Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
My suggestion ... Those born in Lincolnshire, being superior people, should get three votes each. The commoners (those born outside Lincolnshire), zero votes, and those born in Norfolk, minus one vote.
Ah, you might say, wouldn't that give Norfolk people more influence as they could cast their minus votes for politicians they dislike?
Ah, I would reply, that is to grossly over-estimate the IQ of Norfolk people.
Didn't we fight tooth and nail to prevent prisoners having the right to vote? It's not as though we'd be breaking new ground here.
Enough of the Norfolk bashing from you foreign folk. Lincolnshire, south of the Wash, is like Norfolk if someone ironed it. The most soulless, flat expanse of land in the UK. Pretend northerners that serve only as a human shield against the incursion of Brummies and Whippet botherers. It will serve as a useful farm colony for the kingdom of the Wuffingas once we secede.
Norfolk...or Norwich is the perfect place to downsize too. The GT is particularly pleasant, tranquil, easy access to the City. The airport connects you to anywhere via Amsterdam. I'm off to Florence this afternoon and will leave home today at 4.15 in time to get a pizza at my favourite restaurant in Florence before 11.00. All no hassle. The Norfolk coastline is sublime. We are just discovering the pubs, food and culture. It's liberal, and green and chilled.... full of wonderful parks, quirky churches and indie shops. The weather here is better than just about every part of the UK...more sunny days.
Ill have you voting for my Wuffingas party by 2022.
Barnier and May of one mind: Brexit means Brexit. No adjective.
It's going to be a choice of a hard Brexit or no Brexit....that choice must be offered again to the British public via a GE or plebiscite... who this time will have had the benefit of hindsight.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
They claim it's a choice the UK doesn't have, unlike far smaller successful countries, dominated by far larger ones like Canada and Australia, because Trade.
Or something.
Which small countries seceded from Canada or Australia and make a success of it? Just curious ...
Papua New Guinea
Of course Canada didn't truly secede from the Empire until 1982 when it got control of its constitution from Westminster. I believe they've done OK since then.
"Some elements of our media would rather see the UK fail than Brexit succeed" - Liam Fox in the Commons
Liam Fox trying Donald Trump's tactics.
When Kier Starmer lies openly about the Euratom agreement over the last few days, and not one National Paper or Broadcaster calls him out on it, I'd say Dr Fox has a bloody good case. If not for talking the UK down directly, certainly for being totally bloody ignorant of any facts and acting as a mouthpiece for liars or incompetents.
Look at the Volvo story - apparently abandoning fossil fuels from 2019. It was absolute rubbish, repeated on Sky and BBC. What they're doing is designing hybrids from 2019. Hardly a good record on facts either.
"Look at the Volvo story - apparently abandoning fossil fuels from 2019." It looks like it's you that has the facts wrong, that's not what the BBC or indeed Volvo have said.
"It is also worth asking just how electric we are talking. Volvo said it would introduce a "portfolio of electrified cars across its model range, embracing fully electric cars, plug-in hybrid cars and mild-hybrid cars". That covers a wide range of outcomes." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40511024
Yeah, but that's not how it was originally portrayed and certainly not by the paper review on Sky last night. But as to the wider point - was Starmer somehow right about Euratom not being part of the EU?
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
They claim it's a choice the UK doesn't have, unlike far smaller successful countries, dominated by far larger ones like Canada and Australia, because Trade.
Or something.
Which small countries seceded from Canada or Australia and make a success of it? Just curious ...
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
My suggestion ... Those born in Lincolnshire, being superior people, should get three votes each. The commoners (those born outside Lincolnshire), zero votes, and those born in Norfolk, minus one vote.
Ah, you might say, wouldn't that give Norfolk people more influence as they could cast their minus votes for politicians they dislike?
Ah, I would reply, that is to grossly over-estimate the IQ of Norfolk people.
Didn't we fight tooth and nail to prevent prisoners having the right to vote? It's not as though we'd be breaking new ground here.
Enough of the Norfolk bashing from you foreign folk. Lincolnshire, south of the Wash, is like Norfolk if someone ironed it. The most soulless, flat expanse of land in the UK. Pretend northerners that serve only as a human shield against the incursion of Brummies and Whippet botherers. It will serve as a useful farm colony for the kingdom of the Wuffingas once we secede.
Norfolk...or Norwich is the perfect place to downsize too. The GT is particularly pleasant, tranquil, easy access to the City. The airport connects you to anywhere via Amsterdam. I'm off to Florence this afternoon and will leave home today at 4.15 in time to get a pizza at my favourite restaurant in Florence before 11.00. All no hassle. The Norfolk coastline is sublime. We are just discovering the pubs, food and culture. It's liberal, and green and chilled.... full of wonderful parks, quirky churches and indie shops. The weather here is better than just about every part of the UK...more sunny days.
