The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[Mrr T]

Sam All said:

And did Merkel give the nod to regime change in Greece/Italy?

No. The decision where made in Athens and Rome.

[mattmurdock]

don'tbesilly said:

OK, I'll not argue the toss, we have differing opinions and we will have to disagree.
It's no biggy anyway, if as you suggest Turkey won't be joining the EU anytime soon it's of no consequence to the UK, we're out or will be by the time Turkey get anywhere close to joining.

PS: You're last sentence is a tad contradictory, you seem to indicate they WON'T budge in your first sentence, but if we say no go, they will cave, probably because the 27 heads of state are saying:

'you know what, we're going to be a bit fked if Britain leaves and we lose their net contribution'

Either way the unbreakable agreement that was talked of last week, is as you have agreed being bent.

Would you agree with any of the above?

To be honest, no I wouldn't.

They said no more negotiation on staying in. They didn't say no more negotiation once we left.

They also said if you want FULL single market access, you have to accept movement of people. Now they are suggesting some constraints on movement of people may be acceptable, but will have an impact on FULL access to the single market i.e. perhaps no passporting (so financial services have to move to the EU) or perhaps certain products are not allowed to be traded (like the Canada agreement).

No one involved in the EU has said that FULL single market access is on the table without movement of people. So I don't see anything being bent.

[ATG]

Jockman said:

mattmurdock said:

Jockman said:

Would you apply this to economic forecasts too?

OK, so economists studying the market and forecasting ahead based on prior events is exactly the same as a couple of policy wonks writing out a wish list of policy items they think should be implemented by the EU?

I'm always told that past performance is not a guide to future performance so I suppose it all depends on which narrative you are feeding.

That expression refers to investment performance, not the rules of bleeding economics.

[dandarez]

Mrr T said:

mybrainhurts said:

Now a call, led by Germany, for EU to create an EU army.

Where have I heard that before?

No please tell me where you heard that from. Its not the link don posted yesterday which specifically said defence was a sovereign matter for EU states?

Federica Mogherini, the EU Foreign Policy Chief (who took over from Catherine Ashton)- Ashton was bad, this woman is nuts! Aside from an EU Army, her document also states very clearly in terms of Turkish membership, it should happen as soon as possible.
It also states the EU’s desire to expand further... calling for a credible accession process for the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey. Thank fk we are out! (last sentence mine, obviously)

[Burwood]

Jockman said:

Burwood said:

Zod said:

dandarez said:

mybrainhurts said:

Now a call, led by Germany, for EU to create an EU army.

Where have I heard that before?

You missed the important point in the document being talked about now!

In terms of Turkish membership, the document is clear that it should happen as soon as possible.

At one point it outlines the EU’s desire to expand further, calling for a 'credible accession process' for the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey.

Well, f. well, what do Remainians say about that then?

I will bet you £1000 that Turkey is not a member of the EU by 2025.

They should never be a member

Why not?

Human rights abuses. Attitudes towards woman which is endemic right across the male population, particularly young men. Political unrest KPP taking up arms against the army, so civil war. They are corrupt. This before we even consider their financial position.

[lostkiwi]

Burwood said:

Jockman said:

Burwood said:

Zod said:

dandarez said:

mybrainhurts said:

Now a call, led by Germany, for EU to create an EU army.

Where have I heard that before?

You missed the important point in the document being talked about now!

In terms of Turkish membership, the document is clear that it should happen as soon as possible.

At one point it outlines the EU’s desire to expand further, calling for a 'credible accession process' for the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey.

Well, f. well, what do Remainians say about that then?

I will bet you £1000 that Turkey is not a member of the EU by 2025.

They should never be a member

Why not?

Human rights abuses. Attitudes towards woman which is endemic right across the male population, particularly young men. Political unrest KPP taking up arms against the army, so civil war. They are corrupt. This before we even consider their financial position.

Never is a bit strong.

