Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
drdel said:
IMO it might be a good idea for those wishing to cancel Art50 to worry about the future of the EU and the UK's position in it when the world markets and threats change. It would be far more coherent than continually focusing on the wonderful past through rose tinted specs and the current political debacle as a reason to capitulate and hope things in the EU will reform - when we've been trying to encourage that for 20+ years.
Focusing on a mythical past is a Brexiter thing. The future is unknowable, but why not face the future as a strong and influential member of a strong group, rather than trust to Trump etc? Maybe not possible now, as the antics of the Brexiters have shattered the UK’s reputation as a serious and grown up player in Global politics. Johnson bears much blame for this. He was a joke Foreign Secretary before he became a joke Prime Minister.It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
drdel said:
Breadvan72 said:
Only those with their fingers in their ears saying la la la know that a hard Brexit will wreck the country and its finances, so on that basis Johnson winning doesn’t count the most prudent management either. Scylla and Charybdis again (Classical references to cheer up fans of the Latinate PM).
IMO it might be a good idea for those wishing to cancel Art50 to worry about the future of the EU and the UK's position in it when the world markets and threats change. It would be far more coherent than continually focusing on the wonderful past through rose tinted specs and the current political debacle as a reason to capitulate and hope things in the EU will reform - when we've been trying to encourage that for 20+ years.SpeckledJim said:
Because it's not a strong group. Not strong at all.
It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
This is why I voted Leave and the point that Remainers have been singularly incapable of acknowledging or refuting for the last 4 years. It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
arguti said:
drdel said:
Breadvan72 said:
Only those with their fingers in their ears saying la la la know that a hard Brexit will wreck the country and its finances, so on that basis Johnson winning doesn’t count the most prudent management either. Scylla and Charybdis again (Classical references to cheer up fans of the Latinate PM).
IMO it might be a good idea for those wishing to cancel Art50 to worry about the future of the EU and the UK's position in it when the world markets and threats change. It would be far more coherent than continually focusing on the wonderful past through rose tinted specs and the current political debacle as a reason to capitulate and hope things in the EU will reform - when we've been trying to encourage that for 20+ years.
Breadvan72 said:
Psi, It is is also forty years since I did Latin O Level. I have a vague recollection of a line in Horace along the lines of vox nisi something something. That which has been spoken may not be unspoken, or summat. Handy for those who oppose Ref 2. Might be Ovid or Juvenal if not Horace. Not Catullus cos not about shagging. I cannot find it on the net and may have dreamed it. Ring any bells?
Do you mean Nescit vox missa reverti? (It sounded familiar but I had to look it up. It was Horace: Epistles Book I, epistle xviii, line 71.) Almost as much fun and as chirpy as Marcus Aurelius is our 'Orace.
KarlMac said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because it's not a strong group. Not strong at all.
It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
This is why I voted Leave and the point that Remainers have been singularly incapable of acknowledging or refuting for the last 4 years. It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
ElectricSoup said:
I know that this farce has been dragging on for so long now that it's hard to keep track, but the EU confirmed a long time ago (after the referendum and after the notification of A50) that if we chose to revoke A50 we would remain on all current terms. Opt outs, vetos, everything.
That was confirmed not by the EU but by the ECJ. Bussolini said:
KarlMac said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because it's not a strong group. Not strong at all.
It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
This is why I voted Leave and the point that Remainers have been singularly incapable of acknowledging or refuting for the last 4 years. It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
arguti said:
Absolutely, and also there needs to be clarification to the public re the (current) future plans of the EU and whether the UK would retain/lose/gain and veto rights of the euro, EU army and other such factors to prevent calls for another Referendum.
The UK could always veto army, tax harmony etc. As mentioned often above, the UK veto etc was before all this fuss entrenched in UK law and only to be given up if a referendum votes to give it up. Leave omitted to tell voters that and remain did not big that up enough. Breadvan72 said:
The UK could always veto army, tax harmony etc. As mentioned often above, the UK veto etc was before all this fuss entrenched in UK law and only to be given up if a referendum votes to give it up. Leave omitted to tell voters that and remain did not big that up enough.
You might want to read up on the Lisbon treaty and the changes to the EU due in 2020Jinx said:
You might want to read up on the Lisbon treaty and the changes to the EU due in 2020
I suggest you might want to. https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbo...
Breadvan72 said:
The UK could always veto army, tax harmony etc. As mentioned often above, the UK veto etc was before all this fuss entrenched in UK law and only to be given up if a referendum votes to give it up. Leave omitted to tell voters that and remain did not big that up enough.
The past tense you use is appropriate there. The spread of QMV as a vehicle to “get things done” within the EU has impacted our veto on some matters as it has been applied to a wider spectrum of decisions. Arguably a pragmatic approach but with issues and who can predict where that spread will stop.Combine that with the one size fits all approach of the EU and member states with different cultures and capabilities can suffer. I would suggest that the culture of the UK has proven to be far from the culture of the EU given how recorded voting has matched UK desires over our years of membership.
There is no strengthening or status quo around our (or other member state’s) veto capabilities, only weakening over the last few years of QMV. Smaller member states suffer even more than the UK under this policy, which as you may guess is something I have some concerns with given the goals of the project.
Bussolini said:
I love fact checking organisations that attack strawman arguments. Qualified majority voting is becoming more prevalent in EU competancies and we also have a incoming commission president that is looking to push for even more.
The lisbon treaty was just a name change from the constitution that expanded qualified majority into many areas that previously required unanimity - so expect more to be highlighted soon.
If you have any exposure to EU legislation (as I do) you will see more and more directives being pushed into "frameworks" that expand the obligations with little opportunity for push back. The bureaucratic railroading is becoming the norm (see how unpopular legislation passed the parliamentary vote because it was against the wrong number in the vote order recently) - and will continue apace.
Breadvan72 said:
The UK could always veto army, tax harmony etc. As mentioned often above, the UK veto etc was before all this fuss entrenched in UK law and only to be given up if a referendum votes to give it up. Leave omitted to tell voters that and remain did not big that up enough.
I'll recognise your legal expertise but I think you're a little light on your understanding of the defence sector and global industry. The EU hampered by debt is changing it strategy as is NATO, UN and WTO and what was in the past won't be what happens in the futureBreadvan72 said:
arguti said:
Absolutely, and also there needs to be clarification to the public re the (current) future plans of the EU and whether the UK would retain/lose/gain and veto rights of the euro, EU army and other such factors to prevent calls for another Referendum.
The UK could always veto army, tax harmony etc. As mentioned often above, the UK veto etc was before all this fuss entrenched in UK law and only to be given up if a referendum votes to give it up. Leave omitted to tell voters that and remain did not big that up enough. (My friends who are senior in banking in economics (not British mind) have been insistent since 2016 that the "plan" has already been agreed for UK to join the Euro if we remain and i am trying to figure out why they are so sure - they are not interested in the politics per se just following the money!)
SpeckledJim said:
Bussolini said:
KarlMac said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because it's not a strong group. Not strong at all.
It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
This is why I voted Leave and the point that Remainers have been singularly incapable of acknowledging or refuting for the last 4 years. It's a group that's riven with huge internal problems, facing a catastrophic economic collapse, and quickly going backwards in share of world population, wealth, and growth. And it actively fences itself off from that growth, because of it allows insular internal politics to conquer sensible economics.
It's almost like reading out a thread off here.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrie...
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrie...
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: It's almost like reading out a thread off here.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrie...
That's hilarious. It just ends with a pointless insult. https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrie...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff