The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
Sam All said:
Esseesse said:
Not wise, for the Germans will remind us of this after their "victory" on June 24.
Zod said:
turbobloke said:
FiF said:
Zod said:
ou do realise that Step 4 is the current EU (redesignating the non-Eurozone Member States as EEA), but with Switzerland brought into the EEA and thus the current EU? Never going to happen.
Of course I realise that. It's a pictorial way of representing the EU consolidating into the eurozone, which is essentially in place in treaties, which only UK and Denmark having specific opt outs. Then some non EZ nations going into EEA/EFTA rather than an in the EU associate membership. It throws Sweden and Switzerland into the mix. It's a suggestion, no more, hence the title including the word possible, maybe you missed that. Possible does not mean this is the way it must happen or else.Equally it might not include Denmark or Sweden, they can decide for themselves. Agree Swiss is least likely.
I was replying to FiF's post and the uncertainty theme.
Your own post is garbage.
turbobloke said:
Zod said:
turbobloke said:
FiF said:
Zod said:
ou do realise that Step 4 is the current EU (redesignating the non-Eurozone Member States as EEA), but with Switzerland brought into the EEA and thus the current EU? Never going to happen.
Of course I realise that. It's a pictorial way of representing the EU consolidating into the eurozone, which is essentially in place in treaties, which only UK and Denmark having specific opt outs. Then some non EZ nations going into EEA/EFTA rather than an in the EU associate membership. It throws Sweden and Switzerland into the mix. It's a suggestion, no more, hence the title including the word possible, maybe you missed that. Possible does not mean this is the way it must happen or else.Equally it might not include Denmark or Sweden, they can decide for themselves. Agree Swiss is least likely.
I was replying to FiF's post.
Your own post is garbage.
Zod said:
turbobloke said:
Zod said:
turbobloke said:
FiF said:
Zod said:
ou do realise that Step 4 is the current EU (redesignating the non-Eurozone Member States as EEA), but with Switzerland brought into the EEA and thus the current EU? Never going to happen.
Of course I realise that. It's a pictorial way of representing the EU consolidating into the eurozone, which is essentially in place in treaties, which only UK and Denmark having specific opt outs. Then some non EZ nations going into EEA/EFTA rather than an in the EU associate membership. It throws Sweden and Switzerland into the mix. It's a suggestion, no more, hence the title including the word possible, maybe you missed that. Possible does not mean this is the way it must happen or else.Equally it might not include Denmark or Sweden, they can decide for themselves. Agree Swiss is least likely.
I was replying to FiF's post.
Your own post is garbage.
- a brexiter (fif) posted a diagram (lets call it diagram 1) trying to show certainty and plausibility under leave!
- the holes were pointed out in the plan
- another brexiter then used diagram 1 (a view post brexit remember) to show the uncertainty in the remain campaign
genius!
with zis brainpower ve can stop ze germans advancing!
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
plenty
See my previous post several minutes prior to yours.they won't do anything to put off confirmed leavers, but many in the middle will think only one thing! and it won't be to vote leave! they'll be wondering, hey dominic, exactly how many dummies are there on your side? are your economists dummies too?
Before this referendum was announced politicians, both Tory and Liberal (can't remember what Labour's stance was), kept on repeating the line "if there is ever any treaty change we will have to put it to the public vote and we've enshrined this into law".
Does this still apply post "in/out" referendum?
Does this still apply post "in/out" referendum?
BlackLabel said:
Before this referendum was announced politicians, both Tory and Liberal (can't remember what Labour's stance was), kept on repeating the line "if there is ever any treaty change we will have to put it to the public vote and we've enshrined this into law".
Does this still apply post "in/out" referendum?
I don't think it has been mentioned that it won't, so the public will assume it still applies.Does this still apply post "in/out" referendum?
There was a link posted recently that explained how Cameron was banking on the referendum being on the 'final' treaty change following his negotiations in it. This has been held up so there is surely one treaty to come (and it will have significant implications and handing of power to Brussels).
Edit: It was this link: https://thebrexitdoor.com/2016/01/11/the-fundament.... Keep reading past the beginning, it gets progressively more interesting.
It makes sense to me as Dr Richard North had been blogging way back about Cameron selling 'Associate Membership' as a 'British Option'. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...
Edited by Esseesse on Tuesday 31st May 12:29
BlackLabel said:
Before this referendum was announced politicians, both Tory and Liberal (can't remember what Labour's stance was), kept on repeating the line "if there is ever any treaty change we will have to put it to the public vote and we've enshrined this into law".
Does this still apply post "in/out" referendum?
Yep - nothing has changed about that. Does this still apply post "in/out" referendum?
REALIST123 said:
Sam All said:
Esseesse said:
Not wise, for the Germans will remind us of this after their "victory" on June 24.The referendum won't be won by the extreme views. It's the middle ground that needs convincing and that sort of thing just puts them off. It only appeals to people who are voting out anyway.
Sam All said:
Is there a single politician on the UK scene that you can respect, listen to and be inspired?
On this matter, or any matter.
Rees-Mogg comes to mind.
ruth davidson up here. i would have added dan jarvis, but i listened to some of his pro eu guff the other day and it has slightly tainted my opinion of him.On this matter, or any matter.
Rees-Mogg comes to mind.
Ruth is a very smart political operator, she did a good job of ensuring her party was seen as the party of the Union at the recent Holyrood elections, she probably mentioned the idea of another referendum more than Sturgeon did and managed to come out of the other end looking pretty good all things considered, I was impressed too.
Axionknight said:
Ruth is a very smart political operator, she did a good job of ensuring her party was seen as the party of the Union at the recent Holyrood elections, she probably mentioned the idea of another referendum more than Sturgeon did and managed to come out of the other end looking pretty good all things considered, I was impressed too.
yep, she looks at least one level above anyone else in the scottish parliament. admittedly not a difficult task and i can see her moving south in the not too distant future.What is hard to understand is how some seem more than willing to remain in an organization which already has a known track record for being unaccountable, corrupt, non democratic, self serving, money grabbing and money wasting, meddling and over bearing, and anything but even handed in its affairs.
Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
Pan Pan Pan said:
What is hard to understand is how some seem more than willing to remain in an organization which already has a known track record for being unaccountable, corrupt, non democratic, self serving, money grabbing and money wasting, meddling and over bearing, and anything but even handed in its affairs.
Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
Some people have 'underdog' hardwired in. They are happy to put up with it as long as there is someone else running their lives no matter how bad.Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
Pan Pan Pan said:
What is hard to understand is how some seem more than willing to remain in an organization which already has a known track record for being unaccountable, corrupt, non democratic, self serving, money grabbing and money wasting, meddling and over bearing, and anything but even handed in its affairs.
Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
Does any Remainian want to stay in the EU as it is now, or in a "reformed" EU? Everyone I've heard advocating remain has said we need to stay in in order to to help reform the EU. Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
So they acknowledge it is not right as it is and needs reform, but ignore the fact that it can not and will not be reformed if we stay in.
And yet those that want to leave (which would force massive EU reform) are derided as idiots.
Odd.
wiggy001 said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
What is hard to understand is how some seem more than willing to remain in an organization which already has a known track record for being unaccountable, corrupt, non democratic, self serving, money grabbing and money wasting, meddling and over bearing, and anything but even handed in its affairs.
Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
Does any Remainian want to stay in the EU as it is now, or in a "reformed" EU? Everyone I've heard advocating remain has said we need to stay in in order to to help reform the EU. Do these people willingly deal with such organizations in their everyday lives? If they do how do they survive being continually stiffed?
So they acknowledge it is not right as it is and needs reform, but ignore the fact that it can not and will not be reformed if we stay in.
And yet those that want to leave (which would force massive EU reform) are derided as idiots.
Odd.
If we look back just a short while to Bliars `Deal' with the EU where he gave away billions of UK tax payers cash in exchange for reforms to the CAP, we see that the EU made no changes whatsoever to the CAP, and not only did not give back the extra billions they were taking off the UK, but have continued taking those extra billion every year since, on a deal they reneged on!
The idiots seem to be those who think it is OK to deal with such a corrupt untrustworthy organization. And don't even get me started on why the EU thinks it is OK to throw billions of Euros (UK taxpayers cash) at corrupt basket case countries which will be needing billions more Euros soon, but will not even entertain much needed reforms to the way it operates suggested by its second largest net contributor of funds into EU coffers, even stating that they do not intend to make any changes in the foreseeable future.
wiggy001 said:
Does any Remainian want to stay in the EU as it is now, or in a "reformed" EU? Everyone I've heard advocating remain has said we need to stay in in order to to help reform the EU.
So they acknowledge it is not right as it is and needs reform, but ignore the fact that it can not and will not be reformed if we stay in.
And yet those that want to leave (which would force massive EU reform) are derided as idiots.
Odd.
I asked that ages ago and got one mixed reply. No one directly said yes to it. The likes of ///ajd are still dreaming of 'reform from within', as he put it. No answer as to why this would happen after a yes vote and not during the negotiations that went before, what they think is actually likely to be able to be changed while the UK opts for being int he second stage part of the EU who doesn't want to go the direction of the EU itself, and so on. So they acknowledge it is not right as it is and needs reform, but ignore the fact that it can not and will not be reformed if we stay in.
And yet those that want to leave (which would force massive EU reform) are derided as idiots.
Odd.
I think this is the little bit of BS the remain side say to placate themselves, while knowing its not really going to happen. I said from day one ,its those people who say it needs serious reform, then saw it never happen, will vote remain anyway , who will make up that section that might tip in in favour of remain.
don4l said:
We asked for very little, failed to get even that, but voted to stay in anyway. Now can we please have some reform?
Yeah, right
The EU keeps on referring to the UK as wanting, and having `special treatment' Too F*cking right we do, if by special treatment that means we want fair treatment, and recognition that the UK is the second largest net contributor into EU coffers, helping to keep the whole corrupt mess going. Yeah, right
I cannot understand why the UK does not have the same, or almost the same influence in how the EU is run, and where it will go as Germany?
The `He who pays the piper call the tune' saying clearly works for Germany, but clearly not for the UK???
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff