The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[turbobloke]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

don4l said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

This is just what we need now, Tony Blair as the EU negotiator.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/tony-bl...

He is always willing to compromise, as long as someone else is suffering the compromise. The solid brass neck of the man is staggering.

What could possibly go wrong?

After all, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Brussels.


Oh... wait a second!

Didn't David Cameron mention WWWIII, Juncker had better be careful. Tony is on the case.

It would be wise for anyone involved to avoid walking alone in wooded areas where they may decide to rest against a tree. Not sure about Juncker.

[Axionknight]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Didn't David Cameron mention WWWIII, Juncker had better be careful. Tony is on the case.

He did, but France have nuclear weapons too so it may not be he wisest move

[Sam All]

boxxob said:

zygalski said:

Informal talks can go on for years. The EU want us out yesterday, it would seem.

Juncker and Shulz seem to, but I am not so sure about the other relevant parties.

I think Europe is about to experience a salutary lesson in why power and sovereignty should rest with their nationally, democratically elected leaders.

Edited by boxxob on Friday 1st July 10:08

Juncker thinks he owns the EU.

[Jockman]

steveatesh said:

Jockman said:

mattmurdock said:

hidetheelephants said:

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

The process started last Friday

My understanding is that there can be no official negotiations until Article 50 is triggered, that's the only formal way to start negotiations. In addition the UK is still a member of the EU until we actually leave altogether so we can not officially start negotiations with other countries as trade is an EU competence.

However, none of this stops them having informal discussions to get the broad areas covered, and I have no doubt that will be happening with the actual states (if not the EU) before Article 50 is triggered.

But with just a week gone by they will be sorting themselves out still, appointing people etc etc, so any delay is to be expected. If they have not triggered it by the end of the year then I would suspect a u turn is Happening.

With you 100% Steve. No formal negotiations. Informal discussions every day. That is the start of the process.

[jjlynn27]

Jockman said:

steveatesh said:

Jockman said:

mattmurdock said:

hidetheelephants said:

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

The process started last Friday

My understanding is that there can be no official negotiations until Article 50 is triggered, that's the only formal way to start negotiations. In addition the UK is still a member of the EU until we actually leave altogether so we can not officially start negotiations with other countries as trade is an EU competence.

However, none of this stops them having informal discussions to get the broad areas covered, and I have no doubt that will be happening with the actual states (if not the EU) before Article 50 is triggered.

But with just a week gone by they will be sorting themselves out still, appointing people etc etc, so any delay is to be expected. If they have not triggered it by the end of the year then I would suspect a u turn is Happening.

With you 100% Steve. No formal negotiations. Informal discussions every day. That is the start of the process.

Didn't May already confirmed that A50 will not be triggered this year?

[Jockman]

jjlynn27 said:

Jockman said:

steveatesh said:

Jockman said:

mattmurdock said:

hidetheelephants said:

I'd say refusing to even have informal talks until A50 is triggered is bad faith; both parties(should) want this done expeditiously and making pompous declarations like that are not helpful. That said speaking directly to individual heads of state is probably a better idea that bothering with Juncker as he's more interested in his own aggrandisement than doing his job.

In fact Liam Fox has just been on Today saying this very thing; throwing bureaucratic barriers in front of getting the job done is farcical and going direct may be the way ahead.

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

The process started last Friday

My understanding is that there can be no official negotiations until Article 50 is triggered, that's the only formal way to start negotiations. In addition the UK is still a member of the EU until we actually leave altogether so we can not officially start negotiations with other countries as trade is an EU competence.

However, none of this stops them having informal discussions to get the broad areas covered, and I have no doubt that will be happening with the actual states (if not the EU) before Article 50 is triggered.

But with just a week gone by they will be sorting themselves out still, appointing people etc etc, so any delay is to be expected. If they have not triggered it by the end of the year then I would suspect a u turn is Happening.

With you 100% Steve. No formal negotiations. Informal discussions every day. That is the start of the process.

Didn't May already confirmed that A50 will not be triggered this year?

Yup.

[hidetheelephants]

mattmurdock said:

I'd say voting to leave, then not actually triggering the leave, is bad faith.

Why negotiate if the other party is not willing to actually start the process?

