BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I asked your to substantiate your point above and you haven't done it. Try again.kingstongraham said:
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What are you talking about?pangolin said:
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I did, you just thought I was saying something different. That's OK, maybe I was being too obtuse. You had missed the point that the "slow lane" was always a UK lane. We wanted it, and negotiated it - and nobody else seems to have wanted it yet. The reason we got it was because we could not be forced into it.Stevo_666 said:
I asked your to substantiate your point above and you haven't done it. Try again.kingstongraham said:
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.
Now you try answering the more interesting question. Why was 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?0 -
I don't think the UK was inevitably going to be subsumed into an EU superstate if we had remained an EU member state, with no unilateral option to prevent it happening. If you think that, and think it's a bad thing, you really should have voted to leave without any hesitation.0
-
Maybe they don't want to. That they are not trying to leave would suggest that they are at least content with the ever closer union bit. Other than the prize of saying I told you so, why are you so bothered about how closely integrated a Union of other countries is?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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The Phillip Hammond interview Rick posted last week (or so) was interesting on this...
IN the meantime...
Govey is fuc3ed! - https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/letter_from_vp_sefcovic_to_cdl_rh_gove.pdf - (Diplo-Sass is 🔥 )
Oh and Supplementary Declarations begin for GB:NI Trade next week! A lot of companies just finding out that they haven't even begun working on the fun paperwork yet...
Ooh and...
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver1 -
-
Please sir, Please sir, Please sir, can I answer this one?kingstongraham said:
I did, you just thought I was saying something different. That's OK, maybe I was being too obtuse. You had missed the point that the "slow lane" was always a UK lane. We wanted it, and negotiated it - and nobody else seems to have wanted it yet. The reason we got it was because we could not be forced into it.Stevo_666 said:
I asked your to substantiate your point above and you haven't done it. Try again.kingstongraham said:
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.
Now you try answering the more interesting question. Why was 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?
Is it because David Cameron & George Osborne were in charge of the Tory part and Stevo just falls inline with whatever the current leadership say?
0 -
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:0 -
It was a concern. I've been pretty clear that in terms of my referendum vote, I was a 'reluctant remainer'.kingstongraham said:
I did, you just thought I was saying something different. That's OK, maybe I was being too obtuse. You had missed the point that the "slow lane" was always a UK lane. We wanted it, and negotiated it - and nobody else seems to have wanted it yet. The reason we got it was because we could not be forced into it.Stevo_666 said:
I asked your to substantiate your point above and you haven't done it. Try again.kingstongraham said:
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.
Now you try answering the more interesting question. Why was 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?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Wrong - see my reply above.darkhairedlord said:
Please sir, Please sir, Please sir, can I answer this one?kingstongraham said:
I did, you just thought I was saying something different. That's OK, maybe I was being too obtuse. You had missed the point that the "slow lane" was always a UK lane. We wanted it, and negotiated it - and nobody else seems to have wanted it yet. The reason we got it was because we could not be forced into it.Stevo_666 said:
I asked your to substantiate your point above and you haven't done it. Try again.kingstongraham said:
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.
Now you try answering the more interesting question. Why was 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?
Is it because David Cameron & George Osborne were in charge of the Tory part and Stevo just falls inline with whatever the current leadership say?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That letter is quite something. Doesn't read like there's likely to be much appetite for London not thinking they'd actually have to do try to do what they agreed.ddraver said:The Phillip Hammond interview Rick posted last week (or so) was interesting on this...
IN the meantime...
Govey is fuc3ed! - https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/letter_from_vp_sefcovic_to_cdl_rh_gove.pdf - (Diplo-Sass is 🔥 )
Oh and Supplementary Declarations begin for GB:NI Trade next week! A lot of companies just finding out that they haven't even begun working on the fun paperwork yet...0 -
Yes they are parallels but would say that Scotland and England have a bit more in common than Poland and England. Italy has been whinging about Germany for a good while now. They are a bit like Scotland in that they have not left the EU because they are skint. Still does not make a happy marriage.surrey_commuter said:
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.
0 -
As part of brexit the EU want as much friction as possible at the Irish sea as it is in Ireland's interests as it will pivot trade to them. Time will tell whether NI votes for this long term or closer relations with the UK in four years time.0
-
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
0 -
UK chose to leave the single market. This would not be an issue had the uk stayed in it.john80 said:As part of brexit the EU want as much friction as possible at the Irish sea as it is in Ireland's interests as it will pivot trade to them. Time will tell whether NI votes for this long term or closer relations with the UK in four years time.
