BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
To not be beholden to that external standard. The row uses it with little choice.TheBigBean said:
Why did the EU introduce their own then?morstar said:There is already a de facto default global trading currency. USD. So a bit irrelevant.
The Eu has enough gravity to stand on its own. No other partnerships do due the lack of alignment.0 -
I guess that’s why direct democracy in the form of the eu referendum proved so popular. Whilst representative democracy is a feature of U.K. / eu democracy, if politicians move out of step with those they are representing, they will, sooner or later, pay the price at the ballot box.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense they were elected. By representatives who are in turn elected.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn’t claiming the Eurosceptics weren’t exhibiting blatant double standards!rick_chasey said:
Since when did the Brits dislike drunks (Churchill) or the incompetent (any Tory leader election winner this century)?wallace_and_gromit said:
The EU’s Council of Ministers has never caused too much ire amongst eurosceptics. They are all elected, albeit by different electorates.rjsterry said:
The CPTPP has a Commission made up of ministers from the member nations. That sounds fairly political and not wildly dissimilar to the EU Council.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
It’s the Commission, that is appointed, and which for years was the retirement home of failed U.K. politicians that was the eurosceptics’ target. And with the rarely sober Jean-Claude juncker and the rarely competent Ursula vdl as its most recent presidents, one can easily sympathise with the eurosceptics.
Though Churchill and the Tory PMs of recent years did all have to win their seat in public elections, which probably offsets drunkenness and incompetence. Jcj was not drunk and unelected, a tough cv to sell to the eurosceptics.
Like I said I’m always perplexed how elusive people find the concept of representative democracy.
0 -
I do not believe in the wisdom of crowds.wallace_and_gromit said:
I guess that’s why direct democracy in the form of the eu referendum proved so popular. Whilst representative democracy is a feature of U.K. / eu democracy, if politicians move out of step with those they are representing, they will, sooner or later, pay the price at the ballot box.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense they were elected. By representatives who are in turn elected.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn’t claiming the Eurosceptics weren’t exhibiting blatant double standards!rick_chasey said:
Since when did the Brits dislike drunks (Churchill) or the incompetent (any Tory leader election winner this century)?wallace_and_gromit said:
The EU’s Council of Ministers has never caused too much ire amongst eurosceptics. They are all elected, albeit by different electorates.rjsterry said:
The CPTPP has a Commission made up of ministers from the member nations. That sounds fairly political and not wildly dissimilar to the EU Council.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
It’s the Commission, that is appointed, and which for years was the retirement home of failed U.K. politicians that was the eurosceptics’ target. And with the rarely sober Jean-Claude juncker and the rarely competent Ursula vdl as its most recent presidents, one can easily sympathise with the eurosceptics.
Though Churchill and the Tory PMs of recent years did all have to win their seat in public elections, which probably offsets drunkenness and incompetence. Jcj was not drunk and unelected, a tough cv to sell to the eurosceptics.
Like I said I’m always perplexed how elusive people find the concept of representative democracy.
So representative democracy is a great compromise.
Populists love direct democracy for obvious reasons.
But yes. The whole “unelected” thing is a total myth.
Remember when the Tories chose May as PM? Same sh!t,0 -
-
I’m just telling you how it is. We probably share similar views on whether thick people should be allowed to vote, but they are, and that’s the hand of cards that has to be played.rick_chasey said:
I do not believe in the wisdom of crowds.wallace_and_gromit said:
I guess that’s why direct democracy in the form of the eu referendum proved so popular. Whilst representative democracy is a feature of U.K. / eu democracy, if politicians move out of step with those they are representing, they will, sooner or later, pay the price at the ballot box.rick_chasey said:
Nonsense they were elected. By representatives who are in turn elected.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn’t claiming the Eurosceptics weren’t exhibiting blatant double standards!rick_chasey said:
Since when did the Brits dislike drunks (Churchill) or the incompetent (any Tory leader election winner this century)?wallace_and_gromit said:
The EU’s Council of Ministers has never caused too much ire amongst eurosceptics. They are all elected, albeit by different electorates.rjsterry said:
The CPTPP has a Commission made up of ministers from the member nations. That sounds fairly political and not wildly dissimilar to the EU Council.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
It’s the Commission, that is appointed, and which for years was the retirement home of failed U.K. politicians that was the eurosceptics’ target. And with the rarely sober Jean-Claude juncker and the rarely competent Ursula vdl as its most recent presidents, one can easily sympathise with the eurosceptics.
