The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[jjlynn27]

Hayek said:

It passed you by. Has been available for around a decade, I've put a link to it in more than one PH thread.

Keep digging around and there's all sorts of questionable documents and unlikely coincidences that you can find. Pretty sure that no party opposes the unpopular HS2 because the program exists to fulfil an EU mandated program to complete a trans-European high speed railway line.

You think that EU is responsible for HS2?

[Digga]

jjlynn27 said:

Britain was never governed by 'unelected and unaccountable officials'.We've been through how successive UK govts have been very closely aligned with EU. Same governments that were democratically elected.

The EC certain are 'unelected and unaccountable officials' and they do have a say in certain matters relating to the UK. I would agree, there is an element of hyperbole, but overall, the facts are pretty straight on that issue and, as the Brexit process is being played out, we see the point adequately demonstrated by the likes of Juncker, Barnier, Tusk and their like. The have a degree of power over the UK government.

[b2hbm]

Hayek said:

b2hbm said:

When did this surface, is it recent or has it just passed me by ? Was this released before the 2016 referendum, or is the release of the documents the reason we had a referendum in 2016 ?

It passed you by. Has been available for around a decade, I've put a link to it in more than one PH thread.

Keep digging around and there's all sorts of questionable documents and unlikely coincidences that you can find. Pretty sure that no party opposes the unpopular HS2 because the program exists to fulfil an EU mandated program to complete a trans-European high speed railway line.

Thanks, I did wonder if it had been around looking at the dates. I'm surprised more wasn't made of that by Team Leave, especially as the claims of an EU army were being rubbished before the referendum and those documents show that it's clearly been the long term goal since we joined.

I was also intrigued by one letter about the "Joining Fee" we apparently paid, justified because we were getting access to funds and resources which had been paid for by the original members. Do they (the EU) still do that ? Perhaps we should have a claim on assets after all.....

Edited by b2hbm on Thursday 23 November 17:25

[Hayek]

jjlynn27 said:

Hayek said:

It passed you by. Has been available for around a decade, I've put a link to it in more than one PH thread.

Keep digging around and there's all sorts of questionable documents and unlikely coincidences that you can find. Pretty sure that no party opposes the unpopular HS2 because the program exists to fulfil an EU mandated program to complete a trans-European high speed railway line.

You think that EU is responsible for HS2?

It's our government moving towards meeting it's commitment to TEN-T.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructu...

[jjlynn27]

Digga said:

he EC certain are 'unelected and unaccountable officials' and they do have a say in certain matters relating to the UK. I would agree, there is an element of hyperbole, but overall, the facts are pretty straight on that issue and, as the Brexit process is being played out, we see the point adequately demonstrated by the likes of Juncker, Barnier, Tusk and their like. The have a degree of power over the UK government.

What degree of power do they have?

[jjlynn27]

Hayek said:

It's our government moving towards meeting it's commitment to TEN-T.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructu...

Please read and understand things that you are linking.

[anonymous-user]

b2hbm said:

ash73 said:

They knew all along
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Bre...

and

jsf said:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+104...

An interesting read. When did this surface, is it recent or has it just passed me by ? Was this released before the 2016 referendum, or is the release of the documents the reason we had a referendum in 2016 ?

I've only skimmed the pages but apart from the obvious predictions of the EEC forming it's own combined army, primacy of Commission over national governments, etc, it seems to contain pretty much everything we were told pre referendum that didn't apply because either "we have a veto" or "we have an opt-out". Yet those documents predict the necessity for majority voting as the only way the EEC (as then) could move forwards, which makes a veto rather useless.

I wonder what effect those documents, if leaked in full, would have made back on the eve of the referendum ?

Richard North did an appraisal of it in 2002, it became a public record document in 2001.

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/FCOsovereign...

[Cold]

Britain can no longer host the European Capital of Culture in 2023 as planned because of, y'know, Brexit. This is despite some other non-EU countries being eligible.
Petty lot.

[Sway]

Cold said:

Britain can no longer host the European Capital of Culture in 2023 as planned because of, y'know, Brexit. This is despite some other non-EU countries being eligible.
Petty lot.

Not really, the only non EU nations eligible are either eea/EFTA members, or going through the process of joining. Seems reasonable.

[PRTVR]

Sway said:

Cold said:

Britain can no longer host the European Capital of Culture in 2023 as planned because of, y'know, Brexit. This is despite some other non-EU countries being eligible.
Petty lot.

Not really, the only non EU nations eligible are either eea/EFTA members, or going through the process of joining. Seems reasonable.

To a point I can see that, but is not the UK a European country ? If so how can they be excluded , unless they call it the European Union capital of culture.

[Tryke3]

Cold said:

Britain can no longer host the European Capital of Culture in 2023 as planned because of, y'know, Brexit. This is despite some other non-EU countries being eligible.
Petty lot.

Brexiteers aint got 2 brain cells between them, and that is FACT

[Sway]

PRTVR said:

Sway said:

Cold said:

Britain can no longer host the European Capital of Culture in 2023 as planned because of, y'know, Brexit. This is despite some other non-EU countries being eligible.
Petty lot.

Not really, the only non EU nations eligible are either eea/EFTA members, or going through the process of joining. Seems reasonable.

To a point I can see that, but is not the UK a European country ? If so how can they be excluded , unless they call it the European Union capital of culture.

Well, seeing as every single nation on the continent of Europe, up until now, was eligible I doubt they thought that far ahead when naming it!

Besides, when Liverpool can be a continental capital of culture, it's clearly not anything to worry about too much!

[Jockman]

Cold said:

Britain can no longer host the European Capital of Culture in 2023 as planned because of, y'know, Brexit. This is despite some other non-EU countries being eligible.
Petty lot.

Them's the rules.

Hope they apply to Eurovision too.

Purleaseeeeeee...

[Jockman]

Sway said:

Well, seeing as every single nation on the continent of Europe, up until now, was eligible I doubt they thought that far ahead when naming it!

Besides, when Liverpool can be a continental capital of culture, it's clearly not anything to worry about too much!

Oi. We had Ringo on top of St George's Hall. In his best American accent.

ll we could afford unfortunately

[Digga]

Tryke3 said:

Cold said:

Britain can no longer host the European Capital of Culture in 2023 as planned because of, y'know, Brexit. This is despite some other non-EU countries being eligible.
Petty lot.

Brexiteers aint got 2 brain cells between them, and that is FACT

That's still one more brain cell than an obvious troll. MADEUPFACT

[Tryke3]

Digga said:

That's still one more brain cell than an obvious troll. MADEUPFACT

No more billions of pounds in direct eu investment
Corbyn and Mcdowel in no10


You were saying about brain cells ? Clearly you are at minus 1

[mx5nut]

Leave voters learn about cause and effect - and the economic consequences of their vote on investment in their towns.

Like everything else, it makes them angry.

But don't you dare call them thick.

[sidicks]

mx5nut said:

Leave voters learn about cause and effect - and the economic consequences of their vote on investment in their towns.

Like everything else, it makes them angry.

But don't you dare call them thick.

It would appear that you’d know all about being thick.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Why are councils wasting money on this anyway. They should put it towards public services.

[sidicks]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Why are councils wasting money on this anyway. They should put it towards public services.

Apparently they have no money and so can’t afford to fund social care. But they can afford this nonsense.