BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why is international cooperation like that a bad thing?Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
0 -
The "ever closer union" commitment is still there for all the countries that are now in the EU.Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
0 -
There you go then.kingstongraham said:
The "ever closer union" commitment is still there for all the countries that are now in the EU.Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I made no comment on the relative merits of those in terms of international cooperation. The point was that those actions are indications of the EUs longer term direction of travel re integration.rick_chasey said:
Why is international cooperation like that a bad thing?Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Indeed.Stevo_666 said:
There you go then.kingstongraham said:
The "ever closer union" commitment is still there for all the countries that are now in the EU.Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
0 -
Why would debt sharing between nations with differing economies be a good thing. Seems like a recipe for conflict to me. Given taxes main purpose is to pay for essential services what is the benefit of disparate nations having the same tax laws.rick_chasey said:
Why is international cooperation like that a bad thing?Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
0 -
If you see things from a nationalistic viewpoint then everything.rick_chasey said:
Why is international cooperation like that a bad thing?Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Cooperation is a bit different to integration n'est ce pas?0
-
What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.0 -
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
True. Cooperation sounds better doesn't it.ballysmate said:Cooperation is a bit different to integration n'est ce pas?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Certainly does if you want to sell it to Joe Soap.Stevo_666 said:
True. Cooperation sounds better doesn't it.ballysmate said:Cooperation is a bit different to integration n'est ce pas?
Another slice of salami anyone?0 -
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...0 -
Feel free to provide it and enlighten us all.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...0 -
How's the integration progressing?john80 said:
Feel free to provide it and enlighten us all.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...0 -
I didn’t care before and really don’t care now.Stevo_666 said:
Just debating the one way nature of EU integration, that's all. Feel free to contribute in a meaningful way.surrey_commuter said:
can somebody who understands these things more tell me whether this is still the anger or into the bargaining stage?Stevo_666 said:
Also, I'm trying to think of an example where the EU gave back significant powers or decision making rights to member states. Any ideas?ballysmate said:
Getting rid of he foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers are on the agenda post 2016.pangolin said:
The direction of travel changed way back in 2016 Bally. There's been a bit of chat about it on here.ballysmate said:
You honestly don't think that is the end goal?rick_chasey said:
This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.ballysmate said:
Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.Stevo_666 said:
As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.Pross said:For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.
Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.
As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?
The PM not willing to use a veto argument is weak as well. If they are PM we have democratically elected them, so what's the issue?
2020 in fact.
Why not start a new thread?0 -
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And no body has mentioned the EU army yet. Then it really will be a defacto state, setting laws, raising taxes, ambassadors, and then millitary projection of power.
Whats that i hear you say? there isnt going to be that kind of Armed forces? It will be like Nato a coalition of member states? Of course it will. At first but its only got one way of travel.
0 -
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...0 -
I am still surprised that you can not see the parallels with the UK and Scotlandjohn80 said:
Why would debt sharing between nations with differing economies be a good thing. Seems like a recipe for conflict to me. Given taxes main purpose is to pay for essential services what is the benefit of disparate nations having the same tax laws.rick_chasey said:
Why is international cooperation like that a bad thing?Stevo_666 said:
Nice piece of PR to remove it from their public statements. But actions such as tax harmonisation and the start of debt sharing in the form of some aspects of the Covid recovery fund suggest that the reality is still the same as before.kingstongraham said:They agreed to remove the commitment to "ever closer union" for one country that requested it.
1 -
We are now but I'm talking about countries that are still members. So do tell...kingstongraham said:
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
All countries who are now members of the EU are signed up to closer integration. The country that was signed up to the slow lane has now left.Stevo_666 said:
We are now but I'm talking about countries that are still members. So do tell...kingstongraham said:
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...
