suggested but it would compete with other departments and with tax cuts.
During the campaign, day in day out Boris and his mates promised precisely that, and made sure we all remembered it by plastering the promise (= bare faced lie) all over their battle bus.

It won't happen, but I firmly believe that were the referendum to be re-run in 6 months time, supposing Article 50 had not been invoked by then, the result could be very different - especially if both sides were to be been governed by the usual rules for advertising laid down by the Advertising Standards Authority.

alwayzinit
28th Aug 2016, 15:00
There appears to be a massive misinterpretation of what and was not promised or suggested by the Brexit campaign.
As others have mentioned the Brexit Campaign had just ONE goal, to put forward the pros for leaving the EU. Not to make policy.
What has peed off many is the complete lack of planning by those sitting in Government not to cover the Brexit vote.
Cameron, Osbourne and what appears to be the entire structure of Government made no contingency plans, this an historical state of denial and group think, bordering on criminal.
Personally I believe the pea sized snowball of the June 23rd vote has only just started rolling down the slope, building up mass and momentum as it goes.
When it arrives at the bottom of the hill who knows where the EU will be.
Interesting times ahead.

Gertrude the Wombat
28th Aug 2016, 15:41
There appears to be a massive misinterpretation of what and was not promised or suggested by the Brexit campaign.Not really, most of it was perfectly clear:


(1) £350m/week for the NHS instead of being paid to the EU. (The fact that it wasn't being paid in the first place didn't seem to matter.)


(2) "Take back control" - WTF that might mean in practice is as clear as mud, but the bit that was clear during the campaign is that the EU shouldn't set any of our rules any more.


(3) Reduced immigration from the EU. (OK, so the people who thought that the day after the election British-born people with brown skins should be on their way "home" must have misunderstood this one somewhat.)


Of these, (1) is undeliverable because there never was any £350m/week in the first place, and (2) and (3) are perfectly deliverable ... at a price, which includes loss of access to European markets for British businesses on current terms, loss of ability to hire staff (across industry, not just in the NHS) from EU countries without insane hassle and cost, loss of freedom of movement of British people to go to EU countries (apart from the millions who are busy scrambling for Irish passports), etc.


So the government can't deliver (1), for the same reason as no government can ever deliver anything that breaks the laws of physics, but can deliver (2) and (3) if it's prepared to face the electorate after paying the price. There may or may not be enough people in government and parliament prepared to commit political suicide and destroy the country's economy just in order to be able to spend their retirements (on the bread line, if they're lucky, and already have quite a bit stashed away) going round muttering "told you so".

Rob Courtney
28th Aug 2016, 15:58
Of these, (1) is undeliverable because there never was any £350m/week in the first place, and (2) and (3) are perfectly deliverable ... at a price, which includes loss of access to European markets for British businesses on current terms, loss of ability to hire staff (across industry, not just in the NHS) from EU countries without insane hassle and cost, loss of freedom of movement of British people to go to EU countries (apart from the millions who are busy scrambling for Irish passports), etc.

I believe the true figure was £190 million once you had taken out what the EU gives us back, but of course they decide where to spend the £160 million not us so you had no chance of it going to the NHS and every chance of it being blown on vanity projects.
Re European markets, are you claiming we will no longer be trading with the EU once we leave? Also cheap labour from the EU has driven down the average wages across the low to semi skilled industries so maybe we will see some wage growth in those areas as well. The NHS has been recruiting staff from the rest of the world years before the EU so no real change there except they can now insist staff from the EU can speak good English. I can well remember travelling across Europe before the EU, the only difference was you spent 5 mins on the aircraft filling out a immigration card hardly insane hassle, if it was nobody would travel outside the EU would they.

So here we are 2 months after the vote, no emergency budget, no stock market crash, no hordes of asylum seekers shipped across from Calais, no plagues of Locusts oh and World War 3 hasnt started yet. All in all everything's looking great :ok:

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 16:05
(apart from the millions who are busy scrambling for Irish passports)

How many millions have applied:

Number of Irish passport applications rises by 70 per cent after Brexit | Europe | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/irish-passport-brexit-ireland-uk-britain-northern-ireland-eu-citizenship-a7177221.html)

British enquiries have spiked to 7,321 in July – up from 4,242 at the same point last year

Good job we can trust the Remain campaign facts :D

The rest of your post was even worse tripe

Gertrude the Wombat
28th Aug 2016, 16:26
hardly insane hassle
The "insane hassle" is getting tier 2 visa sponsorship paperwork done for hiring a non-EU employee. If we have to do the same for EU hires in the future I can see the owners throwing in the towel and simply offshoring the business.

Andy_S
28th Aug 2016, 16:27
What has peed off many is the complete lack of planning by those sitting in Government not to cover the Brexit vote.
Cameron, Osbourne and what appears to be the entire structure of Government made no contingency plans, this an historical state of denial and group think, bordering on criminal.

Apparently Cameron refused point blank to allow the civil service to make any contingency planning for Brexit. He reasoned that to do so might imply that a vote in favour of Brexit was a possibility, and he didn't want anyone to form such an impression.

Gertrude the Wombat
28th Aug 2016, 16:28
How many millions have applied
"Scrambling for" and "have applied" are not quite the same - in many cases, including ours, there are months of paperwork to go through before an application can be filled in, and most of those involve no contact with the Irish government. For example in our case the first step was getting hold of a copy of a marriage certificate from the 1950s from a small village in Austria - that won't appear in your figures.

Sue Vêtements
28th Aug 2016, 16:50
I can't really think of any pros and have yet to hear of any other than a general undercurrent of dislike of foreigners and immigrants, 'laws' that are supposedly foisted on us by 'unelected' people. Yet I still haven't seen a list of any of these unwanted laws, nor have I seen any names of any of the 'unelected' people who created them. My understanding is that the European Parliament is in fact made up of elected MEPs, though whether or not anyone bothers voting for them is perhaps a different story. Furthermore that the three largest representations in the European Parliament are Germany, France and Britain, so if that's the case any decisions made there must be made in large part by British interests.

My understanding also is that Britain like every other country in the EU is still a sovereign nation with an European umbrella above it. Meaning that British people are only subject to British laws and the fact that these laws might start in Europe is not the point, that British people become bound by them only after the British government has ratified them and added them to the British legal system.

I also don't see how the dislike of immigrants differentiates between those from the former Commonwealth and those from Europe. I can't see how leaving Europe will have any effect on the first group and afaik the second group is limited to people legally resident in Europe, AND has a two sided effect that travel (and work and residency) from Britain to Europe is now much easier that it was in my youth. Furthermore there is still passport control into and out of Britain so what kind of immigration are we talking about anyway?

The Cons? Well I'm not sure if anyone watched the TV about a week after the referendum, but it was the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. Compare THAT Europe to the current one and it's impossible to argue that we haven't progressed. The First World War was really the First European Civil War and the Second was the Second Plus Japan. Hopefully there'll never be a Third.

I'll freely admit that I look at this through an American perspective: fifty 'countries' connected through a federal government. Lots of friction there, but where would America be in the world today if it had remained fifty independent countries? Certainly not in the position of global dominance it currently has. So this desire to split off makes no sense - and where does it stop? It's not like the North and South of England get on all that well, so why not spin off the House of York and the House of Lancaster? The we can go back to Wessex and Mercia as well.

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 16:51
"Millions" and "7,321" are quite some way apart and typical of Remain hyperbole. When are you leaving?

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 16:58
Sue Vetements, the whole USA and Europe comparison has been done to death. When the USA has open borders with Mexico and gets its laws set in Toronto and pays for the Privilege then you might have a valid point. Your understanding of EU laws and directives is also incorrect.

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 17:01
There's a good article in the FT today about how the Remain campaign having lost the referendum are also going to lose any opportunity to influence the Brexit terms because they are too busy navel gazing at the result and trying to get another vote

Pace
28th Aug 2016, 18:15
I have to say I am concerned with the immigration reduction which as I feared appears to be a window dressing exercise by the
TM government
It appears to be directed at ex eu immigrants and tightening up on legitimate immigrants who the country should want while ignoring illegals and doing anything about EU freedom of movement
My guess is that other than tinkering at the edges nothing much will change as was indicated by her refusal to give any target figures

Uncontrolled immigration of the wrong types was the main reason for the Brexit vote!
If the government cannot come up with a fair immigration policy which stops economic and benefits immigration then we have been sold a dud by both sides and maybe it should go back to a vote
The leave camp shouldn't fear that as it would purely reinforce the vote leave decision or do they fear that ?

Sue Vêtements
28th Aug 2016, 18:15
I don't understand that response. If a comparison between USA and Europe has been made repeatedly, it's probably because there's some merit to it.

Also the comment about opening borders with Mexico doesn't make sense because Mexico is not part of the USA, so that would be like Europe opening its borders with Russia or Africa. And the comment about our laws being set in Toronto doesn't make sense for the same point. We have state laws and federal laws and the Federal laws are made in Washington, not outside of the country.

And I still haven't heard of a list of laws that must be obeyed by British people that are not part of the British legal system.

How is my understanding of EU laws and directives incorrect? It probably is because I don't live there any more but it would be nice to have things explained.

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 18:50
The response has been made repeatedly through a misguided logic, the USA is not 50 different countries, with seperate legal systems, different languages and seperate currencies. It has full fiscal, political and strategic integration, the EU does not. If NAFTA became a political union there is a parallel with the EU.

Adopting EU laws is not a matter of choice, it is mandatory. It is also mandatory to implement directives into law, although there is some flexibility in how it is done provided the intent is met.

dsc810
28th Aug 2016, 19:15
Sue:
It does not work that way
The EU issues a directive to member states and they are then obliged to enact that as a local law.
So we HAVE to enact in UK law issued by the EU whether we like it or not.
So there cannot by definition be any law we have to obey not part of the UK legal system.
The law courts are also required by law to regard EU law as superior to and over riding UK law where they may be any differences
Getting the picture?

It does not matter whether we in the UK want it or our parliament voted against it- we are required by EU law to change our laws to comply.

Recent such directives which have caused anger in the UK
The infamous vacuum cleaner reduced power rating law which made it illegal to sell or bring in any such unit over a certain wattage in the EU. The UK has more carpets than the rest of the EU which prefer wooden floors so we like and need higher power vacuum cleaners - do the EU care? not one jot.
The proposed (and hurridly dropped as the EU referendum approached) similar reduction on the max power permitted of toasters, kettles and hair driers.. Well it was just going to take longer to make the tea wasn't it. The UK likes tea while the continent prefers coffee and for tea we need BOILING water so again a proposal almost deliberately designed to annoy us in the UK.
Then there is the certain garden pond plant ban put into force recently. This pond species is a menace in Spain and rightly should be banned there where it grows and grows and is highly invasive. In the UK it is not a problem and is a well loved plant. What happens? The EU ban it! So it is now banned in the UK - well isn't that nice? - errr not.

How about an aviation example?
The EU have declared all UK glider pilot licences null and void for EASA listed aircraft as of 2018. UK glider pilots will be required to get a pan EU glider pilots licence at a cost of course(!) and be subjected to a more strict medical examinations more often (yet more cost). Even if such a pilot never flies outside the UK he/she is required by EU directive/law to do this.

Now you see why people like me voted out.
The EU is a menace

Rob Courtney
28th Aug 2016, 19:23
can't really think of any pros and have yet to hear of any other than a general undercurrent of dislike of foreigners and immigrants, 'laws' that are supposedly foisted on us by 'unelected' people. Yet I still haven't seen a list of any of these unwanted laws, nor have I seen any names of any of the 'unelected' people who created them. My understanding is that the European Parliament is in fact made up of elected MEPs, though whether or not anyone bothers voting for them is perhaps a different story. Furthermore that the three largest representations in the European Parliament are Germany, France and Britain, so if that's the case any decisions made there must be made in large part by British interests.

Your understanding of the European parliament is adrift Im afraid. The EU parliament has NO law making powers. That lies within the EU commission made up of 27 unelected commissioners who have sworn an oath of loyalty to the EU.
Lets have a look at a few of those laws as well this thread is probably a good place to start http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/582519-barking-eu-rules-perhaps-we-can-lose-some-them.html

Rob Courtney
28th Aug 2016, 19:28
I'll freely admit that I look at this through an American perspective: fifty 'countries' connected through a federal government. Lots of friction there, but where would America be in the world today if it had remained fifty independent countries? Certainly not in the position of global dominance it currently has. So this desire to split off makes no sense - and where does it stop? It's not like the North and South of England get on all that well, so why not spin off the House of York and the House of Lancaster? The we can go back to Wessex and Mercia as well.

Hardly a good comparison, the USA is fifty states with a common language and traditions where as the EU is 27 states, problably double that in languages and traditions that are as alien to us as Mexican is to you.

Would you be happy to sign up to a Pan American superstate where your interests are decided by an unelected clique and pay £17 billion for the privilege

Rob Courtney
28th Aug 2016, 19:31
Also the comment about opening borders with Mexico doesn't make sense because Mexico is not part of the USA, so that would be like Europe opening its borders with Russia or Africa. And the comment about our laws being set in Toronto doesn't make sense for the same point. We have state laws and federal laws and the Federal laws are made in Washington, not outside of the country.

At least Mexico has a land border with the USA as does Canada, re laws so does the UK but the EU can and does override those laws, now imagine your laws being overridden by a court in Mexico comprised of judges some of whom have no law qualifications at all and you may understand why we voted to leave :ok:

Rob Courtney
28th Aug 2016, 19:33
The "insane hassle" is getting tier 2 visa sponsorship paperwork done for hiring a non-EU employee. If we have to do the same for EU hires in the future I can see the owners throwing in the towel and simply offshoring the business.

So why did it not happen pre EU then?

late-joiner
28th Aug 2016, 20:01
quote
"So there cannot by definition be any law we have to obey not part of the UK legal system."

I think that aviation law is is an example of directly enacted legislation at European level rather than being a Directive implemented here in UK.

Pace
28th Aug 2016, 20:05
You are worried about EASA and gliding ? Some of us flying 3 country jets are having our careers destroyed by EASA
But don't think there will be any change after we are out as our CAA and DFT will purely adopt the EU EASA regs and adjust the bits that don't fit
That is 100% certain
We will be in by all but name on EU immigration too with fewer of the benefits and all the negatives

evansb
28th Aug 2016, 20:36
Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, and they are doing just fine.. Please explain. I eagerly await your pages and pages of answers.

G0ULI
28th Aug 2016, 20:37
A lot of prose has been written about how we have all been conned.

Immigration is a straightforward black and white issue really. It is not about white immigrants coming from Europe. If the same numbers had turned up from the more tropical regions of the planet, there would have been huge social unrest.

Europe was and continues to move towards a unified federal state. That is one of the avowed goals of the EU, ever closer union of members states.

As an independent nation with one of the largest economies in the world, it does not suit Britain to become a small cog in a large organisation. Britain has fought for centuries to maintain independence from Continental control, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. This is just another skirmish in the conflict between European ideals of amity and unity and British isolationism and independence. If we can't control the game, we won't play, simple as that.