Ill have you voting for my Wuffingas party by 2022.
Compiling my list of the best GT pubs.... The Alexendra...wonderful, traditional vibe; the York, Unthank, Bellevue and Garden House and Black Horse...all push it a close...the one opposite the Black Horse is nice too...a mediterannean feel, the Eaton Cottage is good for the footie; the Warwick Social is on my dog walk route but a little bit footballer wives...and the Blue Joanna and Lust for Liquor are great cocktail places...the Mulberry has changed hands or decor...we haven't tried it since (it was little sad before)...the Green Grocer serves a nice pint too whilst you wait for the takeaway...
Mr. Roger, if we remain in the EU we'll be subject to ever more integration, the EU Army and QMV imposing laws upon us.
Short term economic pain is something that can be recovered, unpleasant as it is.
What's wrong with an EU army? NATO is looking like a concept whose time has passed so the UK is probably going to end up contributing to some European security apparatus anyway.
I don't think Norway fully knew what it wanted when it voted 52/48% against, 1994. The political class said Yes. Some oldies thought the EU was a threat to the country's Lutheranism and said No.
With adjustments to fudge freedom of movement of 'labour' vs. that of 'people', Norway-like terms seem the answer to dissatisfy the fewest possible people for an almost indefinite future.
If there isn't a decent compromise, I'd want to Remain and move full speed ahead to Ever Closer Union, in which case f*** the 'loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists. Many are on the Tory right; a few are in the cabinet.
If you classify those opposing Euro membership and federal governance as 'loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists' then I suspect you would be giving that label to a large majority of the country.
But, we know that even amongst those who throw around those terms at Leavers, few are true enthusiasts for federal governance.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
Mr. Roger, if we remain in the EU we'll be subject to ever more integration, the EU Army and QMV imposing laws upon us.
Short term economic pain is something that can be recovered, unpleasant as it is.
I agree. We've made a total horlicks of it and all we can do now is prostate ourselves in front of the 27 and ask for understanding. Many of those countries have issues with their own right wing so they should show some mercy but I agree we have forfeited the privileged status we had before. As for accepting unnecessary economic pain there is no chance. The country is divided and going apoplectic as it is.
Roger - the country's been divided for years. It hasn't become any more divided just because the wrong side won.
It's not because the wrong side won it's the nature of the division. Old V Young Educated V Uneducated.We're forming two tribes like the Hutus and the Tutsis in Ruanda.
Mr. Roger, if we remain in the EU we'll be subject to ever more integration, the EU Army and QMV imposing laws upon us.
Short term economic pain is something that can be recovered, unpleasant as it is.
What's wrong with an EU army? NATO is looking like a concept whose time has passed so the UK is probably going to end up contributing to some European security apparatus anyway.
The number of countries that can realistically stand up to Russia is two: America and China. We need to be in an alliance with one of them. NATO fits the bill. The EU does not.
That really depends. Russia lacks the ability to complete a conventional military invasion of Western Europe, and in truth Moscow would be lit up like a Christmas tree in nuclear oblivion long before Russian troops reached the Rhine, along with all the unpleasant, apocalyptic consequences of that for us all as the missiles fly. There's little point being allied with either or any of them. If Russian ships are docking in British ports it's game over anyway.
Why would Russia want to reach the Rhine or Grimsby? Some of the old iron curtain countries, at a stretch; former Soviet republics, more likely. The only likely immediate change is a higher RAF fuel bill as the Russian Air Force buzzes the EU Army's border defences.
Precisely. So we don't need to be allied to anyone against them. They aren't a threat.
Then what is the EU Army for? Are we expecting an invasion from the Vatican?
My suggestion ... Those born in Lincolnshire, being superior people, should get three votes each. The commoners (those born outside Lincolnshire), zero votes, and those born in Norfolk, minus one vote.
Ah, you might say, wouldn't that give Norfolk people more influence as they could cast their minus votes for politicians they dislike?
Ah, I would reply, that is to grossly over-estimate the IQ of Norfolk people.
Didn't we fight tooth and nail to prevent prisoners having the right to vote? It's not as though we'd be breaking new ground here.
Enough of the Norfolk bashing from you foreign folk. Lincolnshire, south of the Wash, is like Norfolk if someone ironed it. The most soulless, flat expanse of land in the UK. Pretend northerners that serve only as a human shield against the incursion of Brummies and Whippet botherers. It will serve as a useful farm colony for the kingdom of the Wuffingas once we secede.
