Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.
So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.
The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.
I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?
A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.
Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.
In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.
Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more
Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.
Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?
The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality
Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.
We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin
Yes, and the Sudetenland was just a border dispute...
Effectively it was at the time until Hitler went further and invaded Poland
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling
It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here
Don’t do it
On the contrary.
Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.
Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.
This is a silly metaphor because it doesn't capture the reality that the absence of the EU is the normal state rather than vice versa.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist, but in reality it's simply the state of not being in the EU. It doesn't need to be believed in, propped up or justified. It just is.
That of course is the point. Nobody is going to expend political capital to make it a bit easier for Scott P to travel to and from Brussels.
Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling
It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here
Don’t do it
On the contrary.
Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.
Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.
Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.
But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.
We had such an "excellent deal tailored to our politics" that the Remain campaign couldn't even try to sell it!
That's the most awful thing about it. We didn't know enough how good it was before we left. Now we are up sh*t creek without a paddle.
Indeed, and I criticised the Remain campaign about its negativity at the time.
There are many reasons to be idealistic about European affairs, particularly in tackling the environmental, economic, foreign policy and social issues common to all of us on the continent of Europe, but that was ignored by a campaign negatively focused on Project Fear and transactional issues.
Unionists in the next Sindyref should take note. Without a positive vision of the Union they are likely to lose too.
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
The pro-EU side failed to make the case, preferring to waste their time deriding England and thinking slapping Farage's name ahead of it would change votes rather than annoy floating voters who wanted to hear something relevant.
Mr. 1961, I agree entirely. If Labour hadn't lied about a referendum on Lisbon we'd still be in the EU, most likely.
A little more time on economic benefits and a little less back of the queue/Little England tittering would've done it.
No, it wouldn't.
The millions of people who voted for Nigel Fucking Farage and his racist posters didn't care about that
Its almost as if you want to be members to spite the millions of your fellow countrymen you utterly detest, rather than to garner any benefit that membership might bring.
Europe is on its knees, something no remainer even tries to address on here. The rejoin movement would be easy, easy meat for leave were it ever to rise again.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
You were wrong then, and wrong now.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania are still in the EU but not the Euro
Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling
It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here
Don’t do it
On the contrary.
Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.
Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.
Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.
But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.
We will end up like all the other rich western countries outside the EU - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland. We will be in constant negotiation about our status vis a vis them, but we will never contemplate joining again
The EU’s position in UK life will be like the USA to Canada. A giant neighbour that we have to pay attention to, often in an irritating way, but Canada still cherishes its independence and would never consider becoming another US state
So just like a country forty times our size, or one with an eighth of our population. Got it.
Still, it's an advance on Singapore. Or pregnancy.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Look at Italy, veering in desperation to the hard right.
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
You were wrong then, and wrong now.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
And now here we are.
When you go out into the street, do you see people or do you see Orcs?
There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,
Liz is about to launch a trade war over Northern Ireland
No she's not.
She's going to pass a Bill in our sovereign Parliament about a sovereign part of the UK.
The EU won't launch a trade war over that. Maybe Ireland might want to, and maybe France and Germany would too, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Poland or Estonia etc are going to unanimously agree to a trade war while there's a real war going on in their doorstep.
Especially since the UK is doing more to help in the real war than Ireland, France or Germany are.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.
So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.
The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.
I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?
A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.
Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.
In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.
Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more
Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.
Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?
The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality
Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.
We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin
Yes, and the Sudetenland was just a border dispute...
Effectively it was at the time until Hitler went further and invaded Poland
Really ? You seem to have forgotten that he went on to annexe the entire country well before Poland.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
You were wrong then, and wrong now.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
And now here we are.
When you go out into the street, do you see people or do you see Orcs?
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania are still in the EU but not the Euro
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1560619804439900160 I'd argue that before 2014 Ukraine had almost zero *Ukrainian* right-wing movement. Because the right wing movement it had was inseparable from the Russian far right. Back in 2011 the leader of Azov proclaimed confederation with Russia (with capital in Kyiv) as the ultimate goal...
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
You were wrong then, and wrong now.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
And now here we are.
You really have been ordained in the Church of the Poisoned Mind.....
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
You were wrong then, and wrong now.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
And now here we are.
When you go out into the street, do you see people or do you see Orcs?
No Orcs. Sometimes see Drúedain....
A few Elvish speakers at chucking out time on a Thursday night...
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Morning all. Just in reports of explosions around Zaporizhzhia, no other details yet. Ukraine's energy people sayuig Russia are planning to disconnect the NPP from the Ukraine grid today, some concern over the spent fuel rods.
The Russians are playing with fire here, both figuratively and literally.
There’s nothing more likely to result in a Western escalation, than a nuclear ‘accident’ at Zaporizhzhia.
If Putin wants to see NATO countries send their armies into Ukraine, he’s going the right way about it.
The theory on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast yesterday was that Putin likes to provoke these crises so that he can gain leverage/kudos for ending them. They drew a parallel with the grain blockade, where there is now a deal allowing a limited quantity of Ukrainian grain exports.
So the idea would be that Putin provokes a nuclear crisis, but then agrees to resolve it in return for something - perhaps a ceasefire on the current front lines, or some limit on Western arms supplies, or just so that he can look good on Russian State TV.
The danger is that there is a miscalculation, a mistake, and a disaster happens.
I tend to think that it's a rather charitable interpretation of Putin's motivation and decision-making, similar to the analysis before the February invasion that saw the military buildup as a means to extract diplomatic concessions. But, well, fingers crossed, eh?
A nuclear "accident" in Ukraine renders large chunks of Ukraine economically unusable for decades. Putin would love that.
Putin needs to be told that a Russian engineered/black flag release of radiation in Ukraine will be treated as a nuclear attack on NATO every bit as much as if ICBM's had been launched at Poland, Germany, Western Europe. The radiation would predictably be affecting those countries as much as Ukraine. Every sanction up to nuclear retaliation will be available in that situation.
In reality all Biden would do is tighten sanctions and at most do an air strike and even that unlikely.
Unless a NATO nation is involved whatever happens in Ukraine we just continue supplying weapons and imposing sanctions and not much more
Poland is a NATO nation. Chunks of it will get irradiated.
Poland says it has suffered the consequences of an armed attack. Who is going to argue?
The Western leaders who are not going to go to World War 3 with a nuclear missile armed Russia because a bit of radiation drifts into Eastern Poland. I am sorry, that is just realpolitik reality
Sorry, young HY, but I think you are one of those Conservative appeasers, followers of Chamberlain. I think a pseudo Churchill Conservative, like your hero Johnson, would disown you.
We didn't go to war with Germany when they took over Austria or Czechoslovakia did we, only when Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler also didn't have nuclear weapons unlike Putin
Yes, and the Sudetenland was just a border dispute...
Effectively it was at the time until Hitler went further and invaded Poland
Really ? You seem to have forgotten that he went on to annexe the entire country well before Poland.
So what, it was agreed at the Munich Agreement that Hitler could have the Sudetenland. It was only when he breached the Agreement and got greedy and occupied Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland war was inevitable
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
You were wrong then, and wrong now.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
And now here we are.
When you go out into the street, do you see people or do you see Orcs?
No Orcs. Sometimes see Drúedain....
A few Elvish speakers at chucking out time on a Thursday night...
There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,
Liz is about to launch a trade war over Northern Ireland
No she's not.
She's going to pass a Bill in our sovereign Parliament about a sovereign part of the UK.
The EU won't launch a trade war over that. Maybe Ireland might want to, and maybe France and Germany would too, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Poland or Estonia etc are going to unanimously agree to a trade war while there's a real war going on in their doorstep.
Especially since the UK is doing more to help in the real war than Ireland, France or Germany are.
Do they have to agree? The treaties have already been agreed by both sides and the implementation including any action for breaches is something that sits with the Commission rather than with the individual countries. I am not sue Poland or anyone else would even be asked whether they agree. It would simply be enacted as a consequence of following the existing treaties.
They might object, protest or even try to ignore any trade war, but I don't believe they could stop one since they have already agreed to a set of consequences for breaches of the agreement. The only organisation that might have a say would be the ECJ but I suspect they would look at the treaties and decide the UK is in breach - depending of course on what we had decided to do. .
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
The Edinburgh Agreement protected us against that. They can huff and puff about the pressure all they like but we had that nice bit of paper. I remember watching that Blair and Brown years documentary on iPlayer a few months ago and the pressure to join up was massive and we were roundly flamed by the rest of the EU when we refused, but we didn't buckle and we had our permanent opt out. That's gone now.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
You were wrong then, and wrong now.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
And now here we are.
You really have been ordained in the Church of the Poisoned Mind.....
There do seem to be a couple of terminably stupid people who have backed Remain to the hilt because they're too thick to understand why others think differently to themselves, so they've been poisoned by hatred of that which they don't understand.
Reveal themselves by ranting about "trade wars" during a real war or banging on about the Daily Express which has an insignificant readership not 17.4 million readers.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
The Edinburgh Agreement protected us against that. They can huff and puff about the pressure all they like but we had that nice bit of paper. I remember watching that Blair and Brown years documentary on iPlayer a few months ago and the pressure to join up was massive and we were roundly flamed by the rest of the EU when we refused, but we didn't buckle and we had our permanent opt out. That's gone now.
A remain vote would have changed everything, politically speaking.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Still pushing that myth Nigel
I think you are another one who needs to learn how to use a dictionary.
Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling
It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here
Don’t do it
On the contrary.
Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.
Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.
Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.
But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.
We will end up like all the other rich western countries outside the EU - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland. We will be in constant negotiation about our status vis a vis them, but we will never contemplate joining again
The EU’s position in UK life will be like the USA to Canada. A giant neighbour that we have to pay attention to, often in an irritating way, but Canada still cherishes its independence and would never consider becoming another US state
I suspect we will join again. In fact I think it is absolutely inevitable, and it will be on much worse terms than we had previously. The younger generation will insist on it to get their own back on the old folk like you @Leon. I say this, not because I think it is in our country's interest, but because I know that it feeds the paranoia of your swivelly-eyed fellow travellers lol. It is going to happen @Leon. You know it and I know it. Just as we both know that Brexit was completely pointless, however much you try to convince yourself.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
The Edinburgh Agreement protected us against that. They can huff and puff about the pressure all they like but we had that nice bit of paper. I remember watching that Blair and Brown years documentary on iPlayer a few months ago and the pressure to join up was massive and we were roundly flamed by the rest of the EU when we refused, but we didn't buckle and we had our permanent opt out. That's gone now.
A remain vote would have changed everything, politically speaking.
A Remain vote provided the UK with extra security and protected our opt outs as per the renegotiation Cameron was part of. It was the key to locking in the opt outs. As it happened, the public disagreed that it was enough and wanted a clear change from being in the EU, but it's factually incorrect to say that voting remain would have added pressure on us to join the Euro. The biggest pressure was in the mid 90s and we rode that out.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
What a bore you are.
That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Still pushing that myth Nigel
I think you are another one who needs to learn how to use a dictionary.
The only myth old chap is the "sovereignty" myth that was pushed by people who advocated Leave. The fact that any member (sovereign member I add) can leave tells you everything you need to know. Membership of the EU was no more a surrender of sovereignty than membership of NATO or the UN is. I can't imagine you genuinely fell for this. It is the sort of thing that the person who "liked" your post, Barty Swivel-eyes, falls for hook line, but I am surprised if you do.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
What a bore you are.
That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.
That’s not the point he’s making.
He’s not making a point.
He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.
There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.
You should probably post that twice daily because it’s a perfect reproach to loons like Driver.
No need for a tag there. And you won't catch me disagreeing that things could have been handled much better - but the loons like Bienkov and Scotty just couldn't admit they had lost.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
Absolutely, the argument that we were sovereign because we could leave the EU is an argument to leave the EU not to Remain.
The only way it would be an argument to Remain is if there were a way to exercise that sovereignty short of Leaving. On that though, there comes only silence.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
That is not correct. The EU makes laws on areas that are covered by treaties that are agreed by the 27. Ultimately sovereignty lies with the sovereign state. The UK decided, following a referendum that it no longer wished to be bound by those treaties, so had ultimate sovereignty. The other members also have the same option.
You should probably post that twice daily because it’s a perfect reproach to loons like Driver.
No need for a tag there. And you won't catch me disagreeing that things could have been handled much better - but the loons like Bienkov and Scotty just couldn't admit they had lost.
Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling
It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here
Don’t do it
On the contrary.
Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.
Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.
Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.
But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.
We will end up like all the other rich western countries outside the EU - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland. We will be in constant negotiation about our status vis a vis them, but we will never contemplate joining again
The EU’s position in UK life will be like the USA to Canada. A giant neighbour that we have to pay attention to, often in an irritating way, but Canada still cherishes its independence and would never consider becoming another US state
None of your analogies really fit, though. The EU isn't a single country so the analogy of Canada - like the US a federal country in any case - becoming a US state or more realistically several US states doesn't fit. Norway and Switzerland are fully integrated into the EU single market with free movement and Schengen visa free travel so in some respects we were less integrated into the EU as members than they are outside. They are not EU members basically because they are so rich, which doesn't hold for us as we are not. Iceland is a micro state in the North Atlantic whereas we have a population of over 60 million and share a land border with the EU. Being a full EU member is the relationship that makes most sense for us. We should also join Schengen, which we could even do without joining the EU, but stay out of the Euro for now.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Still pushing that myth Nigel
I think you are another one who needs to learn how to use a dictionary.
The only myth old chap is the "sovereignty" myth that was pushed by people who advocated Leave. The fact that any member (sovereign member I add) can leave tells you everything you need to know. Membership of the EU was no more a surrender of sovereignty than membership of NATO or the UN is. I can't imagine you genuinely fell for this. It is the sort of thing that the person who "liked" your post, Barty Swivel-eyes, falls for hook line, but I am surprised if you do.
So you still claim to have some mystical definition of sovereignty that is different from every other dictionary or encyclopaedia in the English language.
Well done. Now perhaps you would like to provide that definition?
Oh and under their own charters NATO and the UN cannot make laws which we can refuse to enact. The EU can and did.
I will accept that had all votes been by Unanimity then you would have a point. But as soon as QMV was introduced - even if I understand the reasons why that happened - then the UK ceased to be sovereign.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
That definition, which I don’t dispute as a one-liner, leaves an awful lot of use-cases where sovereignty is rather more nuanced.
Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
What a bore you are.
That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.
That’s not the point he’s making.
He’s not making a point.
He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.
There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.
He’s a time-waster.
It's a prediction informed by three decades of Brussels-watching. If you think it's a waste of time, you aren't compelled to reply.
The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.
I am frankly surprised at the “rejoin” numbers. I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
It will likely not be on the table for English voters next GE (not sure of the Greens position) but will be for the other 3 nations of the UK.
I really would love to know Rejoin's slogans.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
The fact that even trolls like yourself are suggesting possible Rejoin slogans is probably a sign of the direction of travel.
The fact that you are silent on what Rejoin's pitch might be, and silent as to the horrible predicament Europe is in, is much more of a sign of the direction of travel.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
On Rejoin? I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
What a bore you are.
That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.
That’s not the point he’s making.
He’s not making a point.
He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.
There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.
He’s a time-waster.
It's a prediction informed by three decades of Brussels-watching. If you think it's a waste of time, you aren't compelled to reply.
Sweden has been obliged to join the Euro for over 20 years and has never joined nor come under any pressure to join. Can you explain why this is the case and why you think it would be different for us?
You should probably post that twice daily because it’s a perfect reproach to loons like Driver.
No need for a tag there. And you won't catch me disagreeing that things could have been handled much better - but the loons like Bienkov and Scotty just couldn't admit they had lost.
Who is Bienkov?
The person whose tweet Scotty pasted. He works for the Byline Times, so nuff said.
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
That is not correct. The EU makes laws on areas that are covered by treaties that are agreed by the 27. Ultimately sovereignty lies with the sovereign state. The UK decided, following a referendum that it no longer wished to be bound by those treaties, so had ultimate sovereignty. The other members also have the same option.
Not true. As long as they could pass laws over which we had no veto and which we were bound to enact we were not sovereign.
To use an analogy which I have used before.
A territory can seek independence from a country under peaceful or violent means - sometimes it is the former and more often the latter. The fact that the possibility exists for them to become sovereign by one means or another does not mean they are always sovereign. They gain their independence and sovereignty through a process, either violent or peaceful. But until they get to that point they are not sovereign.
Outside PB and Twitter no one cares about Brexit. It’s the major issue for about 5-10% of the population - and that is falling
It really is a harvest of misery to care passionately about something - Rejoin - that is vanishingly unlikely in the lifetime of anyone here
Don’t do it
On the contrary.
Polling for Rejoin is very strong. No major party in England will be proposing it in their manifesto for GE 2024, but it cannot be ignored forever.
Sooner or later the fly encrusted unflushable turd of Brexit will be dealt with.
Only because the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Until we restart accession negotiations we won't know the terms.
But I agree with you, we had an excellent deal tailored to our politics that would be hard to match.
We will end up like all the other rich western countries outside the EU - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland. We will be in constant negotiation about our status vis a vis them, but we will never contemplate joining again
The EU’s position in UK life will be like the USA to Canada. A giant neighbour that we have to pay attention to, often in an irritating way, but Canada still cherishes its independence and would never consider becoming another US state
None of your analogies really fit, though. The EU isn't a single country so the analogy of Canada - like the US a federal country in any case - becoming a US state or more realistically several US states doesn't fit. Norway and Switzerland are fully integrated into the EU single market with free movement and Schengen visa free travel so in some respects we were less integrated into the EU as members than they are outside. They are not EU members basically because they are so rich, which doesn't hold for us as we are not. Iceland is a micro state in the North Atlantic whereas we have a population of over 60 million and share a land border with the EU. Being a full EU member is the relationship that makes most sense for us. We should also join Schengen, which we could even do without joining the EU, but stay out of the Euro for now.
Which is it? Be a full member, or stay out of the euro?
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
That definition, which I don’t dispute as a one-liner, leaves an awful lot of use-cases where sovereignty is rather more nuanced.
Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.
Nope. For reasons I have just set out in another reply.
The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.
The idea that Brexit has been "spoilt" is one only being shared by pro-EU fanatics like yourself, Scott and Nigel.
Brexiteers by and large seem to be grounded in reality saying that we've roughly got what we voted for and then proposing what could be improved upon which is precisely how sovereignty and taking back control is supposed to work.
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
What a bore you are.
That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.
That’s not the point he’s making.
He’s not making a point.
He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.
There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.
He’s a time-waster.
It's a prediction informed by three decades of Brussels-watching. If you think it's a waste of time, you aren't compelled to reply.
Sweden has been obliged to join the Euro for over 20 years and has never joined nor come under any pressure to join. Can you explain why this is the case and why you think it would be different for us?
Because we have already shown that we are willing to leave, and they won't risk that happening a second time. The best way to avoid it is make us join the euro.
There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,
Liz is about to launch a trade war over Northern Ireland
No she's not.
She's going to pass a Bill in our sovereign Parliament about a sovereign part of the UK.
The EU won't launch a trade war over that. Maybe Ireland might want to, and maybe France and Germany would too, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Poland or Estonia etc are going to unanimously agree to a trade war while there's a real war going on in their doorstep.
Especially since the UK is doing more to help in the real war than Ireland, France or Germany are.
