| The Comments |
So speaketh the safety officer on the Titanic.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
1
Like
|
Well I am very HAPPY so far with the progress of BREXIT it triggered the stupid FRENCH to sort the CALAIS JUNGLE out IT made the CANADIANS see what a MESS the whole EU is GOT the STOCKMARKET pension funds PERFORMING
SO FAR SO GOOD
Mrs MAY doin a GOOD job it seems
Love Hugh xxx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
2
Like
|
French are not stupid Hugh. They are very clever people, don't underestimate the realy powerful EU nations.
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
0
Like
|
|
Ads:
I have read those links you posted. I do agree protectionism is an EU trait and is out of sync with global moves toward free trade.
However Wallonia’s objection to CETA has nothing to do with the suggestions you make although that is what they claim of course. It has more to do with asserting itself as a regional power in Belgium and protecting is cosy benefits their farmers enjoy from EU subsidies.
Wallonia suffers from high unemployment and has a significantly lower GDP per capita than Flanders. The economic inequalities and linguistic divide between the two are major sources of political conflict in Belgium and is a major factor in Flemish Separatism.
CETA was an issue where they could flex their regional political status in the struggle for supremacy in the endless political conflicts in Belgium.
That is what happens when you allow small regional governments a veto over wider national and international considerations.
In the UK small regional governments (by population) such as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a similar veto but it’s in the parliament via representation.
Parliament is sovereign and that overrides a referendum vote in a representative democracy. I repeat again the referendum vote was non-binding. As such parliament must have the final say on Brexit.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
Yes. It is just like Theresa May doing a deal with Nissan where if Nissan stays in the UK and Brexit costs Nissan money the government (you and me) will refund it to them through a tax handout. At least it is transparent in CETA and not being done behind closed doors, in secret, like, like...BREXIT
2
Like
|
If it's secret and behind closed doors....... HOW DO YOU KNOW?
0
Like
|
Thanks for the clarification re Belgium, but what about the reference to " pressing problems of our time" such as climate change, regulation of banks, social inequality etc?
Why put such a clause into an agreement that acts as deterrent to Govts / protects large corporations and in that process has the potential to financially compromise a nation and its citizens?
I thought the EU was supposed to protect its citizens against potential abusive behaviour on this scale and not be protectionist of corporations from the outset?
Doesn't this demonstrate the hypocrisy of the EU bureaucrats and add to the distrust of the system? They obviously have no intent to reform when they are continuing to behave in this manner.
This message was last edited by ads on 25/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Ads.
What you should understand about countries such as France, Wallonia and others is vested interest groups have a vice like grip on government; particularly agricultural unions which are a militant communist group quite unlike the dear old National Farmers Union in Britain. They are simply looking to protect their own interests at the expense of the wider population. CETA would benefit the whole population of Belgium create employment and bring competition into the featherbedded farming industry. They care not a jot for the values you describe.
The moment these vested interest groups see competitive threats they pull up the drawbridge, block roads and bring the country to a standstill. Then their politicians always back down. It’s the cycle of life in Europe that is basically anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation.
Therein lies the fundamental reason rightist political parties such as the Conservatives have always detested all things European Union.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
Ads
Hypocrisy of government? We could be here all day if we really wanted to discuss that one. Brexit alone has has lies of every colour belched out by all and sundry. And the funny thing I keep hearing from posters everywhere is "how do you know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving."
Sorry to be glib.
Being a little more serious though, the specific points you raise around climate change for one thing... I'm not so sure that its the EU being hypocrits on this point. If I could just point out, there are plenty of nations contributing to global warming, whether thats through exhaust fumes from various vehicle types, whether its from energy generation via coal, or indeed natural sources of gases emission into the atmosphere, eg volvanic, or even, dont laugh, bovine flatulence. The point I'm trying so badly to make is, that its very possible for one group to say "the problem is out of my control." Imagine the EU trying to fix things, when China, India, and other large countries just keep pumping their emissions out. The overall benefit wrought from the EU would, in the whole scheme of things, be quite low.
They may look at this and think, we have bigger problems to solve.
If thats being a hypocrit, then so be it. But I could certainly understand that kind of viewpoint, and I wouldnt be too surprised by it.
2
Like
|
This doesn't make sense because on the one hand the suggestion is that the EU is perceived by right wing elements as being more protectionist of the vested interest groups that are anti capitalist, anti globalisation, and yet the EU bureaucrats by agreeing to a trade deal that protects the corporations and financial institutions in this way, appears to be doing the extreme opposite, which takes little account of protecting citizens from abuse.
It also inhibits flexibility to respond to realistic major problems of our time without being financially compromised.
Couple this with the other aspects to inflexibility that have been exposed in this referendum campaign where EU policies have exposed the UK to a proliferation of intolerance that harms their society if left unaddressed, and you have a complete melting pot of disaffection and distrust in the EU system.
And this is not to mention the mismanagement ( some would suggest manipulative hidden self interests to turn a blind eye) to the adherence of financial stability mechanisms intended to create from the outset a balance between the varying member states such that any one member state should not unfairly benefit at the expense of others ( within pre defined boundaries) and again you see the hypocrisy and lack of transparency (again some would suggest cover up) as to yet more uncomfortable realities.
Where the heck is the balance in all of this contradictory behaviour where citizens can be reassured that deals are put in place to the benefit of nations yes, but in that process do not leave major loopholes that can be abused by powerful elites? Where rules put in place to create financial balance are adhered to? Where bureaucrats are accountable to those citizens they are supposed to represent.
The bottom line appears to be that citizens have lost faith with the EU as a system that represents their needs and aspirations, to protect their rights when abusive behaviour rears its ugly head from whatever quarter it may arise, to create a fair balance to control the extremes if you will. They see it as a system in dire need of reform but completely intransigent and inflexible to reform and adapt to changing circumstances. But worse still they see little ability to remove those acting in this intransigent fashion from power, as opposed to the ability to do so in their own national state.
To be fair however, the eye opener for many has not just been these uncomfortable realities associated with the EU, but also the failure of Govt to try and mjnimise the effects from these EU policies back at home. But at least citizens feel better empowered to better deal with this under the remit of their own national sovereignty than they do remaining within a failing and inflexible EU.....
This message was last edited by ads on 25/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Ads
I was responding to one aspect of your post - hypocrisy and climate change.
You've now written a much broader piece. It would take some doing to go over it all, but while we're on the subject, I'll give it a crack at a low level anyway.
Through the EU, there is a citizens Bill of Rights. There is no corresponding equivalent here in the UK. This bill allows the government to, for example, tell the US to get stuffed, when it comes to things like espionage upon private citizens. The UK, on the other hand, is one of the most surveilled states on the planet.
In this regard, being in the EU, and having the ability to access a justice system that protects the private individual rather more so than the surveillance led state, may be considered to be a positive, depending on your viewpoint.
Then there is the European Arrest Warrant. Plenty of positives there.
When I look at your post, I'm not saying its right or wrong, but you seem to have a very selective negative view. We're all in it together, and that includes private individuals, and huge corporations. Many times you hear the argument of whats best for the nation, but how that tramples the rights of a citizen. All good and well, until you happen to be that citizen.
For my part, I think all pollies are crooks, but we have to make a fist of it together. While you're busy complaining about huge corporations, remember that business pays peoples wages. Communism was tried, and was an abject failure.
1
Like
|
I'm certainly not supporting or advocating any political extreme, merely seeking a system that best represents citizens needs in reality, in practice, not in ideological terms.
The negativity you refer to is an attempt to address the realities, not to be negative for the sake of it, but to comprehend and evaluate these realities (and the system) from a much higher perspective, in order to judge how we as a nation can best gain solutions to the many problems that citizens have been exposed to since we joined the EU.
The EU needs to reform and at this moment in time given the current structure, I see no way that this can be accomplished within any realistic timeframe.
In the interim the UK appears to be the scapegoat and at great risk of undermining all that has been achieved in terms of us creating a cohesive and tolerant social structure that is trusted and relatively fair, in so much as it thankfully abides by rules and regulations and whose politicians appear better accountable to their citizens.
The EU has threatened this basic and valued aspect to citizens !ives in the UK, so in the absence of reform or willingness to review this need for greater flexibility there seems little option but to take back control and seek out a new relationship with the EU.
But this is not to say that it should be just national interests that need to be reflected upon but far wider and compromising failings within the EU that need to be addressed.....realities that are currently compromising nation states.
If this comes across as negative I would prefer it to be seen as constructive criticism ;).
This message was last edited by ads on 25/10/2016.
This message was last edited by ads on 25/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Great NEWS on the new RUNWAY that will create THOUSANDS of JOBS and extra INCOME for UK ,why would they sanction this if they THOUGHT a reduction of FOOTFALL due to BREXIT so they must be CONFIDENT that LONDON will not lose its No1 STATUS glad they didnt put anything in the ESTUARY that would have been right OUTSIDE my front PORCH
GOOD NEWS everday looking from the MAJORITY of BRITS who are in my POSITION
I once read a book I cannot remember the name but it had a THEORY which went along the lines of only WORRY about subjects you can ALTER thats how I have always LIVED MY LIFE and its always seen me RIGHT
Love Hugh xxx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
3
Like
|
The difference of course is unlike Brexit Parliament get a year to debate it.
