Brexit discussion thread III

solodeogloria

listermint wrote: »

Ah control the great bastion of all things anti EU that you prescribe to.

Yet you still can't really pin point what control you don't have today they your feckless government can't actually implement with the powers they have currently. Which are vast btw.

Terrible governance really, it's still intriguing what improvement in governance will materialize with all this new 'control'


I'd love some elaboration on your part outside of torigraph headlines

Good morning!

With all due respect - you can look at TFEU if you want to see all the areas that a member state hands over control of when they are a member state of the EU.

I've posted on this before. It covers everything from trade policy to fishing waters.

Read Articles 2, 3 and 4 of TFEU for the full list of areas where the UK and all other EU member states hand over control to the EU.

It is indisputable that the UK has handed over a great deal of sovereignty to Brussels. The question is - is it worth it? The British people decided it wasn't.

I'm not particularly interested in playing games on this. You can't say honestly I've not outlined this when I have several times.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

With all due respect - you can look at TFEU if you want to see all the areas that a member state hands over control of when they are a member state of the EU.

I've posted on this before. It covers everything from trade policy to fishing waters.

Read Articles 2, 3 and 4 of TFEU for the full list of areas where the UK and all other EU member states hand over control to the EU.

It is indisputable that the UK has handed over a great deal of sovereignty to Brussels. The question is - is it worth it? The British people decided it wasn't.

I'm not particularly interested in playing games on this. You can't say honestly I've not outlined this when I have several times.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Can you answer whether giving up these controls has harmed the UK? If not, why do you want to leave? I give up control to a pilot when I travel via plane, so just giving up control is not a valid reason for causing yourself harm.

Leroy42

But Solo, you seem to be of the opinion that simply leaving the EU will give you all these controls when it is clear, just from the initial messages coming from say US and India, is that any trade deals will require UK to give significant control to other countries.

Of course it will not be called control, it will be sold as the UK, in regard to India for example, always wanted to increase immigration.

And, for the US, that the UK always wanted GMO and chlorinated chicken.

You also seem to think that the EU simply took all these controls, a heist almost, when in fact it was very long and very complicated negotiations between all member states that have the EU were it is now. A the UK was a senior member of that. The sovereign government of the UK, voted by the people, negotiated these deals. They weren't simply made up. Of course, like many negotiations one can't get everything and this the UK gave in on some matters to get something else. But that in itself was a decision.

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

With all due respect - you can look at TFEU if you want to see all the areas that a member state hands over control of when they are a member state of the EU.

I've posted on this before. It covers everything from trade policy to fishing waters.

Read Articles 2, 3 and 4 of TFEU for the full list of areas where the UK and all other EU member states hand over control to the EU.

It is indisputable that the UK has handed over a great deal of sovereignty to Brussels. The question is - is it worth it? The British people decided it wasn't.

I'm not particularly interested in playing games on this. You can't say honestly I've not outlined this when I have several times.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Simple question do you have any issue if in the future the UK agrees a deal with say Iceland where the agree to join fishing rights and they agree to set up a body to control all issues relating to shared fishing? Say that body made up of members appointed by both governments has total control of fishing and any dispute is decided by a court let’s call it the IUKCoF. Do you think that such a treaty is ok or would you think that it is giving up some control.

In relation to Brexit I was sad when UK decided to go, now I just want them gone, if during my life time the decide to rejoin I will actively work to keep them out the UK is toxic and has been toxic when it comes to the EU and I have to admit it will be in both parties interests for the EU and UK to go their own way.

Your in soundness and salutations

Really interested.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

It is indisputable that the UK has handed over a great deal of sovereignty to Brussels. The question is - is it worth it? The British people decided it wasn't.

Hang on, you said before that the leave vote was clearly about immigration. Now, you're back to this absurd fantasy that this was some sort of carefully deliberated decision. Which is it?

The EU is a partnership and the UK was a senior member. It was not ceding sovereignty at all, it was pooling it for a greater good.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

With all due respect - you can look at TFEU if you want to see all the areas that a member state hands over control of when they are a member state of the EU.

I've posted on this before. It covers everything from trade policy to fishing waters.

Read Articles 2, 3 and 4 of TFEU for the full list of areas where the UK and all other EU member states hand over control to the EU.