Germany didn't have a great track record of human rights abuses in the 40s and they joined. We don't even hold it against them now.

[don'tbesilly]

mattmurdock said:

don'tbesilly said:

OK, I'll not argue the toss, we have differing opinions and we will have to disagree.
It's no biggy anyway, if as you suggest Turkey won't be joining the EU anytime soon it's of no consequence to the UK, we're out or will be by the time Turkey get anywhere close to joining.

PS: You're last sentence is a tad contradictory, you seem to indicate they WON'T budge in your first sentence, but if we say no go, they will cave, probably because the 27 heads of state are saying:

'you know what, we're going to be a bit fked if Britain leaves and we lose their net contribution'

Either way the unbreakable agreement that was talked of last week, is as you have agreed being bent.

Would you agree with any of the above?

To be honest, no I wouldn't.

They said no more negotiation on staying in. They didn't say no more negotiation once we left.

They also said if you want FULL single market access, you have to accept movement of people. Now they are suggesting some constraints on movement of people may be acceptable, but will have an impact on FULL access to the single market i.e. perhaps no passporting (so financial services have to move to the EU) or perhaps certain products are not allowed to be traded (like the Canada agreement).

No one involved in the EU has said that FULL single market access is on the table without movement of people. So I don't see anything being bent.

Matt it's clear we disagree, but you can't have it both ways.

In both your recent posts you have stated that the EU ARE prepared to negotiate on what was a founding principle of the European Union.

The above is a fundamental change from their unequivocal stance last week, they WILL negotiate and from a position of strength to one of a weaker position.

Can you agree on that?

[mattmurdock]

Jockman said:

I'm always told that past performance is not a guide to future performance so I suppose it all depends on which narrative you are feeding.

Absolutely, and I'm sure there is as much art as their is science in economics, because like the weather it is a chaotic system which is hard to predict.

The only narrative I am feeding is to point out when emotional rhetoric is used instead of critical thinking. People keep throwing up documents saying 'see, told you so, the EU is going to take over the world' without putting any of their bias aside and actually evaluating a) what the document is actually saying and b) the likelihood of it actually being implemented.

They are also simultaneously stating that we would have been absorbed by the EU if we stayed in, whilst moaning about how Germany, France, Spain and Italy have ignored EU rules left, right and centre without being sanctioned, and whilst conveniently forgetting that we not only have numerous opt-outs so that we can ignore those rules, but that the EU just let us quite peacefully vote to leave them via their own rules.

This I think is why the leavers often get tarred with the racism and 'little Englander' accusations, because instead of having a sensible discussion about whether the net contribution is really value for money to access the single market and leverage the clout of the EU, or whether the benefits of free movement of people are outweighed by the infrastructure concerns if they all settle in one place, they just bang on about 'unelected bureaucrats taking over' and 'Frau Merkel's fourth reich' and '50 immigrants in one house stealing my children's jobs' and other examples of tin-foil hattery.

It just makes it look like it boils down to 'we don't like Germany because they are telling us what to do'.

[Jockman]

mattmurdock said:

Jockman said:

I'm always told that past performance is not a guide to future performance so I suppose it all depends on which narrative you are feeding.

Absolutely, and I'm sure there is as much art as their is science in economics, because like the weather it is a chaotic system which is hard to predict.

The only narrative I am feeding is to point out when emotional rhetoric is used instead of critical thinking. People keep throwing up documents saying 'see, told you so, the EU is going to take over the world' without putting any of their bias aside and actually evaluating a) what the document is actually saying and b) the likelihood of it actually being implemented.

They are also simultaneously stating that we would have been absorbed by the EU if we stayed in, whilst moaning about how Germany, France, Spain and Italy have ignored EU rules left, right and centre without being sanctioned, and whilst conveniently forgetting that we not only have numerous opt-outs so that we can ignore those rules, but that the EU just let us quite peacefully vote to leave them via their own rules.