Pace
28th Aug 2016, 21:35
Gouli

We have 1 million illegal immigrants in this country! What has that got to do with the EU ? What will us being out have any influence on that ?
As another poster said if you want an intelligent person with qualifications to work in a UK company from out of the EU you have to jump through a load of hoops to get him/ her a visa as well as cost
Think you even have to offer the job to all the illegals first ))

So what is TM doing about the 1 million illegals here ? Nothing !!
What is TM doing about economic or benefits movement from the EU ? Nothing

No wait for it ? She is targeting the 80,000 student visas ? Trouble is there is an uproar from all the colleges who need that income
No wonder she would not give a reduction estimate!

When she says she is shipping 1 million illegals out or at least doing something about that instead of hitting the people we should have here then I might believe your taking control claims
A lot of our mess was our mess

The EU she will window dress for fear of the trade deals
As for my own industry we have already bought the EASA rubbish lock stock and barrel IN or OUT
The whole thing is a joke

Gertrude the Wombat
28th Aug 2016, 21:46
So why did it not happen pre EU then?
Sorry, can't help you there, I wasn't hiring techies that long ago.

alwayzinit
28th Aug 2016, 21:50
Gertie, wombats obviously have small brains, do not understand English or are intentionally ignoring inconvenient truths.

Again and I will type slowly just for you. The Brexit campaigners did not and could not make government policy. They could suggest other uses for the funds currently being sent to Brussels but could not force the sitting government to do anything. That is for the Electorate.

Yes of course the size of the bundle of cash is open to dispute, OMG a politician telling porkies about money. Ooh my!

Now I know you are unhappy about the result and I know you cannot be as dumb as you are pretending to be so how about just growing up just a touch?

Hugs.

Sue Vêtements
28th Aug 2016, 21:53
Britain certainly HAS fought for centuries to maintain independence from continental control, the two most recent times being 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 and the worst day we have as part of the EU is better than the best of those days.

The USA actually IS 50 different sovereign entities with separate legal systems, and each of them have various municipal legal systems. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution ensures that federal laws preempt state laws. If it wasn't for the federal government holding the states together then the US WOULD in fact be 50 individual countries and would probably spend more time in conflict rather than in cooperation.

The EU parliament has NO law making powers. That lies within the EU commissionI thought the European Commission was merely a group who prepares proposals that may or may not eventually be passed. If that's correct then that might be why THOSE people are unelected. The European Commission then passes those suggestions to the governing bodies of the various member countries (UK parliament) for review, discussion and amendment. At some point the UK government reaches consensus and reports back to the European Commission who then adjust the initial proposals.

Is that correct?


Regarding immigration: what part does membership of the EU play in immigration from former Commonwealth countries? Does it actually have any bearing on that?

Regarding toasters and vacuum cleaners: That sounds like such a frivolous reason to take such a drastic action. Do you think that if Britain is successful in leaving the European Union that the British government will never pass similar laws?

alwayzinit
28th Aug 2016, 22:03
"Regarding immigration: what part does membership of the EU play in immigration from former Commonwealth countries? Does it actually have any bearing on that?"

EU membership has everything to do with that, ANY EU citizen currently takes pride of place above citizens for the the rest of the World, regardless of qualifications.

"Is that correct?" No, the UK Government HAS to do as it instructed by the edicts sent down from the Commission. If the UK doesn't do as it is told it gets fined.

You appear to think the EU and the USA have similar structures, I have one question, how many Presidents does the USA have and did your electorate have the chance to vote for their candidate of choice? I do know the answer of course, however, the EU has 5 Presidents and us voters did not get the chance to choose, we were presented with the choices by "people who are much cleverer than us and know better than we do", nice system don't you think. BTW the EU Parliament is a talking shop that cannot do anything but talk as it has NO executive powers.

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 22:12
Sue, the USA isn't and has never been 50 seperate countries. It has full fiscal, political and strategic integration and is a transfer union. The EU has none of these. Now imagine trying to form a union with Argentina, Canada and Mexico that works the same way as the USA, then extrapolate the problems from a possible union of 4 countries to one of 28 countries. That is a more appropriate analogy than the one you are trying to draw that equates the USA to the EU

Pace
28th Aug 2016, 22:35
Yes and they'are 28 independent countries with little economic, benefits or currency parity hence the Euro cannot work and neither can freedom of movement in a fair and balanced way

It will lead to economic and benefits movement but not just on a temporary basis but with settlement rights

That cannot work and neither can the Euro not until there is far closer parity between the members of this ill structured club

Gertrude the Wombat
28th Aug 2016, 22:42
The Brexit campaigners did not and could not make government policy.
So they were deliberately promising things that they knew they couldn't deliver?

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 22:46
NSS, isn't that what politicians do.

Sue Vêtements
28th Aug 2016, 22:55
No, the UK Government HAS to do as it instructed by the edicts sent down from the Commission. If the UK doesn't do as it is told it gets fined.Are you sure? or does the Commission propose legislation that then must be reviewed by the governments of the member countries, adjusted if necessary, and THEN passed by both the European Council AND the European Parliament with any adjustments they want and only THEN does the Commission's enforcement role come into play?

Also the 27+1 members of the Commission aren't just randomly selected, but each proposed by one of the member states.

I can see the fact that the Commission members swear an oath to Europe rather than their associated member state causing some disquiet, but on reflection it also means that no member will be secretly be trying to further the interests of their specific nation. It's a double edged sword.



Actually no, US citizens do not get to vote for the candidate of their choice. And not because they might not like the presented candidates, but rather because the election of the President is done through the antiquated Electoral College system ... but that's a different discussion


I see the point though about joining the US to Argentina etc and it has some validity. Having said that though the US was a series of independent countries (sort of at least) and at the time The Federalist Papers were written could well have ended up that way. America back then was quite similar to Europe now: not at all as united as it is now (albeit that that is sometimes hard to imagine!). Yes I would agree that European history is very different from American history, but at the same time not so much. We've had wars between the states still have simmering dislike between the states, but on the whole have made a pretty successful go of it. As difficult as it is to imagine Europe has the chance to do likewise ... just as the US has every opportunity to break up (just ask them in Texas :( )


What's a Transfer Union?

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 23:03
Here's a transfer union in the EU:

https://euobserver.com/economic/130045

Now try applying that to the fictional American Union

yotty
28th Aug 2016, 23:04
"That cannot work and neither can the Euro not until there is far closer parity between the members of this ill structured club" posted by pace, hence the headlong rush for ever closer union by Junkers et al...

engineer(retard)
28th Aug 2016, 23:06
Better example:

For Richer, For Poorer: Europe on the Verge of Becoming a Transfer Union - SPIEGEL ONLINE (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/for-richer-for-poorer-europe-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-transfer-union-a-777671.html)

Rob Courtney
28th Aug 2016, 23:18
Sorry, can't help you there, I wasn't hiring techies that long ago.

Trust me it did happen just as it happens now in the NHS and doctors from the commonwealth. The high end jobs however are not the issue, its the low paid jobs that have the most effect on an indigenous population. Put simply its supply and demand, if there is a bottomless pit of people willing to work for minimum pay then that's what employers will pay. Its affected the construction and engineering industries the most. After all why pay more for a time served British joiner or plumber when you can get someone from the EU who is willing to work for minimum pay (or below if they are self employed) because that rate is 3 times what they can earn in their own country.

Thats why business loves free movement it keeps their costs down and transfers the burden onto the state on the form of top up benefits.

Wingswinger
29th Aug 2016, 00:29
So they were deliberately promising things that they knew they couldn't deliver?

Sigh****

They PROMISED nothing. They couldn't. They were not a governing party. They pointed out that the UK sends £350m per week to the EU. They suggested that some of it gets spent on the NHS instead. That is all. The "promises" were in other people's minds.

Rob Courtney
29th Aug 2016, 00:50
So they were deliberately promising things that they knew they couldn't deliver?

As did the remain side and they were in government, things such as
Emergency budget 4p on income tax the week after the vote
France would send all the migrants across the channel
Shares would crash
WW3 would start
etc
etc
etc

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 03:36
Ok, the Transfer Union link I'll have to read again. I could see that perhaps being a problem, but that article says "heading towards" rather than "is currently".

Nobody has answered this question yet though does the Commission propose legislation that then must be reviewed by the governments of the member countries, adjusted if necessary, and THEN passed by both the European Council AND the European Parliament with any adjustments they want and only THEN does the Commission's enforcement role come into play?Can somebody answer that for me please? It was in response to the suggestion that the British government had no choice but to comply with a directive from the Commission and if correct presents a significantly different and more complex picture.


And this bit ANY EU citizen currently takes pride of place above citizens for the the rest of the World, regardless of qualifications.that would make sense, or at least be similar to America where a job must be offered to an American, regardless of the current state of residency before it is offered to an employee from another country ... actually that's the case for Green cards, and I'm not 100% sure if it applies to H1B (non-immigrant work permit) status

Regardless, that wasn't my question. I meant to ask if as was suggested earlier immigration was one of the determining factors in the decision to leave, will that decision have any bearing on immigration from (ex) Commonwealth countries? I can't see how it would and if that is the case leaving will not completely solve the perceived immigration problem.

Pace
29th Aug 2016, 08:08
Sue

I can only go by how the commission work with EASA the aviation regulatory body!
EASA create regulations the Commission approve or disapprove or require changes to the regulation and then it's rubber stamped by the European parliament who 99 out of 100 just approve the commissions recommendations
In the regulating process individual country CAAs may put their point to influence those regulations but the regulations are taken in whole and not part

I see it a bit like the flat in London I bought which has a managing company and a contract
As the buyer I have no ability to change the contract only to accept it

Technically the parliament could refuse something the commission propose in reality they never do and the commission hold-all the power

alwayzinit
29th Aug 2016, 08:12
Quote:
The Brexit campaigners did not and could not make government policy.
So they were deliberately promising things that they knew they couldn't deliver?
Sigh!
Gertie, wombats having a bad day? I take back my previous post as you are clearly a marsupial of very little brain, or have the mental age of 6!
With regards to "promises" and forecasts thrown about in the Brexit Campaign the real stinkers go to Cast Iron Dave, Wee George, the IMF and numerous other so called experts. WW3, the sky falling, economic Armageddon( well that bit is true but inside the Eurozone), plagues of frogs, Global meltdown.
Yet still the EU's answer to massive a rising dissatisfaction and anger at the EU is more EU, more control to the unelected "Elite". The "iceberg" has been hit, a massive hole has been carved below the EU's waterline and its full steam ahead and get that string quartet playing "Ode to Joy".:ugh:

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 08:52
Sue, the USA is a transfer Union, the Eurozone currently isn't, which is why it functions so poorly. However, if our mythical American Union became a transfer Union, the USA would have to make up the Argentinian budgetary shortfalls.

Regarding your commission question, in most areas the EU works upon a system of Qualified Majority Voting. Regardless of any review process, laws and directives can be foisted upon a country that has voted against them. In the case of non Eurozone countries this can be problematic because the Eurozone countries naturally want the customs union to work for them and they form the majority.

Andy_S
29th Aug 2016, 09:19
....in most areas the EU works upon a system of Qualified Majority Voting. Regardless of any review process, laws and directives can be foisted upon a country that has voted against them.

Or more pertinently can be foisted upon a country regardless of whether such laws are favourable or beneficial to that country.

yakker
29th Aug 2016, 10:27
As Junckers and his cronies are pushing for closer union, same laws, same taxes, same currency, will this not include having the same language? Of course this will be German.

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 10:48
Probably the most comprehensive voting survey, which strangely doesn't mention "getting rid of brown skinned people", which is an answer thrown around by the hard of thinking:

How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday... and why - Lord Ashcroft Polls (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/)

Sallyann1234
29th Aug 2016, 10:51
So they were deliberately promising things that they knew they couldn't deliver?
Sigh!
Gertie, wombats having a bad day? I take back my previous post as you are clearly a marsupial of very little brain, or have the mental age of 6!
Enough of the schoolboy name calling and ad hominem attacks. :=

It is undeniable that Brexiters promised outcomes in the knowledge that they personally would not have to carry them out.
It is also clear that a policy was dropped onto a government that disagreed with that policy and knew it could not be implemented as promised.

Nevertheless the government has agreed that 'Brexit means Brexit' and appears to be preparing for it as best it can.

Sensible Remainers accept that position and will get on with the job.

Sensible Brexiters will accept that the outcome has to be different from what was promised, and not complain that the government failed to achieve it.

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 10:51
Another sensible analysis, which explains why the "where is the plan" brigade are talking nonsense:

The Fallout from Brexit - CapX (http://capx.co/the-fallout-from-brexit/)

Krystal n chips
29th Aug 2016, 10:55
" A lot of prose has been written about how we have all been conned.



Yes it has, although according to some on here, no promises were made, unless you discount the "facts" being grossly distorted as such with a certain £350 m saving...for example.



Immigration is a straightforward black and white issue really. It is not about white immigrants coming from Europe. If the same numbers had turned up from the more tropical regions of the planet, there would have been huge social unrest.

How very droll.....the sort of humourless stance masquerading as humour that draws guffaws from the local pub BOF's community. UKIP supporters and those who live in a "less than cosmopolitan " lifestyle....and always have / will do.

" Europe was and continues to move towards a unified federal state. That is one of the avowed goals of the EU, ever closer union of members states".

When in doubt....regurgitate. Always a good bet to impress the chaps here on JB, but, as always, without any credence. Closer union, yes, and I've always been in favour of such, but that tried and tested..."alarmist gargbage for the dysfunctional thinking" UK populace about a "unified federal state", yet again I pose the question....still unanswered on here.....quelle surprise ! as to which EU states will be the first to surrender their sovereignty.....some of you chaps must be giving this some rather deep thought therefore.....



As an independent nation with one of the largest economies in the world, it does not suit Britain to become a small cog in a large organisation. Britain has fought for centuries to maintain independence from Continental control, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. This is just another skirmish in the conflict between European ideals of amity and unity and British isolationism and independence. If we can't control the game, we won't play, simple as that

And the grand finale !.....without which some on here would be suffering from deprivation akin to starvation ......the usual emetic jingoism....however, it's nice to see you have identified a condition. well more a quintessential English trait...starts about age 3 with "shan't ! I want ! " and banging of rattles, thereafter developed as "adults" with foot stamping and table banging until the trait reaches its zenith and hence we get "We're British and if we can't get our own way, we're going to flounce out of here with all the petulance we can muster...so there !"

Societal progress really is an anathema for many it seems.

Toodle pip....chaps !

Gertrude the Wombat
29th Aug 2016, 11:03
the perceived immigration problem
With "perceived" being the operative word.


We need enough people working and paying taxes to meet our pensions bill. As the born-British population ages and doesn't produce enough children to support itself that means immigrants. The real "immigration problem" is making sure we get enough immigrants, whatever people's erroneous perceptions might be.

meadowrun
29th Aug 2016, 11:07
The real "immigration problem" is making sure we get enough immigrants


You need to get the right type of immigrants. Not the free for all that currently exists. There has to be selection and control of the process.

EGGY1
29th Aug 2016, 11:14
Meanwhile, would someone kindly remove the apostrophes in the title of this thread :)

alwayzinit
29th Aug 2016, 11:35
Sallyann, there are times when a spade needs to be called a shovel. Your self appointed sanctimony is as equally tiresome as Gertie intentionally misinterpreting the facts.
This is Jet Blast if it's too hot then "get out of the kitchen" . I am sure and have seen that Gertie is well capable of taking care of him/herself .