2
Like
|
If the political representatives of the union acting as representatives of the whole population could be trusted or take an oath of silence during the detailed analysis of the best way forward, so as not to compromise our negotiating position, then they could work together with the Govt to find the best possible package to suit the UKs needs....
Trouble is to achieve a solution to meet majority consensus it will always upset the minorities, and this is where in reality they could purposefully compromise the outcome, in the hope that any attempt to leave the EU would be scuppered.
So surely the best way to ensure exit from the EU is done in the best way for both EU and UK, is to debate the various scenarios without compromising our negotiating position, to fully reflect concerns and principles across Parliament ( as is being suggested) and hope and trust that from that debate the Govt takes on board a broad perspective of views to carry forward into the negotiations.
It's going to take time to build that trust and consensus so patience is required in the interim.
0
Like
|
"Parliament is sovereign and that overrides a referendum vote in a representative democracy. I repeat again the referendum vote was non-binding. As such parliament must have the final say on Brexit."
That is just so much rubbish Micky. Of course the result of a referendum of all the electorate is binding. You can repeat nonsense as often as you wish, it is still nonsense.
We are representitive democracy because it is not possible (or was not possible) for all the electorate to be informed or to vote on every issue. So we choose people to represent us.
A referendum is the purist form of democracy. And Parliament must enact the will of the people.
When Parliament cut of the head of Charles the first is was on behalf of the people, to assert that the will of the people was supreme, not the King or Parliament. They were both representitives of the people. The Soveriegn is not Soveriegn! and neither is any other body. The people are sovereign.
But even if your comments had any validity parliament voted 6 to 1 to go to the people and MP's are therefore bound by the result.
But, as I pointed out long before the referendum. Although I expected an out vote I did and do not expect progress to be straight forward. Not because of negociating problems which is what everyone is concentrating on but because when push comes to shove the EU will not want us to sever our ties completely. The Commisioners are the ones talking about hard lines but apart from the French (where they are worried abount Ms Le Pen) national governments and leaders are taking an increasingly softer line.
I do not expect any actions by remoaner MP's to have any serious effect and without any other intervention we would move smoothly towards exit, where we have the negociating position to ensure a reasonable deal. However I would not bet on it, because I still expect some move on behalf of some of the governments of the EU to change the situation.
If the situation was seriously changed by some initiative by EU national governments then the result you desire, referral to parliament or the people might become inevitable.
Watch this space Micky. You may still get some of what you want but not by remoaning or wishing the position was other than what it is.
1
Like
|
The difference of course is unlike Brexit Parliament get a year to debate it.
This airport expansion has been debated for far too long. The debate started more than 46 years ago! The government initiated and paid for the latest report and should act on it. For once Labour got it right, and before a further expensive report. Cameron just delayed things for his electoral interests.
Then we should start to look at the longer term future.
In the 70s we decided on a brand new airport near Northampton. It was a nutty idea and was torpedoed by local interests. (Cudlington?) Even the present report is wrong because it did not consider all the long term options.
The Heathrow option should go ahead now because we need the capacity. But the best solution has always been a four or six runway airport at Stansted where there is the space close to the capital to build it without knocking down thousands more houses. Stansted also has (or can have) communication with the rest of the country and an easy rail route to the channel tunnel. (HS 3 would also be cheaper if it took the eastern route via Stansted).
Stansted has always been the answer but has always been dropped due to local interests.
The Thames Estuary is a no-no because of bird-strike and fog issues (apart from the massive cost and lack of infrastructure).
Perhaps the government should publish all the pro's and cons and put it to a referendum. Successive governments have been unable to take a decision, perhaps we should ask the people?
This message was last edited by tteedd on 25/10/2016.
0
Like
|
Boris made himself scarce when the Heathrow expansion decision was announced, so will he 'lie down in front of the bulldozers' or not?
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
0
Like
|
tteedd you are wrong.
The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, also known as the EU referendum and the Brexit referendum, was a referendum that took place on Thursday 23 June 2016 in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar[1][2] to gauge support for the country's continued membership in the European Union. The referendum result was not legally binding due to the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016
The accepted legal opinion of a group of lawyers also have stated the referendum was purely advisory and can be ignored.
What should happen is a general election which would be fought on the basis of remaining or leaving the EU. It would settle the question and remainers would I believe win on a constituency basis.
Read Wiki on the status of referendums here:
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
Of course I suppose you will say Wikipedia is wrong as well.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 26/10/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
3
Like
|