You're just being flippant now; Cameron resigned for what appears to be a mix of personal and political reasons instead of staying until 2018 as was his previous plan, unless he wanted to set fire to the conservative party there's no justification for him to effectively pull the pin on a handgrenade and throw it to whoever wins and shout "you're it!" while running for the exit.

[ATG]

AJS- said:

mattmurdock said:

No, for the apparently hard of thinking I am saying that pointing to this document and shouting 'An EU Army is coming, an EU Army is coming!' is the same as pointing at a government white paper in the UK and shouting 'this will be law, this will be law!'.

As in it completely ignores the actual process to take a policy/strategy document and turn it into reality.

So was the single currency. And enlargement. And everything else. Then it was inevitable. Then it was too late.

Each state could choose for itself whethet yo try to join the Euro or to stay out. Any state could veto expansion. (The UK was pushing for expansion as it was in our clear national interest.) So you've produced two terrible examples and then said "and everything else". Can you see why your point isn't exactly convincing?

[mattmurdock]

hidetheelephants said:

You're just being flippant now; Cameron resigned for what appears to be a mix of personal and political reasons instead of staying until 2018 as was his previous plan, unless he wanted to set fire to the conservative party there's no justification for him to effectively pull the pin on a handgrenade and throw it to whoever wins and shout "you're it!" while running for the exit.

So if our government is not prepared to actually declare we are leaving (as both the legislation and moral imperative would suggest we should) why on earth do you feel justified in criticising the EU for not wanting to negotiate with us, and blame them for holding the process up?

Are we so self important as to think they should just negotiate with us anyway?

Actually, that is clearly a rhetorical question, as most of the leave supporters clearly do feel that self important.

[don4l]

Sam All said:

boxxob said:

zygalski said:

Informal talks can go on for years. The EU want us out yesterday, it would seem.

Juncker and Shulz seem to, but I am not so sure about the other relevant parties.

I think Europe is about to experience a salutary lesson in why power and sovereignty should rest with their nationally, democratically elected leaders.

Edited by boxxob on Friday 1st July 10:08

Juncker thinks he owns the EU.

He's in for a surprise when he sobers up.

[wc98]

don4l said:

Sam All said:

boxxob said:

zygalski said:

Informal talks can go on for years. The EU want us out yesterday, it would seem.

Juncker and Shulz seem to, but I am not so sure about the other relevant parties.

I think Europe is about to experience a salutary lesson in why power and sovereignty should rest with their nationally, democratically elected leaders.

Edited by boxxob on Friday 1st July 10:08

Juncker thinks he owns the EU.

He's in for a surprise when he sobers up.

anyone with half a brain would drag it out to ensure that the negotiations were still ongoing past the point of several national elections upcoming in europe over the next two years for two reasons . one , they may want to inflict some kind of punishment on the uk as a warning to others thinking of leaving. the sooner we leave the easier this is to do. if negotiations drag on through those other elections they will get increasingly nervous and could possibly offer better concessions just to get shot of us. this may be wishful thinking but imo it is not the most important reason anyway.

two, and the most important. many seem to think we will leave and the eu will continue on as before.i would suggest even the europhilliacs would be deluded in this case. das projekt as it stands is over, kaput. there is every likelihood that before the end of the negotiations other countries will have made the decision to hold referenda on membership and by the end of those negotiations they may well have left, just like us. so the actual entity we will be negotiating with is likely to be changing faster than the pace of negotiations. the longer we take to kick start the process, the more likely we are to be clear what we are actually negotiating with.

ps, i do like don4ls idea of just getting straight out , it may actually make sorting deals a lot easier when everyone realised there was to be no pussy footing around. too many lightweights in business and politics would st themselves though , leading to real chaos , not the manufactured msm variety we see at the moment.

Edited by wc98 on Friday 1st July 11:58

[Zod]

don4l said:

He's in for a surprise when he sobers up.

Another of the few areas of common ground we appear to share is utter disdain for Juncker.

[wc98]

Zod said:

don4l said:

He's in for a surprise when he sobers up.

Another of the few areas of common ground we appear to share is utter disdain for Juncker.

i would say that is universally accepted right across europe.

[Sam All]

wc98 said:

Zod said:

don4l said:

He's in for a surprise when he sobers up.

Another of the few areas of common ground we appear to share is utter disdain for Juncker.

i would say that is universally accepted right across europe.

.......if not global

[hidetheelephants]

mattmurdock said:

So if our government is not prepared to actually declare we are leaving (as both the legislation and moral imperative would suggest we should) why on earth do you feel justified in criticising the EU for not wanting to negotiate with us, and blame them for holding the process up?

Are we so self important as to think they should just negotiate with us anyway?

Actually, that is clearly a rhetorical question, as most of the leave supporters clearly do feel that self important.

If Juncker showboating for the camera and uttering nonsense like this

Juncker said:

If someone from the ‘Remain’ camp will become British PM this has to be done in two weeks after his appointment, if the next British PM is coming from the ‘Leave’ campaign it should be done the day after his appointment.

isn't bad faith I don't know what is; the leadership election is delay enough but he won't talk prior to A50 so he's willfully adding the entirety of this 9 weeks to the lag rather than allow it to be used for useful discussion; he's an arrogant arse. Hopefully the statesmen and women of europe will ignore this superannuated drunkard and just get on with it.

[onemorelap]

Well, it is a Friday.............

Mays challengers will drop by the way side over the next week or so "in the national interest".
May will go and have a brew and a chat with the moderate chap at the EU who is in place for the next 6 months, positions will be seen to soften on both sides giving soothing noises to the market.
The impartial BBC will ramp up a hearts and minds campaign with programmes showing the plight of fleeing refugees and we will be so EU'd up by xmas that we will be putting fairies on top of the Scandinavian trees waving an EU flag.
"Productive" and "constructive" talks will carry on until xmas with a compromise being reached in some form and a proposal that "we may as well remain for now" back to parliament early 2017.
The proposal won't need a referendum as "the majority of leavers only voted leave because they saw nothing but a stonewall from the EU at the time of the referendum.
This position has clearly changed so the majority of leavers would now vote "remain". Majority vote succeeds in parliament because the majority of MPs want to stay in and Article 50 will be in the background, initially as an idle threat to be re-introduced if the UK deem the EU are being naughty again (which will satisfy some of the slighty less hardcore leavers) and the EU know its an empty threat that will get quietly forgotten about / legislated out in a few years time.
Junker and Co will be told to wind their necks in "because £UK" and all will be well in the world until Scotland start wriggling again "because Scotland".
The hardcore leavers that are seen to have made the difference in the referendum will kick off initially but will disappear off to vote UKIP (if they can be bothered) that wont exist because the Tories and the EU have now made them a laughing stock as well as diminishing the impact of other Eurosceptic parties in time for the French and German elections.

Simples.

[don4l]

mattmurdock said:

don4l said:

I don't understand your point.

Are you saying that the EU only implements things that haven't had a strategy discussion beforehand?

No, for the apparently hard of thinking I am saying that pointing to this document and shouting 'An EU Army is coming, an EU Army is coming!' is the same as pointing at a government white paper in the UK and shouting 'this will be law, this will be law!'.

As in it completely ignores the actual process to take a policy/strategy document and turn it into reality.

OK. I understand.

You are not actually saying anything at all.

The proposal is on the table.

History suggests that proposals like this do get implemented.

Everyone who understands "ever closer union" knows this.

[mattmurdock]

don4l said:

OK. I understand.

You are not actually saying anything at all.

The proposal is on the table.

History suggests that proposals like this do get implemented.

Everyone who understands "ever closer union" knows this.

Assertion without evidence - funnily enough you and TB would normally be all over people who do this, and yet it seems fine for you to do it whenever you like.

As pointed out by others above, the aim of the EU was currency union, and yet amazingly we weren't in it. History actually suggests that proposals like this do NOT get implemented, at least not into countries that do not want them to be.

[wc98]

mattmurdock said:

don4l said:

OK. I understand.

You are not actually saying anything at all.

The proposal is on the table.

History suggests that proposals like this do get implemented.

Everyone who understands "ever closer union" knows this.

Assertion without evidence -

i will just leave these here. i wonder who is being quoted ?
We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.

If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'.

The constitutional treaty was an easily understandable treaty. This is a simplified treaty which is very complicated.

I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries."
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
"There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.

Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup [...] I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious [...] I am for secret, dark debates.

I don't think Spain will need any kind of external support.

There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties

We feel we need a Capital Market Union, Energy Union, Economic and Monetary Union but we also think we need security union

[Robertj21a]

wc98 said:

i would say that is universally accepted right across europe.

Such a shame that we have no power to remove him........