Rob Courtney
29th Aug 2016, 11:47
We need enough people working and paying taxes to meet our pensions bill. As the born-British population ages and doesn't produce enough children to support itself that means immigrants. The real "immigration problem" is making sure we get enough immigrants, whatever people's erroneous perceptions might be.

Immigration is not a bad thing but you need controlled immigration for it to work otherwise as stated previously you drive down wages and living standards and transfer the burden of paying a living wage from the employer to the state. While we remain a member of the EU we cannot do this.

Pace
29th Aug 2016, 11:50
GTM

Yes you are correct that immigration will help the country!
I would like the last poster state that it's the right sort of immigrant! Not sure how the 1 million illegals we have let in will help unless you run a strawberry farm

Your argument reinforces what a crap policy the EU have on freedom of movement
One mans gain is another's loss and young people vacating countries like Poland are hardly going to improve the Polish economy ?
The fact that the EU freedom of movement means freedom of settlement means that the vast majority of young Poles will be lost to Poland for good as well as disintegrating family structures there

Gertrude the Wombat
29th Aug 2016, 11:54
Immigration is not a bad thing but you need controlled immigration for it to work otherwise as stated previously you drive down wages and living standards and transfer the burden of paying a living wage from the employer to the state.That theory would be fine in a world where you could stop people moving across borders and could also stop goods, money and information moving across borders.

You could then have a high-wage high-price economy isolated from world markets and world prices.

But in the real, modern, world if locally produced stuff (where "stuff" is goods or services or information or whatever) is more expensive than foreign stuff the punter is going to buy foreign - it's simply not possible to keep UK programmers' wages high by policing the internet to the extent necessary to stop people downloading foreign software, just to take one easy obvious example.


(I agree by the way that the current system of the state subsidising low wages is wrong. But I'm afraid I don't know the right answer to it.)

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 12:47
The right answer to the wages question is to align the welfare system with that of the continent. Meaning no access to in work benefits until substantive contributions are made, same for the health service.

Rob Courtney
29th Aug 2016, 13:03
But in the real, modern, world if locally produced stuff (where "stuff" is goods or services or information or whatever) is more expensive than foreign stuff the punter is going to buy foreign - it's simply not possible to keep UK programmers' wages high by policing the internet to the extent necessary to stop people downloading foreign software, just to take one easy obvious example.

You cant import an electrician or plumber of bricklayer. They need to be on the ground or your house will fall apart. Its these type of jobs that have been destroyed by uncontrolled immigration. What is the point of doing a 4 year apprenticeship to work for minimum wage? that's whats happening across the engineering and construction trades, cheap labour is a huge disincentive to train your own people and pay them a decent wage. Companies like JCB seem to manage to pay their staff a decent wage and remain competitive both here and abroad

Seldomfitforpurpose
29th Aug 2016, 13:45
For those of you who are still incapable of understanding the economic impact of uncontrolled low skill low wage employment listen ONCE AGAIN to the LEADER of the TUC

yciKQyyWDcc


She has no axe to grind and is telling it as it is.

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 14:01
I can only go by how the commission work with EASA the aviation regulatory body!
EASA create regulations the Commission approve or disapprove or require changes to the regulation and then it's rubber stamped by the European parliament who 99 out of 100 just approve the commissions recommendations
In the regulating process individual country CAAs may put their point to influence those regulations but the regulations are taken in whole and not part Are you sure EASA creates regulations? My understanding is that every year the Commission puts out a statement of what it will work on that year and then it initiates the regulation creation process. Subsequent approval, amendment or even Veto is a prerogative not of the Commission, but of the governments of the member states, the European Council and finally the European Parliament.

Whether on not it's rubber stamped or the majority of regulations are simply approved seems more like a subjective opinion than an objective fact. I suppose it could be researched and proven one way or the other, but I'm skeptical that that's the case. I also doubt that the review process for proposed regulations is 'all or nothing' but rather that it morphs the original recommendation into the final proposal, or indeed vetoes it completely. I'll freely admit that I don't know, but statistics and examples would prove it one way or the other.

Also I don't think that the Commission holds 'all the power', rather that they have the authority to propose legislation which then goes through an approval process and if the legislation is finally accepted (in whatever form) the Commission THEN holds the power of enforcement. That's is far from ALL the power

Sallyann1234
29th Aug 2016, 14:05
alwazinit

Attacking the player instead of the ball is a very poor tactic, as well as breaking the rules you signed up to:

PPRuNe Forums - FAQ: PPRuNe Rules (http://www.pprune.org/faq.php?faq=pprune_rules#faq_pprune_rules_rules)

And I notice you used the very same tactic instead of responding to the salient points in my post. Please try harder.

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 14:22
e(r) when you say Sue, the USA is a transfer Union, the Eurozone currently isn't, which is why it functions so poorly. However, if our mythical American Union became a transfer Union, the USA would have to make up the Argentinian budgetary shortfalls.Am I correct in interpreting that to say that due to the large disparities in income levels (because it's NOT a Transfer Union) within the EU (some) people from lower wage countries will then move to work in higher paying countries thereby depressing wages in the higher paying countries? If so, there's some merit to that, though I'm not sure how many people actually move. I think you're saying that because the (existing) US is a more level playing field this causes less of a problem. That's probably the case with the additional fact (that applies to both situations) that were someone from say Alabama to move to San Francisco to get higher wages, most of those higher wages would be consumed by the associated higher cost of living.

Regarding the US making up Argentinian shortfalls; I see your point and it has some merit, though being theoretical is hard to fully appreciate. I understand your situation is different. In the US we move money around all the time (pork projects) and you just don't really notice it.

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 14:39
One more then I REALLY have to get to work

Regardless of any review process, laws and directives can be foisted upon a country that has voted against them.andOr more pertinently can be foisted upon a country regardless of whether such laws are favourable or beneficial to that country.I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with this. There's a review process and also an electoral process built into the system. That part cannot be ignored. There'll always be someone who disagrees with a new law or indeed the result of any vote.

If it's valid to say 'This [law] was foisted up on me' then it's equally valid to say 'Brexit was foisted upon me'.

Bergerie1
29th Aug 2016, 15:20
I currently live in France, therefore many will consider my views to be slightly biased. On the other hand, after retiring from a senior position in a British airline, I worked for five years in Brussels for IATA trying to influence the European Union to legislate programmes for an improved European Air Traffic Management System that would be more efficient for European aviation as a whole. As such, I took the trouble to find out how the processes of the European Union really worked. Thus, I was horrified to see some of the blatant lies expressed as facts by some of the Brexit politicians. My views are as follows:-

1. There of course many pros and cons of being in the EU but it is not as undemocratic as many people think. Contrary to popular opinion the EC does not legislate - it proposes legislation for the Council of Ministers (the elected representatives of each country) and the European Parliament (elected every 5 years) to decide. It is these two bodies which legislate. See these two links for the process:-
Legislative procedure (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/legislativeprocedure/default_en.htm)
The Law Making Processes of the EU (http://www.chcs.org.uk/eu-law-making-process.htm)

2. When I was in Brussels it was DGTREN and therefore the Transport Ministers of the member states who decided the legislation based on proposals from the Commission, many of which we lobbied for. I know for a fact that if European ATM was organised on a more unified basis it would be very much more efficient than it is now. I would guess the same applies to many other areas across Europe - and we would all benefit.

3. There is no doubt immigration is one the main issues that touched the collective nerve of the electorate (see the link at the end of this para). But it is a complex issue with no simple answers, (a) a significant number of immigrants come from outside the EU, (b) the economy benefits from these immigrants (both from within the EU and from outside), and (c) they put more into the economy than they take out in benefits and remittances overseas.
Will Brexit Actually Curb Immigration to the U.K.? - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/brexit-migration/489014/)

4. When it comes to the UK's legislative processes we must recognise that the UK is a representative democracy, therefore I believe the final decision on whether or not the UK should leave the European Union should be made by Parliament. A referendum, which is not part of our usual democratic process, should be advisory only.

5. The electorate, who must be listened to, can only make reasoned judgements and vote accordingly if they are correctly informed. In my view, the Brexit politicians campaigned using incorrect facts and, in several cases, downright lies. There was very little explanation to counter these views and to demonstrate how the EU actually works, and those arguments that were put forward, were not sufficiently persuasive.

6. No one spelt out the difficulties that will be faced when negotiating the exit processes and the new trade agreements that will be needed to safeguard the UK’s trading position in the world. Therefore many voters thought it would be a simple process. It is not.

7. I believe that Parliament should follow the following process:- (a) debate all these issues and spell out the consequences of the UK leaving the EU; then (b) Members or Parliament should consult their constituents, inform their electorate, and sound out opinions; and (c) only then debate and vote on whether or not to trigger Article 50.

The decision to leave the European Union is too important to be left to what I consider to be a flawed referendum. Parliament is sovereign.

Rant over!

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 15:44
Sue, you are partially correct but it's not just a matter of wages, the individual countries in the Eurozone don't have control of the value of their currency and so are unable to stimulate their economy in the way the UK just has. The monetary tools do not allow a transfer of money only lending, so the poorer southern states have stagnant economies, high unemployment and no means of breaking that cycle. In the EU the Argentina equivalent is not theoretical.

In the case of EU laws and directives, these must be passed into national law:

https://europa.eu/european-union/law/legal-acts_en

In our theoretical American Union the Argentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for a law or directive and the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreed.

late-joiner
29th Aug 2016, 16:11
In the case of EU laws and directives, these must be passed into national law:

https://europa.eu/european-union/law/legal-acts_en



Regulations are already EU Law (for instance aviation matters) and applied nationally by the courts.
Directives have to be turned into national law.

glad rag
29th Aug 2016, 16:15
Then again there's always this option..whoopsies

862

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 16:25
Good rant Bergerie but given that the Remain campaign lied as well, would you have been so keen to have the referendum rerun if it had gone the other way. It was the responsibility of the government to be an honest broker and accurately explain the pros and cons of Brexit. The Remain campaign should have been separated from Government. There was a referendum for joining in the first place, that was not taken as advisory only, so a precedent exists for taking such an important decision as joining the EU, even though the facts were not well presented.

It was possible to find out the difficulties associated with leaving and the range of options but that involved not listening to politicians and doing some open minded research. Many of us did that and still voted to leave, th fact that you didn't find the argument persuasive is only your opinion.

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 16:27
Late joiner, the EU law is adopted wholesale into UK law, if it wasn't leaving would be much easier as there would be no laws to repeal

Bergerie1
29th Aug 2016, 16:48
E(retard)
Agreed - and we are both entitled to our opinions and, fortunately, are free to express them.

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 16:52
I'll drink to that Bergerie :)

edi_local
29th Aug 2016, 16:52
If a referendum were to be held tomorrow to propose giving everyone a minimum wage of £1 Million for the next year than that would almost certainly provide a positive vote. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It doesn't mean that the people who want it to happen understand the consequences to everyone getting £1 Million, what that might do to the economy, what it would do to the banks etc, but people would still want it. It would be a democratic vote, but a damn stupid one (although probably actually cheaper than brexit).

However in the real world, what the people want isn't always what they should get and this referendum is a classic example of that. Ok, fine, on 23 June 2016, 52% of British voters who bothered enough to go out and do so, said they wanted out of the EU. Is that really a good enough reason to massively change the future direction of the country and the relationship all future generations will have with our closest neighbours? It's madness to be honest. That such a huge thing, which was so much bigger than an in/out question, with ripple effects throughout the generations, should rest on how not even most of the population of the country felt on that day when they marked their paper, especially as the people who will be affected most were not even of voting age....hell most aren't even born yet. It's not like we get another go in 5 years time to reverse it and do it all again. This is it. The country is on it's way out.

For every generation of Brits now to grow up with the UK outside of Europe is just going to be socially damaging. They won't have that same freedom of the continent enjoyed up until now. I think with each generation that went by we became more and more European and that, in my view, wasn't a bad thing...but now it's all be ruined and the UK will certainly slide backwards into being in an empire state of mind, the idea that it's on it's own and proud, we don't need the others...it's sad really, you only have to look at Belarus or Russia to see why that way of thinking, casting yourself off from closest neighbours, is not a good way to be. Inevitably when the EU tells us to jog on with our petty demands, that is how we will end up and of course it'll be all the EU's fault for not giving in to whiney old Britain.

I dread to think how "foreign" Europe will seem to my grand childrens generation after the next 40 or so years of us being on the sidelines instead of playing a central role. We had a good thing going...why on Earth were we given the chance to screw it up? Cameron was totally reckless for doing things they way he did. I am one for democracy, but this vote was an affront to the word...a wholly uninformed, lie based campaign full of poison from the media and repeating of the same lies which have been debunked countless times. No one had any idea how to deal with the result or even any inkling as to the scale of enacting it. Our elected government has all but gone and we are stuck with a bunch of people who are now just assuming what the Leave vote actually meant...they have no mandate, no manifesto, they cannot even agree on what they want between them, the cabinet is split between soft remainders, committed Europeans, hard brexiters and those who sit on the fence and they don't know that what they want is even what the public want because we won't get asked again...it's all just soundbites of "brexit means brexit" and no one knows that that means. No one voted to leave EU nationals in limbo, leave the single market, crash the GBP, no one voted to make it harder for Brits to move around Europe in the future, no one voted for the EFTA or the EEA or a trade deal with Botswana, no one voted for the Human rights act to be scrapped, but shes' gone ahead and started that process already. It is only right that parliament take into account the views of the people but they seriously need to step in and just say no..we cannot simply remove ourselves from the EU without seriously messing up the country. No government should allow that to happen, yet this one seems quite content...indeed eager to do so! We need to face up to the fact that the country is in pretty good shape as an EU member and with the EU against us it's not going to be pretty for the UK.

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 17:02
Edi Local

I daresay that if the Scottish Independence referendum result had been different, you would have been horrified if it had been set aside as a stupid decision, even though history has shown that it would have been a stupid decision. Presumably you are also against a 2nd Scottish independence referendum for the same reason.

meadowrun
29th Aug 2016, 17:05
I dread to think how "foreign" Europe will seem


Europe will always be foreign if they all speak different languages. There is no proposal for everyone to speak Europanese. Yet.
This is one of the prime reasons the EU is a failed enterprise - different languages, different cultures, different histories, different societies, different aspirations despite all the endeavors by the EU junta to throw it all into one big blender.


Future British generations will be far better off with their own heritage and Europe at arms length but a (hopefully) nice place to visit (unless they re-elect mad merkels)

Bergerie1
29th Aug 2016, 17:08
E(retard)
I didn't ask for another referendum, I asked for a vote in Parliament. And I'd be happy to join you in a good malt whisky!

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 17:20
Not a problem Bergerie, a malt would be most agreeable. What purpose could the parliamentary vote serve, unless it is to endorse the will of the people. In 1975, Tony Benn was on the losing Leave side but said "when the British people speak everyone, including members of parliament should tremble before their decision and that's the spirit with which I accept the results of the referendum."

Rob Courtney
29th Aug 2016, 17:28
I believe that Parliament should follow the following process:- (a) debate all these issues and spell out the consequences of the UK leaving the EU; then (b) Members or Parliament should consult their constituents, inform their electorate, and sound out opinions; and (c) only then debate and vote on whether or not to trigger Article 50.