It is indisputable that the UK has handed over a great deal of sovereignty to Brussels. The question is - is it worth it? The British people decided it wasn't.

I'm not particularly interested in playing games on this. You can't say honestly I've not outlined this when I have several times.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Every member state has "handed over sovereignty" as you put it. The UK has actually handed over the least of all member states.

By the way...the sovereignty is not handed over to the Belgian capital. It's pooled with the other member states. Ultimately the EU derives its powers from the member states and their elected governments.

I know that doesn't sound interesting or allow for classic Daily Express type "Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats" headlines but there you go.

NATO is surely a far greater "handing over" of sovereignty as you are committing the UK to nuclear war should Turkey do something really silly along the Russian border....but you don't seem to have any issue with NATO at all.

Do you believe the UK, France and Germany are peers?

Samaris

I am actually seeing the argument, apparently made in earnest, that it would all have been fine if Article 50 had been triggered the day after the referendum.

Can anyone explain what this logic is? Is it the general election they're referring to or is it something something even shorter time is better? If we do it quickly enough, maybe the EU won't notice?

Creol1

murphaph wrote: »

Every member state has "handed over sovereignty" as you put it. The UK has actually handed over the least of all member states.

By the way...the sovereignty is not handed over to the Belgian capital. It's pooled with the other member states. Ultimately the EU derives its powers from the member states and their elected governments.

The EU's central power structures comprise the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the Parliament. Of these, only one (the Council of Ministers) represents the elected governments of the member states.

The members of the Commission, despite being nominated by member states, are not there to represent them and indeed actually have to forswear allegiance to their own country. This is illustrated by the fact that the Irish-nominated commissioner, Phil Hogan, opposes the Irish government (rightly, in this case) on the question of the Apple tax money.

murphaph

Creol1 wrote: »

The EU's central power structures comprise the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the Parliament. Of these, only one (the Council of Ministers) represents the elected governments of the member states.

The members of the Commission, despite being nominated by member states, are not there to represent them and indeed actually have to forswear allegiance to their own country. This is illustrated by the fact that the Irish-nominated commissioner, Phil Hogan, opposes the Irish government (rightly, in this case) on the question of the Apple tax money.

Yeah fine. The parliament is obviously elected by the people more directly and the Commission is not all powerful...the Brexit process being a case in point. The commission made a recommendation to the council, which made the ultimate decision on whether or not to proceed to phase two.

Ultimately the member states can leave the EU so any sovereignty "ceded" can be regained in full at any time. The point is that there are huge benefits in pooling sovereignty.

murphaph

Samaris wrote: »

I am actually seeing the argument, apparently made in earnest, that it would all have been fine if Article 50 had been triggered the day after the referendum.

Can anyone explain what this logic is? Is it the general election they're referring to or is it something something even shorter time is better? If we do it quickly enough, maybe the EU won't notice?

There is no logic there, just insanity.

steddyeddy

I wonder are the leave voters and instigators going to turn their efforts to other examples of shared sovereignty such as Nato.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hang on, you said before that the leave vote was clearly about immigration. Now, you're back to this absurd fantasy that this was some sort of carefully deliberated decision. Which is it?

The EU is a partnership and the UK was a senior member. It was not ceding sovereignty at all, it was pooling it for a greater good.

Good afternoon!

You know it's possible to have multiple reasons for leaving right? (Immigration and borders are merely one area of control handed over)

I don't know why you get this strange idea that there must only be one.

It's not true to suggest that member states don't hand over control to the EU. The Treaties are very clear on this even if you aren't.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

You know it's possible to have multiple reasons for leaving right? (Immigration and borders are merely one area of control handed over)

I don't know why you get this strange idea that there must only be one.

It's not true to suggest that member states don't hand over control to the EU. The Treaties are very clear on this even if you aren't.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Another day, another strawman I suppose. I never said that only one reason could exist. This facile sort of response doesn't really bolster your argument.

The treaties are written that way to ensure that the EU is able to do what it does. My point still stands. If sovereignty were truly ceded, the UK wouldn't be allowed to leave.

flatty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

I'll have to agree with Solo honestly; my time line still stands from earlier which is UK needs at least a decade outside EU before a party will consider bringing up the idea of rejoining (and said party is likely to fail on the platform). Only a second party under a energized leader some 15+ years out taking over a party that got curb stomped will be able to lead a successful campaign on rejoining. It will be a bit of Obama movement over it all with positive promises of change, growth etc. vs. an existing government that's gotten stuck in it's ways.