Norfolk...or Norwich is the perfect place to downsize too. The GT is particularly pleasant, tranquil, easy access to the City. The airport connects you to anywhere via Amsterdam. I'm off to Florence this afternoon and will leave home today at 4.15 in time to get a pizza at my favourite restaurant in Florence before 11.00. All no hassle. The Norfolk coastline is sublime. We are just discovering the pubs, food and culture. It's liberal, and green and chilled.... full of wonderful parks, quirky churches and indie shops. The weather here is better than just about every part of the UK...more sunny days.
Ill have you voting for my Wuffingas party by 2022.
Compiling my list of the best GT pubs.... The Alexendra...wonderful, traditional vibe; the York, Unthank, Bellevue and Garden House and Black Horse...all push it a close...the one opposite the Black Horse is nice too...a mediterannean feel, the Eaton Cottage is good for the footie; the Warwick Social is on my dog walk route but a little bit footballer wives...and the Blue Joanna and Lust for Liquor are great cocktail places...the Mulberry has changed hands or decor...we haven't tried it since (it was little sad before)...the Green Grocer serves a nice pint too whilst you wait for the takeaway...
Mr. Roger, if we remain in the EU we'll be subject to ever more integration, the EU Army and QMV imposing laws upon us.
Short term economic pain is something that can be recovered, unpleasant as it is.
What's wrong with an EU army? NATO is looking like a concept whose time has passed so the UK is probably going to end up contributing to some European security apparatus anyway.
The number of countries that can realistically stand up to Russia is two: America and China. We need to be in an alliance with one of them. NATO fits the bill. The EU does not.
That really depends. Russia lacks the ability to complete a conventional military invasion of Western Europe, and in truth Moscow would be lit up like a Christmas tree in nuclear oblivion long before Russian troops reached the Rhine, along with all the unpleasant, apocalyptic consequences of that for us all as the missiles fly. There's little point being allied with either or any of them. If Russian ships are docking in British ports it's game over anyway.
Why would Russia want to reach the Rhine or Grimsby? Some of the old iron curtain countries, at a stretch; former Soviet republics, more likely. The only likely immediate change is a higher RAF fuel bill as the Russian Air Force buzzes the EU Army's border defences.
Precisely. So we don't need to be allied to anyone against them. They aren't a threat.
Then what is the EU Army for? Are we expecting an invasion from the Vatican?
That's up to the E.U.. I'm pointing out the UK doesn't need to be involved with any of them.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
They claim it's a choice the UK doesn't have, unlike far smaller successful countries, dominated by far larger ones like Canada and Australia, because Trade.
Or something.
Which small countries seceded from Canada or Australia and make a success of it? Just curious ...
What a bizarre comment.
Why? You compared two unequal situations
1) Countries that have never been "joined" legally in a union, but who currently are trading successfully 2) Us leaving a union we have been part of and making a success of our trade
Since 1 and 2 above are not comparable, I am merely asking for you to offer a comparison to number 2
Barnier and May of one mind: Brexit means Brexit. No adjective.
It's going to be a choice of a hard Brexit or no Brexit....that choice must be offered again to the British public via a GE or plebiscite... who this time will have had the benefit of hindsight.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
From my point of view it's more complicated than that. The EU is a multilateral body in a fractious continent of nation states. At one level the EU's problem is that it is NOT a superstate and will never be one - because no-one wants it to be a superstate. Its lack of democratic accountability stems from that fact. Its parliament is useless and undemocratic because fundamentally no-one wants it to be really useful or democratic and in doing so supplant the nation states. So the EU relies too much on horsetrading between national governments and the application of rules. It cuts out individual voters from investing in the institution.
As a result, the EU is flawed, but it's a flawed for a reason. The inhabitants of Europe could collectively decide it's not worth it and so return to normal European entropy. Unless and until they do decide to unravel it all, the UK has no choice but to deal with the EU on its terms. Until the Leave tendency are honest about that, we are not going to get a good or stable outcome.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
They claim it's a choice the UK doesn't have, unlike far smaller successful countries, dominated by far larger ones like Canada and Australia, because Trade.
Or something.
Which small countries seceded from Canada or Australia and make a success of it? Just curious ...
Papua New Guinea
Of course Canada didn't truly secede from the Empire until 1982 when it got control of its constitution from Westminster. I believe they've done OK since then.
My suggestion ... Those born in Lincolnshire, being superior people, should get three votes each. The commoners (those born outside Lincolnshire), zero votes, and those born in Norfolk, minus one vote.
Ah, you might say, wouldn't that give Norfolk people more influence as they could cast their minus votes for politicians they dislike?
Ah, I would reply, that is to grossly over-estimate the IQ of Norfolk people.
Didn't we fight tooth and nail to prevent prisoners having the right to vote? It's not as though we'd be breaking new ground here.
Enough of the Norfolk bashing from you foreign folk. Lincolnshire, south of the Wash, is like Norfolk if someone ironed it. The most soulless, flat expanse of land in the UK. Pretend northerners that serve only as a human shield against the incursion of Brummies and Whippet botherers. It will serve as a useful farm colony for the kingdom of the Wuffingas once we secede.
Coming South from Brummie land via Lincolnshire would be as bizaare as going to Birmingham by way of Beach Head. From London!
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
It is ideologies that cause wars not nation states. The existence of nation states is what has allowed some people at least the good fortune to stay out of wars.
Barnier and May of one mind: Brexit means Brexit. No adjective.
It's going to be a choice of a hard Brexit or no Brexit....that choice must be offered again to the British public via a GE or plebiscite... who this time will have had the benefit of hindsight.
That was exactly the alternative last time.
Then we'll have the same result won't we? Brexiteers should not worry about a second vote.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Whilst of course maintaining our sovereignty as we have done these past few hundred years, inside or outside the EU.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
'course they're not. But the NPV of their costs, in a rising inflationary and interest rate environment, are positive.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
"Some elements of our media would rather see the UK fail than Brexit succeed" - Liam Fox in the Commons
Liam Fox trying Donald Trump's tactics.
When Kier Starmer lies openly about the Euratom agreement over the last few days, and not one National Paper or Broadcaster calls him out on it, I'd say Dr Fox has a bloody good case. If not for talking the UK down directly, certainly for being totally bloody ignorant of any facts and acting as a mouthpiece for liars or incompetents.
Look at the Volvo story - apparently abandoning fossil fuels from 2019. It was absolute rubbish, repeated on Sky and BBC. What they're doing is designing hybrids from 2019. Hardly a good record on facts either.
"Look at the Volvo story - apparently abandoning fossil fuels from 2019." It looks like it's you that has the facts wrong, that's not what the BBC or indeed Volvo have said.
"It is also worth asking just how electric we are talking. Volvo said it would introduce a "portfolio of electrified cars across its model range, embracing fully electric cars, plug-in hybrid cars and mild-hybrid cars". That covers a wide range of outcomes." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40511024
Yeah, but that's not how it was originally portrayed and certainly not by the paper review on Sky last night. But as to the wider point - was Starmer somehow right about Euratom not being part of the EU?
No point blaming the BBC or Sky for what the papers say, is there?
Barnier and May of one mind: Brexit means Brexit. No adjective.
It's going to be a choice of a hard Brexit or no Brexit....that choice must be offered again to the British public via a GE or plebiscite... who this time will have had the benefit of hindsight.
That was exactly the alternative last time.
Then we'll have the same result won't we? Brexiteers should not worry about a second vote.
Actually no - the result would be much more Brexity. People don't like being asked twice. See Winchester as the classic example but there are many others available to peruse at your browsing leisure.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
It is ideologies that cause wars not nation states. The existence if nation states is what has allowed some people at least the good fortune to stay out of wars.
Nationalism or tribalism (sectarianism/religion) is probably responsible for 80% of conflicts......wars fought over ideology were a curious aspect of 20th century history....but as we see now in Columbia the appetite to kill each other over ideas is dwindling.....
I developed a natural repulsion to nationalism as a small child...I saw it's ugliness play out on the football terraces....
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Really though its about pissing on the poor in the rest of the world and growing fat on Cassoulet. Like everything else. The continuing dominance and economic facism of the West. But you know, cheap holidays and a chance to work in Turin.
It's about improving the standards of those countries within the EU. One of its great achievments. I agree we should spread the largesse wider. Maybe get Turkey on board. It's come on hugely in the last ten years. A joining date and it would transform the place.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
I really don't want to rerun the referendum but it was run last time between Soft Brexit, or let's be as vague as possible about what Brexit means so you can project your own desires on it, campaigned by Leave, who won, and No Brexit, campaigned by Remain, who lost.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
On the ultra-remainer side all that talk of “respecting the result” is out the window. Listen, they say, you can feel it in the air! On Twitter! And in the downbeat expression of some bloke from the Treasury who they ran into slightly pissed at one of London’s summer parties where he said that it won’t happen now, but let’s overlook that he never wanted it to happen in the first place. So confirmation bias. But we can stop this! They’re on the run! Let’s join the euro! No, sorry, got carried away there. Let’s beg them to overlook Article 50 and pretend all this never happened! Or reapply! Where do we sign?! Meanwhile, although the EU is losing its second largest contributor, and the country that houses London, which makes the eurozone debt machine go round, the EU is nonetheless presented widely as being in the most extraordinarily strong position, while poor old Britain sinks into the sea.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Really though its about pissing on the poor in the rest of the world and growing fat on Cassoulet. Like everything else. The continuing dominance and economic facism of the West. But you know, cheap holidays and a chance to work in Turin.
