politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The EU Dog that hasn’t barked. Yet

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The EU Dog that hasn’t barked. Yet

It was Socrates who said that the “unexamined life is not worth living”.  By the same token, one might also say that the unexamined EU is not worth being a member of.

Read the full story here

Scott_P

First, like Remain

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/ncpoliticsuk/status/732997515025481730

logical_song

Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard:

CON 36 (-2)
LAB 34 (-1)
LD 8 (+1)
UKIP 10 (-1)
GRN 5 (+2)
SNP 5 (-1)

AnneJGP

Excellent article. Interesting approach. Seconded.

MonikerDiCanio

Nice idea, though I doubt the Commissariat will be much enthused.

felix

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/05/gove-to-deputy-pm-may-to-the-treasury-osborne-to-foreign-boris-to-home-the-unity-reshuffle.html

Some 'interesting ' suggestions'

DavidL

Gosh Cyclefree, you want people to be grown up about this and address the real issues? Don't ask for much do you?

felix

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Richard_Nabavi

An excellent and refreshing article, as one would expect from Ms Cyclefree.

The trouble is, there's no answer to her question. If you ask ten different politicians, from different countries and different political parties, you'll get ten different answers. We often get people telling us what 'the EU' is planning to do, usually on the basis of some daft statement by a powerless MEP, but the EU - like any other political group or group of countries - is not a monolithic organisation with an agreed long-term forward plan, it's a collection of nation states combined with a bureaucracy, a court, and the European parliament. The seat of power within this organisation is not clearly defined, it works by a jostling of competing interests. To complicate matters further, we have vetoes over some of the things which no doubt some of those competing interests would like to happen.

What I would say, though, is that a debate over what the EU should look like does take place, but the UK largely ignores it. We should perhaps take a bit more interest, then we might not so often get surprised.

dr_spyn

Thanks for the article @Cyclefree.

DavidL

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

I fear that is right. Any attempt by the Commission or our near neighbours would be "interference in our domestic politics". Which is a pity. Who would decide whether or not to leave or join a club without checking what the other members thought?

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

An excellent and refreshing article, as one would expect from Ms Cyclefree.

The trouble is, there's no answer to her question. If you ask ten different politicians, from different countries and different political parties, you'll get ten different answers. We often get people telling us what 'the EU' is planning to do, usually on the basis of some daft statement by a powerless MEP, but the EU - like any other political group or group of countries - is not a monolithic organisation with an agreed long-term forward plan, it's a collection of nation states combined with a bureaucracy, a court, and the European parliament. The seat of power within this organisation is not clearly defined, it works by a jostling of competing interests. To complicate matters further, we have vetoes over some of the things which no doubt some of those competing interests would like to happen.

What I would say, though, is that a debate over what the EU should look like does take place, but the UK largely ignores it. We should perhaps take a bit more interest, then we might not so often get surprised.

Maybe. But the Remain focus on economic matters is telling. It is what we want the EU to be about. And it just isn't.

TCPoliticalBetting

Cyclefree. Thanks for that good article.
This is what the BBC, our national broadcaster should be doing yet are not, to their shame.
The BBC still have a little time to fix it but there are only 2 weeks before people start voting.

MarqueeMark

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Why do you jump to that assumption? Very happy to have the EU attempt a positive argument to keep the UK in. We aren't hearing it from Remain.

But I would love them to try and convince us why we should join the EU today, assuming we weren't in. Nobody, but nobody has even attempted that. Surely the EU can open our eyes to the benefits?

TCPoliticalBetting

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

An excellent and refreshing article, as one would expect from Ms Cyclefree.

The trouble is, there's no answer to her question. If you ask ten different politicians, from different countries and different political parties, you'll get ten different answers. We often get people telling us what 'the EU' is planning to do, usually on the basis of some daft statement by a powerless MEP, but the EU - like any other political group or group of countries - is not a monolithic organisation with an agreed long-term forward plan, it's a collection of nation states combined with a bureaucracy, a court, and the European parliament. The seat of power within this organisation is not clearly defined, it works by a jostling of competing interests. To complicate matters further, we have vetoes over some of the things which no doubt some of those competing interests would like to happen.

What I would say, though, is that a debate over what the EU should look like does take place, but the UK largely ignores it. We should perhaps take a bit more interest, then we might not so often get surprised.

Maybe. But the Remain focus on economic matters is telling. It is what we want the EU to be about. And it just isn't.

Hits the nail on the head. It was always sold to the UK voters as an economic trading entity. REMAIN are still doing that...

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

Maybe. But the Remain focus on economic matters is telling. It is what we want the EU to be about. And it just isn't.

The EU is not only about economic matters, certainly, but economics is a big chunk of it.

Viceroy

We've heard from the EU what it wants and where it is going. From the founders to past Commissioners, Presidents, leaders of the European Parliament Groupings. Clear as day.

The problem is with the politicians and political parties in this country who won't tell us where it is heading and instead say one thing to us and do the opposite. That's the problem.

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

TCPoliticalBetting

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Which Brexiteers on here are opposed to hearing about the long term plans for the EU?

Viceroy

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Which Brexiteers on here are opposed to hearing about the long term plans for the EU?

Indeed, in fact the frustration among the pro-independence side is exactly that our politicians will not tell us where it is going or are telling outright lies. I would truly love for them to declare for a federal Europe and then we can debate it and see what the public want. That'd be a worthwhile debate rather than the "In Europe but not run by Europe" half house approach we're currently fed by the two major parties.

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

An excellent and refreshing article, as one would expect from Ms Cyclefree.

The trouble is, there's no answer to her question. If you ask ten different politicians, from different countries and different political parties, you'll get ten different answers. We often get people telling us what 'the EU' is planning to do, usually on the basis of some daft statement by a powerless MEP, but the EU - like any other political group or group of countries - is not a monolithic organisation with an agreed long-term forward plan, it's a collection of nation states combined with a bureaucracy, a court, and the European parliament. The seat of power within this organisation is not clearly defined, it works by a jostling of competing interests. To complicate matters further, we have vetoes over some of the things which no doubt some of those competing interests would like to happen.

What I would say, though, is that a debate over what the EU should look like does take place, but the UK largely ignores it. We should perhaps take a bit more interest, then we might not so often get surprised.

The UK ignores it because UK politicians know the public wouldn't like what they hear. And you are wrong about the direction of the EU. It has only travelled in one direction for many years and nothing is changing about that.

It suits Remain and the Europhiles to pretend it is not becoming a political union but they are utterly divorced from reality in this. The treaties and the statements of the EU officials make it absolutely clear what the direction of travel is for the EU.

FrancisUrquhart

STTTTTTUUURRRRIIDDDDGGGEEEEEEE....

Richard_Tyndall

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Um no. It is the Remainders who fear EU honesty about their project.

HurstLlama

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Hey, drop the prejudice. I am for leave, have been for more than 20 years, and I think Mrs. Free's ideas are excellent. It is because at the time of the Maastricht Treaty that I paid attention to what the politicians at home and those in the EU were saying that I formed my view that the UK should leave for the good of all.

I rather suspect that it is our politicians that would not want the EU presidents etc explaining their vision of the the EU in the future.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Which Brexiteers on here are opposed to hearing about the long term plans for the EU?

I think it would be a very good idea to hear what the rest of the club think about it all.
Which means that it will never happen.

taffys

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

An excellent and refreshing article, as one would expect from Ms Cyclefree.

The trouble is, there's no answer to her question. If you ask ten different politicians, from different countries and different political parties, you'll get ten different answers. We often get people telling us what 'the EU' is planning to do, usually on the basis of some daft statement by a powerless MEP, but the EU - like any other political group or group of countries - is not a monolithic organisation with an agreed long-term forward plan, it's a collection of nation states combined with a bureaucracy, a court, and the European parliament. The seat of power within this organisation is not clearly defined, it works by a jostling of competing interests. To complicate matters further, we have vetoes over some of the things which no doubt some of those competing interests would like to happen.

What I would say, though, is that a debate over what the EU should look like does take place, but the UK largely ignores it. We should perhaps take a bit more interest, then we might not so often get surprised.

The UK ignores it because UK politicians know the public wouldn't like what they hear. And you are wrong about the direction of the EU. It has only travelled in one direction for many years and nothing is changing about that.

It suits Remain and the Europhiles to pretend it is not becoming a political union but they are utterly divorced from reality in this. The treaties and the statements of the EU officials make it absolutely clear what the direction of travel is for the EU.

It's increasingly clear there is no semi-detached option. We are either in or out. And if its in, its superstate time.

Richard_Nabavi

Viceroy said:

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense. I don't know why so many Leavers can't understand this point; the reason they are not getting the votes of lots of people in the middle is because they have failed to come up with a coherent alternative plan, having wasted literally years which could have gone into agreeing one. It is absolutely extraordinary that we only - finally - got some clarity on whether the Leave campaign want the UK to sign up to freedom of movement in the last couple of weeks.

LucyJones

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

I'm a "brexiteer" and I thought this was a very interesting piece. I would also contend that, if more people understood the nature of the EU (i.e. that it is a political project with the ultimate aim of building an federal state), then Leave would win fairly easily.

Of course, it suits Cameron at al to pretend otherwise, even though this aim has never been made a secret of:


“The European Union is a state under construction.”
(Elmar Brok, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs)#

“…we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.”
(Romano Prodi, President of EU Commission 1999)

"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU [economic and monetary union] is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe”
(Wim Duisenberg, first president of the EU Central Bank)

geoffw

It may not be easy to get Junker, Mogherini et al, but how about getting the home-grown experts who are or have been commissioners (Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten, Peter Mandelson, Catherine Ashton, Jonathan Hill) to explain the benefits of the EU to us?

Paul_Bedfordshire

FPT.

taffys said:

BenedictWhite said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

BenedictWhite said:

On the subject of the thread... this is a poll which will dishearten leave...

But it's a wee bit early to either count chickens or cry over spilt milk.

As I understand it this poll found Conservative voters breaking 28% for remain. I find that a little odd given that 6 months ago it would have been at least 5 or 10% for leave. I would accept it could have moved, but not that far.

I seem to remember an election in the dim and distant past, 2015 I believe where it was definitely going to be a hung parliament right up to around half way through the count when the Nuneaton result came through.... Since then fiddle factors have changed and changed again during the run up to the vote.

I am glad I haven't got money on this one. (Yet).

To work they need the population to act in a reasonably predictable manner, something that increasingly they are not doing.

Quite.

I had a look though the AV referendum polls today.

All wrong.

To be fair they all got the outcome right but it was much more emphatic than polls suggested.

This is very uncharted territory. My work colleagues are mostly unenthusiastic remainers with one enthusiast (young person likes being in big clubs and cheap holidays, would have loved the Warsaw pact and the gulags then) whereas where I live they are mostly determined leavers. Odd.

I don't mind the polls being way out (its the pollster's look out after all) - as long as they can't be used to convince one side they are beaten before they get to the ballot box. That it is all over bar the shouting, no point you turning up.

There seems to have been a lot of that in the media today, much as there was after Obama spouted his gove.

The remain strategy seems indeed to be to try and make Brexiters feel it is hopeless and that way depress the turnout among brexiters

AnneJGP

TCPoliticalBetting said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

An excellent and refreshing article, as one would expect from Ms Cyclefree.

The trouble is, there's no answer to her question. If you ask ten different politicians, from different countries and different political parties, you'll get ten different answers. We often get people telling us what 'the EU' is planning to do, usually on the basis of some daft statement by a powerless MEP, but the EU - like any other political group or group of countries - is not a monolithic organisation with an agreed long-term forward plan, it's a collection of nation states combined with a bureaucracy, a court, and the European parliament. The seat of power within this organisation is not clearly defined, it works by a jostling of competing interests. To complicate matters further, we have vetoes over some of the things which no doubt some of those competing interests would like to happen.

What I would say, though, is that a debate over what the EU should look like does take place, but the UK largely ignores it. We should perhaps take a bit more interest, then we might not so often get surprised.

Maybe. But the Remain focus on economic matters is telling. It is what we want the EU to be about. And it just isn't.

Hits the nail on the head. It was always sold to the UK voters as an economic trading entity. REMAIN are still doing that...

I am ignoring practically everything claimed by both Leave and Remain.

It seems to me that the seeds of this referendum campaign were sown when the original Common Market was sold to the public on the basis of a lie.

taffys

''Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense.''

You stupid, naive fool. After June 23rd it will be of zero consequence to the EU what Britain's useful idiot remainers want.

They will be calling the shots. And they will be stuffing all sorts of stuff down our throats. AS they head to the superstate they want

taffys

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

FPT.

taffys said:

BenedictWhite said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

BenedictWhite said:

On the subject of the thread... this is a poll which will dishearten leave...

But it's a wee bit early to either count chickens or cry over spilt milk.

As I understand it this poll found Conservative voters breaking 28% for remain. I find that a little odd given that 6 months ago it would have been at least 5 or 10% for leave. I would accept it could have moved, but not that far.

I seem to remember an election in the dim and distant past, 2015 I believe where it was definitely going to be a hung parliament right up to around half way through the count when the Nuneaton result came through.... Since then fiddle factors have changed and changed again during the run up to the vote.

I am glad I haven't got money on this one. (Yet).

To work they need the population to act in a reasonably predictable manner, something that increasingly they are not doing.

Quite.

I had a look though the AV referendum polls today.

All wrong.

To be fair they all got the outcome right but it was much more emphatic than polls suggested.

This is very uncharted territory. My work colleagues are mostly unenthusiastic remainers with one enthusiast (young person likes being in big clubs and cheap holidays, would have loved the Warsaw pact and the gulags then) whereas where I live they are mostly determined leavers. Odd.

I don't mind the polls being way out (its the pollster's look out after all) - as long as they can't be used to convince one side they are beaten before they get to the ballot box. That it is all over bar the shouting, no point you turning up.

There seems to have been a lot of that in the media today, much as there was after Obama spouted his gove.

The remain strategy seems indeed to be to try and make Brexiters feel it is hopeless and that way depress the turnout among brexiters

Absolutely.

Pulpstar

Score not really reflecting the match here.

FrancisUrquhart

Liverpool should be 3 up in this game. I hope it doesn't come back to bite them on the bum.

Richard_Nabavi

taffys said:

''Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense.''

You stupid, naive fool. After June 23rd it will be of zero consequence to the EU what Britain's useful idiot remainers want.

They will be calling the shots. And they will be stuffing all sorts of stuff down our throats. AS they head to the superstate they want

Well, calling intelligent people naive fools is not a terribly clever way of campaigning. And who, exactly, are 'they' who are going to be calling the shots? How are 'they' going to get around the fact that we have treaty protections which prevent them forcing us into a superstate? And, even if 'they' somehow miraculously could do so, they can't then prevent us changing our minds and invoking Article 50 of their own treaty, thus scuppering their dastardly plans.

So, this silly scaremongering about a superstate is not going to impress anyone other than, let us search for a term you'll understand, naive fools.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

taffys said:

''Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense.''

You stupid, naive fool. After June 23rd it will be of zero consequence to the EU what Britain's useful idiot remainers want.

They will be calling the shots. And they will be stuffing all sorts of stuff down our throats. AS they head to the superstate they want

And we will hear all about our influence and seat at the table blah blah blah as we meekly sign up for everything.

Richard_Tyndall

geoffw said:

It may not be easy to get Junker, Mogherini et al, but how about getting the home-grown experts who are or have been commissioners (Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten, Peter Mandelson, Catherine Ashton, Jonathan Hill) to explain the benefits of the EU to us?

Well as recently as the end of April good old Heseltine was claiming the UK should still join the Euro

felix

MarqueeMark said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Why do you jump to that assumption? Very happy to have the EU attempt a positive argument to keep the UK in. We aren't hearing it from Remain.

But I would love them to try and convince us why we should join the EU today, assuming we weren't in. Nobody, but nobody has even attempted that. Surely the EU can open our eyes to the benefits?

MarqueeMark said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Why do you jump to that assumption? Very happy to have the EU attempt a positive argument to keep the UK in. We aren't hearing it from Remain.

But I would love them to try and convince us why we should join the EU today, assuming we weren't in. Nobody, but nobody has even attempted that. Surely the EU can open our eyes to the benefits?

Let's be honest - who do you think would be willing to listen? Boris/Nigel/IDS - even Gove? The fact is that very few even among 'Remainers' view the EU much beyond economis/social benefits and that is fair enough in my view - 'Leavers' mostly just want out - if you feel differently then I fear you are the exception.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

Maybe. But the Remain focus on economic matters is telling. It is what we want the EU to be about. And it just isn't.

The EU is not only about economic matters, certainly, but economics is a big chunk of it.

It's a chunk but I don't think it is what most of our neighbours think it is about. For them it is about political cooperation, risk sharing, common ideals standards and principles, protecting, promoting and projecting European culture and ethics. Economics is really a means to those ends rather than an end in itself.

And by no more means is all of that bad. There is much to be said for European culture, much that we share. It's just that none of our politicians (with the honourable exception of Clegg and, arguably, Mandelson, ) is ever willing to admit this so we miss out like some tiresome guest at a wedding who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So we get the worst of both worlds.

Paul_Bedfordshire

Richard_Tyndall said:

geoffw said:

It may not be easy to get Junker, Mogherini et al, but how about getting the home-grown experts who are or have been commissioners (Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten, Peter Mandelson, Catherine Ashton, Jonathan Hill) to explain the benefits of the EU to us?

Well as recently as the end of April good old Heseltine was claiming the UK should still join the Euro

Bloody National Liberals

felix

Viceroy said:

We've heard from the EU what it wants and where it is going. From the founders to past Commissioners, Presidents, leaders of the European Parliament Groupings. Clear as day.

The problem is with the politicians and political parties in this country who won't tell us where it is heading and instead say one thing to us and do the opposite. That's the problem.

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Wrong on so many levels but a good illustration of the typical 'Leave' mindset.

Richard_Nabavi

DavidL said:

It's a chunk but I don't think it is what most of our neighbours think it is about. For them it is about political cooperation, risk sharing, common ideals standards and principles, protecting, promoting and projecting European culture and ethics. Economics is really a means to those ends rather than end in itself.

And by no more means is all of that bad. There is much to be said for European culture, much that we share. It's just that none of our politicians (with the honourable exception of Clegg and, arguably, Mandelson, ) is ever willing to admit this so we miss out like some tiresome guest at a wedding who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So we get the worst of both worlds.

Or we get the best of both worlds. I must say, that's more how it looks to me, even if I'd have preferred more protections and wouldn't have signed Lisbon.

BenedictWhite

Interesting article from Cyclefree.

Expect Leave to go strong on what Cameron said in January contrasted with now.

felix

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Which Brexiteers on here are opposed to hearing about the long term plans for the EU?

Virtually all of them - because they think they know the answer and they don't like it. Oh and they have a visceral hatred of Cameron and Osborne

Viceroy

Richard_Nabavi said:

Viceroy said:

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense. I don't know why so many Leavers can't understand this point; the reason they are not getting the votes of lots of people in the middle is because they have failed to come up with a coherent alternative plan, having wasted literally years which could have gone into agreeing one. It is absolutely extraordinary that we only - finally - got some clarity on whether the Leave campaign want the UK to sign up to freedom of movement in the last couple of weeks.

You don't understand the EU then. Please go and read a book/what they say themselves.

What is this waffle about an alternative? The alternative is independence like Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and others. Let's face it: you're using the lack of a "plan" as a way to avoid addressing the reality of where this is going and where exactly you sit in regards to the final destination of the project. The plan comes after Article 50 is invoked.

It's either national independence or remaining part of a project that is building a state. I do not want a federal Europe so therefore I am out whether it is the EEA, EFTA, an FTA or nothing. Henry VIII did not put the break with Rome on pause because his Privy Council did not have an EFTA, EEA or FTA area to join. Norway did not fret over dissolving the Union with Sweden at the turn of the 20th century because it did not have the EU and EFTA. India did not turn down independence because of the non-existant of ASEAN.

National independence and sovereignty or the creation of a federal European state are something you either believe in or do not. There's no halfway house about it.

geoffw

Richard_Tyndall said:

geoffw said:

It may not be easy to get Junker, Mogherini et al, but how about getting the home-grown experts who are or have been commissioners (Neil Kinnock, Chris Patten, Peter Mandelson, Catherine Ashton, Jonathan Hill) to explain the benefits of the EU to us?

Well as recently as the end of April good old Heseltine was claiming the UK should still join the Euro

He has always been a EU fanatic. Why? Was it already spelled out on the napkin?

felix

HurstLlama said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Hey, drop the prejudice. I am for leave, have been for more than 20 years, and I think Mrs. Free's ideas are excellent. It is because at the time of the Maastricht Treaty that I paid attention to what the politicians at home and those in the EU were saying that I formed my view that the UK should leave for the good of all.

I rather suspect that it is our politicians that would not want the EU presidents etc explaining their vision of the the EU in the future.

Since your mind is already made up - I think you've kinda missed the whole point of an excellent article.

taffys

''So, this silly scaremongering about a superstate is not going to impress anyone other than, let us search for a term you'll understand, naive fools.''

By taking a bigger and bigger share of our tax pounds (a process willingly assisted by our government, happy to have the shirts off our backs to sponsor their project) the EU will be one day able to command such power and patronage in Britain that the chance of article 50 ever, ever being invoked will be precisely zero. It will become a kind of curio law.

Already the client organisations getting EU money are almost overwhelming. In 5 years they will be overwhelming. There will just be too many people with skin in the game.

You naive fool.

felix

taffys said:

''Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense.''

You stupid, naive fool. After June 23rd it will be of zero consequence to the EU what Britain's useful idiot remainers want.

They will be calling the shots. And they will be stuffing all sorts of stuff down our throats. AS they head to the superstate they want

A shame that such a good article is wasted when the response is thus.

Richard_Nabavi

Viceroy said:

National independence and sovereignty or the creation of a federal European state are something you either believe in or do not. There's no halfway house about it.

So you keep saying, and yet my bank balance is still in pounds sterling, not Euros, and there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of that changing anytime soon. So there very much seems to be a halfway house about it; the plain unarguable facts refute your point.

MonikerDiCanio

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It's a chunk but I don't think it is what most of our neighbours think it is about. For them it is about political cooperation, risk sharing, common ideals standards and principles, protecting, promoting and projecting European culture and ethics. Economics is really a means to those ends rather than end in itself.

And by no more means is all of that bad. There is much to be said for European culture, much that we share. It's just that none of our politicians (with the honourable exception of Clegg and, arguably, Mandelson, ) is ever willing to admit this so we miss out like some tiresome guest at a wedding who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So we get the worst of both worlds.

Or we get the best of both worlds. I must say, that's more how it looks to me, even if I'd have preferred more protections and wouldn't have signed Lisbon.

Pangloss comforts the victims of Lisbon by telling them the treaty is for the best.

TCPoliticalBetting

felix said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Which Brexiteers on here are opposed to hearing about the long term plans for the EU?

Virtually all of them - because they think they know the answer and they don't like it. Oh and they have a visceral hatred of Cameron and Osborne

Please name them.

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

Viceroy said:

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense. I don't know why so many Leavers can't understand this point; the reason they are not getting the votes of lots of people in the middle is because they have failed to come up with a coherent alternative plan, having wasted literally years which could have gone into agreeing one. It is absolutely extraordinary that we only - finally - got some clarity on whether the Leave campaign want the UK to sign up to freedom of movement in the last couple of weeks.

Even if one accepts your comments about why Leave are behind, it has no bearing on the fact that the EU is moving towards a federal state and that we are unable to stop that.

I look forward to your excuses when the next Labour government gives away yet more of our powers to the EU.

HurstLlama

felix said:

HurstLlama said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Hey, drop the prejudice. I am for leave, have been for more than 20 years, and I think Mrs. Free's ideas are excellent. It is because at the time of the Maastricht Treaty that I paid attention to what the politicians at home and those in the EU were saying that I formed my view that the UK should leave for the good of all.

I rather suspect that it is our politicians that would not want the EU presidents etc explaining their vision of the the EU in the future.

Since your mind is already made up - I think you've kinda missed the whole point of an excellent article.

No, my mind may be made up, but I am always open to reasoned argument. Moreover I think it would be an excellent idea for people to make their minds up on the facts of what is being offered rather than these ridiculous scare stories that both sides of the debate seem to be pumping out.

felix

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Which Brexiteers on here are opposed to hearing about the long term plans for the EU?

Virtually all of them - because they think they know the answer and they don't like it. Oh and they have a visceral hatred of Cameron and Osborne

Please name them.

