Jump to content
Jools

The Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

11 hours ago Hoola Han said:

You love the attention babe xx

It's the way of a stalker !

If you goad me to get my attention, it’s not called stalking. Try getting some brains, you fckwit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

That was quite a post that didn’t actually say anything, it was almost like listening to a politician. What part of my post was lacking facts about Maastricht and Lisbon treaties moving power away from national parliaments?

The fact is the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties did move powers to the EU that had previously belonged to domestic governments . Maastricht was originally rejected by the Danes but they were made to vote again, and was only narrowly accepted by the French, on a margin much closer than the Brexit vote. The Lisbon Treaty continued this trend after the Irish were made to vote again after rejecting it first time around, and the wishes of the French and Dutch voters who rejected it were simply ignored. Both are examples of diminishing democracy in the country and throughout Europe as a whole 

Fen - the point is you keep trying to make the facts justify your feelings. They don't.

I'm neither a Europhile nor Eurosceptic. I weigh up all the facts and on balance we are clearly better off in the EU than out. Even the government's own bodies agree let alone the vast world in general. Yes we pool some 'sovereignty (not that you'd notice) but please don't let anybody tell you we have given it away. Brexit and Corvid clearly show that the EU is not a superstate and we pool far more sovereignty in many other matter notably defence and security.

Yes Maastricht (possibly Lisbon which was a tidy up) gave powers to the EU - which on balance us and all the other countries you mention were happy to do for the greater good on reflection.

Generally though I'm done with these kind of arguments. For me it was obvious once we had the £350M lie on the big red bus that this wasn't a logical fact based argument but an appeal to emotion. Once you decide to win an argument with an outright factual lie you've have lost all credibility (did Boris actually know the difference between Gross & Net ?). That some have to keep 'spaffing'  out these kinds of discredited arguments whether it be on trade, immigration, sovereignty or indeed 80M Turks tells me more about them than the facts. They've been 'had'. 

Accept you have won the argument on these myths, an appeal to emotion and feeling - but suck up the real consequences. You own it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Great, at last we are making progress.

Let's move on and discuss this vast superstate that lives only in your imagination. EU has around 47,000 employees to support a population of over 500 million. That sounds a lot until you consider the city of Birmingham has around 35,000 emplyees to support 1 million residents. As for the so called massive budget it amounts to around 165 Billion Euros, which works out at roughly £250 per head. Hardly excessive, and pretty much appropriate to a trading block. For example HMRC have indicated that the UK would require an additional 50,000 customs workers in the UK alone to manage UK borders on leaving the SM and CU.

Thanks BF - I alluded to this in my earlier comment but I find it pretty hard going giving factual answers to this kind of skewed myopic comment.

It's really a question of being on different planets talking different languages - one rational fact based, one myth and spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Fen - the point is you keep trying to make the facts justify your feelings. They don't.

I'm neither a Europhile nor Eurosceptic. I weigh up all the facts and on balance we are clearly better off in the EU than out. Even the government's own bodies agree let alone the vast world in general. Yes we pool some 'sovereignty (not that you'd notice) but please don't let anybody tell you we have given it away. Brexit and Corvid clearly show that the EU is not a superstate and we pool far more sovereignty in many other matter notably defence and security.

Yes Maastricht (possibly Lisbon which was a tidy up) gave powers to the EU - which on balance us and all the other countries you mention were happy to do for the greater good on reflection.

Generally though I'm done with these kind of arguments. For me it was obvious once we had the £350M lie on the big red bus that this wasn't a logical fact based argument but an appeal to emotion. Once you decide to win an argument with an outright factual lie you've have lost all credibility (did Boris actually know the difference between Gross & Net ?). That some have to keep 'spaffing'  out these kinds of discredited arguments whether it be on trade, immigration, sovereignty or indeed 80M Turks tells me more about them than the facts. They've been 'had'. 

Accept you have won the argument on these myths, an appeal to emotion and feeling - but suck up the real consequences. You own it.

Those countries I mentioned weren’t happy to pool sovereignty though were they. The Danes rejected Maastricht and were made to vote again, the Irish rejected Lisbon and were made to vote again, the Dutch and French rejected Lisbon and their vote was ignored. The UK had it’s first vote on the EU since those treaties came into being and they’ve rejected them too. 

You complain about the figures printed on the bus, then surely the lies from the Remain camp have the same effect? The way they said in the days following a Leave vote the FTSE would collapse, unemployment would skyrocket and we would require an emergency budget, have all proven to be false have they not? Surely these were just as bad as a figure about how much we pay the EU, albeit before any rebates? 

As for sovereignty, you can’t deny a country that can’t control it’s immigration policy has lost some sovereignty. A nation that has to abide by budgetary rules not of it’s own making regarding deficits has lost some sovereignty. Whether you think immigration has been good for the country, or whether it’s been abused by businesses to keep labour costs down (there’s a good reason the working class voters mainly believe the second, in that it’s them who have been most adversely affected) immigration policy should be debated and set by accountable politicians in the country it affects, not be supranational organisations. Also until Erdogan went too authoritarian Turkey were advanced in EU ascension talks, though I will concede these had stalled by the time the referendum came around. 

Nothing I’ve said here are feelings, so please don’t dismiss them as such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Great, at last we are making progress.

Let's move on and discuss this vast superstate that lives only in your imagination. EU has around 47,000 employees to support a population of over 500 million. That sounds a lot until you consider the city of Birmingham has around 35,000 emplyees to support 1 million residents. As for the so called massive budget it amounts to around 165 Billion Euros, which works out at roughly £250 per head. Hardly excessive, and pretty much appropriate to a trading block. For example HMRC have indicated that the UK would require an additional 50,000 customs workers in the UK alone to manage UK borders on leaving the SM and CU.

I never said it was a superstate, my point was that it takes powers away from accountable national politicians. No matter how many it employs it still affects our immigration laws, our budgetary laws, etc. 

We also pay billions of pounds towards this. As you say it would cost something similar to set up domestically, however I’d argue that at least that way the money stays in the country. 

You also can’t compare the number of EU employees to cities, as cities have much more day to day management such as services and facilities that the EU doesn’t, you’re comparing apples to oranges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Those countries I mentioned weren’t happy to pool sovereignty though were they. The Danes rejected Maastricht and were made to vote again, the Irish rejected Lisbon and were made to vote again, the Dutch and French rejected Lisbon and their vote was ignored. The UK had it’s first vote on the EU since those treaties came into being and they’ve rejected them too. 

You complain about the figures printed on the bus, then surely the lies from the Remain camp have the same effect? The way they said in the days following a Leave vote the FTSE would collapse, unemployment would skyrocket and we would require an emergency budget, have all proven to be false have they not? Surely these were just as bad as a figure about how much we pay the EU, albeit before any rebates? 

As for sovereignty, you can’t deny a country that can’t control it’s immigration policy has lost some sovereignty. A nation that has to abide by budgetary rules not of it’s own making regarding deficits has lost some sovereignty. Whether you think immigration has been good for the country, or whether it’s been abused by businesses to keep labour costs down (there’s a good reason the working class voters mainly believe the second, in that it’s them who have been most adversely affected) immigration policy should be debated and set by accountable politicians in the country it affects, not be supranational organisations. Also until Erdogan went too authoritarian Turkey were advanced in EU ascension talks, though I will concede these had stalled by the time the referendum came around. 

Nothing I’ve said here are feelings, so please don’t dismiss them as such. 

Fen - there are factual answers to all you questions (even why the economy didn't immediately collapse although you took was it a 10%+ immediate pay cut with the GBP drop but hint we are still 4 years later still defacto in the EU , and after the referendum consumer confidence held up (we continued spending / living on tick  - now understood because those that voted Brexit didn't think it would harm them)).

