Brexit View

[Blah Blah]

And you Trinnydad have no idea how the EU actually works. Directives only pass if the European Parliament vote for them. Germany has no overriding power in that. WE vote for MEPs. Commissioners are appointed by the governments WE elect. The EU parliament works in a similar way to our own, with stages of voting and intermediate committee stages. Now you tell me what part of that is undemocratic?

I really suggest you read this link and learn something about what influences EU law. And then you might want to rethink your idea that Merkel is some kind of kingpin over which none of the other 26 members nations and their leaders have any say.

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/10/eu-law-uk-eu-law-without-uk

[Trinnydad]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you Trinnydad have no idea how the EU actually

> works. Directives only pass if the European

> Parliament vote for them. Germany has no

> overriding power in that.

How truly na?ve! The Berlin-Paris axis pulls all the strings in the EU. They are more equal than any of the others. The others countries.

[Blah Blah]

Not true. Did you bother to read the link I sent you at all?

If you had bothered to read it, you would see that the UK has been very influential in shaping policy. Oh and not to mention that very bespoke deal we already have, in not being part of Schengen, not adopting the Euro, rebate etc etc. Because you see, you bang on about sovereignty, but ignore the bleeding obvious before your very eyes, that we have always had a say in our role within the EU, always had a say in what we are prepared to adopt. And the truth is that we voted 'for' 85% of all legislation to pass through the EU during our entire membership of it. This is not a story of the UK having legislation foisted on it that it a) had no say in and b) never agreed with. And if you think differently, then prove it with the same detail and insight I have offered.

Vague statements insinuating conspiratorial pacts won't cut it ;)

[tomdhu]

Brexiteers, you are safe. All is well.

It is reported today that Diane Abbott has warned Labour MPs that Leave would win a second Brexit referendum.

Well there we have it and from an authoritative and influential leader too.

[Trinnydad]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is not

> a story of the UK having legislation foisted on it

> that it a) had no say in and b) never agreed with.

> And if you think differently, then prove it with

> the same detail and insight I have offered.

>

> Vague statements insinuating conspiratorial pacts

> won't cut it ;)

What you say was true BEFORE they conspired to bring in QMV which is based ( largely) on the size of populations. All it takes is Germany, France and say Italy or Poland to agree on an issue and yts done and dusted. The others are marginalised. The days of the unanimous decisions went out the window years ago.

[uncleglen]

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This is not

> > a story of the UK having legislation foisted on

> it

> > that it a) had no say in and b) never agreed

> with.

> > And if you think differently, then prove it

> with

> > the same detail and insight I have offered.

> >

> > Vague statements insinuating conspiratorial

> pacts

> > won't cut it ;)

>

> What you say was true BEFORE they conspired to

> bring in QMV which is based ( largely) on the size

> of populations. All it takes is Germany, France

> and say Italy or Poland to agree on an issue and

> yts done and dusted. The others are marginalised.

> The days of the unanimous decisions went out the

> window years ago.

I agree there is something going on between the original members of the EEC and I think anyone who is not suspicious is very naive.

Just before the Referendum the EU gave Turkey a LOAN to open a Ford Transit Factory in Turkey which is NOT even in the EU. The Ford Transit factory in Southampton closed down with the loss of 600 jobs...that was just BEFORE the Referendum and if WE contribute financially to the downfall of our own manufacturing there will never be an equal place for the UK in the EU club.

I believe the UK has been systematically asset stripped by the EU since 1973. The first indication I had of this was when 2 successful dairy farmers in Wiltshire who are family members went out of business in the 1970s...

I believe the actions of Blair and Brown and their government - many members of which as we allo know, were Tony's Cronies, and they were complicit in the undermining of the UK by the EU.

[Alan Medic]

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This is not

> > a story of the UK having legislation foisted on

> it

> > that it a) had no say in and b) never agreed

> with.

> > And if you think differently, then prove it

> with

> > the same detail and insight I have offered.

> >

> > Vague statements insinuating conspiratorial

> pacts

> > won't cut it ;)

>

> What you say was true BEFORE they conspired to

> bring in QMV which is based ( largely) on the size

> of populations. All it takes is Germany, France

> and say Italy or Poland to agree on an issue and

> yts done and dusted. The others are marginalised.

> The days of the unanimous decisions went out the

> window years ago.

Yet it would only take one country to reject the WA offered to the UK. How does that work then as that seems unanimous?

[Trinnydad]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree there is something going on between the

> original members of the EEC and I think anyone who

> is not suspicious is very naive.

> Just before the Referendum the EU gave Turkey a

> LOAN to open a Ford Transit Factory in Turkey

> which is NOT even in the EU. The Ford Transit

> factory in Southampton closed down with the loss

> of 600 jobs...that was just BEFORE the Referendum

> and if WE contribute financially to the downfall

> of our own manufacturing there will never be an

> equal place for the UK in the EU club.

