Brexit discussion thread IV

Pa8301

blinding wrote: »

The Brits decided they did not want the Eu so ‘ involved ‘ in their Country . Democracy is great .

Democracy is great but now they have to deal with the consequences of their decision.

First Up

blinding wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This just seems like a bit of a diatribe though to be honest.  The whole concepts of 'power', 'sovereignty', 'running your own country' have been whittled down to almost pre-medieval meanings by the Brexiteers.
The entire developed world is melded together in a dazzling web of treaties, rules and obligations.  The EU was a recognition that Europe, unlike anywhere else in the world really, comprises a collection of both small/powerfully large successful developed economies separated by borders, languages and legal systems -- all of which are crammed into a relatively small area.  These divisions had been the cause of disharmony and conflict in the past -- both in terms of trade and diplomacy.  The EU treaties (and that is what the EU is after all -- a series of treaties) have done much to address that, while also impressively upholding and maintaining the interests of member states.  
In fact, the EU can well be regarded as an exemplar of the modern concept of sovereignty -- countries working with eachother for both their domestic national interests and the interests of their neighbours.  The old inward-looking view of sovereignty is long dead, and has been for centuries.

What if the Eu takes all your sovereignty or more than you want . Do you have to leave in that situation ?

If you think the negatives outweigh the benfits, then off you go.

First Up

blinding wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This just seems like a bit of a diatribe though to be honest.  The whole concepts of 'power', 'sovereignty', 'running your own country' have been whittled down to almost pre-medieval meanings by the Brexiteers.
The entire developed world is melded together in a dazzling web of treaties, rules and obligations.  The EU was a recognition that Europe, unlike anywhere else in the world really, comprises a collection of both small/powerfully large successful developed economies separated by borders, languages and legal systems -- all of which are crammed into a relatively small area.  These divisions had been the cause of disharmony and conflict in the past -- both in terms of trade and diplomacy.  The EU treaties (and that is what the EU is after all -- a series of treaties) have done much to address that, while also impressively upholding and maintaining the interests of member states.  
In fact, the EU can well be regarded as an exemplar of the modern concept of sovereignty -- countries working with eachother for both their domestic national interests and the interests of their neighbours.  The old inward-looking view of sovereignty is long dead, and has been for centuries.

What if the Eu takes all your sovereignty or more than you want . Do you have to leave in that situation ?

If you think the negatives outweigh the benefits, then off you go.

Nate--IRL--

blinding wrote: »

The Brits decided they did not want the Eu so ‘ involved ‘ in their Country . Democracy is great .

That they did. They now also lose the benefits of being so "involved" with the other nations of the EU.

Nate

Charles Babbage

Pa8301 wrote: »

Democracy is great but now they have to deal with the consequences of their decision.

That is all very fine, but we have to deal with it too and we are not reponsiblefor the lunacy.

Rhineshark

blinding wrote: »

Sure themselves and the French have the only decent Military in Europe....Putin and all that .:eek:

That's nice. Are they supposed to eat the soldiers when they've dished the trade system that they rely on for food imports or just invade Ireland?

Military is not particularly relevent to an economic crisis unless you want to take a very bad road.

Enzokk

I am not sure if this has been linked but if anyone was under any illusion as to the BBC and their coverage on Brexit, here is Kirsty Wark referring to the acts of Vote Leave where they have been found guilty of breaking the election rules as allegations. She seems to be trying very hard to deflect from the truth of the matter. Either it is her own doing, or she has instructions from the top. Seeing that James O'Brien has been on record to say that he cannot work on Newsnight as they wanted him to not criticize Brexit or Trump on LBC.

https://twitter.com/brexit_sham/status/1023104551342276608

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted.

Imreoir2

blinding wrote: »

Maybe they just want to run their own Country . The Eu has way too much power and what normally happens when Politicians get way too much power . The British people do not want the Eu having so much power in their lives / country . If you do not want the Eu having this much effect in your Country it is best to leave the Eu .