They're filling up the thread - put your reading glasses on

BenedictWhite

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It's a chunk but I don't think it is what most of our neighbours think it is about. For them it is about political cooperation, risk sharing, common ideals standards and principles, protecting, promoting and projecting European culture and ethics. Economics is really a means to those ends rather than end in itself.

And by no more means is all of that bad. There is much to be said for European culture, much that we share. It's just that none of our politicians (with the honourable exception of Clegg and, arguably, Mandelson, ) is ever willing to admit this so we miss out like some tiresome guest at a wedding who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So we get the worst of both worlds.

Or we get the best of both worlds. I must say, that's more how it looks to me, even if I'd have preferred more protections and wouldn't have signed Lisbon.

Wouldn't have signed Lisbon?

And what would the EU have done had you not? (if you were PM)

taffys

National independence and sovereignty or the creation of a federal European state are something you either believe in or do not. There's no halfway house about it.

Absolutely. If we vote remain the chances of us being anything other than absolutely steamrollered are zero.

Cameron will have to spend the next four years of his premiership defending the latest EU power grab before an increasingly incredulous party and country.

And he will deserve it, the c8nt.

geoffw

The BBC could fulfil their mission to inform, educate and entertain and get them to be interviewed by Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It's a chunk but I don't think it is what most of our neighbours think it is about. For them it is about political cooperation, risk sharing, common ideals standards and principles, protecting, promoting and projecting European culture and ethics. Economics is really a means to those ends rather than end in itself.

And by no more means is all of that bad. There is much to be said for European culture, much that we share. It's just that none of our politicians (with the honourable exception of Clegg and, arguably, Mandelson, ) is ever willing to admit this so we miss out like some tiresome guest at a wedding who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So we get the worst of both worlds.

Or we get the best of both worlds. I must say, that's more how it looks to me, even if I'd have preferred more protections and wouldn't have signed Lisbon.

Lisbon was a huge mistake and the lies that were told to get what amounted to a new constitution through were unforgivable, and not just in this country. You can make the argument that national vetoes were by then a recipe for inertia and frustration but the pass was sold and Cameron did not get a tenth of it back.

Richard_Nabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

Even if one accepts your comments about why Leave are behind, it has no bearing on the fact that the EU is moving towards a federal state and that we are unable to stop that.

I look forward to your excuses when the next Labour government gives away yet more of our powers to the EU.

You've just contradicted yourself. Yes, of course, some future UK government could voluntarily accept some increased federalisation (although to be honest I think the chances of that have receded almost to nothingness now). For that matter, if we Leave some future UK government could decide to rejoin, no doubt on worse terms. Or if we Remain a future UK government could decide we should leave. So what? We can't bind future parliaments.

felix

HurstLlama said:

felix said:

HurstLlama said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Hey, drop the prejudice. I am for leave, have been for more than 20 years, and I think Mrs. Free's ideas are excellent. It is because at the time of the Maastricht Treaty that I paid attention to what the politicians at home and those in the EU were saying that I formed my view that the UK should leave for the good of all.

I rather suspect that it is our politicians that would not want the EU presidents etc explaining their vision of the the EU in the future.

Since your mind is already made up - I think you've kinda missed the whole point of an excellent article.

No, my mind may be made up, but I am always open to reasoned argument. Moreover I think it would be an excellent idea for people to make their minds up on the facts of what is being offered rather than these ridiculous scare stories that both sides of the debate seem to be pumping out.

Fair enough - but that is not the prevailing view on here sadly.

Viceroy

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Viceroy said:

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense. I don't know why so many Leavers can't understand this point; the reason they are not getting the votes of lots of people in the middle is because they have failed to come up with a coherent alternative plan, having wasted literally years which could have gone into agreeing one. It is absolutely extraordinary that we only - finally - got some clarity on whether the Leave campaign want the UK to sign up to freedom of movement in the last couple of weeks.

Even if one accepts your comments about why Leave are behind, it has no bearing on the fact that the EU is moving towards a federal state and that we are unable to stop that.

I look forward to your excuses when the next Labour government gives away yet more of our powers to the EU.

Oh he'll be a typical useless Tory then. Good on the anti-EU and tough red lines rhetoric. "Boo yah for Britain. Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have stood for this!" He'll be sniping at Labour and political point scoring but nothing to say on the record of his own party or how he voted when he had the chance.

I have a lot more respect for the federalists who openly say what they want and will debate the subject on its actual principle/merit than the likes of Cameron/Mr Nabavi who duck the issue. At least Mr Juncker knows what he wants and I know what I want.

Richard_Tyndall

felix said:

Viceroy said:

We've heard from the EU what it wants and where it is going. From the founders to past Commissioners, Presidents, leaders of the European Parliament Groupings. Clear as day.

The problem is with the politicians and political parties in this country who won't tell us where it is heading and instead say one thing to us and do the opposite. That's the problem.

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Wrong on so many levels but a good illustration of the typical 'Leave' mindset.

Actually every point he made - with the exception of the claims about who votes for what - was factually correct.

FrancisUrquhart

1-1 in the footy....you just knew it was coming after Liverpool missed so many chances.

Richard_Nabavi

BenedictWhite said:

Wouldn't have signed Lisbon?

And what would the EU have done had you not? (if you were PM)

They would have changed the treaty, of course. Or, if they didn't, well, then things would be as per the pre-Lisbon position.

chestnut

It's refreshing to read something original. Excellent article and proposal. Let us decide on an honest prospectus.

felix

taffys said:

National independence and sovereignty or the creation of a federal European state are something you either believe in or do not. There's no halfway house about it.

Absolutely. If we vote remain the chances of us being anything other than absolutely steamrollered are zero.

Cameron will have to spend the next four years of his premiership defending the latest EU power grab before an increasingly incredulous party and country.

And he will deserve it, the c8nt.

And now they resort to angry and unpleasant abuse of the PM - and not even a vote yet cast in a referendum he gave them. Looks like we're in for another night of it.

Viceroy

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Even if one accepts your comments about why Leave are behind, it has no bearing on the fact that the EU is moving towards a federal state and that we are unable to stop that.

I look forward to your excuses when the next Labour government gives away yet more of our powers to the EU.

You've just contradicted yourself. Yes, of course, some future UK government could voluntarily accept some increased federalisation (although to be honest I think the chances of that have receded almost to nothingness now). For that matter, if we Leave some future UK government could decide to rejoin, no doubt on worse terms. So what? We can't bind future parliaments.

Remainers/Tories such as yourself would have said there's no more chances of more powers going to Brussels after the Maastricht rebellions and Major's opt-outs. Never again would the British Government give powers away you'd have said without a rebellion/referendum.

Oh but it did, did it not? It scrapped the social opt outs. Gone forever. It even tried very hard to join the Eurozone which would've meant the end of an independent monetary system. And only recently it opted *into* Justice and Law provisions when it did not need to.

So forgive us if we find your belief in no more powers being transferred... well, laughable.

Richard_Tyndall

felix said:

HurstLlama said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Hey, drop the prejudice. I am for leave, have been for more than 20 years, and I think Mrs. Free's ideas are excellent. It is because at the time of the Maastricht Treaty that I paid attention to what the politicians at home and those in the EU were saying that I formed my view that the UK should leave for the good of all.

I rather suspect that it is our politicians that would not want the EU presidents etc explaining their vision of the the EU in the future.

Since your mind is already made up - I think you've kinda missed the whole point of an excellent article.

Actually I would suggest it is you who have missed the point.

HereComesIbi

I see David Cameron is once again hanging the sword of Damocles over Leave supporters. This time Priti Patel and John Whttingdale. Apparently, Leave supporters aren't allowed to argue too hard, while Cameron claims terrorists support Brexit. He has become a rather sad hypocrite.

taffys

I am always surprised by the faith remainers have in the EU. Given its track record over the last forty years, and the track record of its champions such as Ted Heath and Tony Blair. But there it is.

felix

Richard_Tyndall said:

felix said:

Viceroy said:

We've heard from the EU what it wants and where it is going. From the founders to past Commissioners, Presidents, leaders of the European Parliament Groupings. Clear as day.

The problem is with the politicians and political parties in this country who won't tell us where it is heading and instead say one thing to us and do the opposite. That's the problem.

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Wrong on so many levels but a good illustration of the typical 'Leave' mindset.

Actually every point he made - with the exception of the claims about who votes for what - was factually correct.

So in other words the article is pointless as you know all the answers and don't like them. Glad that's sorted.

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Even if one accepts your comments about why Leave are behind, it has no bearing on the fact that the EU is moving towards a federal state and that we are unable to stop that.

I look forward to your excuses when the next Labour government gives away yet more of our powers to the EU.

You've just contradicted yourself. Yes, of course, some future UK government could voluntarily accept some increased federalisation (although to be honest I think the chances of that have receded almost to nothingness now). For that matter, if we Leave some future UK government could decide to rejoin, no doubt on worse terms. Or if we Remain a future UK government could decide we should leave. So what? We can't bind future parliaments.

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

felix

Richard_Tyndall said:

felix said:

HurstLlama said:

felix said:

Great article - don't expect the Brexiteers to be enthused though.

Hey, drop the prejudice. I am for leave, have been for more than 20 years, and I think Mrs. Free's ideas are excellent. It is because at the time of the Maastricht Treaty that I paid attention to what the politicians at home and those in the EU were saying that I formed my view that the UK should leave for the good of all.

I rather suspect that it is our politicians that would not want the EU presidents etc explaining their vision of the the EU in the future.

Since your mind is already made up - I think you've kinda missed the whole point of an excellent article.

Actually I would suggest it is you who have missed the point.

Suggest away - won't disturb my rest.

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

taffys said:

''Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense.''

You stupid, naive fool. After June 23rd it will be of zero consequence to the EU what Britain's useful idiot remainers want.

They will be calling the shots. And they will be stuffing all sorts of stuff down our throats. AS they head to the superstate they want

Well, calling intelligent people naive fools is not a terribly clever way of campaigning. And who, exactly, are 'they' who are going to be calling the shots? How are 'they' going to get around the fact that we have treaty protections which prevent them forcing us into a superstate? And, even if 'they' somehow miraculously could do so, they can't then prevent us changing our minds and invoking Article 50 of their own treaty, thus scuppering their dastardly plans.

So, this silly scaremongering about a superstate is not going to impress anyone other than, let us search for a term you'll understand, naive fools.

Well, calling intelligent people naive fools is not a terribly clever way of campaigning

it's what you have been doing since January Richard.

Richard_Nabavi

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

taffys said:

''Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense.''

You stupid, naive fool. After June 23rd it will be of zero consequence to the EU what Britain's useful idiot remainers want.

They will be calling the shots. And they will be stuffing all sorts of stuff down our throats. AS they head to the superstate they want

Well, calling intelligent people naive fools is not a terribly clever way of campaigning. And who, exactly, are 'they' who are going to be calling the shots? How are 'they' going to get around the fact that we have treaty protections which prevent them forcing us into a superstate? And, even if 'they' somehow miraculously could do so, they can't then prevent us changing our minds and invoking Article 50 of their own treaty, thus scuppering their dastardly plans.

So, this silly scaremongering about a superstate is not going to impress anyone other than, let us search for a term you'll understand, naive fools.

Well, calling intelligent people naive fools is not a terribly clever way of campaigning

it's what you have been deoing since January Richard.

Really? Surely not!

felix

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Even if one accepts your comments about why Leave are behind, it has no bearing on the fact that the EU is moving towards a federal state and that we are unable to stop that.

I look forward to your excuses when the next Labour government gives away yet more of our powers to the EU.

You've just contradicted yourself. Yes, of course, some future UK government could voluntarily accept some increased federalisation (although to be honest I think the chances of that have receded almost to nothingness now). For that matter, if we Leave some future UK government could decide to rejoin, no doubt on worse terms. Or if we Remain a future UK government could decide we should leave. So what? We can't bind future parliaments.

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

Oh dear - the torture goes on and on and on.....

HereComesIbi

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It's a chunk but I don't think it is what most of our neighbours think it is about. For them it is about political cooperation, risk sharing, common ideals standards and principles, protecting, promoting and projecting European culture and ethics. Economics is really a means to those ends rather than end in itself.

And by no more means is all of that bad. There is much to be said for European culture, much that we share. It's just that none of our politicians (with the honourable exception of Clegg and, arguably, Mandelson, ) is ever willing to admit this so we miss out like some tiresome guest at a wedding who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So we get the worst of both worlds.

Or we get the best of both worlds. I must say, that's more how it looks to me, even if I'd have preferred more protections and wouldn't have signed Lisbon.