It's about improving the standards of those countries within the EU. One of its great achievments. I agree we should spread the largesse wider. Maybe get Turkey on board. It's come on hugely in the last ten years. A joining date and it would transform the place.
Barnier and May of one mind: Brexit means Brexit. No adjective.
It's going to be a choice of a hard Brexit or no Brexit....that choice must be offered again to the British public via a GE or plebiscite... who this time will have had the benefit of hindsight.
That was exactly the alternative last time.
Then we'll have the same result won't we? Brexiteers should not worry about a second vote.
Actually no - the result would be much more Brexity. People don't like being asked twice. See Winchester as the classic example but there are many others available to peruse at your browsing leisure.
Agtee with the principle..... part of the reason May did so badly,............. but don’t think the Winchester situation is comparable.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
Actually the shift to Neo liberal, deindustrialised economics began apace in 1976......the Thatcher Govt went too hard and caused much more hardship than was necessary...
Joining the common market in the 70's with all the advantages that gave to our businesses propelled us forwards to the prosperity of the 90's and naughties....
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
"Some elements of our media would rather see the UK fail than Brexit succeed" - Liam Fox in the Commons
Liam Fox trying Donald Trump's tactics.
When Kier Starmer lies openly about the Euratom agreement over the last few days, and not one National Paper or Broadcaster calls him out on it, I'd say Dr Fox has a bloody good case. If not for talking the UK down directly, certainly for being totally bloody ignorant of any facts and acting as a mouthpiece for liars or incompetents.
Look at the Volvo story - apparently abandoning fossil fuels from 2019. It was absolute rubbish, repeated on Sky and BBC. What they're doing is designing hybrids from 2019. Hardly a good record on facts either.
"Look at the Volvo story - apparently abandoning fossil fuels from 2019." It looks like it's you that has the facts wrong, that's not what the BBC or indeed Volvo have said.
"It is also worth asking just how electric we are talking. Volvo said it would introduce a "portfolio of electrified cars across its model range, embracing fully electric cars, plug-in hybrid cars and mild-hybrid cars". That covers a wide range of outcomes." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40511024
Yeah, but that's not how it was originally portrayed and certainly not by the paper review on Sky last night. But as to the wider point - was Starmer somehow right about Euratom not being part of the EU?
No point blaming the BBC or Sky for what the papers say, is there?
No, and I'm not really - but it shows a complete lack of inquisition. After the noise that has been made, all of the above should have made the cursory check necessary to scrutinise Starmer's statement. They didn't.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
"What we have come up with—I hope to persuade her that this is a very worthwhile aim—is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have, but also enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to go and form trade deals with the rest of the world, which is the real upside of leaving the European Union"
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
Democratic states...like Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy...and then you have terrible civil wars where minorities are oppressed through democracies... like Sri Lanka....
Churchill understood that the best way to secure peace and prosperity was through international institutions....Brexit and Trump play fast and loose with the gains we have made over the last seventy years or so...
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
We did alright because Thatcher used the opportunity of North Sea Oil to restructure the British economy. Again nothing to do with the EU.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
Actually the shift to Neo liberal, deindustrialised economics began apace in 1976......the Thatcher Govt went too hard and caused much more hardship than was necessary...
Joining the common market in the 70's with all the advantages that gave to our businesses propelled us forwards to the prosperity of the 90's and naughties....
Quite a remarkably radical case of revisionism from you Tyson which bears absolutely no relation to reality.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
I don't tend to push the EU has ensured peace in Europe line because you can't touch and feel that peace, nor can you eat it. It doesn't mean it's unreal. Let's say the EU provides a forum in which countries of a normally warlike continent can with goodwill hammer out their differences. Nevertheless if the EU doesn't deliver practical benefits of the kind Beverly lists, it fails. Ensuring peace is not enough if we end up poorer.
The best argument for Leave ultimately is the sovereignty one. Let's be masters of our own ship. I like the sound of that. But just as with peace, you can't touch, feel or eat that sovereignty. Unless leaving the EU delivers practical benefits it will be a failure.