They do run their own country. Being part of the EU by choice does not mean you do not run your own country.

If the EU has so much effect on the lives of British people, what is it that they will be able to do after Brexit that they can't do now? What is the benefit to the man or woman in the street that makes the huge economic damage they are inflicting on themselves worth it?
Blue passports is about as far is it gets when you ask most people.

bilston

judeboy101 wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

Good sarcastic response.

Free elections, free speech, having an opposition, having a PM who clearly cannot do as she pleases all suggest that the UK is definitely not authoritarian.

A quick google of your stat by the way brings up a Daily Mail headline from 2007 as the first search item. I'm sure you wouldn't have referenced that rag to make a point on Boards.

State religion, unelected hereditary head of state with important executive powers, unelected second chamber, state endorsed sectarian laws preventing citizens who are catholic from ever becoming pm or monarch. The UK isn't the paragon of freedom, when you scratch the surface.

The British PM can't be a Catholic?...that's a new one to me.

What important executive powers does the Head of State actually have?

An unelected second chamber is a problem, although to be honest certainly in recent times the House of Lords has actually been a positive in keeping the govt in check. It's members can vote with their conscience rather than worrying about re-election. However I'd prefer it was elected, albeit with lengthy terms (maybe even 10 years) and members only being able to sit for one term.

blinding

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They do run their own country. Being part of the EU by choice does not mean you do not run your own country.

If the EU has so much effect on the lives of British people, what is it that they will be able to do after Brexit that they can't do now? What is the benefit to the man or woman in the street that makes the huge economic damage they are inflicting on themselves worth it?
Blue passports is about as far is it gets when you ask most people.

Aren’t they rejecting the ‘ Fourth freedom ‘ of stopping Mass immigration from the Eu . The British people want to be able to control who comes in to their Country . Mind you they may have to Vote in a UKIP government to achieve that but at least they have given themselves that choice . I love democracy .

bilston

blinding wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Rubbish, many politicians, both in the UK and ROI invested much of their time in sorting out NI, with little or no personal political gain. Fair is fair.

None of that was happening until the IRA called off its campaign . The IRA’s decision to stop was the most important part .

John Major and Albert Reynolds were heavily invested in Northern Ireland well before the IRA ceasefire in 1994. The Downing Street Declaration being a prime example of that.

blinding

bilston wrote: »

John Major and Albert Reynolds were heavily invested in Northern Ireland well before the IRA ceasefire in 1994. The Downing Street Declaration being a prime example of that.

Unless the IRA ceasefire was in the offing these politicians would not have touched it ( certainly publicly ) with a barge Pole....too much aggro for no result .

trellheim

Unless the IRA ceasefire was in the offing these politicians would not have touched it ( certainly publicly ) with a barge Pole....too much aggro for no result .

What ? stop trolling please. fk sake and miles off topic.

Imreoir2

blinding wrote: »

Aren’t they rejecting the ‘ Fourth freedom ‘ of stopping Mass immigration from the Eu . The British people want to be able to control who comes in to their Country . Mind you they may have to Vote in a UKIP government to achieve that but at least they have given themselves that choice . I love democracy .

What is Mass immigration? Is that an influx of priests or something?

How exactly does restricting immigration from the EU help the man or woman on the street? Immigration has been shown to benefit the UK economey, how does living in a poorer country benefit ordinary people? Unless you just dont like living near people who look different, or have a different accent, then I don't see the benefit.

The UK government could have had tighter immigration under EU rules anyway, their government chose not to. Apparently the choices of the UK government are the EU's fault. Who are you going to blame once the UK is out of the EU?

Igotadose

Secret 'fallback' plan drafted by UK cabinet, seems to take bits and bobs from various other EU treaties, the idea being that the UK can claim 'give us what you've given others.' Not much detail, nothing about borders: https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/secret-fallback-plan-if-all-mays-proposals-are-rejected-by-eu-37162777.html

"British cabinet ministers have drawn up a secret Brexit "fallback" plan amid concerns that UK Prime Minister Theresa May's Chequers deal will be killed off by Brussels.