Brexiteer propaganda yet again.
Everybody knows that the Conservative Party is Putin's puppet, Brexit was his project and now we're out of the EU, we have to do what he says and the Americans won't even give us the time of day. That is if we avoid invading Europe because the EU is the only thing that guarantees peace in the world.
Tony Blair, the Guardian and the Milibands all agreed and are they ever wrong?
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Still pushing that myth Nigel
I think you are another one who needs to learn how to use a dictionary.
The only myth old chap is the "sovereignty" myth that was pushed by people who advocated Leave. The fact that any member (sovereign member I add) can leave tells you everything you need to know. Membership of the EU was no more a surrender of sovereignty than membership of NATO or the UN is. I can't imagine you genuinely fell for this. It is the sort of thing that the person who "liked" your post, Barty Swivel-eyes, falls for hook line, but I am surprised if you do.
So you still claim to have some mystical definition of sovereignty that is different from every other dictionary or encyclopaedia in the English language.
Well done. Now perhaps you would like to provide that definition?
Oh and under their own charters NATO and the UN cannot make laws which we can refuse to enact. The EU can and did.
I will accept that had all votes been by Unanimity then you would have a point. But as soon as QMV was introduced - even if I understand the reasons why that happened - then the UK ceased to be sovereign.
I am sorry to have to break it to you if this was one of the areas that persuaded you to vote leave, but you have misinterpreted it. Ultimately the UK chose to leave and the EU could not prevent it. Also the UK could go to war without EU veto. Compare the UK within the EU to Scotland within the UK if you like. Scotland cannot go to war, it cannot legally have a referendum without deference to Westminster. This is because it is not sovereign.
Anyway, I doubt I can convince you, anymore than you can convince me. There is the philisophical belief that sovereignty is not absolute fact but a set of relationships, thereby allowing shared sovereignty eg. America having US bases in East Anglia as part of NATO - something which I personally believe is a much higher level of shared sovereignty than the EU membership ever was. It was an issue exploited by Leave effectively, and I guess if people believe it that is up to them.
Emma Burrows @EJ_Burrows NEW: Western intelligence official says Russians are starting to 'run out of ammunition.' 'We have a large range of evidence to suggest munitions are being depleted...inc munitions coming out of deep storage.'
The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.
The idea that Brexit has been "spoilt" is one only being shared by pro-EU fanatics like yourself, Scott and Nigel.
Brexiteers by and large seem to be grounded in reality saying that we've roughly got what we voted for and then proposing what could be improved upon which is precisely how sovereignty and taking back control is supposed to work.
Brexit is multiple things.
While it did "take back control" and it may have resulted in increased wages it's also created a whole set of consequential problems.
And those problems will require someone taking the blame - for which Bozo is a very suitable candidate....
Unreconciled Remainers have this idea that Brexit is some great edifice that needs continuing support from true believers in order to persist
Brexiteers are the ones shitting themselves that Brexit dies with BoZo
Please explain how it “dies” after Boris?
Honestly. It’s just bonkers
Brexit certainly does not depend upon Boris. There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16, and no appetite on the EU side to have us rejoin.
That simply is not true. The EU commission has always been clear that we would be welcome back if we change our minds.
Of course we would. Then they can tie us in to euro membership so we won't be able to leave for a second time.
You mean like all that those EU but non-Euro countries?
What a bore you are.
That’s not the point being made. That it would be more difficult to leave if a country is in the Euro is hardly controversial.
That’s not the point he’s making.
He’s not making a point.
He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.
There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.
He’s a time-waster.
It's a prediction informed by three decades of Brussels-watching. If you think it's a waste of time, you aren't compelled to reply.
Sweden has been obliged to join the Euro for over 20 years and has never joined nor come under any pressure to join. Can you explain why this is the case and why you think it would be different for us?
Because we have already shown that we are willing to leave, and they won't risk that happening a second time. The best way to avoid it is make us join the euro.
I think the opposite is true - making us join the Euro when we don't want to would be a sure fire way of getting us to leave again. I might even support it myself!
the vast majority of people are assuming that Rejoin on the previous terms would be possible, which it wouldn't.
Are you not sick and tired of people talking Britain down like this?
It's not talking Britain down to recognise that if we are going to be members, we will have to be full members. Not least because if we're going to be members we should want to be full members.
If being in the Euro had been a requirement of continued EU membership then I would have voted Leave not Remain. At that point our economic policy would be decided in Berlin, Frankfurt and Brussels effectively not Westminster
Then you should have voted Leave. A vote for Remain would surely have seen us join the euro sooner rather than later. We wouldn't have been politically able to resist the pressure.
Total and utter nonsense. Amazing that even on here there are people that believe this kind of shite. No doubt you believe the other Daily Express bollox of how "we got our sovereignty back". Sorry to spoil it for you, but we always had it, otherwise we would not have been able to have the referendum.
Ah, the old "we never lost our sovereignty" bollocks, which I have already debunked once today.