On that practical level, EU membership wins across the board. Leavers have not come up with a single realistic practical benefit for Leave, it doesn't solve a single real problem we have, it makes several real problems we do have more difficult to to deal with.
And because we lose influence at the same time as gaining control, we actually end up with less real say over destiny, not more. That makes the sovereignty argument moot.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
We did alright because Thatcher used the opportunity of North Sea Oil to restructure the British economy. Again nothing to do with the EU.
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that, for example, the deregulated City did not benefit from the UK's membership of the EU. The UK economy was restructured and so much better placed to take advantage of the emerging single market on its doorstep.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
I don't tend to push the EU has ensured peace in Europe line because you can't touch and feel that peace, nor can you eat it. It doesn't mean it's unreal. Let's say the EU provides a forum in which countries of a normally warlike continent can with goodwill hammer out their differences. Nevertheless if the EU doesn't deliver practical benefits of the kind Beverly lists, it fails. Ensuring peace is not enough if we end up poorer.
The best argument for Leave ultimately is the sovereignty one. Let's be masters of our own ship. I like the sound of that. But just as with peace, you can't touch, feel or eat that sovereignty. Unless leaving the EU delivers practical benefits it will be a failure.
On that practical level, EU membership wins across the board. Leavers have not come up with a single realistic practical benefit for Leave, it doesn't solve a single real problem we have, it makes several real problems we do have more difficult to to deal with.
And because we lose influence at the same time as gaining control, we actually end up with less real say over destiny, not more. That makes the sovereignty argument moot.
I was and am firmly a member of the pain and gain school of thought. I just cannot see how what we gain in practical terms from leaving the EU outweighs the practical harm that leaving will cause.
Nationalism or tribalism (sectarianism/religion) is probably responsible for 80% of conflicts......wars fought over ideology were a curious aspect of 20th century history....but as we see now in Columbia the appetite to kill each other over ideas is dwindling.....
I developed a natural repulsion to nationalism as a small child...I saw it's ugliness play out on the football terraces....
What you saw was tribalism which exists in every territory irrespective of the form of governance. It existed long before the nation state and indeed the need to reduce it was one of the driving forces behind the treaties that established the concept and reality of nation states.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
I really don't want to rerun the referendum but it was run last time between Soft Brexit, or let's be as vague as possible about what Brexit means so you can project your own desires on it, campaigned by Leave, who won, and No Brexit, campaigned by Remain, who lost.
No, it really wasn't. The referendum was fought between remainers threatening recession, punishment budgets and world war three, and on the other side Leave offered £350 million to the NHS if we left and immediate invasion by ten million jihadist Turks if we stayed.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
Norway used their oil revenues for infrastructure and a sovereign wealth fund.
Morning all from the sunny sandpit. A great article from @AlastairMeeks, it's good to see that there is some good experience even among the new intake of MPs which bodes well for the future. Look forward to the Labour MPs' article too.
A senior former minister told the Standard: “This parliament can exert a really powerful influence because everything changed on June 8 when the Prime Minister lost her majority.
Mrs May will realise how much things have changed when she starts to lose amendments on the Repeal Bill.” Support has grown among backbenchers for a deal that would keep the UK in the European Economic Area, which Mrs May flatly ruled out.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
The nation states supply the bureaucrats. The nation states make up the Council and we, the electorate, supply MEPs who are increasingly taking power over the bureaucrats. Democracy is there but a bit more indirectly than we have been used to.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
Democratic States only very rarely go to war with each other. It's democracy and the rule of law that generates stable relations between States.
Democratic states...like Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy...and then you have terrible civil wars where minorities are oppressed through democracies... like Sri Lanka....
Churchill understood that the best way to secure peace and prosperity was through international institutions....Brexit and Trump play fast and loose with the gains we have made over the last seventy years or so...
Exactly!
(And last night's toast dripping with butter and downed with green tea ..... sublime)
@faisalislam: ..in April PM told me: "will be possible to continue trade arrangements with countries we've previously had through EU when we are outside."
@faisalislam: At last g20, I was told that Korean President particularly exercised by Brexit impact on v successful EU-Korea deal, helped boost UK exports
@faisalislam: ... seems difficult to see the legal underpinning for simply "cutting & pasting" the EU's 50 plus trade deals - without agreed UK-EU deal
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
Norway used their oil revenues for infrastructure and a sovereign wealth fund.
Yes that is true - successive governments have treated it as current income, to borrow Ed Conway's phrase.
Edit: of course its prospect also helped us during Callaghan/Healey's IMF negotiations.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
We did alright because Thatcher used the opportunity of North Sea Oil to restructure the British economy. Again nothing to do with the EU.