This must have been something you considered when you voted to remain, so I don't know why it's such a problem for you to grasp now.1 -
load of bollocks - edited out.0
-
You clearly haven't grasped my point. As mentioned I was talking about those countries still in the EU. So tell me what makes you think they can avoid signing up to certain things where there is QMV rather than a veto and where EU directives are the method of implementation?kingstongraham said:
All countries who are now members of the EU are signed up to closer integration. The country that was signed up to the slow lane has now left.Stevo_666 said:
We are now but I'm talking about countries that are still members. So do tell...kingstongraham said:
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...
This must have been something you considered when you voted to remain, so I don't know why it's such a problem for you to grasp now."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Thats a more positive contribution than your last post.surrey_commuter said:
I didn’t care before and really don’t care now.Stevo_666 said:
Just debating the one way nature of EU integration, that's all. Feel free to contribute in a meaningful way.surrey_commuter said:
can somebody who understands these things more tell me whether this is still the anger or into the bargaining stage?Stevo_666 said:
Also, I'm trying to think of an example where the EU gave back significant powers or decision making rights to member states. Any ideas?ballysmate said:
Getting rid of he foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers are on the agenda post 2016.pangolin said:
The direction of travel changed way back in 2016 Bally. There's been a bit of chat about it on here.ballysmate said:
You honestly don't think that is the end goal?rick_chasey said:
This is such a weak argument as the UK made it clear it never wanted that and had a veto on that happening.ballysmate said:
Yep, if it were solely a trading bloc and hadn't got designs on being a state we would have been its biggest cheer leaders.Stevo_666 said:
As I've said before, if the EU had kept to the brief of being a trading bloc I'm sure we would still be in.Pross said:For me, the EU was expanding out of what it should be doing as a trading block and the UK should have just stayed in and fought to keep it on track.
Sadly the EU has no reverse gear, so the absolute best you could do would be to keeps things 'as is' for as long as possible. All the EU has to do is wait until more compliant national governments are elected to push through the next round of integration.
The direction of travel has been one way and even the EU have stated that they want further integration.
The EU wants rid of the foreign policy veto, tax harmonisation and tax raising powers. That's more one way travel.
As I have said before, any veto is only valid if the PM is willing to use it. For instance, would a Ken Clarke PM (or Nick Clegg 😰) be as likely to use it as a Boris Johnson PM?
The PM not willing to use a veto argument is weak as well. If they are PM we have democratically elected them, so what's the issue?
2020 in fact.
Why not start a new thread?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Do you need any help shifting those goalposts Stevo or can you manage on your own?Stevo_666 said:
You clearly haven't grasped my point. As mentioned I was talking about those countries still in the EU. So tell me what makes you think they can avoid signing up to certain things where there is QMV rather than a veto and where EU directives are the method of implementation?kingstongraham said:
All countries who are now members of the EU are signed up to closer integration. The country that was signed up to the slow lane has now left.Stevo_666 said:
We are now but I'm talking about countries that are still members. So do tell...kingstongraham said:
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...
This must have been something you considered when you voted to remain, so I don't know why it's such a problem for you to grasp now.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Of the things that have been mentioned on this thread - the covid recovery fund, defence, foreign policy and taxation all require unanimity. As does the accession of new countries to the EU.Stevo_666 said:
You clearly haven't grasped my point. As mentioned I was talking about those countries still in the EU. So tell me what makes you think they can avoid signing up to certain things where there is QMV rather than a veto and where EU directives are the method of implementation?kingstongraham said:
All countries who are now members of the EU are signed up to closer integration. The country that was signed up to the slow lane has now left.Stevo_666 said:
We are now but I'm talking about countries that are still members. So do tell...kingstongraham said:
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...
This must have been something you considered when you voted to remain, so I don't know why it's such a problem for you to grasp now.
But that doesn't answer my question as to why this unstoppable movement towards the UK being part of the EU superstate was not a major concern of yours when deciding how to cast your vote. It should have been THE major concern.
The EU is a different organisation now than it was when the UK was a member, as there is not a member who has a dissenting view on what its future should look like. I think that's bad for the EU and bad for the UK.0 -
you lot should study starwars and the mandalorian and clone wars to see what can go wrong.
0