Then there are forward looking opinions - yes 'project fear' was overdone in its immediacy but much of it has come to pass.  However the bald lies like on the side of the bus are in a different league not subject to opinion.

As I say whatever facts are given to you you will dispute. So no point arguing. You own it.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Those countries I mentioned weren’t happy to pool sovereignty though were they. The Danes rejected Maastricht and were made to vote again, the Irish rejected Lisbon and were made to vote again, the Dutch and French rejected Lisbon and their vote was ignored. The UK had it’s first vote on the EU since those treaties came into being and they’ve rejected them too. 

You complain about the figures printed on the bus, then surely the lies from the Remain camp have the same effect? The way they said in the days following a Leave vote the FTSE would collapse, unemployment would skyrocket and we would require an emergency budget, have all proven to be false have they not? Surely these were just as bad as a figure about how much we pay the EU, albeit before any rebates? 

As for sovereignty, you can’t deny a country that can’t control it’s immigration policy has lost some sovereignty. A nation that has to abide by budgetary rules not of it’s own making regarding deficits has lost some sovereignty. Whether you think immigration has been good for the country, or whether it’s been abused by businesses to keep labour costs down (there’s a good reason the working class voters mainly believe the second, in that it’s them who have been most adversely affected) immigration policy should be debated and set by accountable politicians in the country it affects, not be supranational organisations. Also until Erdogan went too authoritarian Turkey were advanced in EU ascension talks, though I will concede these had stalled by the time the referendum came around. 

Nothing I’ve said here are feelings, so please don’t dismiss them as such. 

In terms of the UK's relationship to the EU immigration policy was debated and decided by politicians and then endorsed by the electorate. Going back decades and up to and including the referendum all major parties approved of and campaigned on a platform of membership of the single market, an integral part of which was freedom of movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fen, those countries weren't forced to vote again. The people told the politicians to go back a change aspects of the treaties they didn’t like. The politicians did. 

This is one of those brexitty myths that  regularly have to be debunked. It's as if the facts do not fit your narrative . 😐

Edited by Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Herman said:

Fen, those countries weren't forced to vote again. The people told the politicians to go back a change aspects of the treaties they didn’t like. The politicians did. 

This is one of those brexitty myths that  regularly have to be debunked. It's as if the facts do not fit your narrative . 😐

So the Irish weren’t told that to reject it again would diminish their standing within the EU? 

Even if that were the case, how do you explain the French and Dutch rejections being completely overruled? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

In terms of the UK's relationship to the EU immigration policy was debated and decided by politicians and then endorsed by the electorate. Going back decades and up to and including the referendum all major parties approved of and campaigned on a platform of membership of the single market, an integral part of which was freedom of movement.

The UK voted back when it was still the EEC, which was a trading bloc of around half a dozen similar economies. We never had a vote on Maastricht, Lisbon or any of the new countries joining. 

You also know as well as I do that our FPTP electoral system doesn’t allow for minor parties to gain any traction, UKIP winning around 10% but getting a single seat being a prime example. Even if people weren’t happy with the EU, for years there simply wasn’t any way of voting a party to make a difference. The referendum was the first chance many people had

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Fen - there are factual answers to all you questions (even why the economy didn't immediately collapse although you took was it a 10%+ immediate pay cut with the GBP drop but hint we are still 4 years later still defacto in the EU , and after the referendum consumer confidence held up (we continued spending / living on tick  - now understood because those that voted Brexit didn't think it would harm them)).

Then there are forward looking opinions - yes 'project fear' was overdone in its immediacy but much of it has come to pass.  However the bald lies like on the side of the bus are in a different league not subject to opinion.

As I say whatever facts are given to you you will dispute. So no point arguing. You own it.

You’ve chosen to ignore almost all the points I made, therefore I’ll agree, I won’t bother debating with you anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Surfer said:

I'm sure they said the same about Herr Hilter.... not that the above adulation is the same. No of course not. 