> I believe the UK has been systematically asset

> stripped by the EU since 1973. The first

> indication I had of this was when 2 successful

> dairy farmers in Wiltshire who are family members

> went out of business in the 1970s...

> I believe the actions of Blair and Brown and their

> government - many members of which as we allo

> know, were Tony's Cronies, and they were

> complicit in the undermining of the UK by the EU.

Please let's not mention the name Blair here. He's the one who conceded ?7bn of our rebate to the EU and got nothing in return. Same one cost us money and credibility in Iraq too. Now he's telling us how to sort Brexit.

[Blah Blah]

The bulk of asset stripping came in the 80's care of one Goldsmith senior through various takeover bids, not during the Blair years. By the time the Tories reacted, it was too late. Goldsmith just took himself off to America instead and did exactly the same thing there.

Where Blair and Brown can be criticised though is in exporting neo-liberal policy to the EU. It was never the other way round as so many leave voters seem to think.

The points around QMV are valid ones. but came about from similar discussions around representative democracy, or perceived lack of it, as the EU expanded. The majority voting percentages have been adjusted regularly since, there is nothing new about that. In fact, if the current Treaty of Lisbon percentages had been applied in our referendum, neither side would have won it, which is why I find it somewhat ironic that any leave voter would offer that as any kind of criticism of the EU's voting rules. Once again, it is worth remembering that voting has only gone the opposite way to our government's wishes just 15% of the time since we joined the bloc.

[tomdhu]

I find it fascinating that the whole Brexit referendum thing is almost a mirror image of the situation in 2007 in the run up to the Lisbon treaty and also the run up to the Maastricht treaty - different governments but same problems. Here is an excerpt from a FT article from 2007....

QUOTE

Mr Brown's attempt to kill off the Treaty debate was today set back by opinion polls showing that a large majority of Britons and other Europeans want a popular vote on an EU blueprint drawn up to replace the Euro Constitution rejected by French and Dutch referendum votes two years ago.

Today's YouGov polling finds that seven out of ten, 69 per cent, of Britons back a referendum as the number of signatories this petition passes the 107,000 mark.

Also putting the British Prime minister and other leaders under pressure as they prepare to initial an agreement on the Treaty is a separate a Financial Times/Harris poll of voters in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain referendum finding that 70 per cent demand a vote.

The Conservatives are stepping up pressure on Mr Brown to make good on his election manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the old EU Constitution, a text that is 90 per cent reproduced in the new Treaty.

William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary, has demanded that the Prime Minister honour his promises.

"He has absolutely no democratic mandate to agree to this treaty. It is not just his decision; the final say must belong to the British people," he said.

"He is making a major miscalculation if he thinks he can treat the British people as fools."

Mr Hague, buoyed by today's polls, has launched a new Tory referendum campaign poster.

"Whatever's agreed in Lisbon, Mr Brown, give us the referendum you promised."

Mr Brown's decision to sign up to the EU Treaty comes as criticism of his "red line" safeguards to key areas of national sovereignty grows.

The Labour-dominated House of Commons European Scrutiny has led the charge with a warning that the guarantees on justice, foreign policy and the Charter of Fundamental Rights will "leak like a sieve".

UNQUOTE

Draw your own conclusions

[keano77]

Like most people on here I have no idea where we?ll end up after this Brexit confusion. I suspect we?ll end up with a soft Brexit that will prompt the question why did we bother to vote for leave in the first place.

What is interesting are the pictures of Michel Barnier in the papers and on telly since parliament rejected May?s deal.

Rewind to the announcement that the UK and EU had reached a deal on leaving. Barnier held a press conference and strutted like a peacock. Great deal for the EU, four pillars not compromised. His reputation assured and his career on a trajectory.

Contrast that with pictures of Barnier since Parliament rejected the deal. A worried man who is savvy enough to realise politics will now now step in to override his efforts. He realises his efforts over the past two years could be sacrificed for political expediency and he could end up looking like a patsy.

That?s politics. Janus-faced. We live in exciting times

[Blah Blah]

Quite Tomdhu. This is an age old battle of opinion that has barely changed or shifted in decades. So why anyone thinks it will be resolved now is baffling.

[Blah Blah]

I was at Parliament Square for the vote on the deal Keano, and it was a very weird experience. To have two opposing sides demonstrating, but wanting the same outcome (the deal voted down). Very surreal.

You are right on one thing. There is no deal better than the one we currently have as members of the EU, with our various existing opt outs and rebate. So any deal is going to be a trade off, probably in areas around trade, so what is the point really?

The price we will pay for freedom to make trade deals outside of the EU will be reduced access or less competitive access to EU markets. No-one knows how that will work out (even though some try to say they do) because there are so many other factors at play. Any idea though that we can be some great Empire again with booming growth is misguided. The West is in decline and has been for some time.