It is based on existing EU trade deals with Canada, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and sources confirmed it would be put forward if Mrs May's deal was rejected or collapsed in the face of Eurosceptic opposition."

lawred2

blinding wrote: »

What if the Eu takes all your sovereignty or more than you want . Do you have to leave in that situation ?

The EU can only "take" whatever a nation AGREES to share.

Seriously, you can't be this ignorant of the EU?

badtoro

lawred2 wrote: »

The EU can only "take" whatever a nation AGREES to share.

Seriously, you can't be this ignorant of the EU?

Calls into question the saying what a person doesn't know won't hurt them.

trellheim

Barnier Presser from Thursday if not already

Brussels, 26 July 2018

Ladies and gentlemen,

Dominic and I just had a second constructive meeting.

I agree with what Dominic said last week – we must bring new energy into these negotiations.

And we will need to sustain this energy over the coming weeks in order to reach an agreement.

We both want to conclude in October, with a deal.

We have two main challenges.

First, we need to finalise the outstanding issues of the Withdrawal Agreement, including a legally operative backstop for Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Second, we need to agree on a political declaration on our future relationship.
Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me focus first on the future relationship.

Last Friday, I made some initial comments on the UK's White Paper.

This week confirmed that the UK proposals on security mark a real step forward:

The UK has provided new guarantees on the protection of fundamental rights and the uniform application of law:

The White Paper commits the UK to membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It recognises the European Court of Justice as the only arbiter of EU law.
These are important safeguards. They enlarge the possibilities of what we can do together on internal security, in particular on data exchange.

Based on the protection of personal data, and based on reciprocity, the EU and the UK can explore the modalities for close cooperation on the following points:

the exchange of DNA, fingerprints, and vehicle registration information (so called "Prüm"),
the exchange of Passenger Name Records to better track and identify individuals involved in terrorism and crime,
swift and effective extradition, based on the procedural rights for suspects.
Furthermore, I am particularly pleased with the progress in our talks on foreign policy and external security.

We have a shared understanding on how to organise our future close cooperation, including on sanctions, defence capabilities and crisis management. The UK is a member of the UN Security Council, and an important player in security and defence. Our cooperation is even more important in today's geo-political context.
I recall that this EU-UK cooperation in defence will be in addition to what we already do in NATO, and to bilateral agreements between the UK and certain Member States.
Ladies and gentlemen,

In contrast, on our future economic relationship, it comes as no surprise that finding common ground between the EU27 and the UK is more difficult.

But we have agreed already on a common denominator: we both want an ambitious Free Trade Agreement.

In March, EU leaders proposed an unprecedented Free Trade Agreement.

Another area of convergence between the EU and the UK is the need for ambitious customs arrangements.

We are also both committed to a level playing field between our economies.

But, to be frank, we are not at the end of the road yet.

There are major issues to be discussed and questions to be answered.

We share a clear understanding on a core principle that will define our future economic relationship: the UK and the EU will both preserve the autonomy of their decision-making.

Both will preserve their regulatory autonomy.

The UK wants to take back control of its money, law, and borders, as Dominic said in an article this morning.

We will respect that.

But the EU also wants to keep control of its money, law, and borders.

The UK should respect that.

So, we share an objective in that regard.

A clear example of what this means concerns our future relationship in financial services.

We discussed financial services this week and agreed that future market access will be governed by autonomous decisions on both sides.
We recognised the need for this autonomy, not only at the time of granting equivalence decisions, but also at the time of withdrawing such decisions.
And we agreed to have close regulatory cooperation, which will also have to respect the autonomy of both parties.
Maintaining control of our money, law, and borders also applies to the EU's customs policy.