The overall timeline for the first decade of properly leaving (as in not during this extension) would be something along the lines of:
Year 1 - 3 - Promise of the new FTAs to save us all; it will be worth it
Year 4 - 7 - The other party in power to "show how it should be done" with some "tough on immigration in our FTAs" and possibly some further raising of tariffs etc. to protect domestic production which fails in the end; around now the investments plan have dried up and and any investments will be hailed as proof of UK's competitiveness
Year 8 - 10 - Yea it kicked us in the shin but it was worth it to regain our regulatory freedom and besides the FTA with USA and China gives us cheap food that meets our new lower standards anyway; expect another FTA or two to come through to further lower standards to be signed; London as one of the top global financial centers have been greatly diluted and Frankfurt is starting to appear as the place to be
Year 11 - forward; anyone bringing up rejoining EU will get the whole traitor spiel and be seen as not nationalistic enough

Good evening!

Admittedly - I don't think the UK will rejoin the EU at all. It isn't suited to the bloc, and it is a hindrance to the bloc doing what it wants to do. What are the benefits of Britain rejoining the European Union after regaining more control? At the present time I can't see a meaningful reason as to why the UK would rejoin.

To get the UK to rejoin - the campaign needs to be about presenting a positive case for Britain's membership rather than going for project fear round two. People are beyond tired of listening to highly speculative doomsday prophecies and to be honest - most people just want to get this done with so that Britain can set its own course for how it wants to be run from parliament in Westminster rather than from Brussels.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Genuine question. How do you know what "most people want"?
That is a statement so breathtaking in its arrogance, that it could almost have come from the mouth of the brexit campaign team.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Another day, another strawman I suppose. I never said that only one reason could exist. This facile sort of response doesn't really bolster your argument.

The treaties are written that way to ensure that the EU is able to do what it does. My point still stands. If sovereignty were truly ceded, the UK wouldn't be allowed to leave.

Good afternoon!

Why did you question me about immigration then as if there could only be one reason?

You need to be much much clearer in your posts.

The Treaties say that there are many areas where control is handed over. Firstly in terms of exclusive competence - meaning the EU has the sole remit and shared competence where the EU graciously allows a member state to exercise competence where it hasn't! That's clearly handing over control. It's clearly in the Treaties.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why did you question me about immigration then as if there could only be one reason?

I never specified that there could be a sole reason. I don't know where you're inferring this from.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Treaties say that there are many areas where control is handed over. Firstly in terms of exclusive competence - meaning the EU has the sole remit and shared competence where the EU graciously allows a member state to exercise competence where it hasn't! That's clearly handing over control. It's clearly in the Treaties.

A necessity of the pooling of sovereignty of so many member states. If they weren't sovereign, they would not be able to leave.

Jayop

Question. If the UK decide in a few years to rejoin the won't they be forced then to take the euro as a new member? I think there was something like that before so they'll never again have the favorable terms they did have as three quarter members like they have now.

Or did I dream that up?

steddyeddy

Jayop wrote: »

Question. If the UK decide in a few years to rejoin the won't they be forced then to take the euro as a new member? I think there was something like that before so they'll never again have the favorable terms they did have as three quarter members like they have now.

Or did I dream that up?

No, you're right. Guy Verrhoffstadt said that a UK seeking to rejoin would do so without any opt-outs. Mark my words they will seek to rejoin. This is the biggest act of self harm a country has engaged in.

steddyeddy

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/17/boris-johnson-breaks-ranks-with-brexit-vassal-state-warning

Boris Johnson breaks ranks again to warn that the UK must not be subordinate to the EU. I hate to break it to you Boris but the fact that the UK is the rule taker now means exactly that.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've posted on this before. It covers everything from trade policy to fishing waters.

Fishing ?

The UK has already rolled back a lot on restricting access to foreign trawlers. It went from taking back control of territorial waters towards business as usual fairly quickly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/eu-fishing-boats-can-still-operate-in-uk-waters-after-brexit-says-gove


Note also that most of the fish are in Scottish waters


BTW
http://britishseafishing.co.uk/cornelis-vrolijk/

a single Dutch trawler, the Cornelis Vrolijk, had the right to catch 23% of England’s entire fishing quota (1). To put this into perspective the entire small inshore fishing fleet for the whole England is given 4% of the quota.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Fishing ?