Though Churchill and the Tory PMs of recent years did all have to win their seat in public elections, which probably offsets drunkenness and incompetence. Jcj was not drunk and unelected, a tough cv to sell to the eurosceptics.
Like I said I’m always perplexed how elusive people find the concept of representative democracy.
So representative democracy is a great compromise.
Populists love direct democracy for obvious reasons.
But yes. The whole “unelected” thing is a total myth.
Remember when the Tories chose May as PM? Same sh!t,
0 -
Sure. I just think it’s what people say when really want to say they don’t like foreigners having a say.0
-
If its a fact, then back it up.rick_chasey said:
It is mainly an economic integration.Stevo_666 said:
If you can't see that political integration is a key aim of the EU then you have probably swallowed the EU narrative how line and sinker. Never thought you were that gullible tbh.rick_chasey said:
I know proportions are difficult for you, but I can’t really help you here as it’s self evident the integration is much deeper economically than it is politically.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
That’s a fact you disputed.
Do you not think that even the EU might have agendas here?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This, plus accountability to the electorate, Plus having to make messy compromises to suit 20-odd members agendas. And a large beaurocracy in the middle. Etc.TheBigBean said:
It's fine if all the citizens are keen. If they're not it looks more like empire building.super_davo said:
What exactly is the problem with closer political integration? I've never understood the argument personally.Stevo_666 said:
If you can't see that political integration is a key aim of the EU then you have probably swallowed the EU narrative how line and sinker. Never thought you were that gullible tbh.rick_chasey said:
I know proportions are difficult for you, but I can’t really help you here as it’s self evident the integration is much deeper economically than it is politically.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
If it was a great idea then why haven't other trade blocs taken it up?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What’s to back up. It’s self evident that a big single market covering virtually all parts of the economy, including the same currency, is more closely integrated than the the political side?Stevo_666 said:
If its a fact, then back it up.rick_chasey said:
It is mainly an economic integration.Stevo_666 said:
If you can't see that political integration is a key aim of the EU then you have probably swallowed the EU narrative how line and sinker. Never thought you were that gullible tbh.rick_chasey said:
I know proportions are difficult for you, but I can’t really help you here as it’s self evident the integration is much deeper economically than it is politically.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
That’s a fact you disputed.
Do you not think that even the EU might have agendas here?0 -
See my point above - the economic part may have developed first - given that it used to be the European Economic Community, which then slightly tellingly changed its name to the European Union: it doesn't change the point that ever closer political union is the aim. I've shown evidence that this is the case.rick_chasey said:
What’s to back up. It’s self evident that a big single market covering virtually all parts of the economy, including the same currency, is more closely integrated than the the political side?Stevo_666 said:
If its a fact, then back it up.rick_chasey said:
It is mainly an economic integration.Stevo_666 said:
If you can't see that political integration is a key aim of the EU then you have probably swallowed the EU narrative how line and sinker. Never thought you were that gullible tbh.rick_chasey said:
I know proportions are difficult for you, but I can’t really help you here as it’s self evident the integration is much deeper economically than it is politically.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
That’s a fact you disputed.
Do you not think that even the EU might have agendas here?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well yes it’s hard to align economically without political alignment too.
I mean, it’s literally the definition of politics.
But you wrote this.
And that is demonstrably false. It’s is literally the opposite. So stop digging a hole.Stevo_666 said:
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
0 -
You've got the spade right now. If it's demonstrably false that an EU aim is closer political integration then demonstrate it. Maybe show some examples of when the EU has given major decision making powers back to member states.rick_chasey said:Well yes it’s hard to align economically without political alignment too.
I mean, it’s literally the definition of politics.
But you wrote this.
And that is demonstrably false. It’s is literally the opposite. So stop digging a hole.Stevo_666 said:
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
Have a look here, it really is pretty obvious if you know where to look:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7230/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
A few quotes from the above link:
Treaty of Rome
The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
Article 2 of the Treaty also promoted the ‘spirit’ of closer union in its description of the aims of the Community, ending with “closer relations between the States belonging to it”.