0 -
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?
A bit like Johnson and Brexit then.
Democratically elected, took us out of the EU, so what is the issue?
0 -
rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
Jewel in the crown0 -
-
I I had a penny for everyone you had said this I would have well over a tenner.rick_chasey said:
UK chose to leave the single market. This would not be an issue had the uk stayed in it.john80 said:As part of brexit the EU want as much friction as possible at the Irish sea as it is in Ireland's interests as it will pivot trade to them. Time will tell whether NI votes for this long term or closer relations with the UK in four years time.
1 -
Don’t weaken!!!!john80 said:As part of brexit the EU want as much friction as possible at the Irish sea as it is in Ireland's interests as it will pivot trade to them. Time will tell whether NI votes for this long term or closer relations with the UK in four years time.
Everybody knows my opinion of Boris but at least he is not whining about the consequences of his actions.0 -
He’s delegated that to everyone else. 😉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 -
Mussels - interesting comments in the thread:In the comments to this article (behind a paywall unfortunately) someone asks why the EU could not make an exception for EU-UK trade - the relevant EU rules are the ones applying to all "third countries". The reasons for not doing so sum up what Brexit is about.
If the EU were to make an exception, other third countries could ask for it too on the basis of the WTO principle of most-favoured-nation treatment. This would be different if the exception was part of the EU-UK TCA, because that is a free-trade agreement which derogates from MFN.
But I suspect that the reason for not having this exception in the TCA is that the UK did not want to sign up to the relevant EU SPS regulations - because that is evil EU law. All EU countries accept and apply those regulations, ergo free trade between them, including in molluscs. The UK no longer accepts them (even if in effect the UK regulations may be equivalent), ergo no free trade with the EU. That is really the UK's decision: to leave the single market and its regulations and to steer clear of any EU law. Sadly, it has these very unwelcome effects.
Sorry john80 it's another penny.0 -
It's not a bug it's a feature.0
-
I think it's odd you don't see the friction as something Britain chose. The option for no friction was there. Britain chose to go for something else.john80 said:
I I had a penny for everyone you had said this I would have well over a tenner.rick_chasey said:
UK chose to leave the single market. This would not be an issue had the uk stayed in it.john80 said:As part of brexit the EU want as much friction as possible at the Irish sea as it is in Ireland's interests as it will pivot trade to them. Time will tell whether NI votes for this long term or closer relations with the UK in four years time.
0 -
I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?0 -
in fairness you don't seem to accept that these are the consequences of the UK's decisions.john80 said:
I I had a penny for everyone you had said this I would have well over a tenner.rick_chasey said:
UK chose to leave the single market. This would not be an issue had the uk stayed in it.john80 said:As part of brexit the EU want as much friction as possible at the Irish sea as it is in Ireland's interests as it will pivot trade to them. Time will tell whether NI votes for this long term or closer relations with the UK in four years time.
It is not the result of the EU being spiteful it is the choice that Boris made on your behalf.
Previously you have educated me in the fact that for many people there is a price worth paying for greater sovereignty, I have accepted that but you now really need to man up and own the bills that will continue to pile up on your Brexit doormat.0 -
why would that suggest they are content with ever closer union? they may not be content at all but politically manoeuvred into having not much choice. Just because people live in a violent domestic relationship doesn't mean they're content or actively consenting to abuse or coercive control.rjsterry said:
Maybe they don't want to. That they are not trying to leave would suggest that they are at least content with the ever closer union bit. Other than the prize of saying I told you so, why are you so bothered about how closely integrated a Union of other countries is?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.0 -
Oh please. We left. So can others. Other nationalist flag wavers just know which side their bread is buttered, that's all.david37 said:
why would that suggest they are content with ever closer union? they may not be content at all but politically manoeuvred into having not much choice. Just because people live in a violent domestic relationship doesn't mean they're content or actively consenting to abuse or coercive control.rjsterry said:
Maybe they don't want to. That they are not trying to leave would suggest that they are at least content with the ever closer union bit. Other than the prize of saying I told you so, why are you so bothered about how closely integrated a Union of other countries is?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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