This I think is why the leavers often get tarred with the racism and 'little Englander' accusations, because instead of having a sensible discussion about whether the net contribution is really value for money to access the single market and leverage the clout of the EU, or whether the benefits of free movement of people are outweighed by the infrastructure concerns if they all settle in one place, they just bang on about 'unelected bureaucrats taking over' and 'Frau Merkel's fourth reich' and '50 immigrants in one house stealing my children's jobs' and other examples of tin-foil hattery.

It just makes it look like it boils down to 'we don't like Germany because they are telling us what to do'.

Thank you for the rational explanation.

[mattmurdock]

don'tbesilly said:

Matt it's clear we disagree, but you can't have it both ways.

In both your recent posts you have stated that the EU ARE prepared to negotiate on what was a founding principle of the European Union.

The above is a fundamental change from their unequivocal stance last week, they WILL negotiate and from a position of strength to one of a weaker position.

Can you agree on that?

No again, because you are wilfully misinterpreting both what they are saying and what I am saying.

The founding principle of the EU was that countries benefit from full access to their trading bloc if they accept the four freedoms of movement.

They haven't moved on that at all, unless you actually believe Boris when he said he thought we would get full access to the single market without having freedom of movement of people.

All they have said is some access to the market may be negotiated without having to adopt the four freedoms (as seen with the US, with Canada and with other countries outside the EU which have trading agreements with the EU).

[Jockman]

lostkiwi said:

Burwood said:

Jockman said:

Burwood said:

Zod said:

dandarez said:

mybrainhurts said:

Now a call, led by Germany, for EU to create an EU army.

Where have I heard that before?

You missed the important point in the document being talked about now!

In terms of Turkish membership, the document is clear that it should happen as soon as possible.

At one point it outlines the EU’s desire to expand further, calling for a 'credible accession process' for the countries of the Western Balkans and Turkey.

Well, f. well, what do Remainians say about that then?

I will bet you £1000 that Turkey is not a member of the EU by 2025.

They should never be a member

Why not?

Human rights abuses. Attitudes towards woman which is endemic right across the male population, particularly young men. Political unrest KPP taking up arms against the army, so civil war. They are corrupt. This before we even consider their financial position.

Never is a bit strong.

Germany didn't have a great track record of human rights abuses in the 40s and they joined. We don't even hold it against them now.

Indeed. I'm sure America would >love< them in the EU.

[jonnyb]

sidicks said:

jonnyb said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...

It may even be illegal.

Here's the thing from my point of view, does the British Government have the right to remove my status as an EU citizen?

Hopefully they don't.

If it's so great, why don't you ps off to the EU and respect the democracy of this country?

After all, you want the UK to further integrate with the EU and join the Euro!

Indeed I do.

I'm also investigating the possibility of becoming Irish, although I'm fairly sure they wouldn't want me, in an effort to keep my EU citizenship.

I would love to take you with me, introduce you to the better things this great continent has to offer.
I'm not sure what the EU ever did to you to make hate it so vehemently, but clearly you do.

Have you ever wondered why 16.5M people voted to stay? Have you ever thought they might have a point, that there might be something to this EU thing? Or do you think that we have been taken over by some mass delusion?

[essayer]

jonnyb said:

Indeed I do.

I'm also investigating the possibility of becoming Irish, although I'm fairly sure they wouldn't want me, in an effort to keep my EU citizenship.

If your grandparents or parents were Irish you can become an Irish citizen.
You may need to accumulate a bit of paperwork for it - birth/death/marriage certificates, certified passport copies etc.
I'm considering it myself.

[turbobloke]

mattmurdock said:

...they just bang on about 'unelected bureaucrats taking over' and 'Frau Merkel's fourth reich' and '50 immigrants in one house stealing my children's jobs' and other examples of tin-foil hattery...

To be fair to tin, the foil isn't too far off.

EU wants to kick UK and France off UN Security Council
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/622814/EU-p...

Merkel unilaterally sets aside the EU-wide Dublin Agreement
http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news...

55 in 3
https://www.rt.com/uk/312452-london-property-overc...

[don'tbesilly]

mattmurdock said:

don'tbesilly said:

Matt it's clear we disagree, but you can't have it both ways.

In both your recent posts you have stated that the EU ARE prepared to negotiate on what was a founding principle of the European Union.

The above is a fundamental change from their unequivocal stance last week, they WILL negotiate and from a position of strength to one of a weaker position.

Can you agree on that?

No again, because you are wilfully misinterpreting both what they are saying and what I am saying.

The founding principle of the EU was that countries benefit from full access to their trading bloc if they accept the four freedoms of movement.

They haven't moved on that at all, unless you actually believe Boris when he said he thought we would get full access to the single market without having freedom of movement of people.

All they have said is some access to the market may be negotiated without having to adopt the four freedoms (as seen with the US, with Canada and with other countries outside the EU which have trading agreements with the EU).

OK.

I didn't believe Boris and I'll ignore your last paragraph, life's easier that way and I have things to do

[sidicks]

jonnyb said:

Indeed I do.

I'm also investigating the possibility of becoming Irish, although I'm fairly sure they wouldn't want me, in an effort to keep my EU citizenship.

I would love to take you with me, introduce you to the better things this great continent has to offer.
I'm not sure what the EU ever did to you to make hate it so vehemently, but clearly you do.

Have you ever wondered why 16.5M people voted to stay? Have you ever thought they might have a point, that there might be something to this EU thing? Or do you think that we have been taken over by some mass delusion?

You appear to think that the EU is a continent - maybe that's why you're so confused?

I'm confident that if I choose, I can work anywhere in the world as I have skills that are in demand. I don't need to seek EU permission for that!

Europe is a continent. I don't hate Europe or Europeans - I have numerous European colleagues and clients and my firm does a massive amount of business with them. We can still do the same outside of the EU, which is purely a political construct (and a failed economic one).

The EU project has failed - see how the EU economy is doing.
Joining the Euro would just make our problems worse - see the economic situation in Southern Europe (funnily enough you keep ignoring this...)

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 30th June 16:51

[mattmurdock]

turbobloke said:

To be fair to tin, the foil isn't too far off.

EU wants to kick UK and France off UN Security Council
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/622814/EU-p...

Merkel unilaterally sets aside the EU-wide Dublin Agreement
http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news...

55 in 3
https://www.rt.com/uk/312452-london-property-overc...

Did you actually read any of those critically?

The vote held last year (November 2015) was to endorse this statement:

Report on the role of the EU within the UN - how to better achieve EU foreign policy goals said:

Recalls, considering the contribution of the EU to peace and security architecture in the world and the Lisbon Treaty’s objective of enhancing the European foreign policy, the long-term goal of the EU having a seat on an enlarged Security Council, and reiterates its call for a Europe-wide debate on its reform; reiterates its call on the Vice-President / High Representative (VP/HR) to seek common EU positions on issues within the remit of the Security Council, and to improve the existing cooperation mechanisms aimed at ensuring that EU Member States sitting on the Security Council defend common EU positions in that forum; recalls that, according to Article 34 TEU, EU members of the UNSC shall keep other Member States and the High Representative informed, and defend the positions and interests of the EU; further recalls that where the EU has a defined position on a UNSC agenda item, those states shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position;

Which asks for an extra seat to be created for the EU, or if not possible to improve the current co-operation mechanisms between the UK, France, the revolving EU country which gets a seat and the EU Commission.

Nowhere does it suggest 'removing' the UK or France. It is also not binding on anyone other than the EU negotiators to the UN (certainly it is not binding on the UN).

As to the Dublin Agreement, it contains a 'sovereignty' clause which allows a member state to overrule the EU law in times of crisis (hooray for member states being sovereign over EU law, eh?). Given the scale of the Syrian refugee crisis, Germany decided to invoke the clause, which it was perfectly entitled to do. Even if it wasn't, how is that an example of the 'Fourth Reich making decisions for Britain' or even the 'Fourth Reich grabbing power for itself'. All she did was stop deporting refugees from Germany to the countries they originally arrived into.

