|
Post by nws on Oct 9, 2019 21:58:04 GMT
Lets see if NWS agrees that pigbags comments are a reasonable arguement for Brexit .... Will not hold my breath Well my agreement with 61666 came faster than you revealing what veto you were gabbling on about. I've put it down as at best a misunderstanding of fact and, at worst, a lie unless you care to reveal more. I will also refrain from holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by Nick 2 on Oct 10, 2019 19:06:28 GMT
One veto I think we will lose if we remain in the EU is regarding setting the EU budget . The EU will not want us to stay in the EU and use our veto to cause trouble which is why it will be taken away from us and other countries at the same time . EU have stated that they want a more democratic process (in other words they dont like the veto)
|
|
|
Post by malibustacey on Oct 10, 2019 20:13:48 GMT
If we remain, any veto we have will stay - they could vote to change that but we can veto
|
|
|
Post by gromley on Oct 11, 2019 0:26:13 GMT
I'm also puzzled (as should many leavers be) by the assertion that Nigel & Co will cause chaos and block things. We have been told (by Nigel & Co) for years that we have no power, sovereignty etc and are rule takers not rule makers. Where has this power to do things suddenly come from? Are you suggesting that Nigel and co lied?
I don't think that is quite as inconsistent as you suggest - there is quite a difference between the ability to play "awkward squad" within an organisation with no concern for the consequences to that organisation and the ability to influence in a positive way the direction of the same organisation.
There are however of course lots of sound bite type politics on both sides in all of this.
The Labour party's position is perhaps one of the oddest."We will negotiate a deal with the EU, then offer a referendum choice between the deal and staying in the EU".
Given that the EU know this and that their preferred position is for the UK to remain, where exactly would be the EU's incentive to offer a reasonable deal to JC?
It is just the same as the argument for "taking no deal off the table". This translates to "dear EU : we absolutely refuse to leave until you give us an acceptable deal", to which of course the logical answer is - take a seat, we will come back to you when we are ready (probably the 22nd Century).
Against this background the threat of being an non-cooperative member makes a little more sense.
Still, if Varadkar & Johnson are not both lieing to the peanut gallery, then I am mildly encouraged by today's news. Not such good news of course if your only acceptable result is remain.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Oct 11, 2019 7:03:59 GMT
I'm also puzzled (as should many leavers be) by the assertion that Nigel & Co will cause chaos and block things. We have been told (by Nigel & Co) for years that we have no power, sovereignty etc and are rule takers not rule makers. Where has this power to do things suddenly come from? Are you suggesting that Nigel and co lied?
I don't think that is quite as inconsistent as you suggest - there is quite a difference between the ability to play "awkward squad" within an organisation with no concern for the consequences to that organisation and the ability to influence in a positive way the direction of the same organisation.
There are however of course lots of sound bite type politics on both sides in all of this.
The Labour party's position is perhaps one of the oddest."We will negotiate a deal with the EU, then offer a referendum choice between the deal and staying in the EU".
Given that the EU know this and that their preferred position is for the UK to remain, where exactly would be the EU's incentive to offer a reasonable deal to JC?
It is just the same as the argument for "taking no deal off the table". This translates to "dear EU : we absolutely refuse to leave until you give us an acceptable deal", to which of course the logical answer is - take a seat, we will come back to you when we are ready (probably the 22nd Century).
Against this background the threat of being an non-cooperative member makes a little more sense.
Still, if Varadkar & Johnson are not both lieing to the peanut gallery, then I am mildly encouraged by today's news. Not such good news of course if your only acceptable result is remain.
I don't know about other remainders, but my view has always been that we should abide by the referendum result when we can negotiate trade deal with the EU. My contention has always been that a no deal was never part of the referendum, and was never even on the table until Boris and his henchmen decided to block any deal the government could come up with for their own ends.
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Oct 11, 2019 7:52:50 GMT
The Irish border seems to be the current sticking point, but in truth there are shedloads of other issues still waiting to be argued over. In hindsight, brexit has been done back to front and issues should have been explored, quietly, BEFORE there was ever a referendum, so there was a better chance of a leave or remain vote succeeding. Trouble is the electorate in this country largely votes on a few soundbites, or perceived personalities. Strangely, more women vote for Buck Foris, for example. The brexit process was doomed from the start. Thanks to Cameron, nobody had any idea what they were voting for. Thanks to Farage, the underlying xenophobia of many of the white population came to the fore. Thanks to Teresa May, an ill judged election gave power to a handful of Ulster Unionist MPs. Thanks to Corbyn, the Labour party is not perceived as a credible opposition and it is also arguable that thanks to Nick Clegg, the Libdems had to face an enforced period in the political wilderness, for siding with Cameron in the coalition. According to the latest polls, the Tories have a significant lead, but with only 35% of those asked in favour. Yet on that, they could win by a substantial margin and claim a mandate. Hence more extreme politics and more people feeling disenfranchised. Much as it would allow a few less pleasant minority groups to gain a voice in parliament, for me we are long overdue proportional representation, as per much of the rest of Europe. Ain't going to happen though, while the two main parties know they can get a 'majority government' through only about a quarter of the electorate voting for them. No wonder we are in such a mess.