Lisbon was a huge mistake and the lies that were told to get what amounted to a new constitution through were unforgivable, and not just in this country. You can make the argument that national vetoes were by then a recipe for inertia and frustration but the pass was sold and Cameron did not get a tenth of it back.

Are the lies to get Lisbon passed any bigger than the lies Cameron and Osborne and their ilk are telling to win this referendum?

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

BenedictWhite said:

Wouldn't have signed Lisbon?

And what would the EU have done had you not? (if you were PM)

They would have changed the treaty, of course. Or, if they didn't, well, then things would be as per the pre-Lisbon position.

Interesting. So as I recall you have attacked the 'bastards' in the past for their opposition to Maastricht which surrendered large swathes of power to the EU but claim you would have opposed Lisbon which was in fact a much smaller jump in surrender of power than Maastricht.

Richard_Tyndall

felix said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Even if one accepts your comments about why Leave are behind, it has no bearing on the fact that the EU is moving towards a federal state and that we are unable to stop that.

I look forward to your excuses when the next Labour government gives away yet more of our powers to the EU.

You've just contradicted yourself. Yes, of course, some future UK government could voluntarily accept some increased federalisation (although to be honest I think the chances of that have receded almost to nothingness now). For that matter, if we Leave some future UK government could decide to rejoin, no doubt on worse terms. Or if we Remain a future UK government could decide we should leave. So what? We can't bind future parliaments.

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

Oh dear - the torture goes on and on and on.....

Only because you are too dumb to understand the debate.

AlastairMeeks

Cyclefree makes a great suggestion. But the public aren't really that interested in listening properly. And no one voice speaks for the EU (that's half the problem).

Perhaps a more helpful question for our fellow Europeans is not what the EU should be but what they hope for from us.

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

taffys said:

''Since almost no one who intends to vote Remain wants a federal/central European state, that is quite simply nonsense.''

You stupid, naive fool. After June 23rd it will be of zero consequence to the EU what Britain's useful idiot remainers want.

They will be calling the shots. And they will be stuffing all sorts of stuff down our throats. AS they head to the superstate they want

Well, calling intelligent people naive fools is not a terribly clever way of campaigning. And who, exactly, are 'they' who are going to be calling the shots? How are 'they' going to get around the fact that we have treaty protections which prevent them forcing us into a superstate? And, even if 'they' somehow miraculously could do so, they can't then prevent us changing our minds and invoking Article 50 of their own treaty, thus scuppering their dastardly plans.

So, this silly scaremongering about a superstate is not going to impress anyone other than, let us search for a term you'll understand, naive fools.

Well, calling intelligent people naive fools is not a terribly clever way of campaigning

it's what you have been deoing since January Richard.

Really? Surely not!

Well given your average PBer in the comments section from either side is probably a post graduate, has a degree of responsibility in his job and many years experience how else would you describe it ?

Richard_Nabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

There I would agree, but the problem is some people (well represented on this thread) absurdly exaggerate the effect. We are not headed to a superstate, and if we were we can leave anyway. I accept that there is likely to be a further slow transfer of powers; for example, I wouldn't be shocked to see more harmonisation of VAT rules in the next few years. Does that matter to me? On that particular issue, no, not especially, although there might be other issues which would bother me more more. But those have to be set against the economic damage of leaving. To me it is very simply a straightforward trade-off.

Richard_Tyndall

felix said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

felix said:

Viceroy said:

We've heard from the EU what it wants and where it is going. From the founders to past Commissioners, Presidents, leaders of the European Parliament Groupings. Clear as day.

The problem is with the politicians and political parties in this country who won't tell us where it is heading and instead say one thing to us and do the opposite. That's the problem.

The question is, do you want a federal/central European state? If the answer is No then you are for Leave. If Yes, then you are for Remain. It really is that simple.

Wrong on so many levels but a good illustration of the typical 'Leave' mindset.

Actually every point he made - with the exception of the claims about who votes for what - was factually correct.

So in other words the article is pointless as you know all the answers and don't like them. Glad that's sorted.

No the article is very good and I agree with it. It is you who are too dumb to understand it.

runnymede

Good article.

Chances of what Cyclefree wants to happen, happening - zero.

Chances of Cameron, Osborne and co. being honest about what the EU's aims are - zero.

But if we want to find these things out, it isn't hard. The EU makes no secret of what its aims are. They have been clearly written down since the start.

The future continues to be discussed and written about now. It's all there in black and white.

This is why so many people in other EU states are so bemused about our attitude: they understand what the EU is about and largely support it.

They assume we must understand too, so they can't understand when we continually obstruct progress and when we whine about steps towards the EU's final goal which seem perfectly natural to them.

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree makes a great suggestion. But the public aren't really that interested in listening properly. And no one voice speaks for the EU (that's half the problem).

Perhaps a more helpful question for our fellow Europeans is not what the EU should be but what they hope for from us.

Money

correction more money

Alanbrooke

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

There I would agree, but the problem is some people (well represented on this thread) absurdly exaggerate the effect. We are not headed to a superstate, and if we were we can leave anyway. I accept that there is likely to be a further slow transfer of powers; for example, I wouldn't be shocked to see more harmonisation of VAT rules in the next few years. Does that matter to me? On that particular issue, no, not especially, although there might be other issues which would bother me more more. But those have to be set against the economic damage of leaving. To me it is very simply a straightforward trade-off.

Boiled frog

Richard_Tyndall

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

There I would agree, but the problem is some people (well represented on this thread) absurdly exaggerate the effect. We are not headed to a superstate, and if we were we can leave anyway. I accept that there is likely to be a further slow transfer of powers; for example, I wouldn't be shocked to see more harmonisation of VAT rules in the next few years. Does that matter to me? On that particular issue, no, not especially, although there might be other issues which would bother me more more. But those have to be set against the economic damage of leaving. To me it is very simply a straightforward trade-off.

We will have a European army. We will have further controls over the City of London by the Eurozone (the opt out isn't worth the paper it was scrawled on). We will continue the ratchet effect of more and more powers moving to the EU. There is very little at all that can be done about it.

In the end the damage done by staying will be far better than any possible damage done by leaving now.

taffys

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree makes a great suggestion. But the public aren't really that interested in listening properly. And no one voice speaks for the EU (that's half the problem).

