How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)
Discussion
Andy20vt said:
Has anyone else noticed the lack of ethnic minorities or 'non-white' on Nigels little pub crawl?
From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
Oooh, racist. Haven't had that one in a couple of days.From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
Tankrizzo said:
Andy20vt said:
Has anyone else noticed the lack of ethnic minorities or 'non-white' on Nigels little pub crawl?
From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
Oooh, racist. Haven't had that one in a couple of days.From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 25th March 13:28
mehmehmeh said:
If another vote is called and we remain, it sets a dangerous precedent of...everytime you vote anything in, the vote doesn't count.
Possibly....but not necessarily. A referendum is a means to test public opinion. There is no constitutional (legal) obligation to enact the outcome of a referendum. The reason we are leaving the EU is because of a publicly announced declaration by the government that they would enact the outcome. They could have just as reasonably said, 'tell us what you think and we'll take a look".
Voting in a general election is constitutionally binding; providing all due processes are followed. And you do get a second vote if you don't like the outcome; you just have to wait four or five years to do so.
Helicopter123 said:
andymadmak said:
Helicopter123 said:
I'm happy with the status quo and in trusting our elected governments to make decisions on my behalf over the next 20 years. That is what I would be voting for.
So you don't know what you're voting for. OK. Bit hypocritical of you to be criticising Brexit voters for doing the same (according to you) wasn't it?Nevertheless, whatever you voted for is not what will be in place in 20 years now, will it? Or do you think that the EU would allow the UK to hold it forever in 2016-land? Surely you knew what future you were voting for?
Helicopter123 said:
Did you vote for May's deal, no-deal, Canada + or something else?
Now you are starting to worry me. May's deal didn't exist in 2016. In fact May was not even PM in the run up to the vote. How could I vote for something that nobody in their wildest dreams would have assumed would take place? After all, did that nice Remainer Mr Cameron not say he was going to stay on and implement the outcome of the vote, whatever that outcome was? Personally, I was happy with exit on WTO terms with a 2 year transition period. That was what I hoped would happen. Canada+ was not quite far enough, but Canada++ (as was subsequently being worked upon by David Davis before May torpedoed his efforts) might have been acceptable as a compromise, depending on the details.
But at the time of voting there were but two options, leave or remain. I interpreted Leave as being Leave on WTO and remain as being Remain and likely see the UK immersed into an USEU within my lifetime.
Others may have had a different view. What was yours?
andymadmak said:
Well two things. Firstly you realistically cannot be part of something which has its own vision for the future unless you yourself have a vision of what that future should look like. Otherwise, how will you know when your own vision contradicts the EU vision? How will you know when to say 'enough, no further'?
Secondly, in 2016 a majority of the British public that took part expressed the view that it did not agree with the vision of the future for the EU as it was understood at that time. During that debate, some of that vision was aired ( EU army is just one example) - Those leading the the Remain side went out of their way to say this the EU army was a Brexiteers fantasy, was not under consideration, will never happen.... and yet just a few months after the vote it became VERY clear that some of the other big players in Europe are very much aligned with the idea of an EU army and that when the UK leaves the EU this is likely to happen.
This being the case, you'll understand the confusion. Either there never was a plan and it was all Brexiteer fantasy, or there was a plan, but Remainers were too embarrassed to admit it? Maybe Mr Clegg just assumed that we (UK) could continue to veto it ad nauseam... in which case why not just say so?
The utter dishonesty of Remain is exposed right there. The reality is that Remaining means staying in that pan of water and putting up with whatever eventually gets voted through, which more and more will be less under UK control as Vetos are abolished and QMV is extended.
You talk of safeguards, and I do not doubt that you believe in them, but the reality is that they are phantom when considered against the vision that the EU already has.
I genuinely believe that this is the last chance for the UK to leave the EU (unless and until the whole project collapses). There won't be further referenda on the subject in years to come because no Government would risk another exit vote. Assurances that 'we'll respect the next one, honest guv' simply don't wash.
And lastly, it's interesting that you talk about compromises being in the EU. Pray tell what compromises have the Remain camp offered to those who voted Brexit? (the majority of those that voted) It seems to me that Remain compromises amount to doing anything and everything to stay in the EU, regardless of what millions of people say.
Andy, I appreciate that none of what I am about to say is going to change your viewpoint, but as I have several times so far in the numerous iterations of this thread, I have to challenge constant assertions about how the EU works.Secondly, in 2016 a majority of the British public that took part expressed the view that it did not agree with the vision of the future for the EU as it was understood at that time. During that debate, some of that vision was aired ( EU army is just one example) - Those leading the the Remain side went out of their way to say this the EU army was a Brexiteers fantasy, was not under consideration, will never happen.... and yet just a few months after the vote it became VERY clear that some of the other big players in Europe are very much aligned with the idea of an EU army and that when the UK leaves the EU this is likely to happen.
This being the case, you'll understand the confusion. Either there never was a plan and it was all Brexiteer fantasy, or there was a plan, but Remainers were too embarrassed to admit it? Maybe Mr Clegg just assumed that we (UK) could continue to veto it ad nauseam... in which case why not just say so?
The utter dishonesty of Remain is exposed right there. The reality is that Remaining means staying in that pan of water and putting up with whatever eventually gets voted through, which more and more will be less under UK control as Vetos are abolished and QMV is extended.
You talk of safeguards, and I do not doubt that you believe in them, but the reality is that they are phantom when considered against the vision that the EU already has.
I genuinely believe that this is the last chance for the UK to leave the EU (unless and until the whole project collapses). There won't be further referenda on the subject in years to come because no Government would risk another exit vote. Assurances that 'we'll respect the next one, honest guv' simply don't wash.
And lastly, it's interesting that you talk about compromises being in the EU. Pray tell what compromises have the Remain camp offered to those who voted Brexit? (the majority of those that voted) It seems to me that Remain compromises amount to doing anything and everything to stay in the EU, regardless of what millions of people say.
Whilst Macron and Merkel have both talked about a centralised EU defence arm, any attempt to move beyond the current national sharing of military assets will be subject to the veto. It will not (and cannot) be forced through without the unanimous support of the EU Council, many members of which are unlikely to support it.
And whilst there is a push within the EU Commission to move to QMV in order to bypass the veto in some areas, that change itself will be subject to the veto, and therefore would be a 'turkeys voting for Christmas' scenario. There are many EU countries that would not want to move to QMV, not just the UK.
So it is currently extremely unlikely that an EU army will be established, that ANY country will lose the veto due to those competencies moving to QMV and that the UK would be forced to lose their rebate.
Deciding to dismiss the entire EU structure simply because of nebulous future concerns about their expressed desire for further integration and the formation of an EU super-state, regardless of the actual probability of those coming to pass, seems a shame.
The standard response of those holding these views seems to be to say they do not trust that it is unlikely, because the UK government have given away so much in the past without consulting the electorate. The simple response to that is, if that truly is the case, why would anyone want to give these people even more authority? If you do not trust that Parliamentary Sovereignty is working in your best interests currently, how is Parliament going to be any more trustworthy after we leave?
Tankrizzo said:
Andy20vt said:
Nope just a question?
You're doing ok Andy but it's a bit obvious. You're not quite in mx5nut's league yet.Perhaps the the oldest may die before the next referendum? Who knows, only Andy and he won’t admit it?
Coincidence?
Helicopter123 said:
andymadmak said:
Helicopter123 said:
I'm happy with the status quo and in trusting our elected governments to make decisions on my behalf over the next 20 years. That is what I would be voting for.
So you don't know what you're voting for. OK. Bit hypocritical of you to be criticising Brexit voters for doing the same (according to you) wasn't it?Did you vote for May's deal, no-deal, Canada + or something else?
h and moan about their implementation of brexit but as long as they do actually implement brexit I will be happy (to an extent).Now... you voted for the status quo. Which of course doesn't exist. The EU is every changing so did you vote to go along with those changes and defined by the EU leaders, or did you vote for nothing at all to change? What about others that voted remain? Did they vote for your "soft" remain, or for a "hard" remain whereby we adopt the Euro, support an EU army and give up our rebate in exchange for being full-blown, proper members of the EU rather than the PITA outlyers we are today?
I'm happy to have another referendum on the subject after the result of the first has been implemented. And having learned from our past mistakes, we must make the question so clear it cannot be called into question:
Do you wish to:
a) remain outside of the EU.
b) join the EU, become fully paid up members and adopting the Euro.
mattmurdock said:
Andy, I appreciate that none of what I am about to say is going to change your viewpoint, but as I have several times so far in the numerous iterations of this thread, I have to challenge constant assertions about how the EU works.
Whilst Macron and Merkel have both talked about a centralised EU defence arm, any attempt to move beyond the current national sharing of military assets will be subject to the veto. It will not (and cannot) be forced through without the unanimous support of the EU Council, many members of which are unlikely to support it.
And whilst there is a push within the EU Commission to move to QMV in order to bypass the veto in some areas, that change itself will be subject to the veto, and therefore would be a 'turkeys voting for Christmas' scenario. There are many EU countries that would not want to move to QMV, not just the UK.
So it is currently extremely unlikely that an EU army will be established, that ANY country will lose the veto due to those competencies moving to QMV and that the UK would be forced to lose their rebate.
Deciding to dismiss the entire EU structure simply because of nebulous future concerns about their expressed desire for further integration and the formation of an EU super-state, regardless of the actual probability of those coming to pass, seems a shame.
I take and understand the points you are making. However, the recurrent behaviours of EU and UK politicians, their dishonesty in respect of the true nature of the European project and their complete refusal to engage in honest debate on the matter over the past 40 years render solid those concerns that you dismiss as nebulous. Whilst Macron and Merkel have both talked about a centralised EU defence arm, any attempt to move beyond the current national sharing of military assets will be subject to the veto. It will not (and cannot) be forced through without the unanimous support of the EU Council, many members of which are unlikely to support it.
And whilst there is a push within the EU Commission to move to QMV in order to bypass the veto in some areas, that change itself will be subject to the veto, and therefore would be a 'turkeys voting for Christmas' scenario. There are many EU countries that would not want to move to QMV, not just the UK.
So it is currently extremely unlikely that an EU army will be established, that ANY country will lose the veto due to those competencies moving to QMV and that the UK would be forced to lose their rebate.
Deciding to dismiss the entire EU structure simply because of nebulous future concerns about their expressed desire for further integration and the formation of an EU super-state, regardless of the actual probability of those coming to pass, seems a shame.
mattmurdock said:
The standard response of those holding these views seems to be to say they do not trust that it is unlikely, because the UK government have given away so much in the past without consulting the electorate. The simple response to that is, if that truly is the case, why would anyone want to give these people even more authority? If you do not trust that Parliamentary Sovereignty is working in your best interests currently, how is Parliament going to be any more trustworthy after we leave?
So the answer to the dishonesty of UK Europhile politicians over the years is to let them continue? At least we can expose them and chuck them out at an election. There is a massive democratic deficit within the EU structure that specifically serves to advantage those who support the project and neuter those who object to it. wiggy001 said:
Helicopter123 said:
andymadmak said:
Helicopter123 said:
I'm happy with the status quo and in trusting our elected governments to make decisions on my behalf over the next 20 years. That is what I would be voting for.
So you don't know what you're voting for. OK. Bit hypocritical of you to be criticising Brexit voters for doing the same (according to you) wasn't it?Did you vote for May's deal, no-deal, Canada + or something else?
h and moan about their implementation of brexit but as long as they do actually implement brexit I will be happy (to an extent).Now... you voted for the status quo. Which of course doesn't exist. The EU is every changing so did you vote to go along with those changes and defined by the EU leaders, or did you vote for nothing at all to change? What about others that voted remain? Did they vote for your "soft" remain, or for a "hard" remain whereby we adopt the Euro, support an EU army and give up our rebate in exchange for being full-blown, proper members of the EU rather than the PITA outlyers we are today?
I'm happy to have another referendum on the subject after the result of the first has been implemented. And having learned from our past mistakes, we must make the question so clear it cannot be called into question:
Do you wish to:
a) remain outside of the EU.
b) join the EU, become fully paid up members and adopting the Euro.
The meat of the negotiations which will shape what Leaving the EU really means are still to come, which will then form the basis of the question, “did we get what we voted for?”. It may or may not involve the same inept players deployed for the WA negotiation - most likely not I would hope.
I guess we have to get to that point before we can question or decide. So we had better move onto it so leave can properly complain that we didn’t know what we were voting for and base a campaign to get the result overturned.
It’s all whinging and excuses at present. They just aren’t happy with the neverendum result, it has nothing to do with anything else.
gizlaroc said:
Compared to the People's March which is full of the young ethnic minorities who think Brexit has ruined their lives??
I have not seen so many middle class, middle aged Hoorah Henrys in one place since the time I was caught up in Henley when the Royal Regatta was on.
With just a quick scan I can see/count at least 9 people of ethnicity in that photo so I've really no idea what on earth you are on about.I have not seen so many middle class, middle aged Hoorah Henrys in one place since the time I was caught up in Henley when the Royal Regatta was on.
Andy20vt said:
Has anyone else noticed the lack of ethnic minorities or 'non-white' on Nigels little pub crawl?
From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
Sorry, what?From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
Can you explain what you mean by coincidence.
Thats a genuine question, what on earth are you on about.
If you have the slightest shred of self respect you should explain what you mean more clearly to everyone who's reading your posts, leave or remain.
However I think we can judge the quality of your spine by the expected silence or evasion......
What was that about "leave extremism" you posted earlier, what a pathetic individual.
andymadmak said:
Personally, I was happy with exit on WTO terms with a 2 year transition period.
OMFG you have to be kidding. How many times does it have to be said that if we leave without a deal with the EU, there will be no transition? Transition only applies in the event of a DEAL with the EU. Not WTO, or whatever other disingenuous term you want to come up with for Catastrofk Brexit.Jesus Christ.
Andy20vt said:
gizlaroc said:
With just a quick scan I can see/count at least 9 people of ethnicity in that photo so I've really no idea what on earth you are on about.That crowd is a lot more than 59.8% white
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Andy20vt said:
Has anyone else noticed the lack of ethnic minorities or 'non-white' on Nigels little pub crawl?
From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
You were saying Andy??From the video I watched this morning it seemed to be made up entirely of white people of middle age or older?
Coincidence?
This will keep you busy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff