BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

So the result of a survey shows that in every single country surveyed, more people want powers to be returned to national governments that want more powers transferred to Brussels, plasmon most cases less than a quarter want more power transferred to Brussels - and your conclusion is that further integration should proceed. Surely this shows that the opposite should happen.

I think what we will find is that further integration will make those stats even worse and wil, trigger more referenda as other countries reach their own limits of tolerance with the 'European project'.

No, my conclusion, as I've highlighted, is that any integration should be very gradual so that it does not alienate people and instead reflects the changing attitudes of the European public over time.

My second conclusion is that younger generations will be more comfortable with closer political union than people your age, so in the future, further integration will be more acceptable.

Finchy, you are effectively saying that EU policy should be based on what you think people's views are on integration in the future rather than now. I could just as easily claim the opposite. True, the young are more Europhile than the old on the whole but who is to say that they won't change their views as they grow older?

The other point is that as there are the transfers of powers, resistance will grow. It's a bit like stretching an elastic band - the further you go, the more the resistance.

The numbers are clear - the people of Europe want less powers transferred to Brussels, i.e. less integration. Each country is in a slightly different place on the spectrum but the consensus is pretty clear based on the number that you quoted. The UK has pretty much arrived at its 'we've had enough integration' point already - others will likely follow. The rise of support for populist parties around the EU is evidence for that.

As mentioned above, we should be helping the rest of the EU to reform. I'd rather do that from within, but in the end the impact of BREXIT may be the catalyst for more far reaching EU change.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Can't remember the exact percentages but roughly 70% of all Labour voters voted Remain compared to 35% Tory voters.

Not too far off - 63% Labour, 42% for the Tories. Looks like I am in a minority.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-7-graphs-that-explain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html

ballysmate

Pross wrote:

All these people who say the younger voters should have got off their backsides and voted need to take into account that the debate and vote took place at peak exam time for A level and university students so they had other important things affecting their future on their mind. For those that had finished it was peak holiday time (I know they could have registered for postal votes). Add to that these are inexperienced voters and didn't exactly get much useful information to help them and you can potentially see why some didn't take part.

As an aside, this was my daughter and her friends first opportunity to vote and I believe most of them did. However, one of her friends registered for postal voting and didn't get sent her paperwork so turned up at the polling station to be told she couldn't vote there as she was registered for postal voting. This may have been a one off but it isn't a great introduction to our democratic process.

Your daughter's friend seems to have been let down by the system, so the system isn't perfect.
Were not most uni exams over and done with a couple of weeks ago? If the brightest of their generation couldn't arrange a couple of minutes to vote then God help us.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Can't remember the exact percentages but roughly 70% of all Labour voters voted Remain compared to 35% Tory voters.

Not too far off - 63% Labour, 42% for the Tories. Looks like I am in a minority.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-7-graphs-that-explain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html

Looks like we were on the same side again. We are used to being in a minority on here though.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Can't remember the exact percentages but roughly 70% of all Labour voters voted Remain compared to 35% Tory voters.

Not too far off - 63% Labour, 42% for the Tories. Looks like I am in a minority.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-7-graphs-that-explain-how-brexit-won-eu-explained-a7101676.html

Looks like we were on the same side again. We are used to being in a minority on here though.

It's a cross we must bear

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bramstoker wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

That being the case, a second referendum would not be a Leave / Remain vote. It would be Leave / Ask the EU to stop the Brexit proces and accept whatever terms the EU impose on us.
It would be out of our hands. All 27 would have to agree.
If you think there is uncertainty in the markets now...

EU terms monetary union, fiscal union, 2 of the options they could impose, would referendum mk 2 get a remain result if this was part of it? Or would it further divide us? Worse case maybe, but then they keep talking about us needing to be punished.

beware literal translations and newspaper headline writers. What this term means is they have to leave us worse off or everybody will want to leave. It is perfectly reasonable that you cannot leave a club and expect to pick and chose to utilise the benefits you want and pay nothing or a reduced fee.

Therein lies a problem for the EU. Not the great Utopia if members have to be threatened in order to persuade them not to leave.

surrey_commuter

bramstoker wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

beware literal translations and newspaper headline writers. What this term means is they have to leave us worse off or everybody will want to leave. It is perfectly reasonable that you cannot leave a club and expect to pick and chose to utilise the benefits you want and pay nothing or a reduced fee.

Fully understand this, but why would the club have you back and NOT do the exact same thing? The only thing going back would guarantee is that you could never ever do it again. Trade away our veto for instance, Turkey with all its issues gets brought in we could do what?

Their fear of letting us rejoin would be that this would start all over again and keep rumbling on so negatively impacting everybody. They would need a cast iron legal guarantee that we could not quit for at least 20 years and I can not see us agreeing to that. Our rebate pisses them off so we would probably lose that.

Turkey joining any time soon was one of the many lies so don't worry about that.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

bramstoker wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

That being the case, a second referendum would not be a Leave / Remain vote. It would be Leave / Ask the EU to stop the Brexit proces and accept whatever terms the EU impose on us.
It would be out of our hands. All 27 would have to agree.
If you think there is uncertainty in the markets now...

EU terms monetary union, fiscal union, 2 of the options they could impose, would referendum mk 2 get a remain result if this was part of it? Or would it further divide us? Worse case maybe, but then they keep talking about us needing to be punished.

beware literal translations and newspaper headline writers. What this term means is they have to leave us worse off or everybody will want to leave. It is perfectly reasonable that you cannot leave a club and expect to pick and chose to utilise the benefits you want and pay nothing or a reduced fee.

Therein lies a problem for the EU. Not the great Utopia if members have to be threatened in order to persuade them not to leave.

more not letting ex-members cherry pick the benefits.... think of you quitting a cycle club because your £20 annual sub included competitions that you were not interested in. After quitting (and abusing the committee) you then ask to join the weekly club run but as you can't make it every week you will pay 20 pence when you do.

bramstoker

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Turkey joining any time soon was one of the many lies so don't worry about that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... fears.html
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countri ... dex_en.htm

Tin foil hat time, but if your desperate to stem the flow of migrants from the ME if money don't work what else do you have to offer?

bramstoker

Surrey Commuter wrote:

more not letting ex-members cherry pick the benefits.... think of you quitting a cycle club because your £20 annual sub included competitions that you were not interested in. After quitting (and abusing the committee) you then ask to join the weekly club run but as you can't make it every week you will pay 20 pence when you do.

Why not ride on the public highway with the same people but don't join the club if you don't agree with them but like the people in the club and detest the people running it? :twisted:

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Boris and co don't seem to give a monkeys about free movement, EU laws or making financial contributions so I see no impediment to a Norway deal. Bearing in mind where we are and it includes financial services this would be a satisfactory outcome.

As it would exclude agriculture, fisheries and regional assistance funds we could save a few quid by not introducing new subsidies - by reckoning that would be £5bn back in the kitty. Announce it early and they will have two years to transition.

btw - one of the biggest beneficiaries of CAP is Prince Charles (aged 67)

Probably the best of a bad situation. We'd still have to obey (most) EU laws though surely? In addition to freedom of movement.

surrey_commuter

bramstoker wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

more not letting ex-members cherry pick the benefits.... think of you quitting a cycle club because your £20 annual sub included competitions that you were not interested in. After quitting (and abusing the committee) you then ask to join the weekly club run but as you can't make it every week you will pay 20 pence when you do.

Why not ride on the public highway with the same people but don't join the club if you don't agree with them but like the people in the club and detest the people running it? :twisted:

would you still have to wear a helmet? would you have to agree some common agreements on what constituted a cyclist so that you could set up some waving protocols. could they refuse to let you join without mudguards and how would they enforce it? it could take years to sort out this seemingly inconsequential rules.

If you met them halfway and they had been enjoying the advantages of riding as a group would you as a solo rider have the strength to keep up or would you gradually get slower until they no longer wanted to ride with you

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Boris and co don't seem to give a monkeys about free movement, EU laws or making financial contributions so I see no impediment to a Norway deal. Bearing in mind where we are and it includes financial services this would be a satisfactory outcome.

As it would exclude agriculture, fisheries and regional assistance funds we could save a few quid by not introducing new subsidies - by reckoning that would be £5bn back in the kitty. Announce it early and they will have two years to transition.

btw - one of the biggest beneficiaries of CAP is Prince Charles (aged 67)

Probably the best of a bad situation. We'd still have to obey (most) EU laws though surely? In addition to freedom of movement.

Yes but most EU laws we have to obey are to do with trade and we would have to pay in roughly the same as we do already. The problem is that in the future we would have no say in the formulating of laws and policies and would have to submit to them.

On the plus side we would be screwing at least one pensioner and the apocryphal 'spooner in the midlands would have his country back

surrey_commuter

bramstoker wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Turkey joining any time soon was one of the many lies so don't worry about that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... fears.html
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countri ... dex_en.htm

Tin foil hat time, but if your desperate to stem the flow of migrants from the ME if money don't work what else do you have to offer?

can you cut and paste the bit in the 2nd link that says Turkey is joining any time soon.

The pressure to admit them will be coming from the USA due to their geographical position next to Russia and the Mid-East.

bramstoker

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If you met them halfway and they had been enjoying the advantages of riding as a group would you as a solo rider have the strength to keep up or would you gradually get slower until they no longer wanted to ride with you

If you asked for concessions and they said F**** off its our clubs so just do what your told, you would probably be justified in going it alone, perhaps the drive to prove them wrong would make you train that much harder and you could achieve so much more?

surrey_commuter

bramstoker wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

If you met them halfway and they had been enjoying the advantages of riding as a group would you as a solo rider have the strength to keep up or would you gradually get slower until they no longer wanted to ride with you

If you asked for concessions and they said F**** off its our clubs so just do what your told, you would probably be justified in going it alone, perhaps the drive to prove them wrong would make you train that much harder and you could achieve so much more?

possibly - but say the concessions that you had asked for was for every other week to go on a nice walk with compulsory use of those silly sticks that look like ski poles. You would be getting better at walking and working a stiff pole but not cycling. Also should you be allowed to refuse to cycle with people on a CX a mountain bike or even fixed?

bendertherobot

It's like Sky see. We'll get half price movies and sports for a while yet.

ugo.santalucia

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/sho ... nt-decide/

mrfpb

ugo.santalucia wrote:

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/should-parliament-decide/

Parliament already asked us to decide. It's like lobbying your local returning officer to send a losing candidate to Parliament instead of the winner - "But he campaigned on untruths and smear tactics - you can't send the one with the most votes"

joelsim

mrfpb wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/should-parliament-decide/

Parliament already asked us to decide. It's like lobbying your local returning officer to send a losing candidate to Parliament instead of the winner - "But he campaigned on untruths and smear tactics - you can't send the one with the most votes"

It was suggested that 70% of MPs are pro-Remain in one of the papers. A parliamentary vote should go the right way.

pblakeney

bramstoker wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

more not letting ex-members cherry pick the benefits.... think of you quitting a cycle club because your £20 annual sub included competitions that you were not interested in. After quitting (and abusing the committee) you then ask to join the weekly club run but as you can't make it every week you will pay 20 pence when you do.

Why not ride on the public highway with the same people but don't join the club if you don't agree with them but like the people in the club and detest the people running it? :twisted:

Do what we did and start a new club.
In this case new trading block. UK, Norway, Switzerland etc?

mrfpb

BBC Reality Check on the costs of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36661918

Apparently it hasn't cost us "many times the cost of EU membership"

Yet!

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

At the moment, I would say that this polling would suggest that further integration should be taken slowly, to allow it to keep pace with changing public attitudes, but with many young Europeans having experience of studying or working abroad, or even just travelling more extensively and having friendships with people from other European countries, I would say that the future looks pretty accommodating for closer political union.

So the result of a survey shows that in every single country surveyed, more people want powers to be returned to national governments that want more powers transferred to Brussels, plasmon most cases less than a quarter want more power transferred to Brussels - and your conclusion is that further integration should proceed. Surely this shows that the opposite should happen.

I think what we will find is that further integration will make those stats even worse and wil, trigger more referenda as other countries reach their own limits of tolerance with the 'European project'.

No, my conclusion, as I've highlighted, is that any integration should be very gradual so that it does not alienate people and instead reflects the changing attitudes of the European public over time.

My second conclusion is that younger generations will be more comfortable with closer political union than people your age, so in the future, further integration will be more acceptable.

Finchy, you are effectively saying that EU policy should be based on what you think people's views are on integration in the future rather than now.

Eh? What? Where did you get that from? I'm saying that it shouldn't be rushed and should be IN LINE with the wishes of the constituent populations. That's what "keep pace" means - going at the same speed, not ahead and not behind.

I could just as easily claim the opposite. True, the young are more Europhile than the old on the whole but who is to say that they won't change their views as they grow older?

There is nothing to say they won't change their views, but it's likely that they'll be more Europhile when they are older than current older generations because that is what they have grown up with. If they become more Eurosceptic, then adjust policies accordingly. But like I said, I'm not arguing on policies now being based on European attitudes in 30 or 40 years' time, so there isn't really much disagreement between us on this point.

The other point is that as there are the transfers of powers, resistance will grow. It's a bit like stretching an elastic band - the further you go, the more the resistance.

Like I say, see what public attitudes are like further down the line. Countries like Britain can opt out if they don't like x, y or z, so there can be a sort of 2 speed Europe.

The numbers are clear - the people of Europe want less powers transferred to Brussels, i.e. less integration. Each country is in a slightly different place on the spectrum but the consensus is pretty clear based on the number that you quoted. The UK has pretty much arrived at its 'we've had enough integration' point already - others will likely follow. The rise of support for populist parties around the EU is evidence for that.

Yes, but from what you and others (particularly Ballysmate) have posted on here, I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that European political integration has already gone too far. In most of the countries surveyed, none of the 3 views represented (political integration's gone too far, political integration's at just about the right level now and political integration hasn't gone far enough) have the support of the majority of the people. So it would be wrong of you to argue that most people think that political integration has gone too far in the eyes of most EU citizens, just as it would be wrong of me to say that political integration hasn't gone far enough in their eyes. I think the support for populist parties is more to do with immigration than the relationship between their nation and the EU.

As mentioned above, we should be helping the rest of the EU to reform. I'd rather do that from within, but in the end the impact of BREXIT may be the catalyst for more far reaching EU change.

It may prevent/slow down further political integration, but I don't think it will lead to the EU handing back powers to the national parliaments, as there just doesn't seem to be the demand for that outside the UK. Osborne's already promising tax rises and spending cuts, and once the other EU countries see what's happening in the UK (especially when the 2004 member states don't let us get our own way on immigration), I think that Euroscepticism will probably retreat a bit.

Bo Duke

mrfpb wrote:

BBC Reality Check on the costs of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36661918

Apparently it hasn't cost us "many times the cost of EU membership"

Yet!

At least listen to a man who knows what he's talking about....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zncw3

surrey_commuter

Bo Duke wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

BBC Reality Check on the costs of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36661918

Apparently it hasn't cost us "many times the cost of EU membership"

Yet!

At least listen to a man who knows what he's talking about....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zncw3

I denounce him as an expert

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

BBC Reality Check on the costs of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36661918

Apparently it hasn't cost us "many times the cost of EU membership"

Yet!

well first prize for not having a clue goes to Paddy Ashdown

not sure if the author does not understand bond markets or is over simplifying things

it is a subject I know a lot about so am happy to throw some light on it. yields on govt debt have fallen considerably since Brexit this in itself is bad as money sees bonds as a safe haven. it is also a positive sign that uk govt bonds are still seen as a safe haven. If you look at bonds for different countries it will tell you which are deemed the best credit risk.

Now where the BBC is wrong is that this is in the secondary market so does not effect what the govt pays to borrow. I believe the next sale of govt bonds is next week the price it has to pay will be the first real test of market sentiment.

At the beginning of the Clinton administration in the early 1990s, adviser James Carville was stunned at the power the bond market had over the government. If he came back, Carville said: I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.

orraloon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

BBC Reality Check on the costs of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36661918

Apparently it hasn't cost us "many times the cost of EU membership"

Yet!

At least listen to a man who knows what he's talking about....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zncw3

I denounce him as an expert

Lookyhere

Bo Duke wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

BBC Reality Check on the costs of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36661918

Apparently it hasn't cost us "many times the cost of EU membership"

Yet!

At least listen to a man who knows what he's talking about....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zncw3

ah you mean the man who over saw the lead up to the financial crash of 2008 ? (amongst others) i'm not entirely sure he is the voice of reason (or an expert) in these uncertain times.

we hear a lot about the euro and that it is a failed currency etc etc etc but wasnt our exchange rate far far higher against it once upon a time? so what does that make the pound?

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

it is a subject I know a lot about so am happy to throw some light on it. yields on govt debt have fallen considerably since Brexit this in itself is bad as money sees bonds as a safe haven. it is also a positive sign that uk govt bonds are still seen as a safe haven. If you look at bonds for different countries it will tell you which are deemed the best credit risk.

Now where the BBC is wrong is that this is in the secondary market so does not effect what the govt pays to borrow. I believe the next sale of govt bonds is next week the price it has to pay will be the first real test of market sentiment.

Why differentiate between the primary and secondary market? If there was a difference there would be an arbitrage. That's effectively what Long Term Capital Management did and although they went bust, it was due to illiquidity in the old bonds not the new stuff.

The yield is only indicative of default risk if the issuer is unable to print money e.g. Greece. Here it simply reflects future interest rate expectations from the Bank of England. Again if it doesn't there is an arbitrage.

Bo Duke

Lookyhere wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

BBC Reality Check on the costs of Brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36661918

Apparently it hasn't cost us "many times the cost of EU membership"

Yet!

At least listen to a man who knows what he's talking about....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zncw3

ah you mean the man who over saw the lead up to the financial crash of 2008 ? (amongst others) i'm not entirely sure he is the voice of reason (or an expert) in these uncertain times.

we hear a lot about the euro and that it is a failed currency etc etc etc but wasnt our exchange rate far far higher against it once upon a time? so what does that make the pound?

Thats right, slag him off.

There are no experts, theres only you.

Next..... :?