Perhaps a more helpful question for our fellow Europeans is not what the EU should be but what they hope for from us.

Money

correction more money

I was going to say to pay for the gargantuan mistakes and imbalances they are creating with the euro, but I guess its the same thing.

AlastairMeeks

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree makes a great suggestion. But the public aren't really that interested in listening properly. And no one voice speaks for the EU (that's half the problem).

Perhaps a more helpful question for our fellow Europeans is not what the EU should be but what they hope for from us.

Money

correction more money

Sounds like the northern Irish then.

BenedictWhite

Richard_Nabavi said:

BenedictWhite said:

Wouldn't have signed Lisbon?

And what would the EU have done had you not? (if you were PM)

They would have changed the treaty, of course. Or, if they didn't, well, then things would be as per the pre-Lisbon position.

As I recall the Lisbon treaty, when it had a different cover and name was rejected by referendum.

If you hadn't signed it I rather suspect there would have been pressure until you did.

HereComesIbi

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

There I would agree, but the problem is some people (well represented on this thread) absurdly exaggerate the effect. We are not headed to a superstate, and if we were we can leave anyway. I accept that there is likely to be a further slow transfer of powers; for example, I wouldn't be shocked to see more harmonisation of VAT rules in the next few years. Does that matter to me? On that particular issue, no, not especially, although there might be other issues which would bother me more more. But those have to be set against the economic damage of leaving. To me it is very simply a straightforward trade-off.

The Eurozone is headed for a superstate. We won't be directly involved but we will be orbiting the black hole all the same. New treaties will not apply to us at first, but the Eurozone will get what they want done over us through the European parliament passing new laws we can't stop amd the ECJ passing new judgements we have to enforce. After a certain period they will start using financial blackmail for stuff they can't force through, as Germany is doing to other states with the migrant quotas. Eventually some Labour government will say we need to tidy up loose ends and sign a new treaty to push us over the event horizon.

Alanbrooke

AlastairMeeks said:

Alanbrooke said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Cyclefree makes a great suggestion. But the public aren't really that interested in listening properly. And no one voice speaks for the EU (that's half the problem).

Perhaps a more helpful question for our fellow Europeans is not what the EU should be but what they hope for from us.

Money

correction more money

Sounds like the northern Irish then.

Absolutely, we know youre saps and rob you. Why work?

Richard_Nabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

We will have a European army. We will have further controls over the City of London by the Eurozone (the opt out isn't worth the paper it was scrawled on). We will continue the ratchet effect of more and more powers moving to the EU. There is very little at all that can be done about it.

In the end the damage done by staying will be far better than any possible damage done by leaving now.

Possibly (although the European Army is scaremongering), but the Leave side won't be able to persuade me that the nebulous risk you refer to outweighs the near-certain economic damage. I did make the point clear several years ago that they should have got their act together on addressing the economic concerns, but nothing was done, and they've been flailing around like beached fish right up until now.

Alistair

TRUMP has announced his SCOTUS short list

http://elections.ap.org/content/trump-unveils-list-11-potential-supreme-court-justices

taffys

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

No I really haven't. The EU works by ratchet effects. Once powers are surrendered they cannot be reclaimed. So unless and until you are ready to leave you have to accept everything that has been given up to the EU even if you don't agree with it. And so we are back to the same point again. Either you accept ever closer union or you leave. There is no turning back the clock and no stopping that slow ratchet effect.

There I would agree, but the problem is some people (well represented on this thread) absurdly exaggerate the effect. We are not headed to a superstate, and if we were we can leave anyway. I accept that there is likely to be a further slow transfer of powers; for example, I wouldn't be shocked to see more harmonisation of VAT rules in the next few years. Does that matter to me? On that particular issue, no, not especially, although there might be other issues which would bother me more more. But those have to be set against the economic damage of leaving. To me it is very simply a straightforward trade-off.

We will have a European army. We will have further controls over the City of London by the Eurozone (the opt out isn't worth the paper it was scrawled on). We will continue the ratchet effect of more and more powers moving to the EU. There is very little at all that can be done about it.

In the end the damage done by staying will be far better than any possible damage done by leaving now.

The risks of staying in far outweigh those of coming out.

The evidence is the EU eats power, money and has little or no respect for self criticism, self appraisal or democracy.

I completely fail to understand the affection some have for it. I genuinely fear it.

edmundintokyo

Richard_Nabavi said:

For that matter, if we Leave some future UK government could decide to rejoin, no doubt on worse terms.

That seems more likely than not. The generation that grew up in the EU will be a bigger proportion of the electorate as older people die, and Scotland would very likely become independent and rejoin the EU (after which Wales may follow) which leaves an England outside the EU a less viable proposition.

FrancisUrquhart

Jurgen Klopp going to need some more magic here.

DavidL

HereComesIbi said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

It's a chunk but I don't think it is what most of our neighbours think it is about. For them it is about political cooperation, risk sharing, common ideals standards and principles, protecting, promoting and projecting European culture and ethics. Economics is really a means to those ends rather than end in itself.

And by no more means is all of that bad. There is much to be said for European culture, much that we share. It's just that none of our politicians (with the honourable exception of Clegg and, arguably, Mandelson, ) is ever willing to admit this so we miss out like some tiresome guest at a wedding who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. So we get the worst of both worlds.

Or we get the best of both worlds. I must say, that's more how it looks to me, even if I'd have preferred more protections and wouldn't have signed Lisbon.

Lisbon was a huge mistake and the lies that were told to get what amounted to a new constitution through were unforgivable, and not just in this country. You can make the argument that national vetoes were by then a recipe for inertia and frustration but the pass was sold and Cameron did not get a tenth of it back.

Are the lies to get Lisbon passed any bigger than the lies Cameron and Osborne and their ilk are telling to win this referendum?

Yes. The political elite of the EU collectively lied to the peoples of Europe about what they were doing after the original constitution had been rejected by everyone who actually got a vote on it. It was shameful and Brown broke his promise to give us a say because he knew what the answer would be.

The somewhat optimistic views of Cameron and Osborne at the present time are just whistling in the dark to keep one's spirits up by comparison.

taffys

It's a fair cop, I'm fully prepared to admit the remainers are beating us, and it looks very much like from the polls that I and some other posters on here have misinterpreted the mood of the country. I admit that.

But as for what comes after, I have no illusions. None whatsoever.