Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:19
  #1361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
I'm not at all convinced that "remain is based on fact" at all.

Sure, we know all about our relationship with the EU before we handed in the Article 50 notification to leave, and there is the recent CJEU ruling giving a legal interpretation of the consequences of the UK unilaterally revoking that notification and deciding to remain, as defined in the Treaty of Lisbon. However, our relationship with the rest of the EU if we were to do this would change. I'm in no doubt whatsoever that, one way or another, the EU will extract its pound of flesh from the UK for having the audacity to try and leave. Our relationship with the EU has now fundamentally changed, no matter whether we leave or remain, and that change is unlikely to be beneficial to the UK. At the very least we will be in a far worse negotiating position if we were to choose to remain at this late stage, simply because we will have lost credibility with the remainder of the EU member states.

What possible reasons do the EU have for just accepting us back with no future penalties? I can think of none at all, and remain convinced that if we did choose to remain we'd find that we would suffer some form of short to medium term negative impact. Whether that is greater or less than the impact of leaving I have no idea, and I doubt anyone else has, either, as we're dealing with the impact of speculation, in the main.
You pushed this viewpoint once before this week. I asked you to back it up with evidence, in light of the CJEU ruling on article 50. You either missed that or quietly declined to do so, so I ask again, can you show me the evidence behind it?
Sprogget is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:20
  #1362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by SMT Member View Post
I'm not entirely sure flogging that old horse is a true representation of facts. I don't think anyone's suggesting the French are unfamiliar with operating to exact standards, after all they're hosting a rather large aircraft corporation, a space program, several nuclear facilities and some very nippy trains. You can't do that with any sort of regularity or safety, if you're not a sucker for standards and procedures.

The biggest difference seems to be a perception in the UK, that they alone apply all rules and regulations unquestionably, rigoursly and to the letter, whilst everyone east of La Manche are rather more haphazard in their application of EU dictats.

Whilst that has some, or a lot of, truth to it as you head deeper East and South East, it's not really true unless you are south of the Alps or east of the Elb. And even there, in e.g. Greece and Italy, the reduction in CAP subsidies and a more stringent regiment of controls, have helped to reduce the fraud. Our new EE members, with long traditions of corruption and graft in Communist dictatorships, naturally and as anyone should have expected, applied those skills to the open EU purses. And with some success, it must be noted.

We joined the game, as did the UK, in '72, and if you have a look at the societies then and now, you'd be hard pressed to argue that choice has made your life worse. Rather on the contrary in fact, as a large part of the wealth enjoyed in West- and Northern Europe is the direct result of ever closer European economic and social cooperation. It's inconceivable that the EU member nations would have attained the same result, had they all worked as competing entities; the toll barriers alone would have stifled growth several orders of magnitude.

The EU is not perfect, or even pretty at times, but the alternative is infinitely worse. The trick is, therefore, to affect change from the inside, something the UK and her usual partners (Netherlands, Denmark, others depending on the subject) were rather apt at. Following Mr. Farage into the abyss was a perfect example of falling for demagoguery, fraud, hatred and lies.

They do like their riots though, le French. And strikes. Or, preferably, a combination of the two - think we all recall the images of an Air France executive being chased over a fence by an angry mob of workers, cloths half torn off.

Exhibit A.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/hea...-british-beef/
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:20
  #1363 (permalink)  
Está servira para distraerle.
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a perambulator.
Posts: 2
If Britain is to have a second referendum, in the grand tradition of how the EU wins its federalist wars, shouldn't one of the questions be something along the lines of:

If Britain were applying for the very first time to join the EU would you vote In or Out.

The EU has changed so much in the last two years and its economic prospects are so dire that it would surely only be right and proper that such a question be asked of the people. The public should be encouraged to exercise its imagination and reflect upon what is likely to happen with the EU once the impact of the ECB's sudden cessation of quantitive easing has filtered through the various economies combined with the slowdown in the Chinese economy and the social unrest in France caused by the dictatorial demands of the far left.

People of Britain, would you really vote to join the EU from scratch today?
Because if you would then are you responsible enough to be e entrusted with the future of your country.
Quite a conundrum that and one which it would be amusing to see brought up at the usual Wednesday comedy show, by far the most entertaining TV since the Goons performed their last show at the Camden Theatre 1972.
Keir Starmer is MP for Camden, a fine taste in irony.
cavortingcheetah is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:24
  #1364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 853
Quote:

By the way has Farage (good old fashioned English name that) died or emigrated to Germany courtey of his wife's nationality-we dont see or thankfully heer from the bigoted little traitor these days-perhaps the Russian funding has run out.

Well he is certainly alive and well. He has a radio show on LBC 18.00 Monday to Thursday and 10.00 Sundays.

He has also been on many TV debates In fhe past weeks including on with that snake Alister Campbell.

He is still an MEP.

Pity we don’t have more like him at least sticking to his principles and upholding the rights of the 17.4 million!
vctenderness is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:43
  #1365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Sprogget View Post
You pushed this viewpoint once before this week. I asked you to back it up with evidence, in light of the CJEU ruling on article 50. You either missed that or quietly declined to do so, so I ask again, can you show me the evidence behind it?
There's no evidence to support either viewpoint, just speculation, albeit some of it based on history.