Solemn Declaration on European Union
In the Solemn Declaration on European Union of June 1983, the then ten heads of state and government (including the UK) agreed: … on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community.
The Solemn Declaration added “closer union among Member States, as well as the peoples of Europe”.
Single European Act
Under the 1986 Single European Act, Member States were: “MOVED by the will to … transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union”.
Maastricht Treaty
The objective of “ever closer union” was retained in the Preamble to the 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty):
RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Amsterdam and Nice
The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty added a new qualification to “ever closer union”: “in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”. The Nice Treaty did not change this.
Lisbon Treaty
Since Lisbon (2009) the EU Treaties have contained three references to “ever closer union”:
The Preamble to the Treaty on European Union:
RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Article 1 TEU with similar wording to earlier Treaties:
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.
The Preamble to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU – the renamed TEC):
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe ….
At the EU Court of Justice
A Curia word search of EU case law in the Court of Justice, General Court and Civil Service Tribunal (and their antecedent institutions) in which the objective of “ever closer union” is cited gave 57 occasions at the time of writing, and not all of these were final judgments.
This is a very small number of cases overall. From 28 November 1954 until 13 November 2015 there were 29,969 cases (including opinions) at the EU courts. 57 represents only 0.19% of the total number of cases at the time of writing.
Of those 57 cases, 34 concerned institutional transparency and access to official documents, 19 cases concerned other matters (e.g. accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, free movement, equal treatment, access to benefits, Schengen, judicial cooperation, access to education).
In 4 cases, “ever closer union” occurred in a footnote in the ruling, referring to a landmark case concerning judicial cooperation (Pupino)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Keep digging. You said it was “primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles” when it isn’t and never was.0
-
TaxDodger666 is deffo the Mike Concrete of this forum.0
-
I'm sure that Rees-Smug will be very happy to have repulsed some Germans. Bloody furriners wanting to come here and play music.
0 -
I think we might have had a lucky escape. They aren’t the new Kraftwerk.briantrumpet said:I'm sure that Rees-Smug will be very happy to have repulsed some Germans. Bloody furriners wanting to come here and play music.
0 -
webboo said:
I think we might have had a lucky escape. They aren’t the new Kraftwerk.briantrumpet said:I'm sure that Rees-Smug will be very happy to have repulsed some Germans. Bloody furriners wanting to come here and play music.
Are they a popular beat combo, Your Honour?0 -
They have. ASEAN is modelled on the EU.Stevo_666 said:
This, plus accountability to the electorate, Plus having to make messy compromises to suit 20-odd members agendas. And a large beaurocracy in the middle. Etc.TheBigBean said:
It's fine if all the citizens are keen. If they're not it looks more like empire building.super_davo said:
What exactly is the problem with closer political integration? I've never understood the argument personally.Stevo_666 said:
If you can't see that political integration is a key aim of the EU then you have probably swallowed the EU narrative how line and sinker. Never thought you were that gullible tbh.rick_chasey said:
I know proportions are difficult for you, but I can’t really help you here as it’s self evident the integration is much deeper economically than it is politically.Stevo_666 said:
If its mainly economic, why all the political integration outside of the purely economic?rick_chasey said:
No it’s largely economic but economics is political and you can’t have one without the otherStevo_666 said:
Nearly all of the talk on here has focused on the economic arguments - but largely ignored or dismissed the non-economic points, which are probably the main drivers of why we voted to leave. And this is why it's relatively easy and uncontroversial for us to join a trading bloc like the CPTPP but rejoining the EU is something that may never happen.wallace_and_gromit said:
I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Despite being a remain voter, I was never happy about the way the Commission could initiate legislation, despite not being answerable to the electorate.Stevo_666 said:
It's spread over a wide range of things, but the bigger concern is (or rather was) the continual scope creep.wallace_and_gromit said:
So where do you feel the eu interfered too much? I’m not a big fan of the ex-banana regulations etc. but that was small beer on the grand scale of things.Stevo_666 said:
We are not comparing purely economic or financial pluses and minuses here. As I said upthread, a lot of people voted to leave because of non-economic considerations such as ability set our own laws in certain areas, and removing EU interference in national matters.wallace_and_gromit said:
It would be good if the government acknowledged this.Stevo_666 said:
There were pluses and minuses to the whole thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
True. But as a nation, we can't control the Frenchies going on strike. But as a nation, we had the right to unfettered passage across the border when the Frenchies were working, but we gave away that right, seemingly just so we could get angry more often.Stevo_666 said:
It's no different to when they go on strike, which has happened for decades and seems to happen more often than school holidays.wallace_and_gromit said:
The question for Brexiteers is thus "Why put yourselves in the position of being reliant on the French for favours at busy times?"Stevo_666 said:
Better ask them. Maybe the French border force should staff up a bit in busy times...surrey_commuter said:
My memory must be playing tricks with me as I would have said that by the mid/late '80s you needed to do no more that wave a passport in the general direction of passport control. ie nobody under 40 appreciated the EU as they could not remember life before it.rick_chasey said:On the Dover queues.