We all want him to recover, because he's human, has a family and it's the appropriate human response. 

 

 

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So the Irish weren’t told that to reject it again would diminish their standing within the EU? 

Even if that were the case, how do you explain the French and Dutch rejections being completely overruled? 

No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigFish said:

It's just a job title you ****ing moron

I think you've lost it, my friend. Perhaps the isolation isn't going well. But calling oneself a President is saying much more than a mere job title. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

43 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I think you've lost it, my friend. Perhaps the isolation isn't going well. But calling oneself a President is saying much more than a mere job title. 

I'm guessing you've never really worked abroad - or in the US especially. Endless 'Presidents' of this'n'that in a large company. VP of paperclips!  President of the board - subject to shareholders whims (in this case the individual states) etc. Day to day manager. 

Its what the job entails not the title and what 'executive' powers it holds. Can you 'bind' the company etc. In this country I've always preferred to call myself Managing Director, Director etc as its clear but that's the UK.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I'm guessing you've never really worked abroad - or in the US especially. Endless 'Presidents' of this'n'that in a large company. VP of paperclips!  President of the board - subject to shareholders whims (in this case the individual states) etc. Day to day manager. 

Its what the job entails not the title and what 'executive' powers it holds. Can you 'bind' the company etc. In this country I've always preferred to call myself Managing Director, Director etc as its clear but that's the UK.

I have worked abroad for thirty years and in that time I was able to recognise the difference between a corporate president and a political president 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I have worked abroad for thirty years and in that time I was able to recognise the difference between a corporate president and a political president 

Well then you should be able to recognize that the 5 EU 'Presidents' are not political in themselves as the EU has to reflect all its members wishes. They are the 'doers' set tasks as 'head of department' by the EU as a whole and subject to all sorts of checks and balances including the EU 'parliament'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do struggle to understand why some on here are still banging on about their perceived myths of the EU institutions. They'd be better trying to work out how to get their imaginary unicorns to fly.

It's as if they have secret doubts about their sanity and need to keep reminding themselves of the why they made the decision they did. Well it's better than facing the truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye. It's taken 4 years and us to have left the EU for one of them to come up with a coherent argument but it is still trying to explain why they made their decision. 

None can explain the benefits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Really?

Read Alison Pearson's latest brainfart for the Borisgraph to see what Surfer is talking about. 

As has been pointed out the hypocrisy is more staggering than the sycophancy. The metropolitan media class wouldn't understand writes a London based journalist.

Edited by Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well then you should be able to recognize that the 5 EU 'Presidents' are not political in themselves as the EU has to reflect all its members wishes. They are the 'doers' set tasks as 'head of department' by the EU as a whole and subject to all sorts of checks and balances including the EU 'parliament'.

Now you put it like that it does sound democratic.......:classic_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I never said it was a superstate,

More progress

So the EU doesn't have an Exceutive President and is not a superstate.

Sounding more like a trading block to longer this debate goes on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Herman said:

Aye. It's taken 4 years and us to have left the EU for one of them to come up with a coherent argument but it is still trying to explain why they made their decision. 

None can explain the benefits. 

There are benefits - but not the ones argued for on here. I've said before that most Brexiters are actually 'Protectionist' not 'Global Players or Free Marketers'. They'd never survive. They are 'Stop those 'foreigners' from taking our jobs' or from being more competitive etc. (yes US food etc - sad end for our farmers).

In some ways I agree with Minford and the right wingers  - outside the EU we could deregulate the labour market - become much more like the USA - two weeks paid leave, 2 weeks redundancy notice - a hire and fire em culture? Decrease benefits and state pensions (yes save for your own retirement).  It would make for a much more dynamic and flexible economy. Sadly that's also exactly what most Brexiteers don't want (apart from quite a few in the Tory party)!

And in that is the conundrum - they want to be European in outlook and work/life culture but have voted for system that only makes sense in a much more aggressive survival of the fittest economic model.

They seem to think they can access the world on 'their' terms - the world of the 1950s and 60s with dimming or more likely second hand memories of Empire and the Commonwealth;  pre-China, pre-Internet where even Japan made cheap plastic toys and emerging Datsuns were rust buckets -  the UK with France still as 'super-powers' until the Suez debacle. Yes nostalgic nationalism as it has been coined.  

 

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

Oh dear.....

It’s the Hitler thing again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be happy to change the reference to Kim Jong Un or Stalin if you’d prefer ... I did also write Fascist / Communist ... but there is such an anti-German thread going on here that the adulation of Hitler as the only one that could “save the people” seemed more jarring.

To be clear it’s the adulation and reverence to the unbounded wisdom and guidance of the glorious leader I object to. As being pushed again in the Torygraph today. 

Boris is the PM. No more no less. I hope he makes a full recovery both for his sake and his family. But in the meantime the Cabinet need to take charge of administration of the country. He needs to focus on getting well. We don’t need the Cabinet wondering  “what would Boris do?” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well then you should be able to recognize that the 5 EU 'Presidents' are not political in themselves as the EU has to reflect all its members wishes. They are the 'doers' set tasks as 'head of department' by the EU as a whole and subject to all sorts of checks and balances including the EU 'parliament'.

Now tell me this is not a politician. 

Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen (German pronunciation: [ˈʊʁzula fɔn deːɐ̯ ˈlaɪən] (About this soundlisten); née Albrecht; born 8 October 1958) is a German politician and the President of the European Commission since 1 December 2019. She served in the federal government of Germany from 2005 to 2019 as the longest-serving member of Angela Merkel's cabinet. She is a member of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its EU counterpart, the European People's Party (EPP).

or is she just the paper-clip monitor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Now tell me this is not a politician. 

Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen (German pronunciation: [ˈʊʁzula fɔn deːɐ̯ ˈlaɪən] (About this soundlisten); née Albrecht; born 8 October 1958) is a German politician and the President of the European Commission since 1 December 2019. She served in the federal government of Germany from 2005 to 2019 as the longest-serving member of Angela Merkel's cabinet. She is a member of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its EU counterpart, the European People's Party (EPP).

or is she just the paper-clip monitor?

This obviously goes over your head.

Many of the officers (which is a better term) of the EU have a political background - they after-all have to know their way around all the various political systems in the various countries. Our UK 'officers' when appointed to the EU  were no different in this respect.

However - in their current role they are not 'political' appointees in that they don't represent the CDU or anybody else but the EU - much the same as our own 'Speaker' is apolitical (even though he's Labour). They are appointed on merit and ability and being an compromise candidate acceptable to all - and yes there may well be a bit of horse-trading as with our own speaker as to the choices. I guess she is likely to be pro-European almost by definition if you can call that political. I'm sure as with everybody they have their private views but as with all professionals they have to scrupulously place these to one side in such roles.

Out of interest who or which country do you think she represents ? 

I declare you VP of Paperclips (all CE marked please). Treat it as a promotion.

Edited by Yellow Fever
I note she was elected by 383 MEPS in 2019 I guess from many countries and parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Now tell me this is not a politician. 

Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen (German pronunciation: [ˈʊʁzula fɔn deːɐ̯ ˈlaɪən] (About this soundlisten); née Albrecht; born 8 October 1958) is a German politician and the President of the European Commission since 1 December 2019. She served in the federal government of Germany from 2005 to 2019 as the longest-serving member of Angela Merkel's cabinet. She is a member of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its EU counterpart, the European People's Party (EPP).

or is she just the paper-clip monitor?

As you're so keen on Wikipedia

The president of the European Commission is the head of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union. The president of the Commission leads a cabinet of commissioners, referred to as the college, collectively accountable to the European Parliament. The president is empowered to allocate portfolios amongst, reshuffle or dismiss commissioners as necessary. The college directs the Commission's civil service, sets the policy agenda and determines the legislative proposals it produces.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...