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that, for example, the deregulated City did not benefit from the UK's membership of the EU. The UK economy was restructured and so much better placed to take advantage of the emerging single market on its doorstep.
The City didn't much. There's no single market in financial services
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
They claim it's a choice the UK doesn't have, unlike far smaller successful countries, dominated by far larger ones like Canada and Australia, because Trade.
Or something.
Which small countries seceded from Canada or Australia and make a success of it? Just curious ...
What a bizarre comment.
Why? You compared two unequal situations
1) Countries that have never been "joined" legally in a union, but who currently are trading successfully 2) Us leaving a union we have been part of and making a success of our trade
Since 1 and 2 above are not comparable, I am merely asking for you to offer a comparison to number 2
So your argument is actually about the frictional costs of leaving?
My view is the costs are exaggerated, the economic benefits of remaining also so, and I think we can be just as successful outside as similar comparable countries.
You Remainers really need to decide if your line of attack is that Britain has always been an independent country, or it's no longer one but shouldn't quit a supranational to become one.
Good to see @HenryGManson back with the tennis tips, I'm on for beer money.
BAgdhatis match had started by the time I saw the tip, nevertheless on the Rublev bet. This is counted as a winner if Rublev wins the first two sets even which is a nice Paddy special to further enhance the value.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
I really don't want to rerun the referendum but it was run last time between Soft Brexit, or let's be as vague as possible about what Brexit means so you can project your own desires on it, campaigned by Leave, who won, and No Brexit, campaigned by Remain, who lost.
What do you mean?
We've been re-running it daily on here for over a year.
Mr. Ace, NATO is about multi-lateral co-operation between nation states. The EU is about dragging power from nation states to a central bureaucracy that is not and cannot be accountable to the people because there is no demos, no unifying identity that applies to people across the EU.
What would the purpose be? Would the EU Army run to the rescue if the Falklands were invaded? How would the command structure work? Where would the accountability be? How would the funding work? What problem would an EU Army be solving that could not be addressed by NATO?
The British people just voted to leave the EU. The idea they'd be happy at having their armed forces become a military wing under the command of Brussels is, shall we say, optimistic.
William Glenn apart, Remainers never attempt explain why this shift power from nation States to a central bureaucracy is a good thing. They just say either it's not happening, or that the EU is crap but they'll do horrible things to us if we leave.
Its not about power its freedom to move freedom to work freedom to travel freedom to employ people from a pool ten times bigger than our own without restriction. It's about a pooling of resources for the common good. They're not difficult concepts.
Those seem like extremely modest benefits to me, and certainly not worth the loss of self-government which is entailed.
I think it's a benefit people support ideologically, rather than practically.
For me it's about economics too....we limped into the EU as the sick man of Europe and it looks like we are limping out too in a pretty damned unhealthy state...
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
We did alright because of Thatcher not because of the EU.
We did alright because of North Sea Oil.
We did alright because Thatcher used the opportunity of North Sea Oil to restructure the British economy. Again nothing to do with the EU.
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that, for example, the deregulated City did not benefit from the UK's membership of the EU. The UK economy was restructured and so much better placed to take advantage of the emerging single market on its doorstep.
The City didn't much. There's no single market in financial services
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
I really don't want to rerun the referendum but it was run last time between Soft Brexit, or let's be as vague as possible about what Brexit means so you can project your own desires on it, campaigned by Leave, who won, and No Brexit, campaigned by Remain, who lost.
Corbyn will be winning on this basis in 2022 more than likely. We should accept that disastrous result the same as Brexit.
There is a lot of piss and wind spoken on both sides of the Brexit debate.
That Barnier statement seems perfectly reasonable to me, and consistent with the EU's position for the last year.
It's funny how "statement of the bleedin obvious" should be a "blow" - the only people who've been rumbled are the peddlers of a mythical "Soft Brexit" - they've been told before it doesn't exist.
I think it's being replaced by "No Brexit".....
Rules of origin checks, and checks on regulatory equivalence, are consequences on leaving the customs union and single market, yes.
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
But they will increase the cost of doing business and make the UK a less attractive location for inward investment. They will cause significant pain for very little discernible gain.
Remainers continue to switch between "catastrophe" and "not a catastrophe but not worth it".
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
Catastrophe or not, it is yet to be seen - nevertheless it was voted for. And must be carried through. Same as the future election of Corbyn in 2022.
Comments
Of course Canada didn't truly secede from the Empire until 1982 when it got control of its constitution from Westminster. I believe they've done OK since then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40516483
Not bad.
Rural based society too. Happy days.