Do people not remember that having to stamp all your passports and having a "hard border" slows everything down?
This was always going to be the scenario. Everyone who had done more than 3 minutes of reading could see that, as did the government, hence all the additional parking spaces for lorries all over Kent.
@Stevo_666 how did Brexiteers think the borders were going to remain seamless for Brits?
What's good about increasing the number of things that can blow up and leave folk stranded in massive queues when trying to go on hols? Frenchies on strike = bad. Frenchies on strike or passport checking process overwhelmed => even badder, surely.
For interest, what do you see as the pluses and minuses? Or more accurately, the minuses and pluses, to acknowledge that the minuses, on the whole, occur a lot earlier than the pluses.
And when do you think the aggregate impact of the pluses will offset the aggregate impact of the minuses?
It's also easy to forget that the EU is primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles.
Also, if its such a good idea, why don't other trade blocs also move towards political integration in the same way as the EU?
If it was a great idea then why haven't other trade blocs taken it up?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It sounds as though the author is a little obsessed, bordering on paranoid, to have commissioned an exhaustive list of how many times a certain formula of words appears..Stevo_666 said:A few quotes from the above link:
Treaty of Rome
The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.
Article 2 of the Treaty also promoted the ‘spirit’ of closer union in its description of the aims of the Community, ending with “closer relations between the States belonging to it”.
Solemn Declaration on European Union
In the Solemn Declaration on European Union of June 1983, the then ten heads of state and government (including the UK) agreed: … on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community.
The Solemn Declaration added “closer union among Member States, as well as the peoples of Europe”.
Single European Act
Under the 1986 Single European Act, Member States were: “MOVED by the will to … transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union”.
Maastricht Treaty
The objective of “ever closer union” was retained in the Preamble to the 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty):
RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Amsterdam and Nice
The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty added a new qualification to “ever closer union”: “in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”. The Nice Treaty did not change this.
Lisbon Treaty
Since Lisbon (2009) the EU Treaties have contained three references to “ever closer union”:
The Preamble to the Treaty on European Union:
RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Article 1 TEU with similar wording to earlier Treaties:
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.
The Preamble to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU – the renamed TEC):
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe ….
At the EU Court of Justice
A Curia word search of EU case law in the Court of Justice, General Court and Civil Service Tribunal (and their antecedent institutions) in which the objective of “ever closer union” is cited gave 57 occasions at the time of writing, and not all of these were final judgments.
This is a very small number of cases overall. From 28 November 1954 until 13 November 2015 there were 29,969 cases (including opinions) at the EU courts. 57 represents only 0.19% of the total number of cases at the time of writing.
Of those 57 cases, 34 concerned institutional transparency and access to official documents, 19 cases concerned other matters (e.g. accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, free movement, equal treatment, access to benefits, Schengen, judicial cooperation, access to education).
In 4 cases, “ever closer union” occurred in a footnote in the ruling, referring to a landmark case concerning judicial cooperation (Pupino).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
They might be, but I wouldn’t be paying good money to see them. They are no Peat and Dieselbriantrumpet said:webboo said:
I think we might have had a lucky escape. They aren’t the new Kraftwerk.briantrumpet said:I'm sure that Rees-Smug will be very happy to have repulsed some Germans. Bloody furriners wanting to come here and play music.
Are they a popular beat combo, Your Honour?
0 -
My understanding is that the Euro (economic) is the mechanism by which the main aim - political union - will ultimately be achieved.rick_chasey said:Keep digging. You said it was “primarily a political project despite all the economic bells and whistles” when it isn’t and never was.