So should members of Parliament do this on all issues? if so we will soon have capital punishment back. But if they did as you said the vote would still be to leave as the majority of constituencies voted to leave. My MP did just that, he held numerous meetings and the issue was debated at length, he then took the same side as the majority of his constituents

The electorate, who must be listened to, can only make reasoned judgements and vote accordingly if they are correctly informed. In my view, the Brexit politicians campaigned using incorrect facts and, in several cases, downright lies. There was very little explanation to counter these views and to demonstrate how the EU actually works, and those arguments that were put forward, were not sufficiently persuasive.

The facts were there for anyone interested in the subject, but consider the last referendum in 75. Then we were told that it was just a common market we were electing to stay in, there would be no loss of sovereignty and Britan would carry on as before. Some years later when someone confronted Ted Heath with these lies he stated that everything was written down and it was our fault if we hadn't read it. So the remain side lied to keep us in and have got away with it for 41 years.

As Cameron said there was only one vote and the UK would enact it, that it didnt go his or your way is unfortunate but we were lied to 41 years ago and have had to live with it, I guess you are going to have to do the same now

Krystal n chips
29th Aug 2016, 18:28
Europe will always be foreign if they all speak different languages. There is no proposal for everyone to speak Europanese. Yet.

Ah, the voice of Little England then .....Just a few minor problems with the above however....first, the UK, on the basis of the above will be, erm, equally "foreign " to anybody not living in....the UK. That, and what, precisely, is a European language?.....given the many nationalities involved,


This is one of the prime reasons the EU is a failed enterprise - different languages, different cultures, different histories, different societies, different aspirations despite all the endeavors by the EU junta to throw it all into one big blender.


Lets start with the many and varied dialects across the counties of the UK, not to mention various cities andchuck in some Welsh and Gaelic for good measure...and then there's the equally diverse societies and cultures across....the UK.....all of which have been part of our society for centuries and are constantly developing thanks to immigration, in part, and also the fact that no society stagnates, or rather if it does, it's finished.

This is where it becomes confusing for those so obsessed with our less than glorious past and the delusion we all wish to regress to such times in our history.


Future British generations will be far better off with their own heritage and Europe at arms length but a (hopefully) nice place to visit (unless they re-elect mad merkels)

You may recall the lurid headlines from the 70's and the abuse of trade union influence by some, not all, unions. "the laughing stock of Europe" appeared frequently as a result.

Somewhat prescient would you not say when viewed from a future mainland Europe perspective.

Quite why anybody would wish to foist the detriments of our "glorious heritage "on future generations suggests a mind and body less travelled .

No doubt, like a BBC documentary / sit-com from the 60's / 70's...."of course, we're going abroad, to the Continent for our holidays...would you like to come round for cucumber sandwiches and watch our slide show one night ?" will be the happy refrain in so many households as the UK is transformed in to a 50's utopian theme park....

Thankfully, I get the distinct impression that when future generations have finished cursing the con merchants who deceived the UK population as to the rationale to leave, they will be more than educated enough to ignore the regressive society so many on here, and indeed in the real world, seem to pine for.

Kitbag
29th Aug 2016, 18:40
Dear heaven above KnC, please, please emigrate, leave this country you are so disdainful of.

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 18:43
Thanks for the link defining Regulations, Directives etc. I was unaware of those distinctions.

In the case of EU laws and directives, these must be passed into national law:Well I would argue that point (as was done a couple of posts later) Regulations are binding legislative acts so must be added to the cannon of every member country but Directives really only set goals for the member countries, albeit that those goals must be achieved, however the individual member countries can make up their own laws to meet those goals.

Regardless, what I think has been continually overlooked in this thread is that the regulations, while mandatory for the individual member countries are created through a process that involves debate and input from the various member governments, ratification by the European Council (including amendment and possible veto), and then further ratification (again including amendment and possible veto) by the European Parliament. So to simply say they 'must be passed in to national law' of individual countries is really only part of the story.

I still disagree with the sentiment of your statement thatArgentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for a law or directive and the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreedI can explain why this way: In November we'll vote for a new president and regardless of who wins, there will be a sizable part of the population who would disagree. In fact it will always be that way, but there was an election so their disagreement is of no consequence (for want of a better way to put it). If on the other hand it was a change in leadership like say North Korea or maybe England 600 years ago (The King is dead ... Long live the King) then yes I would agree that any dissatisfaction would be valid. Or to put it another way by paraphrasing your statement to read '48% of 72% can vote to leave Europe and Britain will have to enact that decision even though 52% of 72% plus the remaining 28% disagreed' (1)

I see your point about 'poorer Southern states' and again it has some merit, but I've not thought it through completely yet.



(1) although I would be remiss to fail to point out that it was a referendum not a binding vote ... but that's a different discussion and one that I could argue both sides of.

Pace
29th Aug 2016, 19:00
Krystal

It's an awful situation! Damned if you do damned if you don't
The EU is well on course to a collapse so wrapped up in idealism it cannot see the wood for the trees

Some of wanted to see the EU reform and make solid changes which it desperately needs so that we can be part of that club
The Euro is not sustainable and neither is freedom of movement
The EU need to realise that they are plugging a leaking bucket err sorry my mistake they have a massively leaking bucket and refuse to acknowledge its sinking

So what are we supposed to do if there was another vote ? Vote remain with that shambles or leave with what also is appearing to be a shambles too ?

I have just come back from
The USA and frankly the EU and its policies are considered a joke so where from
Here ?

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 19:04
I'd also challenge this statementFuture British generations will be far better off with their own heritage and Europe at arms lengthTrue Britain is different from other European countries, but even the most cursory glance at history will show that what we think of as British heritage has a lot of French, German, Danish, even American influence in it. (often at the point of a sword!)

and Italian - sorry I forgot the Romans, but hey, what did THEY ever do for us?

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 19:11
e(r) sorry if this appears to be harping on the same theme but something occurred to me after I made the earlier posting:
Argentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for a law or directive and the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreed should really read:

Argentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for and the USA vote against a [regulation] or directive and if it passed the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreed

That's really the point I was trying to make earlier.

Rob Courtney
29th Aug 2016, 19:23
Argentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for and the USA vote against a [regulation] or directive and if it passed the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreed

It would pass due to majority voting so the USA would have to enact it. Personally I can never see that happening and I wouldnt blame the USA

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 19:36
Not really the point I was making though. I was just taking issue (hopefully in a polite way) with the original statement that other countries voted for something and implying through omission that the US didn't get a vote.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I think it's important to stress that regardless of the final outcome there is a voting process that involves all parties and the results of which will almost always displease some of those parties.

No different from the original referendum really, other than the parties who thought obeying a European Regulation that one didn't like was bad, seem also to think that abiding by a referendum vote that one didn't like was good.

engineer(retard)
29th Aug 2016, 20:03
I think you're splitting hairs Sue, your post at 19:11 reflects my intent. I agree with Rob that the USA would not consider that acceptable.

Sue Vêtements
29th Aug 2016, 20:27
Fair enough - interestingly I show that as 13:11. I guess there must be a time zone conversion built in there. Makes sense that there would be

alwayzinit
29th Aug 2016, 22:23
Sallyann, "And I notice you used the very same tactic instead of responding to the salient points in my post. Please try harder."
Salient points? Which ones?
Politicians cannot move their mouths without exaggerating, embellishing or down right lying? Well slap me silly and call me Shirley!
Sally its Jet Blast, if the Mods feel I have been a naughty boy they will let me know, in the mean time be careful your horse is very big!

Rob Courtney
29th Aug 2016, 23:55
No different from the original referendum really, other than the parties who thought obeying a European Regulation that one didn't like was bad, seem also to think that abiding by a referendum vote that one didn't like was good.

On that we agree, you cannot say you believe in democracy and then demand another vote because it didn't go your way. If the result had been reversed the remainers would say it was the settled will of the British people and close the debate.

Hussar 54
30th Aug 2016, 10:00
I said this same thing on the Hamsterwheel thread a few months ago, but I think it's worth repeating....

If, at the time of the refendum, the UK ( or anyone else in Western Europe, for that matter ) were being asked ' Do you want your country to join the EU ? ' then I wonder what the result would have been or would be in other EU member countries ?

I'm fairly sure that many people in the UK who voted ' to remain ' would never have voted ' to join ' given the dog's breakfast that the EU and Eurozone has now become....

ORAC
30th Aug 2016, 10:25
EU Ruling Against Ireland Will Boost Chances of Irexit - Guido Fawkes Euro Guido (http://order-order.com/2016/08/30/eu-ruling-against-ireland-will-boost-chances-of-irexit/)

Trossie
30th Aug 2016, 11:08
Hussar 54 has repeated the blindingly obvious. This was also stated quite clearly by Gisela Stuart, the German immigrant and now Labour MP, in her opening comments in the last TV Referendum Debate. Those with 'remain' blinkers on conveniently ignore the absolute shambles that the EU, the Schengen Area and the Euro are (and despite the twaddle that gets spoken about any 'opt outs' they are all irretrievably intertwined). Being out of it has to be a massive 'Pro' for any country, especially Britain that has never really belonged anyway.

Now we hear that 'TTIP' is in trouble! Remember Obama saying that we'd be 'at the back of the queue' if it came to another trade deal? Well, a problem for TTIP is that 25% of US exports to the EU come to Britain! Methinks that Britain will be right at the front of the 'queue' (to use that non-American term!) for a trade deal as TTIP flounders.

EU? Pah! It's on its way into the history books the same way as that other large and unwieldy ex-political union (that also had a common currency!) to the east, and now overlapping, that lasted for just under 70 years spanning the middle part of the 20th Century.

Sallyann1234
30th Aug 2016, 12:20
Methinks that Britain will be right at the front of the 'queue' (to use that non-American term!) for a trade deal as TTIP flounders.We would do well to avoid a TTIP - type trade deal that is heavily biased to favour US owned multinationals.

late-joiner
30th Aug 2016, 14:32
Engineer, Not sure whether you and I are disagreeing on this or not. My understanding is that there are 2 distinct categories of law that we are talking about:

- There is EU law which is is made over there, for instance on aviation matters. It does not have to be 'adopted' is any sense, it just de facto and de jure applies. Probably through one of the treaties we ratified. Proposed by the Commission, then approved by EU Parliament and qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers. The ECJ can eventually be involved in interpreting EU law.

- Then there are European Directives which have to be implemented in National law. That gives the scope for some differences in implementation between Nations. The ECJ can rule on whether the implementation is reasonable. But it would be [English] law and the Supreme Court would have the final say on any individual case.

Peter-RB
30th Aug 2016, 19:00
Now the Ex Bank of England big Cheese has stated quite simply the British economy is doing far better the was promised,.. Post Brexit, and should gain ground sufficient to help the overall UK Economy...well thats a surprise for the remainers and chief scaremongers like "Gorgeous George and his chum... whatis... name Call me Dave" who stated Tax hikes and companies laying of staff and workers..what a turn round..:ok::ok:

Come you remainers,... or are you all still sulking and throwing Hissy Fits, dont forget we are a democracy, where,.. when a majority vote to do something ..it will come to pass,...:D:D

engineer(retard)
30th Aug 2016, 19:59
Probably at cross purposes Late Joiner, this is what I was clumsily trying to explain:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Q&A: How UK adopts EU laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8160808.stm)

Fairdealfrank
30th Aug 2016, 22:37
Quote:
Argentina, Canada and Mexico can vote for and the USA vote against a [regulation] or directive and if it passed the USA would have to enact it, even if it disagreed
It would pass due to majority voting so the USA would have to enact it. Personally I can never see that happening and I wouldnt blame the USA No this is nonsense. The USA has a population more than twice that of Argentina, Canada and Mexico put together, so qualified majority voting would make no difference, the USA gets its way in this example.



If, at the time of the refendum, the UK ( or anyone else in Western Europe, for that matter ) were being asked ' Do you want your country to join the EU ? ' then I wonder what the result would have been or would be in other EU member countries ?

I'm fairly sure that many people in the UK who voted ' to remain ' would never have voted ' to join ' given the dog's breakfast that the EU and Eurozone has now become.... It's an interesting question. Logically, in the UK's case at least, anyone who would not to join the EU as it is now should have voted to leave.

Of course if the EU had different member countries, might it be a completely different (better) organisation or still be the basket case that it is?



EU Ruling Against Ireland Will Boost Chances of Irexit - Guido Fawkes Euro Guido (http://order-order.com/2016/08/30/eu-ruling-against-ireland-will-boost-chances-of-irexit/)Another example of EU nonsense: the Irish government arrangement with Apple should be a matter for those two parties only, but Brussels has to stick its oar in. Ireland needs to get out before Brussels attacks its business friendly policies, including its low corporation tax.

The possibility of Irexit was suggested a while back:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-may-have-to-review-eu-membership-if-britain-leaves-1.2619909


EU? Pah! It's on its way into the history books the same way as that other large and unwieldy ex-political union (that also had a common currency!) to the east, and now overlapping, that lasted for just under 70 years spanning the middle part of the 20th Century. Let's hope the EU doesn't last as long as the USSR, otherwise there's (at least) another 10 years of the EU.


Quote:
Methinks that Britain will be right at the front of the 'queue' (to use that non-American term!) for a trade deal as TTIP flounders.
We would do well to avoid a TTIP - type trade deal that is heavily biased to favour US owned multinationals.Another very good reason to get out as soon as.

Krystal n chips
31st Aug 2016, 06:37
Nothing quite like harmony really.....

Divisions emerge as Whitehall draws up Brexit scenarios | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/30/divisions-emerge-as-whitehall-draws-up-brexit-scenarios)

And so beautifully summated...... with the photo showing the jugs half full !

engineer(retard)
31st Aug 2016, 06:58
Frank, which single country in the EU can outvote the rest, which part of mythical Union do you find difficult to understand. I was using it to explain loss of sovereignty and could have added Brazil, Venezuela, Peru etc if I wanted to write a massive diatribe to make a simple point, sheesh

engineer(retard)
31st Aug 2016, 07:00
Harmony is a labour leadership election, good job they've not been entrusted to do anything important

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 09:00
Harmony is a labour leadership election, good job they've not been entrusted to do anything important

You have to love the delicious irony of a socialist questioning the togetherness of the Tory party :p:p:p:p:p

Pace
31st Aug 2016, 09:02
Made an interesting read of the divisions forming in what Brexit actually means ?
One thing that really puzzles me is the EU insistence of the existing freedom of movement ?
I can understand the ideology and the goal of having a superstate where people can move, have settlement rights and benefits rights anywhere in the EU but surely the EU must itself realise that like the Euro it cannot work without parity between member countries
There lies the problem they are insisting on a freedom of movement which could work in maybe 20 years time but at present is deeply flawed
They could still have a freedom of movement to work but the present system doesn't work were freedom of movement becomes an economic or benefits migration damaging the poorer countries and the more economically viable countries
The only way it can work is through a two tier system with much more rigid criteria to belong to the true freedom of movement level while those not meeting those criteria fall into a freedom of movement to work only with visa requirements
As the second tier improve their economic and welfare performance they too can enter the upper tier

The EU is too far based on idealism and not the realism it needs to address
What is also abundantly clear is that there is no plan for Brexit or what that means and there will be many divisions and battles over what that vision is

Sallyann1234
31st Aug 2016, 09:48
Can someone explain to me why we have a second Brexit hamsterwheel, when every point here has been covered ad nauseum in the first one?
We none of us know what pro's and con's (sic) will happen until all the negotiations are completed, which now seems to be 2020 at the very earliest. By that time the UK, Europe and the world will all be in a very different places.