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Sovereignty is not a very good term. Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica - which has been around long enough to be accepted as knowing a thing or two I would suggest:
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
That definition, which I don’t dispute as a one-liner, leaves an awful lot of use-cases where sovereignty is rather more nuanced.
Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.
Nope. For reasons I have just set out in another reply.
Ok, but international law doesn’t agree with you, or your analogy.
The UK was not under colonial control, it continued to exist, was recognised to exist, voluntary joined an organisation to which it agreed to cede certain (but by no means all) functions, and then left on its own steam.
There is no appetite on our side to reopen the battles of 1960 to 1975, and 2005 - 16,
Liz is about to launch a trade war over Northern Ireland
No she's not.
She's going to pass a Bill in our sovereign Parliament about a sovereign part of the UK.
The EU won't launch a trade war over that. Maybe Ireland might want to, and maybe France and Germany would too, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Poland or Estonia etc are going to unanimously agree to a trade war while there's a real war going on in their doorstep.
Especially since the UK is doing more to help in the real war than Ireland, France or Germany are.
Do they have to agree? The treaties have already been agreed by both sides and the implementation including any action for breaches is something that sits with the Commission rather than with the individual countries. I am not sue Poland or anyone else would even be asked whether they agree. It would simply be enacted as a consequence of following the existing treaties.
They might object, protest or even try to ignore any trade war, but I don't believe they could stop one since they have already agreed to a set of consequences for breaches of the agreement. The only organisation that might have a say would be the ECJ but I suspect they would look at the treaties and decide the UK is in breach - depending of course on what we had decided to do. .
It depends upon the steps taken I supposed. Many of the madder proposals that have been suggested, like initiating the termination clause of the TCA, do require unanimity. Poland, Estonia etc unanimously backing any such action while they're working with the UK to defeat Russia is simply not going to happen.
Issues that require only Commission or QMV they don't get a say in though, you're right, which is part of why we were right to vote to Leave.
The irony is though that on unanimous issues, previously during the negotiations a song and dance was made by the Remain die-hards about how Ireland or France could veto any possible trade deal with the UK. That was true then, but the requirement for unanimity plays the other way now its ratified. To un-ratify it also requires unanimity, which means the UK needs to keep on-side Poland or Estonia or any other nation willing to veto termination and the trade agreement can't be terminated.
What the Rishi move is really all about. Further evidence of how shit he is at politics and how good Liz is (if not at anything else).
Agrivoltaics (sheepies n crops co existing with panels) is a complete red herring, because it doesn't happen here. Possibly great in theory, say in countries where crops benefit from shade over noon, but depends on panels being at head height. They are all at ground level here.
So yes, objected to by contemptible NIMBY scum objecting to "views", not the farmer with the land.
NIMBY fuckwits really are a pox upon this country.
Bit of a surprise. Possibly a local thing there. We're one DC over, and in my ward alone, there are two solar farms bigger than that. Never heard a hint of controversy over it.
Then again, we're also in the top ten of housebuilding DCs in the country. Never stops anyone from calling us NIMBYs, but it does get a bit irritating after a while.
In any case, the core problem is the planning system. Everyone points at Planning Committees and complains, but never seems to realise just how little actual discretion they have. I've seen cases where members hated an application and believed it would be actively harmful, but had to approve it, and cases where members thought another one was an excellent idea, but were mandated to refuse it.
Overturning a Planning Officer recommendation needs some serious reasoning and legislative support. It's all down to the NPPF and the Local Plans created from the requirements of it, plus generations of interlocking legislation and case law. And the only initiatives that ever come out from Central Government are along the lines of "Hey, what if we further reduce your scope for actually making decisions and mandate even more stuff?" whilst spasming between adding things that say you MUST approve and adding things that say you MUST refuse.
And so much land is earmarked or off-limits. I mean, one DC further over in South Oxfordshire, over 60% of their land is either in Green Belt or AONB, meaning they have to hugely concentrate all building on under 40% of their land and right on top of other buildings.
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
Emma Burrows @EJ_Burrows NEW: Western intelligence official says Russians are starting to 'run out of ammunition.' 'We have a large range of evidence to suggest munitions are being depleted...inc munitions coming out of deep storage.'
The tension as to whether England lose by an innings or 10 wickets is becoming intense.
Or whether we can drag it out to two full days of play.
Oh steady, let's not get too carried away.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
If it were up to me I wouldn't play an England game at Lords during the Ashes at least.
We have more than 5 Test grounds in the country. No reason for every series to incorporate Lords.
The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.
The idea that Brexit has been "spoilt" is one only being shared by pro-EU fanatics like yourself, Scott and Nigel.
Brexiteers by and large seem to be grounded in reality saying that we've roughly got what we voted for and then proposing what could be improved upon which is precisely how sovereignty and taking back control is supposed to work.