Ireland found that to its cost after the GFC when the ECB threatened to cut of liquidity to the banking sector unless the Irish government signed up to Irish taxpayers covering the losses sustained on bonds issued by Irish banks rather than the bond holders (who were primarily French and German banks). The Irish government naturally preferred to favour its taxpayers, but had the choice removed, unless it wanted to completely crash its banking sector.)
Thomas Jefferson had a saying over 200 years ago along the lines of “If you control a nation’s currency then you control the country”.
0 -
Yes the central bank correctly called Ireland to halt a run on all European banks because the Irish regular had been asleep at the wheel more so than the other regulators and indeed, that was proven to be the right decision.
I would have thought had Ierland had their own currency their central bank would have been saying the same thing, *because it was the right thing to do at that moment*. But you can’t have the counter-factual.
(If it makes you feel better, the sudden Swiss regulator efforts to force UBS to buy Credit Suisse was largely precipitated by US and EU regulators trashing the Swiss regulators and putting pressure on them to halt the run now and not in 2 weeks - so you don’t need to share a currency with the EU or even be a member to be pressured into doing things. Geopolitics exists even without the EU)
And a quote from a US president doesn’t mean anything, else I’ll start quoting trump.
There are lots of obvious advantages to political union for Europe but it is wrong and disingenuous to say what Stevo did.
It’s fundamentally an economic agreement with some political oversight - which obviously makes sense as ultimately economic decisions *are* political decisions.
0 -
I think reading the comments part of the problem is that so many British people see the world through our own highly centralised government system.
The EU does have a stated aim of ever closer union. That is not in doubt. However, the goal is always power to the national and particularly regions with Brussels setting the framework and acting as abritrator. Think about the US and the comparible powers of Federal institutions vs States - only the EU has a greater slant towards the powers of the latter.
The Irish example is a good one. Ireland has benefitted massively from being in the EU, you only need to look at the comparable GDP from 1973 to now to make that crystal clear. Yes they had their knuckles wrapped a few times on things like fiscal & monetary policy, largely because they frequently play to the edge of the rules. But the EU has always had much better press in Ireland vs the UK, the mechanisms are much better understood, and thats why over 90% of the population support membership.0 -
super_davo said:
The EU does have a stated aim of ever closer union. That is not in doubt. However, the goal is always power to the national and particularly regions with Brussels setting the framework and acting as abritrator. Think about the US and the comparible powers of Federal institutions vs States - only the EU has a greater slant towards the powers of the latter.
FWIW, I think the current fractured political climate in the US is showing what a mess the US system is... highly partisan judges chosen at the national level for state courts making judgements that impact on the whole country (see the abortion pill furore, amongst many others). Can you imagine the outcry if a judge in a province of, say, Italy, could, in effect, change have changed law in the UK, when we were in the EU? Obviously, the EU is a long long way away from that sort of intrusion into nations within it, and IMHO has the balance about right.0 -
Why did RoI have good austerity?rick_chasey said:Yes the central bank correctly called Ireland to halt a run on all European banks because the Irish regular had been asleep at the wheel more so than the other regulators and indeed, that was proven to be the right decision.
I would have thought had Ierland had their own currency their central bank would have been saying the same thing, *because it was the right thing to do at that moment*. But you can’t have the counter-factual.
(If it makes you feel better, the sudden Swiss regulator efforts to force UBS to buy Credit Suisse was largely precipitated by US and EU regulators trashing the Swiss regulators and putting pressure on them to halt the run now and not in 2 weeks - so you don’t need to share a currency with the EU or even be a member to be pressured into doing things. Geopolitics exists even without the EU)
And a quote from a US president doesn’t mean anything, else I’ll start quoting trump.
There are lots of obvious advantages to political union for Europe but it is wrong and disingenuous to say what Stevo did.
It’s fundamentally an economic agreement with some political oversight - which obviously makes sense as ultimately economic decisions *are* political decisions.0 -
Rick - All I’ll say is that if you’re arrogant enough to assume that you can learn nothing from the works of Thomas Jefferson then there truly is no hope for you.1
-
Ok where’s the evidence that he’s right?wallace_and_gromit said:Rick - All I’ll say is that if you’re arrogant enough to assume that you can learn nothing from the works of Thomas Jefferson then there truly is no hope for you.
0