Hussar 54
31st Aug 2016, 10:14
Pros and Cons ?

Well, no more mad EU Commissioners telling the UK what it can and cannot do....

But here's a Brit who should go far in Europe....

Toute l'Europe : Denis MacShane : "le pire jour de l'histoire de l'Europe depuis 70 ans" (http://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/denis-macshane-le-pire-jour-de-l-histoire-de-l-europe-depuis-70-ans.html)

This former UK Minister for Europe, Europhile, Francophile and Socialist, telling us how the Brexit vote was ' The worst day in Europe for 70 years '

In fact, his credentials for an appointment as an EU Commisioner are even more obvious the more you look at them....Accusations that he quoted incorrect statistics in Parliament....Three or four wives / mistresses....Accusations of bullying....And a spell in one of Her Majesty's Pleasure Palaces after 'mis-using' his Parliamentary Expenses....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_MacShane

Just the man, then, to provide at least one of the Pro's of Brexit....

Peter-RB
31st Aug 2016, 12:06
Sally ,

As I started this Pros and Cons thread, (oh by the way, apolgys to the English teachers who pointed out my bad use of apostrophes)..I thought it was a good idea to start some sort of thread, to allow the Pro Brexiteers to make comments as well as the sad remainers,.. who seemingly dont like what the rest of the OUT voters saw and voted against...the fact is the majority of the OUT votes came from good British hard working people, all the namby pamby types, who feel that the State or should I say the conglomerate of self appreciating Commie EU commissioners who are in total charge (or would like to think they are) and see the populace purely as Drones to be Commanded to the instructions from the State Big Brain.

I, like many others do not like to think of some Communist Cretin, not elected ruling my every move, the free thinkers amongst us have indeed seen something distasteful in the ever more demanding EU..and its want to control everything we do incl eat,drink, drive, purchase, spend, save, work, social activity and so on.
Sadly the EU didn't really like the British, it was a flawed vote/agreement by the PM Ted Heath who wanted to be part of the Europhile's and by fiddling and cheating the 1973/4 vote he had his way, BUT it was only a COMMON MARKET..not a EU state....however a succession of Prime Ministers with the exception of Margaret Thatcher , almost bared their backsides to allow the EU to take over all aspects of our Free Thinking Lives, the giant uncaring unthinking EU state screwed our Fishing Industry, Steel Industry, Manufacturing and transport was shackled with some really gormless rules that increased costs to this Island to the point where many small businesses could not function, there are so many rules that individuals were almost having to employ full time lawyers just to run a corner shop...!

These, and so many other examples are the reasons many people wanted OUT OF THE EU..!!

We live as a democracy, majority counted votes always win the day, if you cannot stand that sort of regime I respectfully suggest you and your type go to live on the Continent of Europe....you could fill your boots every day with more and more puerile and stupid regulations, instigated by UNELECTED COMMISSIONERS...

Get used to it, its happened and will not, according to Mrs May, be undone!!

Be Proud to be British..strangely the rest of the World think we are the Dogs Bollxxks..are they wrong as well..!

Wingswinger
31st Aug 2016, 12:34
Hear hear!

Pace
31st Aug 2016, 12:48
Get used to it, its happened and will not, according to Mrs May, be undone!!


When DC first went into negation with the EU the first thing he promised was a reformed EU and that if he didn't achieve certain fundamental points he would recommend we walked
The second thing DC did was to announce to the EU that these were his demands BUT !!! Everything was negotiable and we then ended up with literally nothing
Of course TM will state Brexit means Brexit and there is no turning back! She won't do a DC on the negotiating stance by saying but everything is negotiable
Hence don't read anything in her comments more than being a negotiating stance as only a fool would )) We have a long way to go on this and many things could change the outcome

I travel in Europe a lot and still the Brexit is regarded as a Uk tantrum which won't happen
Anything less that full determination to leave will be seen by the EU as a weakness until art 50 is invoked don't take anything said as solid and remember there can be no serious negotiations until art 50 is instigated and there is no signs of that yet
Anything now is purely tea and biscuits

ATNotts
31st Aug 2016, 14:08
Get used to it, its happened and will not, according to Mrs May, be undone!!

You certainly can't undo anything that has not yet been done - and until and unless Article 50 is invoked there is nothing to undo.

As for Mrs. May's mantra "Brexit means Brexit" I would just ask, "what does Brexit mean?" Until the politicians have established their definition of Brexit, which maybe very different than some people's definition of it, we have no idea what she means by that.

She wasn't stupid in what she said, she was merely keeping all the government's options open, without leaving herself open to allegations that she broke her promise.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 14:24
She wasn't stupid in what she said, she was merely keeping all the government's options open, without leaving herself open to allegations that she broke her promise.

She certainly wasn't being unclear in this article

Theresa May tells ministers UK must make success of Brexit - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143)

especially when she says

'that the UK would not stay in the EU "by the back door" and she was committed to making a success of Britain's "new role" in the world.'

Out it is then :ok::ok::ok:

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 15:07
Peter, I joined this thread to learn something about what I believed was a poorly thought out and ultimately bad decision. With the exception of a few posts it's been an interesting, educational and largely polite exchange of ideas. I have learned quite a lot, but remain unconvinced that Brexit was a good idea.

One of the things I've learned while reading this is that your comments
some Communist Cretin, not elected ruling my every move
you could fill your boots every day with more and more puerile and stupid regulations, instigated by UNELECTED COMMISSIONERS... are at best disingenuous and at worst just plain incorrect.

I don't want to rehash entirely what I've said earlier, but will just say that the Commission merely initiates Regulations and when/if those regulations are passed has the power of enforcement. Your comments overlook the intermediate roles played by each (elected) sovereign government, the European Council and the (elected) European Parliament.

Also the European Council nominates the Commission President and the European Parliament votes on this nomination. The European Council and the Commission President then nominates the remaining 27 members of the European Commission and the European Parliament votes on these nominations. The European Parliament also have the power to dismiss (en masse) the European Commission. Therefore this statementthe conglomerate of self appreciating Commie EU commissioners who are in total charge (or would like to think they are)is also incorrect - and I'm sure they know the process intimately so don't actually think they are in total charge.

Also the Commission has the power to set the annual budget, but the Council and Parliament have authority over that budget.

If unelected people being part of a law making process bothers you, then how do you reconcile the existence of The House of Lords?

Sallyann1234
31st Aug 2016, 16:27
Peter-RB
Thank you for your reply to my comment.
You must understand though that just about every conceivable outcome of Brexit has already been guessed at and speculated upon numerous times in the other thread.

And yet we still don't know what Brexit means - no-one does. Reports today suggest that the members of the Cabinet have a wide range of views of what Brexit means. They range from determination to stop all immigration, to maintaining free trade - two outcomes that are totally incompatible. If the Government do eventually reach a consensus, that is only the starting point for negotiation with the EU who will doubtless have their own proposals.

Until an agreement with the EU is reached, we cannot possibly know what pros it will lead to and what cons will result. It is all idle (if perhaps interesting to some) speculation. That agreement will be some time in the next decade, so the hamsterwheels have many more revolutions to go ...

late-joiner
31st Aug 2016, 16:39
I saw Gus O'Donnell in a video today arguing that parliament should have a debate and vote on our Brexit strategy before Article 50 is invoked.

It seems a crass position. It is daft to debate your strategy publicly before going into a negotiation.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 16:44
It seems a crass position. It is daft to debate your strategy publicly before going into a negotiation.

A lot of 'apparently' intelligent folk are really struggling with that blindingly obvious common sense approach, and is precisely why we currently don't know what Brexit will eventually bring :ok:

ATNotts
31st Aug 2016, 17:21
'that the UK would not stay in the EU "by the back door" and she was committed to making a success of Britain's "new role" in the world.'

That too means diddly squat. She might decide that given the right deal, which would, without doubt require some pretty strong controls on free movement, which to be honest I neither think the rest of the EU are about to offer, not do I think they should do; we should be "by the front door" - and she has not a clue what Britain's "new role" in the world might be. That is dependent upon what sort of deal she gets, and just how much the EU plays hardball with the UK. When she says "We are enacting Article 50 on (date) and will leave the EU on (date)" then I might start to listen to the carefully crafted soundbites she spouts - soundbites that will have been drafted for her by Sir Humphrey, or whichever mandarin is pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Notwithstanding the remarks of Sigmar Gabriel, who is from the junior partner of the German coalition government (the SPD) it does seem likely that the EU will drive a hard bargain as they don't want other sceptic members of the EU, such as Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Denmark to think they can have their cake and eat it.

As Sallyann has said, neither we, nor the government, nor actually the EU has the remotest idea how things are going to turn out - which in itself is slightly worrying. Unless and until Article 50 is triggered

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 18:45
As Sallyann has said, neither we, nor the government, nor actually the EU has the remotest idea how things are going to turn out - which in itself is slightly worrying. Unless and until Article 50 is triggered

Might I suggest you read post #152 as it clears up your confusion :ok:

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 19:05
So the claim is correct then? that nobody knows.

Though we might begin to know something, SHOULD the government actually start to debate it.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 19:08
They are :ok:

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 19:23
sffp - that's very confusing. You started by saying precisely why we currently don't know what Brexit will eventually bring then challenge someone who actually agreed with you by pointing them to a previous post that said Someone called O'Donnell (who's he?) said the government should (ie future tense) have a debate, then you say they already are. :confused:

I wonder if it'll be a productive meeting given that the link hailing it said there were "reports of tensions and diverging priorities".


One more question for those who like the idea of leaving: Doesn't it worry you that the entire operation is being run by someone who originally campaigned to actually NOT leave?

ORAC
31st Aug 2016, 21:01
Apple travesty is a reminder why Britain must leave the lawless EU (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/31/apple-travesty-is-a-reminder-why-britain-must-leave-the-lawless/)

yellowtriumph
31st Aug 2016, 21:22
sffp - that's very confusing. You started by saying then challenge someone who actually agreed with you by pointing them to a previous post that said Someone called O'Donnell (who's he?) said the government should (ie future tense) have a debate, then you say they already are. :confused:

I wonder if it'll be a productive meeting given that the link hailing it said there were "reports of tensions and diverging priorities".


One more question for those who like the idea of leaving: Doesn't it worry you that the entire operation is being run by someone who originally campaigned to actually NOT leave?
As per the last sentence in your post, and as someone who voted to leave the EU, I'm not worried in the slightest.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 21:47
sffp - that's very confusing.

For you it may well be, however for me it's extremely easy to grasp :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 21:51
For those still confused

Government to 'push ahead' with Brexit - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143)

'The government will "push ahead" to triggering Brexit without Parliamentary approval, Downing Street says.'

perhaps this gives a better indication of whats about to happen.

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 21:56
I have to admit that yes what you said WAS confusing.

Perhaps I should have used the word contradictory then as in where you said:
precisely why we currently don't know what Brexit will eventually bring
then in response to:
As Sallyann has said, neither we, nor the government, nor actually the EU has the remotest idea how things are going to turn out you said:
Might I suggest you read post #152 as it clears up your confusion
Which said that some guy (and I still don't know who he is) said that the Government should start debating it but you said they already were


So help me to understand: do we or don't we know (what Brexit will eventually bring)?

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 22:10
I read the Telegraph article to try to learn about Ireland and Apple, but I have to say it was difficult to get past the inflammatory words like "Shock troops", SWAT teams", "Fortress" and Dawn raids"

I'm going to have to find a different source though if I want a valid explanation of what's really going on.

Having said that, I did see these bits that were mentioned though:
We can mostly agree that Apple, Google, Starbucks, and others have gamed the international system, finding legal loopholes to whittle down their tax liabilities and enrich shareholders at the expense of society.

We can agree too that Apple's cosy EU arrangements should never have been permitted.

"The profits did not have any factual or economic justification. The “head office” had no employees, no premises and no real activities," said Margrethe Vestager, the EU competition chief.

This may be true

Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, has €13bn axe to grind, but he is almost certainly right in arguing that Mrs Vestager is making up state aid rules as she goes along Well he would say that really

The EU authorities are trying to subvert the sovereign prerogative of the elected Dail to determine Irish tax and fiscal policies, and some are clearly hoping to shut down Ireland's special low tax model and end its role as an off-shore aircraft carrier for US companies.

Needless to say, there is Treasury money at stake. American companies are allowed to deduct their payments to foreign tax authorities, so such fines cut US tax revenue dollar for dollar.

and the 1, 2, 3 in the graphic that I can't copy


I mean if you actually read the article it sounds like the chickens finally came home to roost here or whatever the expression is.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 22:29
So help me to understand: do we or don't we know (what Brexit will eventually bring)?

This has been a simple and easily understandable process right from the very get go and has 4 distinct phases.

1. The country are asked the question.

If Brexit is the answer then

2. The Government debate their approach.

3. Article 50 is invoked

4. The UK then spends a period of time negotiating our exit terms with the EU.

The EU stated quite clearly all the way throughout the election process that there could be absolutely no negotiating done prior to the invoking of Article 50 so how on earth can the Government, or anyone else for that matter know what the outcome of the post Article 50 negotiations is going to be?

I am hardly the sharpest tool in the box but even I fully understand the above as being the only way that Brexit can be finally achieved.

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 22:34
sorry everyone for making yet ANOTHER post :O

sfft Your quote that "The government will "push ahead" to triggering Brexit without Parliamentary approval"

Am I correct in saying that to do that would require a Royal prerogative? (one more thing to look up), but I'm assuming it means The Queen has to step in and say it's ok to go ahead. But even if that DID happen (and personally I can't see it happening) that the British Parliament will still have to vote to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act?

The link you gave merely says that Johnson, Fox and Davis "held private talks last week amid reports of early disagreements over the shape of a future Brexit settlement" but then says everything is pretty much up to them.

So no it doesn't give any better indication of what's about to happen (other than utter chaos of course)

Anyway regarding the non-binding referendum in June, even though only 52% of 72% of the people actually requested to leave it shows some direction from the people. I would not be in favour of holding another non-binding referendum not because I think it should be overturned, but because if this cause this time then what's the next cause going to be? Having said that though I think to proceed without a vote from Parliament is equally unacceptable.

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 22:40
The link you gave merely says that Johnson, Fox and Davis "held private talks last week amid reports of early disagreements over the shape of a future Brexit settlement" but then says everything is pretty much up to them.


Really, I thought it headlined with

'The government will "push ahead" to triggering Brexit without Parliamentary approval, Downing Street says.'

which seemed quite clear to me :ok:

Hussar 54
31st Aug 2016, 22:41
If all the posts above are correct, ie Nobody knows what BREXIT means then I'm more than a bit confused.

I thought, and hoped, that BREXIT means the UK will be leaving the EU as it is currently constituted. No ?

In which case, rather then worry about what might / could / perhaps happen in the UK when it does leave, maybe those on here who preferred that the UK stayed in might start to explain the Pros and Cons for an EU without its second largest contributor to its bloated budget and, potentially, with no further free trade access to Europe's second and the world's fifth or sixth largest economy if, as suggested above, the EU will be ' difficult ' in any BREXIT negotiations

In other words, who's future is most at risk here ?

Someone asked for Pros and Cons....OK, here's a few to be going on with....