The EU cannot – and will not – delegate the application of its customs policy and rules, VAT and excise duty collection to a non-member, who would not be subject to the EU's governance structures.
Any customs arrangements or customs union – and I have always said that the EU is open to a customs union – must respect this principle.
In any case, a customs union, which would help to reduce friction at the border, would come with our Common Commercial Policy for goods.
President Juncker's visit to Washington yesterday shows the importance of our Common Commercial Policy. It shows that we are stronger together.
Any customs arrangement will also have to be workable and must protect EU and national revenue, without imposing additional costs on businesses and customs authorities.
This is the framework within which we will work with the UK over the coming weeks.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This week, these customs discussions have also been the backdrop to the backstop.

We have a clear agreement between the EU and the UK that the Withdrawal Agreement must contain an all-weather insurance policy. We share the goal of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Let me recall why.

Because, as we agreed in December, the absence of a hard border has to be guaranteed no matter what the future relationship will be.

Of course, we have always said that a better solution in the future EU-UK relationship could replace the backstop.

This explains the "unless and until" provision of the backstop to which the UK has agreed.

Continued uncertainty on this issue after the UK's withdrawal would be unacceptable for Ireland, for Northern Ireland, for the UK as a whole, and obviously for the EU27.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We also had agreed in March on the scope of the issues to be solved in the backstop.

This week, we focused on the customs element of the backstop.

The UK wants this to be UK-wide.

As I said last week, we have no objection in principle to this.

But we have doubts that this can be done without putting at risk the integrity of our Customs Union, our Common Commercial Policy, our regulatory policy, and our fiscal revenue.

We have had an open and frank – and therefore useful – discussion with Dominic and his team on these issues.

I think that the UK has understood our concerns and respects our principles.

And the UK has promised to come back to us with concrete proposals on how to address our concerns.

Both teams will reflect on this in the coming weeks. The next time we meet will be mid-August. We must advance and agree on a legally operative backstop solution to conclude the Withdrawal Agreement.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Before giving the floor to Dominic and taking questions, let me just add one more point.

I have been focusing on all the open issues and the work that we have ahead of us over the next few weeks to conclude the Withdrawal Agreement.

Let's keep in mind that we have already agreed on a large part of this Withdrawal Agreement – more or less 80%.

This includes the very important issue of citizens' rights, which has been our priority since the beginning of this negotiation, as well as the priority of the European Parliament. It continues to be our priority.

But the job does not stop here. We will also have to work on making sure that citizens can easily avail themselves of the rights that will be guaranteed in the Withdrawal Agreement.

We are working with the Home Office as well as with the Member States on this point.

Thank you for your attention.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-4704_en.htm

blinding

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is Mass immigration? Is that an influx of priests or something?

How exactly does restricting immigration from the EU help the man or woman on the street? Immigration has been shown to benefit the UK economey, how does living in a poorer country benefit ordinary people? Unless you just dont like living near people who look different, or have a different accent, then I don't see the benefit.

The UK government could have had tighter immigration under EU rules anyway, their government chose not to. Apparently the choices of the UK government are the EU's fault. Who are you going to blame once the UK is out of the EU?

The British people decided in the Referendum that they would make these decisions for themselves . They also decided that they would not trust British governments to do as the electorate wanted re; Mass Eu Immigration . Hence taking back control of their own country . Admittedly they may well have to vote in a UKIP government to actually do this but they now have that choice .

Strazdas

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They do run their own country. Being part of the EU by choice does not mean you do not run your own country.

If the EU has so much effect on the lives of British people, what is it that they will be able to do after Brexit that they can't do now? What is the benefit to the man or woman in the street that makes the huge economic damage they are inflicting on themselves worth it?
Blue passports is about as far is it gets when you ask most people.

This is indeed one of the great myths of Brexit. EU laws are mainly concerned with stuff like the environment, agriculture and fisheries, working hours and food safety.