|
|
|
Post by malibustacey on Oct 11, 2019 9:37:27 GMT
There was a period where politicians were pressured to invoke A50. I think that was the biggest mistake, this is really complicated and the two years could have been the ‘everyone get ready’ period’
|
|
|
Post by pigbag on Oct 11, 2019 10:56:34 GMT
It is true that it was our decision to leave but you would think the EU would be happy about it as if we stay Nigel and Co will do their best to block and cause chaos. The EU is terrified that if we left with a deal we would be better off and that might encourage others to defect. At the moment only 3 countries pay in with us being the second biggest contributor. We will leave a big hole for someone to fill. France gets away without paying but that will change and the eastern countries like Romania will not get those huge improvement grants. How will the EU react? cut the budget? Increase contributions from all but the poorest countries? cut the development grants to the poorer areas? Stop wasting the enormous costs of moving the administration every month? If there is no deal will Boris withhold the money Theresa agreed to pay until the EU have negotiated our future trading relationship? If the EU had been prepared to discuss the trading relationship the Irish border may not have been a problem but they would not do that until the "divorce" settlement was agreed. The failure by politicians on both sides will not only hurt us but will have a greater effect on Holland, Denmark and Eire where thousands of jobs are at risk. The only solution is to leave and then deal with the trade rather than politics and if that fails it will be the EU's decision and we will source products from the rest of the world and be free to arrange trade deals with countries that do wish to trade with one of the largest economies. I'm interested to know where the assertion that only 3 countries pay in. According to this website there are 9 countries paying in with France being number 3 on the list. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318I'm also puzzled (as should many leavers be) by the assertion that Nigel & Co will cause chaos and block things. We have been told (by Nigel & Co) for years that we have no power, sovereignty etc and are rule takers not rule makers. Where has this power to do things suddenly come from? Are you suggesting that Nigel and co lied? I would also point out that we do well out of the trade side of things. Now our exports will face tariffs, despite the lie that we could continue free trade under GATT24. On your central message, I don't disagree. Economically, we will suffer, EU countries will suffer. On that basis, you can only argue that leaving is a silly idea. Lastly consider, in 2018, 46% of our exports went to the EU while 8%-18% of EU exports went to the UK. If we crash out then we will lose pretty much all of our trade deals across the world. The EU will lose us. I hope we have some good deals lined up and not just an over-reliance on desperately running to Agent Orange to exchange our NHS for chlorinated chicken (OK that is a bit facetious). Oh and I agree with 61666. I might not necessarily agree, but least you are asking some decent questions not just spouting the latest Daily Express lie. Keep posting it so the debate can be of a better quality. I stand corrected regarding contributions, in fact I found another site which showed every country contributed except for Malta. I was also surprised that Luxemburg is the biggest beneficiary per head of population. Nigel and Co could not make any positive changes (Cameron tried and failed) but can use our veto which would cause problems. This would only be for a short time as the Treaty of Lisbon is removing the veto. On our exports to the EU I understood that the figure quoted included our exports that passed through the container port in Holland. Let us hope common sense prevails and we end up with a deal that least damaging to all concerned.
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Oct 11, 2019 12:03:12 GMT
We may just be approaching a ' holier than' moment, as it seems most folk who voted remain or who want leave with a sensible deal, are looking for compromise. I may be wrong, but have seen little evidence of that from the 'we won, so we must leave' brigade. Personally, if we do leave, can we please preserve the 'duty paid', so booze runs to Calais remain?
|
|
|
Post by nws on Oct 12, 2019 5:51:46 GMT
One veto I think we will lose if we remain in the EU is regarding setting the EU budget . The EU will not want us to stay in the EU and use our veto to cause trouble which is why it will be taken away from us and other countries at the same time . EU have stated that they want a more democratic process (in other words they dont like the veto) Do you mean the change in agreement procedures that moved some policy areas from unanimous agreement to Qualified Majority Vote (budget is one area)? This was agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon and came into force on 1st November 2014 so I'm not sure by what you mean 'will be taken away from us'. EDIT: I have just realised you mean budget increases. We can veto those until next year. The agreement to remove the veto was decided some time ago. It is not a measure brought in to stop us being awkward. The democratic process you complain about still means that to get something through on QMV needs 55 per cent of countries representing at least 65 per cent of people to pass. Do you think this is unfair or do you believe that less than 35 per cent should be allowed to block the 65 per cent?