The UK without free trade access to the no-growth-for-the foreseeable-future EU or the EU without free trade access to the UK ? Both the UK and EU are at risk if the EU decides to play hard ball, but my money would be on the UK to benefit from its freedom to negotiate whatever with whoever, rather than be constrained by what Brussels might eventually agree with Thailand, Mauritius, etc....

The EU's Common Agricultural Policy can stay as it is without the UK's contribution to its funding to continue subsidising French / Italian / Spanish farmers ? Unlikely, so expect huge unrest in the three largest remaining EU countries, after non-agricultural Germany, as their farmers take to the streets as subsidies start to fall and prices rise....

The EU without the UK to soak up the millions of the EU's unemployed or the UK with control over needed immigration and not uncontrolled immigration ? In other words, expect massive increases in already dangerously high unemployment rates throughout France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal....And let's not even mention the effect that this would certainly have on Balkan and Eastern European unemployment rates unless, of course, the rest of the EU are OK to accept 200,000 additional Eastern Europeans each year on top of current levels of immigration....

Helping bail out the economic basket cases of Greece and Italy without the UK as a contibutor ? Hope Frau M has deep pockets, pockets as big as her arse, because nobody else in Europe could help to the extent that the UK would have to....

A European Army without the UK's contribution in bodies, material and funds ? A stupid idea, but one which the UK would be expected to contribute to and to the detriment of its contribution to NATO....

The UK having to adapt to political leadership changes and changing political landscape within the EU with each General Election in France and Germany ? One less problem for the UK to have to deal with, I would have thought....

Perhaps we can have some 'REMAINERS' list the Pros for the EU in having the UK leave....No, thought not....Not a single one !! And which is why the EU will act like jilted lovers at the beginning of the negotiations ( that's natural ) but all the cards in the hands of the UK....

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 22:43
This has been a simple and easily understandable process right from the very get go and has 4 distinct phases.
NOW I understand. We're talking about two different things. You're describing a nebulous view of the overall process whereas I had taken it to mean that you actually had an idea what the country would look like in say ten years.

I believe Step 4 is the two year limit right? What will happen if negotiations are incomplete at that point?

There will also be a Step 5 though: the practical part of backing out of Europe, repealing the 1972 European Communities act (if that needs doing), unwinding various treaties and agreements, rewriting laws etc etc. Different from Step 4 which is largely theoretical as opposed to practical




Really, I thought it headlined withetc - yes sorry my poor wording there, I should have said something like it did say it would push ahead, but included signs of turmoil amongst the major three players.

Anyway we were talking about two different things :bored:

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 22:48
NOW I understand. We're talking about two different things. You're describing a nebulous view of the overall process whereas I had taken it to mean that you actually had an idea what the country would look like in say ten years.



Had the vote gone Remain can you enlighten us to EXACTLY what the country would look like in say 10 years?

Sue Vêtements
31st Aug 2016, 22:55
That's a fair point, though I think it would be less different from what it would be if Brexit is actually accomplished

Seldomfitforpurpose
31st Aug 2016, 23:00
That's a fair point, though I think it would be less different from what it would be if Brexit is actually accomplished
And I 'think that post Brexit life will be much much better than suggested by those of a Remanian persuasion.

As to who is right only time will tell.

meadowrun
31st Aug 2016, 23:21
do we or don't we know (what Brexit will eventually bring)?


By this, I take it what you mean is does anyone know what the final situation will be after the actual, formal exit.


No one knows. Like I don't know what the weather will be like in Micronesia next Wednesday.
It is uncharted territory. There will be plans and strategy and re-thinks and negotiations over certain things and we will get to the EXIT.
Even then it is not over. It is never over, life goes on, business goes on and everything constantly evolves with each changing day.
No one expects any certainties, just a good result and a path to a different future, one without EU dictatorship.

G-CPTN
31st Aug 2016, 23:38
Article 50 has a 2 year limit, I believe.

At the end of the two years, is it automatic that Brexit will happen (regardless of interim negotiations) - or will the doors slam shut with Britain still in the EU?

I think we should be told (http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/).

G-CPTN
1st Sep 2016, 00:03
As I read The mechanics of leaving the EU - explaining Article 50 (http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/), the UK doesn't have any say in determining the terms that will apply after leaving the EU.

The UK can 'agree' within the 2 years - when Brexit will then have been agreed, otherwise at the end of the 2 years the terms proposed by the EU will be applied (unless prior agreement to extend the period has been reached).

So if you want to leave 'the club', the club will decide what concessions are granted or what 'penalties' they will apply, and the member can either agree or not.

Fairdealfrank
1st Sep 2016, 02:00
I, like many others do not like to think of some Communist Cretin, not elected ruling my every move, the free thinkers amongst us have indeed seen something distasteful in the ever more demanding EU..and its want to control everything we do incl eat,drink, drive, purchase, spend, save, work, social activity and so on.
Sadly the EU didn't really like the British, it was a flawed vote/agreement by the PM Ted Heath who wanted to be part of the Europhile's and by fiddling and cheating the 1973/4 vote he had his way, BUT it was only a COMMON MARKET..not a EU state....however a succession of Prime Ministers with the exception of Margaret Thatcher , almost bared their backsides to allow the EU to take over all aspects of our Free Thinking Lives, the giant uncaring unthinking EU state screwed our Fishing Industry, Steel Industry, Manufacturing and transport was shackled with some really gormless rules that increased costs to this Island to the point where many small businesses could not function, there are so many rules that individuals were almost having to employ full time lawyers just to run a corner shop...!


These, and so many other examples are the reasons many people wanted OUT OF THE EU..!!

We live as a democracy, majority counted votes always win the day, if you cannot stand that sort of regime I respectfully suggest you and your type go to live on the Continent of Europe....you could fill your boots every day with more and more puerile and stupid regulations, instigated by UNELECTED COMMISSIONERS...

Get used to it, its happened and will not, according to Mrs May, be undone!!

Be Proud to be British..strangely the rest of the World think we are the Dogs Bollxxks..are they wrong as well..! No no no, this is factually wrong, but no arguments with the sentiments!!

(1) Heath was not expected to win 1970, everyone thought that Wilson would.
(2) Heath was always desperate for the UK to join the EEC/EU.
(3) Most of the Conservatives and part of Labour favoured membership, both parties were divided over it, but Labour more so at that time.
(4) The legislation to join (European Communities Act 1972) only went through Parliament because the Labour rebels in favour (Labour was officially against joining) out numbered the Conservative rebels against. There was no referendum, Heath knew he'd lose it, and it was sold to the public as "only joining a free trade area".
(5) The truth is that we left a free trade area (EFTA) to join the "common market" (common=single) and all the integration and nonsense that we have today was already known about and planned, it's all in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome 1957, which Heath signed in 1971 (and got ink thrown at him by a protestor for his trouble).

Treaty of Rome (http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/index.html)

Click on each "title" to see the plans for what we have now and would in future.

(6) Wilson won 2 elections in 1974 (just) and decided to resolve the divisions in Labour over the EU by having a referendum (sound familiar?). The same lies were peddled and, regretably, the people voted to remain by 67% to 33%.
(7) Nothing was resolved in Labour and it fought the 1983 election on withdrawal from the EEC and lost badly (Foot's manifesto was dubbed "the longest suicide note in history").

(7) The euro-phile Thatcher was not the exception as stated above. She presided over the biggest single act of integration and surrender of sovereignty of all: the Single European Act 1986. This was later followed by even more integration and further surrender of sovereignty: Maastricht (Major), Nice and Amsterdam (Blair), Lisbon constitution (Brown). At no time did the people have a say in these surrenders of sovereignty.
(8) The only prime minister who did not give away sovereignty was Cameron, in fact he actually used the veto, or what's left of it.
(9) There are those who still buy the pack of lies peddled by Heath/Wilson and believe that the EU developped in the way it did, and will not accept that these were planned from day one.
(10) The truth is that we were conned by the vested interests, the establishment, and the sneering metroplitan elites. No wonder there's been a seething resentment for 40+ years! The remain campaign could not make one single positive point about the EU (hence "project fear"). That really says it all.




Also the Commission has the power to set the annual budget, but the Council and Parliament have authority over that budget.

If unelected people being part of a law making process bothers you, then how do you reconcile the existence of The House of Lords?The House of Lords can be overruled if necessary, it's called the Parliament Act 1949. The House of Lords is not the problem, it does not involve loss of sovereignty or being ruled from abroad, it does not compromise the independence and integrity of the UK.


Notwithstanding the remarks of Sigmar Gabriel, who is from the junior partner of the German coalition government (the SPD) it does seem likely that the EU will drive a hard bargain as they don't want other sceptic members of the EU, such as Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Denmark to think they can have their cake and eat it.This argument is often used, usually by the "remoaners", but it leads to a question: if the EU is so wonderful and worth staying a part of, why would anyone else need to be deterred from wanting to leave? Would love to know the answer.

By the way, you left Sweden, Austria and the Netherlands off your list, and it would be no surprise if Ireland ends up on it.


Am I correct in saying that to do that would require a Royal prerogative? (one more thing to look up), but I'm assuming it means The Queen has to step in and say it's ok to go ahead. But even if that DID happen (and personally I can't see it happening) that the British Parliament will still have to vote to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act?No the Queen is not involved, the Royal Prerogative is operated by the Prime Minister.

Yes, Parliament will still have to repeal the European Communities Act.


A European Army without the UK's contribution in bodies, material and funds ? A stupid idea, but one which the UK would be expected to contribute to and to the detriment of its contribution to NATO....Who do you think you are kidding? Why does any mention of an EU army conjure up images and thoughts of Captain Mainwaring and co?



Quote:
This has been a simple and easily understandable process right from the very get go and has 4 distinct phases.
NOW I understand. We're talking about two different things. You're describing a nebulous view of the overall process whereas I had taken it to mean that you actually had an idea what the country would look like in say ten years.

I believe Step 4 is the two year limit right? What will happen if negotiations are incomplete at that point?It will be obvious that there is no deal to be done and we will walk.


There will also be a Step 5 though: the practical part of backing out of Europe, repealing the 1972 European Communities act (if that needs doing), unwinding various treaties and agreements, rewriting laws etc etc. Different from Step 4 which is largely theoretical as opposed to practicalIt can be done in our own time and our own way once we're out.


Had the vote gone Remain can you enlighten us to EXACTLY what the country would look like in say 10 years? Not exactly, but clearly the UK would sucked in to the disaster that is "more Europe" and "ever closer union", that much is obvious!

Alternatively the UK would be involved in the up-coming EU implosion.



As I read The mechanics of leaving the EU - explaining Article 50 (http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/), the UK doesn't have any say in determining the terms that will apply after leaving the EU.That's what it says, the reality is that as the first to leave, the UK will set the procedure and set the precendent for those who follow.

More BS:

Article 50 was never supposed to be used, says the man who wrote it (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/article-50-was-never-supposed-to-be-used-says-the-man-who-wrote-it/ar-BBuTgJh?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout)

You couldn't make it up.

late-joiner
1st Sep 2016, 08:23
SueV
You said you still don't know who Gus O'Donnell is.
Google brings his wiki entry straight up
Now Lord O'Donnell.
Former Cabinet Secretary to Blair, Brown and Cameron.
Known to his colleagues as GOD.
Knows a bit about how Government works.

Back in post 152 I said it was a crass position to expect strategy to be debated in Parliament.
Of course though it should be debated by the Government.
The former is in public; the latter is in private (dependent on the amount of leaking/briefing afterwards).

Seldomfitforpurpose
1st Sep 2016, 08:39
Back in post 152 I said it was a crass position to expect strategy to be debated in Parliament.
Of course though it should be debated by the Government.
The former is in public; the latter is in private (dependent on the amount of leaking/briefing afterwards).

Totally agree and as I pointed out to Sue is precisely what they were doing yesterday.

Pace
1st Sep 2016, 08:44
Mrs UK and MR EU were not getting on
Mr EUs demands were too much for Mrs Uk, She was fed up with the controlling abusive attitude of Mr EU
She pleaded with him to change his ways to something more acceptable to her but to no avail

Mrs UK decided to leave
Mr EU told her to pack her bags now, get out and file for divorce!

Mrs UK told him that all was finished she would file for divorce so the courts could work out a division settlement but instead stayed in the marital home delaying when she would file

Every day was stupid really! They hardly spoke but when they did both were as stubborn as Oxes
" go on clear off you stupid bag! Don't think you are getting anything out of me. Not a penny I don't need you "

Mrs UK retaliated " I don't need you either you grumpy self opinionated, abusive man "

Six months went by and still the arguments still both living under the same roof hardly speaking

" Go on pack your bags and file "
" no not yet but I will I really really will "
Note the similarity ? ))
If the government are really really serious file, get out and move on!

Addendum
There is a court case filed for October with a speeded up process judgement by Christmas on whether the government can invoke article 50 without a parilamtary vote

The EU are probably sitting back holding a hard line just waiting for the uk divisions to collapse the whole thing before art 50 ever gets invoked
TM won't give a immigration target and directs her attention at 3 country students? That's her immigration policy ? A shambles a chaotic one with no direction just like the EU

Trossie
1st Sep 2016, 09:28
What Pace omits to include in his cute little story is that "Mrs UK" is a net contributor to the finances of the 'household' that "Mr EU" is attempting to run and that "Mrs UK" does not live in the same 'marital home', but in an annex to the west and, even more importantly, the other side of a stream. "Mrs UK" is going for the two years irretrievable breakdown period where an uncontested divorce is simpler. As "Mrs UK" already has a comfortable home and all the required furniture and fittings and has a comfortable income with no need for 'maintenance payments', the break should be simple. "Mr EU", however, will need to rethink his budget without the contributions from "Mrs UK" and would be best advised to maintain all current business transactions with "Mrs UK" in order to avoid a collapse of his household budget without any of those contributions from "Mrs UK".

Going back to post #134... understanding is that there are 2 distinct categories of law that we are talking about:... don't worry too much about that from the UK side as in not long after two years from now there will be only one category of law: UK law. It will be for all the countries remaining to worry about all their differing categories of laws in that overburdened sinking ship.

There seem to be too many clinging on in desperation and disbelief at reality here, with some dim thought that 'it might not all happen'. 'Brexit'* is simple: Britain becomes a country again, not a region in another entity; Britain will have the same independence that Canada, Australia and New Zealand now have and the ability to do business their way for their own benefit the same way that those other independent countries can do, rather than have everything needing to go through the 'treacle' of having decisions made by a committee of 28 each with their own narrow interests getting in the way. The last attempt at a political union in any part of Europe failed in the early '90s. This one is rapidly approaching that 70 year failure point. Best to watch that failure happening from the outside.

* "Brexit is a terrible name, sounds like cereal you eat when you are constipated" - Tiff Stevenson, Edinburgh 'Fringe'.

wiggy
1st Sep 2016, 09:42
Brexit'* is simple

It does indeed sound like a simple idea, but hearing/reading a lot of the waffle that came out of the Chequers meeting yesterday I get the impression that those charged with actually turning that idea into reality have realised it's not going to be a quick and easy thing to achieve.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 09:46
Pace,
The significant difference with your analogy is that the couple can refer to the divorce court for a clean and hopefully fair break.
In the Brexit case the is no arbitrator and the couple must continue living next door to each other for ever.