I know I shouldn't respond to dickheads, but before I go back to work (some of us like to "Barty"), I thought I would reply. For a start I am not an EU-fanatic, I tend to leave fanaticism to ineloquent small brained keyboard warriors such as yourself. I can't speak for the others, but I am not and never have been an EU-fanatic. Prior to the referendum I would have described myself as a Eurosceptic in the political mould of William Hague, and was against membership of the European currency. My view is that Brexit was pointless and harmful. It was and still is. There are people who voted for leave who post on here that I have respect for. Obsessive bigoted nutjobs who have nothing else to do with their time other than opine on subjects that they have no life experience of like yourself I don't put in that category. Have a lovely day.
The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.
Voters are going to have much bigger issues to worry about than whether Brexit is going well or not in next two years.
The most wretched figure in the whole Brexit saga may, surprisingly, turn out to be Boris. The Eurosceptic-Right are already on manoeuvres to paint him as the hapless twerp who spoilt the dream through sheer stupidity and incompetence. And why not? The alternative tellings won't reflect well on them, so why not blacken Boris's name to history? I can certainly see Liz pushing this hard when she's anointed, her concern for Boris's reputation going the same way as much else.
Voters are going to have much bigger issues to worry about than whether Brexit is going well or not in next two years.
No, but the tory party have made Brexit their urmonotheismus. They are quite obviously going to fight the next election on a platform of saving Brexit because what else do they have? Nothing.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oeyTU36lBw
What street is he taking?
He's not on a street, he's flying on rooftops!
There are many reasons to be idealistic about European affairs, particularly in tackling the environmental, economic, foreign policy and social issues common to all of us on the continent of Europe, but that was ignored by a campaign negatively focused on Project Fear and transactional issues.
Unionists in the next Sindyref should take note. Without a positive vision of the Union they are likely to lose too.
I pointed it out at the time. While you and others were giggling about Obama being against it and mocking Nigel Farage's Little England most voters wanted to know about the pros and cons of the EU.
The pro-EU side failed to make the case, preferring to waste their time deriding England and thinking slapping Farage's name ahead of it would change votes rather than annoy floating voters who wanted to hear something relevant.
Mr. 1961, I agree entirely. If Labour hadn't lied about a referendum on Lisbon we'd still be in the EU, most likely.
Europe is on its knees, something no remainer even tries to address on here. The rejoin movement would be easy, easy meat for leave were it ever to rise again.
Most voters hated foreigners and voted accordingly.
And now here we are.
Instead Liz wants to launch a trade war in the middle of an economic crisis.
Got it.
Still, it's an advance on Singapore.
Or pregnancy.
I think the written plural of roof is roofs and the spoken plural is rooves. That’s my last word on the subject.
She's going to pass a Bill in our sovereign Parliament about a sovereign part of the UK.
The EU won't launch a trade war over that. Maybe Ireland might want to, and maybe France and Germany would too, but there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Poland or Estonia etc are going to unanimously agree to a trade war while there's a real war going on in their doorstep.
Especially since the UK is doing more to help in the real war than Ireland, France or Germany are.
I long believed it impossible the UK would rejoin, but I now semi-expect it.
Will take a while, though, and will be a different EU (and UK).
You seem to have forgotten that he went on to annexe the entire country well before Poland.
What a bore you are.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1560619804439900160
I'd argue that before 2014 Ukraine had almost zero *Ukrainian* right-wing movement. Because the right wing movement it had was inseparable from the Russian far right. Back in 2011 the leader of Azov proclaimed confederation with Russia (with capital in Kyiv) as the ultimate goal...
If so, speak friend and enter.
They might object, protest or even try to ignore any trade war, but I don't believe they could stop one since they have already agreed to a set of consequences for breaches of the agreement. The only organisation that might have a say would be the ECJ but I suspect they would look at the treaties and decide the UK is in breach - depending of course on what we had decided to do. .
(Short version: if the only way to exercise any control over the EU is to leave it, then you have effectively lost sovereignty for as long as you remain in it.)
Reveal themselves by ranting about "trade wars" during a real war or banging on about the Daily Express which has an insignificant readership not 17.4 million readers.
I think you are another one who needs to learn how to use a dictionary.
Nobody seems to be able to define what it means.
We lost some flexibility inside the EU.
But according to my definitions at least, we never surrendered either sovereignty or democracy. Your definitions may differ.
France 24 are telling me that the whole thing is closed down about every 10 minutes.
Sovereignty - "the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state"
Given that the EU could make laws that Parliament and our Government could not refuse, we were not, for as long as we remained in the EU, sovereign.
'Your apartment in Nice will be much easier to get to...'
'My children can access that work placement I got with my contacts...'
'We too can have wars with our farmers....'
'The far right will prosper, as it has done in France and Italy...'
...Should go down well in Stoke...
He’s not making a point.
He’s making a prediction that the UK would be forced to join the Euro if it re-entered.
There appears to be no substance, and some existing counter-evidence to his claim.
He’s a time-waster.
The only way it would be an argument to Remain is if there were a way to exercise that sovereignty short of Leaving. On that though, there comes only silence.