|
|
|
Post by nws on Oct 12, 2019 6:08:27 GMT
I'm also puzzled (as should many leavers be) by the assertion that Nigel & Co will cause chaos and block things. We have been told (by Nigel & Co) for years that we have no power, sovereignty etc and are rule takers not rule makers. Where has this power to do things suddenly come from? Are you suggesting that Nigel and co lied? I don't think that is quite as inconsistent as you suggest - there is quite a difference between the ability to play "awkward squad" within an organisation with no concern for the consequences to that organisation and the ability to influence in a positive way the direction of the same organisation. There are however of course lots of sound bite type politics on both sides in all of this. The Labour party's position is perhaps one of the oddest."We will negotiate a deal with the EU, then offer a referendum choice between the deal and staying in the EU". Given that the EU know this and that their preferred position is for the UK to remain, where exactly would be the EU's incentive to offer a reasonable deal to JC? It is just the same as the argument for "taking no deal off the table". This translates to "dear EU : we absolutely refuse to leave until you give us an acceptable deal", to which of course the logical answer is - take a seat, we will come back to you when we are ready (probably the 22nd Century). Against this background the threat of being an non-cooperative member makes a little more sense. Still, if Varadkar & Johnson are not both lieing to the peanut gallery, then I am mildly encouraged by today's news. Not such good news of course if your only acceptable result is remain.
What do you mean by 'influence in a positive way'? Maybe you have honest, fact-based debate and sometimes the majority don't agree. Here is a fact. If you are rule takers then you don't have the ability to influence the rules. If, having claimed you are rule takers, you subsequently claim you are going to sabotage things by using your veto you are lying because you are not a rule taker.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Oct 12, 2019 22:40:35 GMT
I'm interested to know where the assertion that only 3 countries pay in. According to this website there are 9 countries paying in with France being number 3 on the list. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318I'm also puzzled (as should many leavers be) by the assertion that Nigel & Co will cause chaos and block things. We have been told (by Nigel & Co) for years that we have no power, sovereignty etc and are rule takers not rule makers. Where has this power to do things suddenly come from? Are you suggesting that Nigel and co lied? I would also point out that we do well out of the trade side of things. Now our exports will face tariffs, despite the lie that we could continue free trade under GATT24. On your central message, I don't disagree. Economically, we will suffer, EU countries will suffer. On that basis, you can only argue that leaving is a silly idea. Lastly consider, in 2018, 46% of our exports went to the EU while 8%-18% of EU exports went to the UK. If we crash out then we will lose pretty much all of our trade deals across the world. The EU will lose us. I hope we have some good deals lined up and not just an over-reliance on desperately running to Agent Orange to exchange our NHS for chlorinated chicken (OK that is a bit facetious). Oh and I agree with 61666. I might not necessarily agree, but least you are asking some decent questions not just spouting the latest Daily Express lie. Keep posting it so the debate can be of a better quality. I stand corrected regarding contributions, in fact I found another site which showed every country contributed except for Malta. I was also surprised that Luxemburg is the biggest beneficiary per head of population. Nigel and Co could not make any positive changes (Cameron tried and failed) but can use our veto which would cause problems. This would only be for a short time as the Treaty of Lisbon is removing the veto. On our exports to the EU I understood that the figure quoted included our exports that passed through the container port in Holland. Let us hope common sense prevails and we end up with a deal that least damaging to all concerned. The exports through Rotterdam effect is a little difficult to quantify, apparently. The ONS has said it is about 2%. This would reduce the figure I gave to 44%. I'm not sure what you mean by the removal of veto, as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon. The ToL changed the need for a unanimous vote is various policy areas to qualified majority voting whereby something passes if it gets at least 55% of member states representing at least 65% of population. This, as far as I know, came into force in 2014 so happened 5 years ago. There is a veto in place around budget increases which runs out next year (it then goes to QMV). I'm not sure if this was agreed through the ToL or later.
|
|
|
Post by nws on Oct 14, 2019 10:25:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 61666 on Oct 14, 2019 13:06:47 GMT
So, according to this study, leaving the EU will make us all £1500 to £2500 worse off, per person, per year. Can anyone who voted leave justify this? !!
|
|
|
Post by Better things to do in life on Oct 14, 2019 14:19:16 GMT
So, according to this study, leaving the EU will make us all £1500 to £2500 worse off, per person, per year. Can anyone who voted leave justify this? !! Only if you believe this rubbish. Remember the many prophecies of doom from so-called economists in the days after the referendum that never actually happened?
|
|