Trossie
1st Sep 2016, 10:00
... the couple must continue living next door to each other for ever.With one partner having to live without the net contributions that the other partner had been making. The partner losing that income has the simple choice of deciding to continue to do business with the previously-contributing partner or to cut off their noses to spite their faces and become awkward with their business deals. Whereas the departing partner has the whole world to do business with and will probably manage to do business better negotiating on their own rather than through a committee of over two-dozen.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 10:03
I get the impression that those charged with actually turning that idea into reality have realised it's not going to be a quick and easy thing to achieve.
No secret there!
I wouldn't mind betting that there will be resignations before a conclusion is reached.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 10:17
With one partner having to live without the net contributions that the other partner had been making.
That's true. But that net contribution although significant is only a minor proportion of his/her total income.
The majority partner will find it rather easier to reorganise their way of life without the constant whining of the reluctant partner who realised that they never really wanted to be in the relationship.

engineer(retard)
1st Sep 2016, 10:35
The majority partner will find it rather easier to reorganise their way of life without the constant whining of the reluctant partner who realised that they never really wanted to be in the relationship.

But the majority partner has to put up with the whining of the 26 dependant children who thinks that they should just be given money.

engineer(retard)
1st Sep 2016, 10:41
A Brexit pro:

Brexit latest: Manufacturing in surprise surge in August | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-manufacturing-in-surprise-surge-in-august-a7219461.html)

Manufacturing output unexpectedly surged in August according to the latest Purchasing Managers Index report from Markit/CIPS, helped by the post-Brexit vote collapse in sterling.

The index - where the 50 mark separates contraction from growth - jumped from 48.2 in July to 53.3 in August.

The monthly surge of 5 points was the joint greatest in the history of the survey, Markit said.

Export orders from the US, Europe, China and the Middle East jumped and the new orders index leapt from 47.8 to 54.6.

Markit reported that the depreciation of sterling since the June 23 EU referendum was "by far the main factor" cited by manufacturers as supporting the surge in new export work.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 10:57
But the majority partner has to put up with the whining of the 26 dependant children who thinks that they should just be given money.

That's very true and they will have to resolve their internal differences, which will now be a little easier without the absent partner.

Pace
1st Sep 2016, 11:06
It is natural that with a drop in the pound from $1.55 to $1.32 and the Euro from €1.40 to 1.17 that exports will increase

I would also expect property prices to increase With again property being a much cheaper option to buy into by foreign investors

But you cannot take one factor in isolation
Manufacturing is a tiny portion of our economy while imports especially from the EU a large portion
While imports will decrease which will damage the EU the cost of those imports will increase to the consumer
I would like to see post Brexit EU import figures and more relevant cost ?

engineer(retard)
1st Sep 2016, 11:07
That's very true and they will have to resolve their internal differences, which will now be a little easier without the absent partner.

I suspect not as the rest can not gang up and beat the majority partner, which was not possible before. It won't be long before the calls for a transfer union get louder.

alwayzinit
1st Sep 2016, 11:11
The use of the Parent/Child analogy is an interesting choice to describe the relationships within the EU.
In my experience adopting this authoritarian approach has exactly the opposite to the desired effect, especially when used towards other adults.
It may be that this Parent/Child attitude from the "Elite" in the EU towards the adult member states is the very thing that will see it disappear up its' own fundament.
The analogy could be used that the UK was "Married" to the EU under false pretenses after the Cabinet papers revealing the collusion and subterfuge of the Heath Government prior to the '75 referendum.

ORAC
1st Sep 2016, 11:14
Now it’s Remain that doesn’t know what it wants (http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/now-its-remain-that-doesnt-know-what-it-wants.html) :ok::ok::ok:

pvmw
1st Sep 2016, 11:14
...... which will now be a little easier without the absent partner. ]If we are to continue the analogy, I'd say quite the opposite. The elder children will see that the departing partner has left a dysfunctional relationship, and may conclude they also wish to leave home - and possibly continue in an adult relationship with the absent parent rather than with a controlling and bullying parent who keeps demanding a greater proportion of their earned income - even more so when it needs it to replace the absent income. The younger children will see their pocket money reduced and will continue to have regular temper tantrums.

I find it quite beyond comprehension that there are people still prepared to support an artificial construct so dysfunctional that the government has to move from Strasbourg to Brussels monthly simply to satisfy the ego of one of the members. Utterly barking.

Andy_S
1st Sep 2016, 11:41
]I find it quite beyond comprehension that there are people still prepared to support an artificial construct so dysfunctional that the government has to move from Strasbourg to Brussels monthly simply to satisfy the ego of one of the members. Utterly barking.

Indeed. And yet the pro-EU lobby complain that the UK is the 'problem child' who's needs they are constantly trying to accommodate.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 12:05
Now it’s Remain that doesn’t know what it wants (http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/now-its-remain-that-doesnt-know-what-it-wants.html)

It's hardly news that there has always been, and still is, a whole spectrum of views. What the hell did you expect with such a contentious issue?

There are still some diehard Remainers who would like to block Brexit. Just as there are some diehard Brexiters who want to block all immigration from the EU at any cost.

Even if/when the government ever makes up its mind on a bargaining position there will be much criticism from both ends that it's not what they wanted.

It's time that both ends of the spectrum started drawing towards the centre. The decision has been made for better or worse, and there will have to be compromise inside the UK as well as outside with the EU.

alwayzinit
1st Sep 2016, 12:07
Indeed Andy S which shows the truth of Churchill's saying:

"We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed."
Seems to sum it up really.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 12:08
And yet the pro-EU lobby complain that the UK is the 'problem child' who's needs they are constantly trying to accommodate.

Just look at the history, from Thatcher to Cameron.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 12:12
Churchill also said "We must build a kind of United States of Europe"

alwayzinit
1st Sep 2016, 12:16
With the emphasis on "Kind Of", not literal.

pvmw
1st Sep 2016, 12:33
Churchill also said "We must build a kind of United States of Europe" .....and he also made it very clear that he did not consider that the UK should be a part of it.

Churchill wholeheartedly supported the creation of a European federal union, but he stressed in a newspaper article he wrote in 1930 that Great Britain could never be part of such a union because: “[…] we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed.”

Don't try to pretend that Churchill would have been a supporter of the UK's membership of the EU.

Widger
1st Sep 2016, 12:40
Pace, even in the face of facts you will not concede. I have been saying for weeks that a lower pound will improve exports and you and others have poo poohed it. Exports are more important than imports because we have a DEFICIT.

In other news the EU shows it true face with yet more interference in a sovereign nations tax affairs. First it was the small cider producers in the UK, now Apple. The EC operates outside of the law and driven by a political federalist ideology that I want no part of.

Sallyann1234
1st Sep 2016, 13:01
Pvmw.
It's interesting that you had to go back as far as 1930 to find that quote. He spoke very differently after ww2.
I don't 'pretend' anything - I just find quotations, as you did.

Pace
1st Sep 2016, 13:06
Widger

I don't think I have poohed the idea that with a weaker pound exports will increase. That is pretty obvious.

We are mainly an import nation and not a manufacturing nation. We cannot compete on the world platform other than in very specialist areas as our wages are ridiculously high to do so.
Our strengths are advanced technology and services and the financial industry not manufacturing.

Imports will always outweigh exports in that area and while we will export more of the products we do make we will also pay a lot more for the products we import

Trossie
1st Sep 2016, 14:13
Regarding that quote from Churchill:... we have our own dream and our own task - reminds me of a cartoon that I've seen somewhere of the British PM and Napoleon sitting down to a meal of a plum pudding ('decorated' to look like a Globe) with Napoleon greedily fixated on Europe while the British PM calmly carves up the rest of the world. (Can anyone find a copy of it?) That seems to sum up the differences in general approach to the wider world between Britain and almost the rest of Europe for centuries and most certainly the attitude now to future trade. (For example, while the French quibble about trade deals with the US and hence hold up advances with the whole of Europe's trade with the US, Britain will be able to go ahead and arrange its own trade deal with the US. And so on and on ... )


First it was the small cider producers in the UK, now Apple.I love it!! :);):D

Ametyst1
1st Sep 2016, 14:54
Perhaps small British cider producers and Apple are the core problem for the EU! :O

I'll get my coat!

pvmw
1st Sep 2016, 16:00
He spoke very differently after ww2.
If you can find any evidence of that then produce it. His opinions were the same after the war as before it, I just happened to produce that quote 'cos I knew where to find it. His opinion did not change, he never advocated the IK becoming part of an EU "superstate". Produce evidence to the contrary if you can.

wiggy
1st Sep 2016, 16:26
Trossie

reminds me of a cartoon that I've seen somewhere of the British PM and Napoleon sitting down to a meal of a plum pudding ...... (Can anyone find a copy of it?)

Sounds like the James Gillray cartoon depicted and discussed in this article:

James Gillray: The Scourge of Napoleon | History Today (http://www.historytoday.com/mark-bryant/james-gillray-scourge-napoleon)

Pace
1st Sep 2016, 16:30
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3768075/amp/UK-remain-Europe-s-number-one-financial-hub-decade-admits-pro-EU-bank.html

Reading this today my first preference would be a major reform of the EU which we could be part of
Failing that we can stand apart and certainly do not want to remain on a sinking ship if others are right and there is no reforms from the EU

Rob Courtney
1st Sep 2016, 17:44
Just look at the history, from Thatcher to Cameron.

Well quite a lot of that time was under either Blair or Brown with the arch federalist Peter Mendelson either part of the government or a EU commissioner. If we couldn't get it right with those three comedians what chance did we have.

Pace
1st Sep 2016, 19:27
RC

You only have to look at the obscene money the Kinnocks were paid to realise the behind closed doors carrots offered to PMs by the EU to turn things their way ?
We all knew DC was coming to the end of his time in office and I could almost bet anything a very lucrative position had been offered for his post PM future in Brussels too if he steered their way ?

Trossie
1st Sep 2016, 19:57
His opinions were the same after the war as before it, I just happened to produce that quote 'cos I knew where to find it. His opinion did not change, he never advocated the IK [sic, surely 'UK'?] becoming part of an EU "superstate".Churchill in the House of Commons in June 1950, when debating the 'Schumann Plan', the initial thinking behind the 'coal and steel common market':
"There would be an oligarchy imposed on Europe, an oligarchy which, with arbitrary power and with enormous influence, would be able to affect the lives of every person in this country." (Pretty much a 'Eurosceptic' to me!)

wiggy, that's the one!

...my first preference would be a major reform of the EU...Just not at all possible, so therefore not even worth discussing.

Pace
1st Sep 2016, 20:47
Just not at all possible, so therefore not even worth discussing.

Trossie

That is not true. There is NO reason for the EU to do anything at present but hold a hard line and sit back hoping there is enough discord created by that hard line that all our MPs start rebelling and the whole Brexit thing collapses

They have no need to do anything as nothing has changed. The money from the UK is flowing towards the EU at normal rates the only difference is some exporters to the UK won't like the pound exchange rate damaging their export levels

No art 50 has been triggered and there is no sign of that until as TM said some point later next year
A week in politics and the financial world is a long time people don't normally change until change is forced on them and that is very likely


But he also joined a growing chorus of experts who claim Britain’s decision to quit the EU should lead to reform, and criticised the European Central Bank’s move to negative interest rates.

Mr Cryan said the European Union must re-engage with the citizens of Europe and become relevant to the 21st century.
His bank is said to have discussed a mega-merger with rival Commerzbank last month before backing off.
Such a deal would create a banking behemoth in a tie-up eerily reminiscent of the frenzied wave of deal-making prior to the financial crisis. But after two weeks of discussions, both sides reportedly decided the time was not right for a deal.
Deutsche Bank’s share price has more than halved in the last year as investors fret over its future. Its profits plunged 67 per cent to £341.5million in the second quarter of 2016.
In June, the International Monetary Fund warned that Deutsche Bank was so closely entwined with other lenders, its failure could bring the global system crashing down. It has a derivatives portfolio of £35trillion – more than half the size of the global economy.

So tell me how the EU will survive without the vast contributions from the UK and its huge market for the EU ? Its not rocket science to work out that change will be forced on the EU

SARF
1st Sep 2016, 20:55
Europe will be begging for access to our FREE market the way thing are going. Their SINGLE market with ludicrous levels of youth unemployment in Southern Europe , needs all the help it can get

Wingswinger
1st Sep 2016, 22:35
Perhaps small British cider producers and Apple are the core problem for the EU!


No problem. It'll just tax them 'til the pips squeak.

Seldomfitforpurpose
1st Sep 2016, 22:43
So tell me how the EU will survive without the vast contributions from the UK and its huge market for the EU ? Its not rocket science to work out that change will be forced on the EU

And its not rocket science to work to that those who voted Brexit more than likely don't give a damn, hence they voted for Brexit :ok:

wiggy
1st Sep 2016, 22:51
From the Mail article...., and as quoted earlier....At the Handelsblatt finance conference in Frankfurt, Mr Cryan said: ‘We really need to follow our customers. In some areas London is our biggest trading hub.’

But he also joined a growing chorus of experts who claim Britain’s decision to quit the EU should lead to reform, and criticised the European Central Bank’s move to negative interest rates.

My emphasis ....I thought somebody on the leave side of the campaign a while back said we'd had enough of experts....I guess now they can be trusted......

Rob Courtney
1st Sep 2016, 23:33
You only have to look at the obscene money the Kinnocks were paid to realise the behind closed doors carrots offered to PMs by the EU to turn things their way ?

I forgot about those two no wonder the Welsh windbag was campaigning so hard to keep us in!

Peter-RB
2nd Sep 2016, 07:19
It seems the Germans have conceded that the London Money Markets are to remain as the main leaders in this field of skill and expertise....despite the UK wanting to part from the EU.... these people never make comments like that for no reason!:ok:

Pace
2nd Sep 2016, 08:09
And its not rocket science to work to that those who voted Brexit more than likely don't give a damn, hence

We all will if there is another world financial collapse Brexit or no Brexit
But don't blame the Brexit voters the blame will fall on the EUs shoulders for refusing to change with the times and circumstances
As with any failing business you either change or go down the drain

Trossie
2nd Sep 2016, 08:39
...my first preference would be a major reform of the EU...

Just not at all possible, so therefore not even worth discussing.

I stick by that. 'Reform' is something that happens from the inside. Those on the 'inside' of the EU have about as much interest in reform as did the old French monarchy and the old Russian monarchy. It will change (and just for human decency I hope not the same way as the barbaric French and Russian changes), but it will not 'reform'. Not in even in any significant minor ways, let alone 'major reform'!!

The Brexit voters could see that. The 'remain' voters blinkered themselves from it with all sorts of unrealistic nonsense. And best to watch the disaster from the outside rather than from within. Hence the common sense of Brexit.

And when (not 'if') there is another world financial collapse, Brexit will prove to have been vital as you can survive such a disaster much better in your own well maintained life-boat rather than being tethered to an unwieldy, badly designed and uncontrollable hulk (the EU).

Peter-RB
2nd Sep 2016, 10:00
The world renowned and well respected Economist Stiglitz, has made the statement that Great Britain is wise to remove itself from the EU and its currency the Euro, which is run basically on the German model and therefore gives more advantage to the German state, this unfairness in monetary terms has resulted in 25% Greek unemployment with nearly 45% of young people being unable to find meaningful work or employment in many of the Southern European countries such as Italy Greece, Portugal and parts of Spain... Plus today we hear UK businesses are absolutely overwhelmed with orders and enquiries from all over the Free World........incl Europe..

That really is brilliant news and flies in the face of the "remainers" who only seem to wish to see failure......... forward on our own is the only option for the UK........:D:D:ok::ok:

Pace
2nd Sep 2016, 10:22
I see David Davis yesterday stated that there will be no enactment of article 50 until the end of 2017 to avoid clashing with elections in France and Germany
He also stated that enactment of art 50 should be with the consent of parliament

Cazalet33
2nd Sep 2016, 12:08
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/08/31/0109-MATT-GALLERY-WEB-P1-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.png

ATNotts
2nd Sep 2016, 12:22
Plus today we hear UK businesses are absolutely overwhelmed with orders and enquiries from all over the Free World........incl Europe..

The sudden improvement in purchase manager's sentiment, I think, is due to two factors. The most important of which is that they (along with many others, including me) believed that the out vote on 23 June would be followed, very swiftly, by the triggering of article 50, and the starting of the 24 month ticking clock towards exit, without any strategy in place.

They have now woken up to the realisation that the UK is still in the EU, shows no signs whatsoever of triggering said article, and that life goes on as normal - with the added bonus, and unintended consequence, that sterling has fallen considerably in value making manufactured exports cheaper, or just as likely, improving exporter's bottom line. The flip side is that import of raw materials and components is now costing more, and this will feed through eventually to higher domestic prices, which may, in time, lead to higher interest rates (hurrah!).

The brown smelly stuff will hit the fan again when article 50 is triggered, whenever that may be; spring 2017, or if you believe David Davis, late 2017 - which means 2018 in practise. By that time the courts may have ruled that parliament is sovereign, and that whatever Mrs. May wants, she may be forced into having a binding vote on repeal of the original act invoking the Treaty of Rome. Were she to lose that, if the mood of the people hasn't changed, there could be riots in the streets - she may actually be forced into a new referendum and in the legislation could (should) be written that the result is binding along with other measures relating to minimum turnout, and other things to make referendum campaigns more "honest" as has been recommended by the Electoral Reform Society.

Not triggering article 50 sooner, rather than later, may store up trouble for the government, and especially the PM, who has been handed a poison chalice by David Cameron who couldn't face up to carrying through what he put in train in the election campaign of 2015.

Sallyann1234
2nd Sep 2016, 13:59
It's also possible that Teresa May might put the issue to the country again not by a referendum, but by putting her Brexit wish-list into a party manifesto and calling a general election. With Labour in disarray she would get a good majority that should silence critics in her own party.

late-joiner
2nd Sep 2016, 14:09
She would be wise to wait for the boundary commission proposals to be implemented whilst she can.

Pace
2nd Sep 2016, 14:27
David Davis is a Brexit supporter and a clever man he wants triggering of article 50 at the end of next year after the French and German elections

My guess is he probably feels we will get a better deal sorted then than now
Surprising he wants the trigger of article 50 put through parliament

Again that is a very serious move and maybe he realises that you have to have cross board support for such a decision

Anything less and we are no better than the EU itself wielding a stick to any dissenters
Hopefully by then things will be clearer in our own meaning of Brexit and all the positives will be coming to the fore meaning that support will be mainly across the board

engineer(retard)
2nd Sep 2016, 14:38
The sudden improvement in PMI is due to the realisation that Project Fear is failing to materialise and that a correction is taking place. Meanwhile, the new prediction is that the world will end tomorrow.

engineer(retard)
2nd Sep 2016, 14:41
Where's your information coming from Pace, I've not heard anything about David Davis and article 50

Peter-RB
2nd Sep 2016, 15:00
Sally.. Good thinking there, I wonder if the gang around the PM have thought that far..?

ATNotts
2nd Sep 2016, 15:03
No, the dramatic fall in July was shear panic, the August figure probably an over correction - take an average of the two and you probably get a realistic idea of where industry is now, confidence wise.

Given that by the look of it there's minimum 2.5 years before the UK leaves the EU, with or without any sort of deal, industry will be taking the view that it's not time to worry too much at the moment. As I said, when Art. 50 is finally triggered and the egg timer is pouring sand inexorably from the top half to the bottom half, watch the jitters come to the fore, the closer we get to the final deadline.

Andy_S
2nd Sep 2016, 15:20
She would be wise to wait for the boundary commission proposals to be implemented whilst she can.

I agree, although I suspect that right now the Conservatives don’t even need that advantage. Can the government actually call a snap election? I think, notwithstanding votes of confidence, that they have to serve the full 5 year term.

As I said, when Art. 50 is finally triggered and the egg timer is pouring sand inexorably from the top half to the bottom half, watch the jitters come to the fore, the closer we get to the final deadline.

I think you’re reading the economic tea-leaves and seeing what it suits you to see.

None of us – leavers or remainers - know for sure what the world will look like in 2 ½ years time. You may be right. Or we may have negotiated a favourable trade deal with the EU. Or the EU may be in crisis with the UK looking like a safe bet by comparison. We simply don’t know.

Pace
2nd Sep 2016, 15:32
Engineer

Not in good place to dig it out but 2 nd page of daily mail today if you can find it online
Strange as he was pushing for the end of this year early 2017 and now he is all change till after the elections at end 2017
Why the change ?

engineer(retard)
2nd Sep 2016, 15:33
ATNotts, do you mean the rest of the world panicked and placed export orders with us in case we leave in 2.5 years and go out of business?

ATNotts
2nd Sep 2016, 17:04
None of us – leavers or remainers - know for sure what the world will look like in 2 ½ years time. You may be right. Or we may have negotiated a favourable trade deal with the EU. Or the EU may be in crisis with the UK looking like a safe bet by comparison. We simply don’t know.

Spot-on with that. I just fear that as with most things involving EU negotiation, things will go down to the wire, and as a result the jitters may be a logical result. If things go well, and a swift resolution can be arrived at that gives the UK a great deal outside the EU - then no jitters.

ATNotts, do you mean the rest of the world panicked and placed export orders with us in case we leave in 2.5 years and go out of business?

Of course not; but I doubt that in volume terms UK export orders have improved that much, but might have in terms of value. Say for example a business concludes an order for € 1,000,000. That order, pre-23 June was worth £ 770,000. Today the same order is worth £847,000 - hey presto increased exports!!

If someone can show me that exports are increasing in volume terms (numbers of cars, 1,000s of widgets) so much the better. Is such information out there?

engineer(retard)
2nd Sep 2016, 17:37
Pace, I think the Daily Mail are inventing stuff.

ATNotts, jitters are trivial in the long term but it will make both sides uncomfortable. It's funny, when the data was bad in July, everyone claimed a Brexit crash, now that's been deferred until the data fits the prophecy. In terms of manufacturing orders, a 2 year high:

UK manufacturing export orders highest in two years after Brexit vote | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-idUKKCN10Y0UT)

I think the biggest problem is that the expert predictions before the referendum have been proven to be poor.

ATNotts
2nd Sep 2016, 18:08
Pace, I think the Daily Mail are inventing stuff.

ATNotts, jitters are trivial in the long term but it will make both sides uncomfortable. It's funny, when the data was bad in July, everyone claimed a Brexit crash, now that's been deferred until the data fits the prophecy. In terms of manufacturing orders, a 2 year high:

UK manufacturing export orders highest in two years after Brexit vote | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-idUKKCN10Y0UT)

I think the biggest problem is that the expert predictions before the referendum have been proven to be poor.
The Reuters article is interesting, insofar as it does also say that manufacturing is still stagnant.

Furthermore there's no evidence in the report of increased volume of exports, so I would still contend that value is improving, as you would expect (in sterling terms) without necessarily impacting on volumes.

My wife works in logistics, so will surely see evidence of any increase in value in due course

engineer(retard)
2nd Sep 2016, 19:14
ATNotts, did you miss the headline that said the number of export orders are the highest for 2 years. If your wife is working in logistics, I expect she isn't seeing the output from August orders unless she is in the cake industry.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Sep 2016, 19:22
Add to that the pound v the dollar and euro is sneaking back up.

ORAC
2nd Sep 2016, 19:31
Can the government actually call a snap election? I think, notwithstanding votes of confidence, that they have to serve the full 5 year term. No, losing a vote of "no confidence" suffices under the new law. But you would expect the Labour members to vote the other way to ensure no election takes place.

Pace
2nd Sep 2016, 19:43
What I don't understand and with bad news on EU and good news on UK why the pound euro is stubbornly sticking around the 1.19 rate
It was 1.40 so would expect 1.25 to 1.30 to see a real movement back also saw today a big critisism of the bank of England's needless knee jerk reaction on dropping interest rates and printing money on incorrect forecasts and predictions

Pontius Navigator
2nd Sep 2016, 22:08
Pace, the exchange rates have nothing to do with fact, logic or reason. Remember Libor scandel. If someone can get you to but Euros at 1.18/£ then who would offer 1.40?

Sallyann1234
2nd Sep 2016, 23:07
Early general election: Can Theresa May actually call one? | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/early-general-election-can-theresa-may-actually-call-one-a7132846.html)

Fairdealfrank
2nd Sep 2016, 23:08
Churchill in the House of Commons in June 1950, when debating the 'Schumann Plan', the initial thinking behind the 'coal and steel common market':
"There would be an oligarchy imposed on Europe, an oligarchy which, with arbitrary power and with enormous influence, would be able to affect the lives of every person in this country." (Pretty much a 'Eurosceptic' to me!)....and a visionary no less!

The only union that Churchill was involved with was that between the UK and France, a desperate attempt to prevent a French surrender.

Federal Union | A complete and indissoluble union (http://www.federalunion.org.uk/a-complete-and-indissoluble-union/)

Churchill also said that: "If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea".

Winston Churchill: A founder of the European Union | EU ROPE (http://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11/10/winston-churchill-a-founder-of-the-european-union/)

Eurosceptic or Euro-father? Probably a bit of both or none. Maybe the "Franco-British Union" was intended to be a counterweight for the "United States of Europe", which was not intended to include the UK and France.

Clearly he would not have wanted a single dominant power in Europe because, as any student of history will know, a single dominant power in Europe always (without exception) leads to trouble and strife of one sort or another.

Churchill would know, with first-hand experience, he spent five long years fighting to defeat a single dominant power in Europe!

One can never be 100% sure, but the balance of probability must be that Churchill would not have supported the dysfunctional nonsense that is the EU.


The brown smelly stuff will hit the fan again when article 50 is triggered, whenever that may be; spring 2017, or if you believe David Davis, late 2017 - which means 2018 in practise. By that time the courts may have ruled that parliament is sovereign, and that whatever Mrs. May wants, she may be forced into having a binding vote on repeal of the original act invoking the Treaty of Rome. Were she to lose that, if the mood of the people hasn't changed, there could be riots in the streets - she may actually be forced into a new referendum and in the legislation could (should) be written that the result is binding along with other measures relating to minimum turnout, and other things to make referendum campaigns more "honest" as has been recommended by the Electoral Reform Society.

Not triggering article 50 sooner, rather than later, may store up trouble for the government, and especially the PM, who has been handed a poison chalice by David Cameron who couldn't face up to carrying through what he put in train in the election campaign of 2015. Will Heathrow have another rwy before article 50 is triggered?



It's also possible that Teresa May might put the issue to the country again not by a referendum, but by putting her Brexit wish-list into a party manifesto and calling a general election. With Labour in disarray she would get a good majority that should silence critics in her own party. She would be wise to wait for the boundary commission proposals to be implemented whilst she can. She doesn't need to wait, in fact October would be an excellent time for her to counteract the "coronation" and increase her majority.

Labour are unlikely to regain 41 seats in Scotland, lose a couple of safe seats in Wales, and may lose the few marginals it held onto in 2015; UKIP is unlikely to get its act together to build on its 2nd place position in many northern Labour seats; and memories of betrayal are still vivid so it's too early for a Libdem revival.


Quote:
Can the government actually call a snap election? I think, notwithstanding votes of confidence, that they have to serve the full 5 year term.
No, losing a vote of "no confidence" suffices under the new law. But you would expect the Labour members to vote the other way to ensure no election takes place.
So does a two-thirds majority for a dissolution. Since Corbyn called for an election because of May's "coronation", call his bluff. The required majority under the Fixed Term Parliament Act should be easily reached.

For the Conservatives, an ideal time for an election!

Then repeal the ludicrous Fixed Term Parliament Act.

ORAC
2nd Sep 2016, 23:21
Since Corbyn called for an election because of May's "coronation", call his bluff. Amusing to consider you actually think that the Labour MPs give a tinker's cuss as to Jeremy's opinion or instructions.

Considering that an election would give local parties the option of reselection, let alone those that would lose their seats anyway, I don't see many throwing themselves in front of the guns on his behalf. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas...

meadowrun
2nd Sep 2016, 23:50
Churchill would know, with first-hand experience, he spent five long years fighting to defeat a single dominant power in Europe!


He fought them for five long years in the first lunacy as well. I know he was mightily pissed off in the lead up to the second chapter knowing we would have to do it all over again. Now we have merkels.

Krystal n chips
3rd Sep 2016, 06:22
" Then repeal the ludicrous Fixed Term Parliament Act "

That's a new one and I can't recollect any mention of this in the lead up to the referendum....possibly you could enlighten us here.

Much more likely however, is that this represents your personal hopes and aspirations.......the polite term for which would be... hegemony..... the more accurate term would be a Tory dictatorial junta.

Any reason a dictatorship clearly holds such a strong appeal for you ?

Trossie
3rd Sep 2016, 07:04
Ahhh! We hear mention of 'dictatorship' from the Left. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim...

Is there any 'Left' left in British Parliamentary democracy or have the proletariat totally abandoned them? What is left of the 'Left' seem to be totally occupied with abandoning democracy and making themselves totally un-electable.

Maybe one of the big Pros of Brexit is the final removal of the 'Left' from British politics. Pity though, the British always enjoy a bit of nostalgia. We should keep a few as token bits of memorabilia in a few seats in Parliament.

Pace
3rd Sep 2016, 07:23
Fair deal frank

I think it would be a very dangerous move to hold an election now! The Lib dems would play the rejoin the EU card and remember there are very many of the remain who would vote for that not a party
An election would turn into another EU referendum by the back door
London would vote for whichever party promised a return to the EU and I could see Labour jumping on the bandwagon to get into power by any means
Much better to wait till the feel good factor of our leave decision shows or further cock ups by the EU means that people will see it as the right decision
In politics never presume an outcome as you end up very disappointed

The SNP would campaign on stay, the lib dems would campaign on stay and maybe even the Labour Party
That would leave the conservatives on leave and even they would be divided and squabble and tear each other apart as they did in the lead up to the referendum

ATNotts
3rd Sep 2016, 09:45
ATNotts, did you miss the headline that said the number of export orders are the highest for 2 years. If your wife is working in logistics, I expect she isn't seeing the output from August orders unless she is in the cake industry.
Export order by what measure; volume or value???

If you bother to READ what I wrote I said that my wife "will surely see" - future tense! Nobody expects volumes to increase in August - however sterling value should shoot up by 10%+ in comparison with last year immediately, unless of course exports have actually fallen in the last 12 months.