[JohnL]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Like most people on here I have no idea where

> we?ll end up after this Brexit confusion. I

> suspect we?ll end up with a soft Brexit that will

> prompt the question why did we bother to vote for

> leave in the first place.

>

> What is interesting are the pictures of Michel

> Barnier in the papers and on telly since

> parliament rejected May?s deal.

>

> Contrast that with pictures of Barnier since

> Parliament rejected the deal. A worried man who is

> savvy enough to realise politics will now now step

> in to override his efforts. He realises his

> efforts over the past two years could be

> sacrificed for political expediency and he could

> end up looking like a patsy.

>

> That?s politics. Janus-faced. We live in exciting

> times

Pride really shouldn't come into it - the systems should be examined - After this is all over both the EU and the UK need to go through how this could have been done better (or avoided as the case may be).

[JoeLeg]

Interesting view from a Leave voter...

[diable rouge]

I regularly look at Roland's account to get a Leave voters' perspective on the mess, someone who actually understands the complexities of Brexiting rather than jingoistic sloganeering. He's said for a while that May's deal would die and that Brexit, like concepts often do, had failed. In Dec he started advocating for revoking A50 (see his pinned tweet). Sounds extreme and would anger the Brextremists, but I think it would be worth offering this option to Parliament as one of the options as to how we get out of this mess. Although I would welcome revoking A50, doing that alone would give the Brextremists ammunition to say Brexit had been stopped, the 'will of the people' thwarted etc, so rather than just revoking A50 it could have the proviso that Leavers go away and sort out exactly what type of Brexit they want, provide actual solutions to issues, not wishful thinking e.g. the Irish border. They can take as long as they need, then whatever they come up with, have a 2nd ref on it against remaining...

[JoeLeg]

Roland essentially clarifies what was - for me - the main argument against voting Leave; no one could tell me, not even a little bit, what we were voting for. I know a lot of people saying ?I knew what I was voting for?, but when we don?t know what?s Leaving will actually entail, how can that be true?

The EU has many problems, but the Brexit crowd asked us to vote for an idea with no solid plans behind it. The current situation is exactly where I feared we would end up.

[JoeLeg]

Aaaaaand he?s back! Or most likely will be.

Great. You know what? I have no problem with such a party being involved, I really don?t. It?s the rest of the political/social views of the people involved that are disgusting. Catherine Blaicklock?s stuff makes me want to wash my mind out with bleach.

So long as they stick to the Brexit issue, fine. But the rest of their Little Englander opinions can #%*^ right off.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/20/nigel-farage-to-lead-new-pro-brexit-party-if-eu-departure-delayed-ukip

[Blah Blah]

No surprise regarding Farage, and also note that he is not returning to UKIP, unable to implant himself as party leader there. It was thus always about Farage of course.

My view is that whatever happens, a genie is out of the bottle that can not be put back. There is no winnable position as far as the electorate are concerned (although I would love to see how a battle between Farage's new party and UKIP pans out), so MPs have to put the economy first and deal with what comes afterwards. It was political expediency that got us into this mess. It will not be political expediency that gets us out of it.

[JohnL]

Theresa May wants to get rid of the backstop.

It's like groundhog day - she can't move on.

[JoeLeg]

Listened to Rees-Mogg on LBC today. Apart from his dogmatic adherence to No Deal (and certain applications of his religious faith, but that?s another story), he?s a pretty reasonable guy. I particularly respected his stance on EU nationals in the U.K..

He?s kind of like a mirror image on Corbyn on some ways. Likely an excellent local MP, and a good backbencher but would make a terrible PM. Where he has it over Corbyn (and Boris) is that at least with JRM you know what he believes. There?s plenty about him that I disagree with, but this morning I was impressed with quite a lot of what he said.

[diable rouge]

From today, people who have lived in the UK working and paying taxes, some for decades, some having married UK citizens and having UK children, are losing their right to stay here in their homes, with their friends/families, and have to apply and pay for "settled status" or risk being deported after Brexit. How long before we hear a policeman in the street asking to see someone's 'papers'. I hope you're proud of yourselves Leave voters...

[Alan Medic]

This Dutch woman is 77 and lived here for 50 years...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-home-office-eu-nationals-settlement-65-dutch-woman-elly-wright-a8737856.html

[keano77]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From today, people who have lived in the UK

> working and paying taxes, some for decades, some

> having married UK citizens and having UK children,

> are losing their right to stay here in their

> homes, with their friends/families...

That?s not true is it - naughty Red Devil

[JoeLeg]

Well, so long as they pay to stay then it?s not true. But as even JRM said this morning, that?s grossly unfair and should not be happening.

If they don?t pay, then by definition they won?t have settled status and will have to leave at some point. I think the point DR (and Mogg) is making is that it?s a pretty dishonourable way of going about things in terms of people who have lived and paid taxes here, to tell them they have to stump up the cost of staying if they want to.

?65 may not be much to many people, but the principle is what matters here.