There's no doubt at all that we've seriously pissed off many people in the EU, influential people. Does anyone really believe that they are going to completely forget all about the way we've pissed them off and let us back with open arms and no negative consequences? Remember the way de Gaulle very effectively, and almost single-handedly, kept us out of the Common Market for years, because of his personal views?

I believe that not only would the UK have lost standing within the EU (something that's plain to see right now), but it would be seriously disadvantaged in any future negotiations, should we choose to do a 180 at this late stage and choose to remain.
VP959 is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:46
  #1366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
There's no evidence to support either viewpoint, just speculation, albeit some of it based on history.

There's no doubt at all that we've seriously pissed off many people in the EU, influential people. Does anyone really believe that they are going to completely forget all about the way we've pissed them off and let us back with open arms and no negative consequences? Remember the way de Gaulle very effectively, and almost single-handedly, kept us out of the Common Market for years, because of his personal views?

I believe that not only would the UK have lost standing within the EU (something that's plain to see right now), but it would be seriously disadvantaged in any future negotiations, should we choose to do a 180 at this late stage and choose to remain.
But your belief completely ignores the ruling of the CJEU. How do you reconcile your belief with this week's court ruling?
Sprogget is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:51
  #1367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Listening to the wireless this morning it appears that the PM is still giving confusing messages to the EU on exactly what she wants from them.

I cannot understand why that would be. The only thing that is clear is that there will be no movement on their part. The so called deal is as good as it gets. Fairly typical bullying tactics from the EU. Twenty seven onto one.

However, that completely misses the point. The UK is still the second biggest economy in the EU and we should be able to use the 39 billion pounds divorce settlement to our advantage.

Why should we not respond by saying that we will honour the payment but over a much longer timescale - say over 39 years.

That way we can use the money to protect us against any economic downturn and build up industries read for trading with the rest of the world.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 10:54
  #1368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,989
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
You will then no doubt be pleased to know the U.K. taxpayer shouldn’t have paid a penny for that, thanks to the EU.

If the NHS had handled the admin correctly then post treatment the Belgian authorities would have been sent the bill....That is how Healthcare for EU nationals works between the various EU states...a system we may well fall out of at the end of March.

Thanks a lot.
Correct, friends visiting Ireland had a requirement to go to hospital and were in for 10 days, they worried about Health Insurance etc but got told NHS will be picking up the bill as you are living in UK. They surprised and partner because he is inquisitive sort started to do some digging and confirmed that is normal practice with well agreed processes.

He also found the Irish Health Body had a well used procedure where Irish people will travel to UK hospitals for treatment and every thing gets paid for by Irish Taxpayer. Hospital manager with whom he became acquainted, both are anglers so that helped used to come and hve a coffee with him most days and told him of how they do it. Seems it has been done for years and also said any UK resident can go into EU in event of a huge waiting list and get treated the same.
racedo is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 11:03
  #1369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Sprogget View Post
But your belief completely ignores the ruling of the CJEU. How do you reconcile your belief with this week's court ruling?
No it doesn't at all.

All the CJEU ruling has defined is a narrow aspect of Article 50, and specifically whether the UK could withdraw its Article 50 notification without immediate penalty, in effect. If we were to do a 180 and choose to remain, there is nothing at all in the CJEU ruling to prevent the rest of the EU treating the UK differently in any future negotiation.

Does anyone REALLY believe that the EU is just going to accept us back at the 11th hour without there being a short to medium term detrimental impact?

Sure we may retain our current status on the day that we withdraw our Article 50 notification, if that's what we choose to do, but having read the ruling there seems nothing at all to stop things changing for the worse later.
VP959 is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 11:11
  #1370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,989
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic View Post
Sorry E101, my bad. However a hard brexit may throw light on the relative treatment of Irish and other EU citizens if it comes to that. A soft brexit which puts the border between the GB and the island of Ireland may do the same. In striving so hard to avoid a border, isn't Eire risking more than it realises?
​Oh, I doubt that many of the passport seekers actually intend to take up residence, irrespective of housing. What the expat Brits do in Spain and elsewhere will be interesting, but having an Eire passport might reduce risks to them in their sunny abode.
An attempt at a hard border will find there is no need for a border.
racedo is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 11:13
  #1371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,989
Originally Posted by Buster15 View Post
Listening to the wireless this morning it appears that the PM is still giving confusing messages to the EU on exactly what she wants from them.

I cannot understand why that would be. The only thing that is clear is that there will be no movement on their part. The so called deal is as good as it gets. Fairly typical bullying tactics from the EU. Twenty seven onto one.

However, that completely misses the point. The UK is still the second biggest economy in the EU and we should be able to use the 39 billion pounds divorce settlement to our advantage.

Why should we not respond by saying that we will honour the payment but over a much longer timescale - say over 39 years.

That way we can use the money to protect us against any economic downturn and build up industries read for trading with the rest of the world.
EU economy is way greater than UK and some of trad UK does will find itself repalced within EU. EU have to do nothing but respect choice of UK voters.
racedo is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:11
  #1372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
No it doesn't at all.

All the CJEU ruling has defined is a narrow aspect of Article 50, and specifically whether the UK could withdraw its Article 50 notification without immediate penalty, in effect. If we were to do a 180 and choose to remain, there is nothing at all in the CJEU ruling to prevent the rest of the EU treating the UK differently in any future negotiation.

Does anyone REALLY believe that the EU is just going to accept us back at the 11th hour without there being a short to medium term detrimental impact?

Sure we may retain our current status on the day that we withdraw our Article 50 notification, if that's what we choose to do, but having read the ruling there seems nothing at all to stop things changing for the worse later.
Not so. The ruling states clearly art 50 can be cancelled unequivocally at which point we remain a full member on all terms. Anything beyond that is classic anti EU mythology & even then the view is based as so much of Brexiteer nonsense on faith, belief, a finger in the air.
Sprogget is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:15
  #1373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph View Post
I would cite the issue of a future European army - is there going to be one or not? Its future decisions like this, and it's a very big decision, that cause so much angst in the UK.
A European army may or may not be a good thing in the future, depending on political developments in Trumpington and elsewhere.
One thing is certain, as an EU member we would have a say if and when it could happen, and how it was politically controlled. Being out of the EU we have no say at all.
Of course without a British contribution, any future EU army will be greatly weakened. Another reason why Russia was happy to finance the Brexit campaign.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:24
  #1374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,196
Heard something very funny today that just sums up the lack of intellect so commonly seen in Brexiters. A colleague started spouting about how May "had to resign" because a 63% mandate wasn't anywhere near decisive enough for her to be credible. So I asked him why it was that 63% wasn't decisive yet for the last year an a half he's been claiming 52-48 was an "overwhelming majority".

The resulting bluster was depressing - amusing, but depressing.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:26
  #1375 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,055
Care to tell me how parliament can make a decision to revoke A50, get the government to agree to raise the necessary bill and then take it through all the required stages in both houses of parliament, and all before 29th of March? Cant see it happening myself. Similarly the EU could, possibly, agree to an extension; but they have said that would only occur if they UK had already made a firm decision that they wanted to withdraw A50 prior to doing so, and I can't see parliament getting a majority to do that either in the time available.

All thee feedback on Sky this morning from Brussels would seem to indicate the EU is getting resigned to the fact that the UK can't make a decision and isn't prepared to give any more time or leeway.

"On those grounds, the Court (Full Court) hereby rules:

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
ORAC is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:27
  #1376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,116
I personally think the EU is playing a game of one upmanship in trying to force the issue of a second referendum or to get the UK to cave in and sign the agreement in the hope the problem would go away, the problem goes back to the disastrous election she called which was hers to lose, which she managed to do royally against all reasonable odds resulting in her strength in parliament dissappearing and putting her in a position of not realistically being abe to dictate to parliament the terms from a position of strength.
Personally i think she is the wrong person for the job of negotiating and lacks the backbone to stand up to the EU, It needed a ultimatum, an either you come back to the table over this or your £30 plus billion is history and we will go for the hard brexit, and then to walk away and leave them to fester. Trouble is she has no support anymore, and they know it now. Her legacy if she ever has one will not read well for future generations, rather like Chamberline and his letter.

Last edited by NutLoose; 14th Dec 2018 at 12:39.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:27
  #1377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
There's no evidence to support either viewpoint, just speculation, albeit some of it based on history.
True, but you didn't present it as a speculation - you presented it as an absolute certainty.

Perhaps you could consider revising your post?

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:29
  #1378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
Originally Posted by Sprogget View Post
Not so. The ruling states clearly art 50 can be cancelled unequivocally at which point we remain a full member on all terms. Anything beyond that is classic anti EU mythology & even then the view is based as so much of Brexiteer nonsense on faith, belief, a finger in the air.
OK, let's use an example. Say you get notice from company that you've contracted with for years, saying that they are going to unilaterally terminate the contract on a set date. Now say that just before the contract is due to terminate they have a change of heart and decide not terminate the contract.

It may well be that for the remainder of the contract term things have to remain as specified, but what happens when the contract is up for renewal? Are you going to view this company in exactly the same light, given that they mucked you about by unilaterally stating they were terminating the previous contract, then changing their minds, or are you going to view them in a different light in future?

I believe it is every bit as much mythology to believe that the EU will treat us in exactly the same way if we were to change our minds and decide to remain.
VP959 is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:30
  #1379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post
The rout is underway, how long before your precious fantasy of EU unity implodes with France and Germany at each others throats?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46564528
And how on earth did you get 'at each other's throats' out of that?
France having their annual street protests, and disappointing financial results there and in Germany. Nothing about any dispute between them.
​​​​​​I think you'll find that the both of those countries' finances will be in a far better shape than ours over the next few years
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 12:38
  #1380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Care to tell me how parliament can make a decision to revoke A50, get the government to agree to raise the necessary bill and then take it through all the required stages in both houses of parliament, and all before 29th of March? "
I can't. But I'm not making that argument. I'm pointing out the mechanism exists & the CJEU confirmed it on Tuesday.
Sprogget is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.