Finally, the housing bit seems to me to be more of an indictment of rogue landlords criminally taking advantage of people from another country. And as I said, I think there is definitely a case to address around the infrastructure concerns, but stories where the owners of the buildings are criminals themselves doesn't really add to that case.

[turbobloke]

mattmurdock said:

turbobloke said:

To be fair to tin, the foil isn't too far off.

EU wants to kick UK and France off UN Security Council
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/622814/EU-p...

Merkel unilaterally sets aside the EU-wide Dublin Agreement
http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news...

55 in 3
https://www.rt.com/uk/312452-london-property-overc...

Did you actually read any of those critically?

All of them, some time ago.

Report on the role of the EU within the UN - how to better achieve EU foreign policy goals said:

Text

The initial attempt to get an extra EU seat would diminish the UK's role, afterwards (if the EU gets a seat) it could easily make a case for going further than that.

Parts of the text that signal future intent:

"the EU has a unique potential to mobilise resources across the full range of diplomatic, security, defence, economic, development and humanitarian instruments"

"whereas countries are divided into geographical areas, which often leads to countries voting as a bloc"

The former sets the scene for the EU Army, often dismissed but now emerging policy. The second sets the scene for the EU eventually replacing the UK and France.

As you would expect, UKIP MEPs have seen (read) the UN warning signs, as others did with regard to the EU Army.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o95UoYLzdAg

mattmurdock said:

As to the Dublin Agreement, it contains a 'sovereignty' clause which allows a member state to overrule the EU law in times of crisis (hooray for member states being sovereign over EU law, eh?).

That clause is only appealing because of the referendum and the issue of sovereignty. It's irrelevant to the implications of Merkel suspending the agreement. That national decision had EU-wide, international repercussions - not least that after Merkel acted, the EU developed plans to reform the Agreement along Merkel lines (Merkel unilateral action was autumn 2015, planned change appears Jan 2016, further developments spring onwards 2016). This is the power base in the EU in action. It fits well, and this was the reason it was cited in my reply.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d08dc262-bed1-11e5-9fdb-...

mattmurdock said:

Finally, the housing bit seems to me to be more of an indictment of rogue landlords criminally taking advantage of people from another country.

That's so what. It's still 50+ in 3, which I acknowledged as not 50 in 1 but on the way. How will it happen at all unless owners/landlords break the law?

All-told, the events at each of the links were reasonable in the way they were used.

[Thorodin]

The movement towards an EU army is fraught with trouble. For the EU to build its own army would be tantamount to broadcasting territorial ambitions that would set off all kinds of alarms and while the EU is bull-headed in its stated aims I don't think, yet, it's stupid. Do they envisage drafting divisions from member states similar to UN?

[mattmurdock]

turbobloke said:

That's so what. It's still 50+ in 3, which I acknowledged as not 50 in 1 but on the way. How will it happen at all unless owners/landlords break the law?

All-told, the events at each of the links were reasonable in the way they were used.

Unfortunately as usual for you TB, you respond to critical analysis with speculation and then state your position as the correct one.

Of course the EU want more coordination on defence. Does this mean they will get a UN seat? Does that mean they will kick the UK and France out? Does that mean they will create a joint EU/UN death ray on the moon?

Merkel used an already agreed power to ensure immigrants could stay in Germany and be processed rather than be moved to the border member states and processed. Given the scale of the crisis and the inability of those member states to cope that seemed emininently sensible. That the Commission agreed and suggested reforming the regulations just shows the EU can reform based on the member states wanting them to, which is surely an argument against the 'unelected bureaucracy' hypothesis.

And yes, landlords breaking the law is a problem.

I have often thought you were a critical thinker TB, but this nonsense is making me reconsider.