The UK has already rolled back a lot on restricting access to foreign trawlers. It went from taking back control of territorial waters towards business as usual fairly quickly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/eu-fishing-boats-can-still-operate-in-uk-waters-after-brexit-says-gove

Note also that most of the fish are in Scottish waters

Oh it gets better Cap.The Grimsby sea food trade are looking for an exemption from whatever happens during Brexit.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/brexit-exemption-sought-grimsby-seafood-736984.amp

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Why did you question me about immigration then as if there could only be one reason?

You need to be much much clearer in your posts.

The Treaties say that there are many areas where control is handed over. Firstly in terms of exclusive competence - meaning the EU has the sole remit and shared competence where the EU graciously allows a member state to exercise competence where it hasn't! That's clearly handing over control. It's clearly in the Treaties.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I notice you ignored my simple question. I wonder why. Maybe too hard!

Really Interested

steddyeddy wrote: »

No, you're right. Guy Verrhoffstadt said that a UK seeking to rejoin would do so without any opt-outs. Mark my words they will seek to rejoin. This is the biggest act of self harm a country has engaged in.

Mark my words if I’m still alive I will work on there being a Irish referendum on letting them back in and I will be firmly no.

flaneur

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wonder are the leave voters and instigators going to turn their efforts to other examples of shared sovereignty such as Nato.

Not at serious level but I was talking to a group of guys in a pub in England who were saying that they thought that the UK should leave the WTO, if it imposes tarrifs.

You can kind of see where this is going if policy is set by a bunch of lads down the back of a pub, which us more or less what is happening.

Water John

Hopefully the Remainers get their stuff together and present a single coherent message. The ribbish and bile that has passed for facts and reasoned opinion needs to be countered by a sane voice.
Then the public can make an informed decision.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/17/senior-ex-diplomat-to-advise-pro-eu-campaigns-before-brexit-deal-vote

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never specified that there could be a sole reason. I don't know where you're inferring this from.

Please clarify this post:

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hang on, you said before that the leave vote was clearly about immigration. Now, you're back to this absurd fantasy that this was some sort of carefully deliberated decision. Which is it?

The EU is a partnership and the UK was a senior member. It was not ceding sovereignty at all, it was pooling it for a greater good.

What is the point of this question? You seem to be proposing a false dichotomy. It can of course be both.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A necessity of the pooling of sovereignty of so many member states. If they weren't sovereign, they would not be able to leave.

"Pooling of sovereignty" is lingo which means handing over control.

The UK felt too much control was being handed over (immigration, trade policy etc) and a result voted to leave. It is very simple.

Many feel that the EU has gone way way too far and there's no hope of them giving more control to member states any time soon.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

flaneur wrote: »

Not at serious level but I was talking to a group of guys in a pub in England who were saying that they thought that the UK should leave the WTO, if it imposes tarrifs.

You can kind of see where this is going if policy is set by a bunch of lads down the back of a pub, which us more or less what is happening.

It might have been a joke but it's a similar level of understanding that a lot of leavers have of trading zones.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Many feel that the EU has gone way way too far and there's no hope of them giving more control to member states any time soon.

Any chance of a source for this? The rest of the EU27 seem to be perfectly happy to me.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Any chance of a source for this? The rest of the EU27 seem to be perfectly happy to me.

Good afternoon!

I'm referring to Britain. This thread is about Brexit. One of the sources is the Lord Ashcroft poll.

That's not to say that Euroscepticism doesn't exist in other member states but that is a subject for another thread not for this one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

lawred2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Please clarify this post:


What is the point of this question? You seem to be proposing a false dichotomy. It can of course be both.

ok then.. can you detail the careful deliberations that took place regarding immigration and the outcomes of same?