The EU has absolutely no say over the NHS, education, housing, criminal law, social welfare, taxes and a myriad of other things. The whole 'sovereignty' argument is a con job by Brexiteers.

blinding

Strazdas wrote: »

This is indeed one of the great myths of Brexit. EU laws are mainly concerned with stuff like the environment, agriculture and fisheries, working hours and food safety.

The EU has absolutely no say over the NHS, education, housing, criminal law, social welfare, taxes and a myriad of other things. The whole 'sovereignty' argument is a con job by Brexiteers.

The Eu has huge say over your borders and what goes on there .

Eu law has primacy over domestic law .

The Eu has control over the Euro if that is your currency .

EdgeCase

It's strange that she would do that but I get the impression the BBC is stuck in "we must balance all sides of debate" mode. It's a common issue that results in two sides being given equal weighting, facts and expertise get ignored.

The illustration used by Dara O'Briain is a fictional interview with a dentist where a toothiologist is brought on for balance, even though their opinions are just that and are clearly ludicrous, yet they're given equal weighting.

judeboy101

Trasna1 wrote: »

More than technically possible, there has been a Jewish pm I'm the past iirc.

Disraeli born Jewish but converted to anglicsnism

PeadarCo

lawred2 wrote:

Seriously, you can't be this ignorant of the EU?

Look at Boris Johnson and his comments on the Irish border. A lot of the advocates were and are this ignorant. If they weren't Brexit probably wouldn't have happened or at the very negotiations since then would have been very different.

Leroy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's strange that she would do that but I get the impression the BBC is stuck in "we must balance all sides of debate" mode. It's a common issue that results in two sides being given equal weighting, facts and expertise get ignored.

Its not really strange at all. The BBC have been totally against calling out any of the nonsense. This is just the clearest example of it. For some guy to come had have to inform the BBC politics presenter that the ruling has already been made is farcical.

I agree that it stems from the "balance" idea, but surely even they can see it as letting down the remit.

Leroy42

blinding wrote: »

The Eu has control over the Euro if that is your currency .

And there is your answer.

If the EU is the all controlling entity, why did they allow the UK to opt out of what would be seen as one of the major steps towards a superstate?

Why are they continuing to allow Ireland to cancel any talk of tax harmonisation?

Why do they allow Norway to have deal, or Switzerland?

blinding

PeadarCo wrote: »

Look at Boris Johnson and his comments on the Irish border. A lot of the advocates were and are this ignorant. If they weren't Brexit probably wouldn't have happened or at the very negotiations since then would have been very different.

The overwhelming majority of People on the Island of Britain could not give two hoots for the Irish Border . It has little or no impact / interest in their lives . Maybe if some one stared up a viable IRA or something . Thankfully no chance of that .

Imreoir2

blinding wrote: »

The British people decided in the Referendum that they would make these decisions for themselves . They also decided that they would not trust British governments to do as the electorate wanted re; Mass Eu Immigration . Hence taking back control of their own country . Admittedly they may well have to vote in a UKIP government to actually do this but they now have that choice .

They already had control of their own country. Part of having control of your own country is the ability to enter into treaties with other countries. Entering into a treaty does not mean you lose control of your own country, withdrawing from a treaty does not give you more control.

You seem to be just going anrond in circles, repeating slogans like "take back control". You still did not answer my questions, how does leaving the EU benefit the man or women on the street in the UK? What will they be able to do once they are no longer part of the EU, which supposidly has too much effect on their lives, that they can't do now? What is it that makes all of the economic self harm worth while?

blinding

Leroy42 wrote: »

And there is your answer.

If the EU is the all controlling entity, why did they allow the UK to opt out of what would be seen as one of the major steps towards a superstate?

Why are they continuing to allow Ireland to cancel any talk of tax harmonisation?

Why do they allow Norway to have deal, or Switzerland?

The Eu realise that Britain is special .

The other two are small enough to have ways of being influenced .