Being a full EU member is the relationship that makes most sense for us. We should also join Schengen, which we could even do without joining the EU, but stay out of the Euro for now.
Well done. Now perhaps you would like to provide that definition?
Oh and under their own charters NATO and the UN cannot make laws which we can refuse to enact. The EU can and did.
I will accept that had all votes been by Unanimity then you would have a point. But as soon as QMV was introduced - even if I understand the reasons why that happened - then the UK ceased to be sovereign.
You and all the other rejoin massive have precisely zero to say on either topic.
Ignoring the clickbait headline (not really about the UK) this is an interesting sidelight on US-China cultural relations:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-08-15/chinese-students-are-trading-us-visas-for-uk-ones
Anyway, even by that definition, the UK remained the *ultimate* overseer, else it could logically not have Exited. I know you (or perhaps others) don’t like that riposte, but it is legally true.
I long thought it impossible.
The UK is not ready for it. Need to wait for the elderly to die off and the mad to be re-institutionalised.
To use an analogy which I have used before.
A territory can seek independence from a country under peaceful or violent means - sometimes it is the former and more often the latter. The fact that the possibility exists for them to become sovereign by one means or another does not mean they are always sovereign. They gain their independence and sovereignty through a process, either violent or peaceful. But until they get to that point they are not sovereign.
Brexiteers by and large seem to be grounded in reality saying that we've roughly got what we voted for and then proposing what could be improved upon which is precisely how sovereignty and taking back control is supposed to work.
Everybody knows that the Conservative Party is Putin's puppet, Brexit was his project and now we're out of the EU, we have to do what he says and the Americans won't even give us the time of day. That is if we avoid invading Europe because the EU is the only thing that guarantees peace in the world.
Tony Blair, the Guardian and the Milibands all agreed and are they ever wrong?
Anyway, I doubt I can convince you, anymore than you can convince me. There is the philisophical belief that sovereignty is not absolute fact but a set of relationships, thereby allowing shared sovereignty eg. America having US bases in East Anglia as part of NATO - something which I personally believe is a much higher level of shared sovereignty than the EU membership ever was. It was an issue exploited by Leave effectively, and I guess if people believe it that is up to them.
Emma Burrows
@EJ_Burrows
NEW: Western intelligence official says Russians are starting to 'run out of ammunition.' 'We have a large range of evidence to suggest munitions are being depleted...inc munitions coming out of deep storage.'
https://twitter.com/EJ_Burrows/status/1560601884666146816
While it did "take back control" and it may have resulted in increased wages it's also created a whole set of consequential problems.
And those problems will require someone taking the blame - for which Bozo is a very suitable candidate....
The UK was not under colonial control, it continued to exist, was recognised to exist, voluntary joined an organisation to which it agreed to cede certain (but by no means all) functions, and then left on its own steam.
"Brexit is shit, and you know it..."
That Brexiteers are saying it already, and blaming BoZo for it, is only helpful
Issues that require only Commission or QMV they don't get a say in though, you're right, which is part of why we were right to vote to Leave.
The irony is though that on unanimous issues, previously during the negotiations a song and dance was made by the Remain die-hards about how Ireland or France could veto any possible trade deal with the UK. That was true then, but the requirement for unanimity plays the other way now its ratified. To un-ratify it also requires unanimity, which means the UK needs to keep on-side Poland or Estonia or any other nation willing to veto termination and the trade agreement can't be terminated.
Then again, we're also in the top ten of housebuilding DCs in the country. Never stops anyone from calling us NIMBYs, but it does get a bit irritating after a while.
In any case, the core problem is the planning system. Everyone points at Planning Committees and complains, but never seems to realise just how little actual discretion they have. I've seen cases where members hated an application and believed it would be actively harmful, but had to approve it, and cases where members thought another one was an excellent idea, but were mandated to refuse it.
Overturning a Planning Officer recommendation needs some serious reasoning and legislative support.
It's all down to the NPPF and the Local Plans created from the requirements of it, plus generations of interlocking legislation and case law. And the only initiatives that ever come out from Central Government are along the lines of "Hey, what if we further reduce your scope for actually making decisions and mandate even more stuff?" whilst spasming between adding things that say you MUST approve and adding things that say you MUST refuse.
And so much land is earmarked or off-limits. I mean, one DC further over in South Oxfordshire, over 60% of their land is either in Green Belt or AONB, meaning they have to hugely concentrate all building on under 40% of their land and right on top of other buildings.
If you want an idea of the scope of the issue, click here: https://www.digital-land.info/map/?
And click on some of the data layers - like Green Belt, AONB, and the rest.
A truly awful performance with the bat. Again. At the moment Broad has joint top score. When Root and Bairstow fail England fail abysmally. We really need to think about this first test at Lords issue. We seem to play unusually poorly there.
Edit. Looks like an innings. Awful.
As we all have learnt in COVID, fuck with the supply chain and you run out of toilet paper.
We have more than 5 Test grounds in the country. No reason for every series to incorporate Lords.