An Ciarraioch

Tony Connelly: EU official states can't have frictionless trade outside CU and SM. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson calls for frictionless trade with own framework and regulations:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/942370554660708353

An Ciarraioch

Too much data for a single post, but Faisal Islam gives most interesting demographic analysis of last night's BMG poll:

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/942358252179861504

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly: EU official states can't have frictionless trade outside CU and SM. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson calls for frictionless trade with own framework and regulations:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/942370554660708353

I truly worry for anyone who is only discovering this now.

flaneur

The problem is they’ve far, far less leverage than they imagine. Reality will bite them in a few months time.

As for the BMG poll, you’d need to see a much wider divergence than that to get excited.
It ignores the fact that yoid have a highly divsive campaign ahead of any referendum. It could get really weird.

If remain were ahead by 25%, then I would rate it as a serious shift but for now, I think it’s only ebbing and flowing a bit.

If your were going to put Brexit out to pasture in a referendum rerun, it would need to be a very decisive shift to remain. A minor shift the other way would still leave a totally divided country and bubbling problems for decades. It would only be a year or so before someone was going for Brexit 2.0 or 3.0

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!



Please clarify this post:


What is the point of this question? You seem to be proposing a false dichotomy. It can of course be both.



"Pooling of sovereignty" is lingo which means handing over control.

The UK felt too much control was being handed over (immigration, trade policy etc) and a result voted to leave. It is very simple.

Many feel that the EU has gone way way too far and there's no hope of them giving more control to member states any time soon.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Immigration from outside the EU is fully within the control of a member. While there was talk about sharing refugees that never happened. But if the UK wanted a points system for immigration from the rest of the world there was nothing to stop them. So when you talk about immigration I assume you are talking from the other 27 countries plus the EFTA, can you correct me if I am incorrect.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'm referring to Britain. This thread is about Brexit. One of the sources is the Lord Ashcroft poll.

That's not to say that Euroscepticism doesn't exist in other member states but that is a subject for another thread not for this one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Right but you keep presenting the Leave vote as if it were some sort of carefully measured intellectual decision for some reason despite not having a shred of evidence to back it up. The "Take Back Control" soundbyte is more meaningless than ever while you keep talking about this as if it were some kind of victory and that's before we get to the absurd salaraies paid to DExEU staff just so that they can roll over and give Michel Barnier exactly what he asks for. What control has been regained, exactly?

Water John

A differential of 12 to 15 is the most that could be expected and would be more than enough to justify a 2nd Referendum. Remember, that's a swing of nearly 15 to 20 points.

The only 'truly sovereign' state by some peoples' standards is North Korea.

It has pooled no sovereignty with anyone. It is not answerable to any external supranational organisations. It has no oversight of its activities (or simply ignores them). It is 'free' to act as it pleases. It respects only its own (kangaroo) courts.

Not certain it is a model that many UK residents would like to follow though of course.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The only 'truly sovereign' state by some peoples' standards is North Korea.

It has pooled no sovereignty with anyone. It is not answerable to any external supranational organisations. It has no oversight of its activities (or simply ignores them). It is 'free' to act as it pleases. It respects only its own (kangaroo) courts.

Not certain it is a model that many UK residents would like to follow though of course.

While what you say is funny, when you actually think it through it is the only logical end game for the UK. In the modern world of international trade all deals involve some giving up or agreeing to shared control.

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

While what you say is funny, when you actually think it through it is the only logical end game for the UK. In the modern world of international trade all deals involve some giving up or agreeing to shared control.

In CSPE class in school we learned about the idea of Interdependence.

Some of the voices in the debate are yet to have shown an ounce of understanding of it though.

steddyeddy

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Tony Connelly: EU official states can't have frictionless trade outside CU and SM. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson calls for frictionless trade with own framework and regulations:

https://mobile.twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/942370554660708353

This has been repeated again and again. It's surlrising to hear seemingly educated people still come out with this dribble.

Enzokk

The fallacy of regaining control is one that will never be realised in the UK. What control they will get back from the EU, if they do leave the SM and CU and ECJ, will just be lost again by trade deals that they will be desperate to sign with other countries. Those countries will dictate to the UK on what the terms will be. Thus the UK will give up control there. If the US wants the UK to have similar rules to the US to allow trade, surely that is exchanging one rule maker for another?

If the UK wants a trade deal with India it will give up control on immigration to allow more immigrants from India. Its very simple really, but yet people will persist with the mantra of control.

murphaph

Solo, do you see the UK and France and Germany as peers/equals?