The benefits? The obvious one is that life is nice and dull and boring. No wars, no border conflicts, etc. Business life is nice and dull - just get on with stuff. No trade disputes, no border checks, no tariffs, work anywhere, etc. Healthcare works reasonably well across borders, phone tariffs and roaming charges just got squished, etc, etc. There is a nice long list of nice, dull boring stuff that just works and gets very slowly better. Harmonisation of standards.
The history of nation states is largely one of conflict and instability. Perhaps it is time that we gave dullness a go.
The Alexendra...wonderful, traditional vibe; the York, Unthank, Bellevue and Garden House and Black Horse...all push it a close...the one opposite the Black Horse is nice too...a mediterannean feel, the Eaton Cottage is good for the footie; the Warwick Social is on my dog walk route but a little bit footballer wives...and the Blue Joanna and Lust for Liquor are great cocktail places...the Mulberry has changed hands or decor...we haven't tried it since (it was little sad before)...the Green Grocer serves a nice pint too whilst you wait for the takeaway...
Notice anything missing?
They aren't going to "sink" Britain.
Our forty year period inside the EU...we did alright barring the odd crisis...
1) Countries that have never been "joined" legally in a union, but who currently are trading successfully
2) Us leaving a union we have been part of and making a success of our trade
Since 1 and 2 above are not comparable, I am merely asking for you to offer a comparison to number 2
As a result, the EU is flawed, but it's a flawed for a reason. The inhabitants of Europe could collectively decide it's not worth it and so return to normal European entropy. Unless and until they do decide to unravel it all, the UK has no choice but to deal with the EU on its terms. Until the Leave tendency are honest about that, we are not going to get a good or stable outcome.
But "The Empire"? Really???
Then we'll have the same result won't we? Brexiteers should not worry about a second vote.
We just couldn't eat it...
Oh, wait...
(sorry, the novelty of replying to a Scott post that isn't a retweet was too unusual to miss)
I developed a natural repulsion to nationalism as a small child...I saw it's ugliness play out on the football terraces....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/turkey-police-detain-amnesty-director-12-rights-activists/
Edited extra bit Greece looks good too
Joining the common market in the 70's with all the advantages that gave to our businesses propelled us forwards to the prosperity of the 90's and naughties....
David Davis, 24th January 2017
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-01-24b.169.2
Churchill understood that the best way to secure peace and prosperity was through international institutions....Brexit and Trump play fast and loose with the gains we have made over the last seventy years or so...
https://order-order.com/2017/07/06/corbynistas-must-hold-the-streets-if-theres-a-coup-against-pm-corbyn/
The best argument for Leave ultimately is the sovereignty one. Let's be masters of our own ship. I like the sound of that. But just as with peace, you can't touch, feel or eat that sovereignty. Unless leaving the EU delivers practical benefits it will be a failure.
On that practical level, EU membership wins across the board. Leavers have not come up with a single realistic practical benefit for Leave, it doesn't solve a single real problem we have, it makes several real problems we do have more difficult to to deal with.
And because we lose influence at the same time as gaining control, we actually end up with less real say over destiny, not more. That makes the sovereignty argument moot.
Everyone knows that it's Twitter, not the streets, that they would need to secure.
Number of new jobs via inward investment down 9% from 83k (2015/16) to 75k (2016/1… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882907345747144704
Dearie me.
A senior former minister told the Standard: “This parliament can exert a really powerful influence because everything changed on June 8 when the Prime Minister lost her majority.
Mrs May will realise how much things have changed when she starts to lose amendments on the Repeal Bill.” Support has grown among backbenchers for a deal that would keep the UK in the European Economic Area, which Mrs May flatly ruled out.
(And last night's toast dripping with butter and downed with green tea ..... sublime)
@faisalislam: ..in April PM told me: "will be possible to continue trade arrangements with countries we've previously had through EU when we are outside."
@faisalislam: At last g20, I was told that Korean President particularly exercised by Brexit impact on v successful EU-Korea deal, helped boost UK exports
@faisalislam: ... seems difficult to see the legal underpinning for simply "cutting & pasting" the EU's 50 plus trade deals - without agreed UK-EU deal
Edit: of course its prospect also helped us during Callaghan/Healey's IMF negotiations.
My view is the costs are exaggerated, the economic benefits of remaining also so, and I think we can be just as successful outside as similar comparable countries.
You Remainers really need to decide if your line of attack is that Britain has always been an independent country, or it's no longer one but shouldn't quit a supranational to become one.
We've been re-running it daily on here for over a year.
You'd do your case more of a service to stick to one line rather than another.
https://twitter.com/FelicityMorse/status/882914172660580352
Same as the future election of Corbyn in 2022.