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but you keep presenting the Leave vote as if it were some sort of carefully measured intellectual decision for some reason despite not having a shred of evidence to back it up. The "Take Back Control" soundbyte is more meaningless than ever while you keep talking about this as if it were some kind of victory and that's before we get to the absurd salaraies paid to DExEU staff just so that they can roll over and give Michel Barnier exactly what he asks for. What control has been regained, exactly?

Good evening!

I respect the democratic verdict the people gave. The electorate voted for their own considered reasons to leave. I respect that and you obviously don't.

The task at hand is to get the job done. I don't view this in highly emotive terms. Just as the UK elected to ratify Maastricht (albeit without a referendum) and assent to handing over control in 1992, the electorate voted in 2016 to take back this control.

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, do you see the UK and France and Germany as peers/equals?

Yes. Peers that are entitled to make their own decisions.

Britain has decided to leave the EU. One can hold to that position without holding to notions of superiority.

What I'm seeking is no different to the control that most sovereign nations on earth have over their affairs. I know of no bloc that demands the same amount of control as the European Union. It is an anomaly. No trading arrangement will demand the same level of control as the European Union demands of its members.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Because no trading arrangement comes close to the frictionless trade that the Single Market proffers.

The UK should know this, because it worked so hard to build it...

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I respect the democratic verdict the people gave. The electorate voted for their own considered reasons to leave. I respect that and you obviously don't.

The task at hand is to get the job done. I don't view this in highly emotive terms. Just as the UK elected to ratify Maastricht (albeit without a referendum) and assent to handing over control in 1992, the electorate voted in 2016 to take back this control.

So far, I have seen no control taken back at all. Emotive terms or no, this is a basic fact. Davis has made no progress whatsoever while telling lies one might expect of a schoolchild who hasn't done his homework. I'm seeing no sign of anything positive coming from this.

Water John

Johnson and Davis are looking for a Canada, Plus, Plus, Plus, deal. Where is last week's agreement?

Really Interested

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I respect the democratic verdict the people gave. The electorate voted for their own considered reasons to leave. I respect that and you obviously don't.

The task at hand is to get the job done. I don't view this in highly emotive terms. Just as the UK elected to ratify Maastricht (albeit without a referendum) and assent to handing over control in 1992, the electorate voted in 2016 to take back this control.



Yes. Peers that are entitled to make their own decisions.

Britain has decided to leave the EU. One can hold to that position without holding to notions of superiority.

What I'm seeking is no different to the control that most sovereign nations on earth have over their affairs. I know of no bloc that demands the same amount of control as the European Union. It is an anomaly. No trading arrangement will demand the same level of control as the European Union demands of its members.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The USA? You should read The Federalist Papers. Also the EU is not just a trading arrangement and was not just that by the time the UK joined. It was far past the coal and steel stage.

Again I ask is it in your opinion ok for the UK in the future to decide to agree to some sort of shared control with another country.

I also find it difficult to understand it’s ok for UK to “take back control” but not for Wales, or Scotland or NI.

solodeogloria

Really Interested wrote: »

The USA? You should read The Federalist Papers. Also the EU is not just a trading arrangement and was not just that by the time the UK joined. It was far past the coal and steel stage.

Again I ask is it in your opinion ok for the UK in the future to decide to agree to some sort of shared control with another country.

I also find it difficult to understand it’s ok for UK to “take back control” but not for Wales, or Scotland or NI.

Good evening!

The states of the United States aren't nations. Nor are the regions and counties of the United Kingdom.

I presume by this comparison, you think the EU is already a United States of Europe - like what arch-federalist Martin Schulz is after?

There's no idea that makes me balk more than that one. I'm happier with Britain being an independent nation that makes its own decisions. Co-operating where necessary certainly, but not handing over huge amounts of control to any one organisation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

The states of the United States aren't nations. Nor are the regions and counties of the United Kingdom.

I presume by this comparison, you think the EU is already a United States of Europe - like what arch-federalist Martin Schulz is after?

There's no idea that makes me balk more than that one. I'm happier with Britain being an independent nation that makes its own decisions. Co-operating where necessary certainly, but not handing over huge amounts of control to any one organisation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But great Britain is made up of several countries , why would you deny these counties the right to the same democracy that you shouted out about two posts ago


Proceed..