| The Comments |
Baz, it appears you are a hardliner Brexitor. I respect that but do not support it and will lobby against it. I need to know what, where and when. I will not be fobbed off with, "We will get the best deal that is available". That means nothing. Brexit means Brexit is nothing. Put some substance on my plate and I might be able to support it.
I wouldn't say so much as a 'Hardliner Brexitor' I voted out for one reason only, I want my country to have back control over the many things we lost, if we had got a blindingly good deal from Cameron months ago I might have wanted to vote stay, but as it was that resulted in worse then nothing, and it also really did show what Brussels thought of us, and as I have said the arrogance of him beggars belief.
Don't much care if we do leave, don't much care if we stay...We will all live.
It could be said that being a member of a club where we all pulled together might work but we are the only one's who pull together, and I send car parts to Spain so I understand a little about how the so called 'Club' works.
If you could put some substance on my plate instead of 'What if's' and 'This and That will happen' then we would all be happy, but as it is...Sorry to repeat again....No one knows what will happen because this has never happened before.
This message was last edited by baz1946 on 17/11/2016.
2
Like
|
hugh_man, it is impossible to roll back Globalisation. Mr Obama made comments about this yesterday. Protectionism is a form of communism and it does not work.
The other votes coming up in the EU are important and that is what fuels my belief that the EU can reform.
Not sure about your comments, Bond Yields are Rising and Prices are falling. That is referring to how bonds work nothing more. As the Price of a Bond goes up its current yield falls. It has nothing to do with comsumer prices if that is what you are inferring.
Unfortunately, we cannot disinvent knowledge and as new methods of working come into play we need to adopt to them. Blaming the steam engine did not stop it from taking over. It is the type of jobs that need to be created that is the issue.
Integration is and always will be a tough issue, but being a supporter of integration is the better way to go. I don't want to go back to the good old dark days, I want enlightenment and fair play and a level playing field to be the norm not the exception. I appreciate your view on wanting things to stay still for a while but that is not how we are by nature. We create good we create bad then we try to fix the bad.
By taking care of others we take care of ourselves, it is too easy to see it the other way around. It is very easy to blame others. You are right we need to be responsible for ourselves and others and I do not see that as communism. Being moral is an important thing to work for, being greedy and selfish is not.
Sticking up for ourselves is a reality, but we cannot turn our back on the woes of the world because they will present themselves on our doorstep.
1
Like
|
Jarvi, it would be easier for me to understand you if you would say why you are a Brexitor. You seem to have a hate for the EU that I cannot understand.
0
Like
|
Perry
Personally think integration is more like communism.
Globalisation makes more profits for business, it does not increase jobs.
Nation states borrow money by issuing bonds, if bond yields go up they have to pay more to borrow money, thus fueling an impossible debt position, increasingly a problem among the PIGS economies on Europe.
What I'm trying to say is the financial model the Euro and the EU are trying to run is not working and will eventually cause the House of Cards.
Better for the UK to be well out of it.
1
Like
|
https://www.eyeonspain.com/blogs/spainnews/16754/spain-escapes-loss-of-eu-funding-as-punishment-for-failing-to-meet-deficit-targets.aspx
Sticking plaster over a broken leg, temporary respite that will end in tears.
Best off out. Greece should have been sensible like UK but for different reasons.
2
Like
|
hugh,
The USA is probably the antithesist of communism but strives for integration.
There are problems with Globalisation, people are getting left behind, businesses are going where the cost of business is cheapest including corporation tax. Corporation tax needs to be harmonised across the EU. Then the EU can stand up against big business in a united way. Big business will not like it but they will learn to eat it. It is the only way to defend ourselves against big business while still having them in our countries.
Every country in the world is a debtor. Some more than others. Interest rates are at historic lows or near to it. They can really only go one way. The upside to rising Bond Rates is that it provides more income on new pension contributions. The EU's financial model is pretty standard. As in the USA there are poor regions and wealthy regions and one size does not fit all. The EU needs to more tightly control the budget failings of each country to prevent another Greece from happening. Basically Greece was allowed into the EU before it was ready and was then allowed to spend money it did not and possibly would never have.
Your comments however raise a very big and important point. If the UK wants to abandon the EU ship surely they cannot expect to garner any benefits from it. The EU will take a very strong stance against the UK because in the midst of a difficult time the UK says we are not prepared to help our less fortunate EU neighbours. The EU Single Market is probably the most significant, benficial element to the UK. Why wouild the EU let the UK cherry pick that element if it wants to turn its back on the tough things?
Free movement of people is in need of Reform and there is likley to be at least some concensus across the EU on this. But. Having a share of the cake and not being prepared to pay for a share of the ingredients is just never going to happen. The EU will accept a smaller cake rather than going that route. And, if they cannot get what they want from the UK they can make it themselves or offer tariff free deals to others to replace it. The UK on the other hand cannot invent a new market, especially for Financial Services. We can try to find new markets for our manufactured products but that is not going to be easy either. Don't look towards the USA, Trump is already threatening Ford with 35% tariffs if they move 'new' production to Mexico (which is part of NAFTA). FinServ is our biggest Industry and our biggest export. It can be replaced by North America who are chomping at the bit to do it and are well equipped to do it as well as Frankfurt, Paris, Milan, Barcelona etc who will pull out all the stops to host a share of it including permitting Brits to work it in unfettered.
The UK has a lot to offer and that is why I believe that given time we can get the Reforms to Free Movement we want. But there will be redlines that are not going to get crossed.
This message was last edited by perrypower1 on 17/11/2016.
2
Like
|
Ads wrote: It is obvious from your observations that you want a second referendum which many perceive as not accepting the will of the people from the first referendum result.
No ads I am not saying that. I know it won’t happen and in any case you are probably right about the same result given that the phony propaganda on both side would return and I’m sure we have all had enough of that..
What I expect is the same as PP posted. Parliamentary debate and scrutiny of the exit terms May is planning but yet keeping it secret from the country. How can that be ever right in a democracy? Never is the answer. I don’t buy the negotiations must be a secret process. It’s camouflage for; I don’t actually have the first idea …..yet.
A recent survey of people in Britain has shown most people want to keep single market access and customs union with SOME controls on EU immigration. I believe that may well be a scenario the EU could live with especially after Merkle said this week that free movement could be modified.
Sooner or later some common sense has to enter the subject of Brexit a middle course to satisfy both remain and leave. That requires skilled leadership and pragmatism. The problem is I have yet to see any sign of that, except perhaps from the new leader of the free world; Angela Merkle.
There seems to be a belief that the current UK government represents the leave voters only. They do not. They have a responsibility to govern for all the people all the time.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
What concerns me greatly and to be honest has made me (sadly) conclude, is that there will be little compromise from the EU for fear of setting a precedent for other member states to follow, plus their continuing intransigence to reform.
IMHO I now consider that this is not a bargaining stance on their part (as previously hoped for) but a strong ideological intransigence to change from the status quo.
For years I have been hoping that there would be a willingness to reform and find a balanced solution to the problems experienced to date, but the more research I have done the more I have come to comprehend that the current bureaucrats are intent on a longer term strategy for a ferederal state, which does not sit comfortably with many in the UK.
Looking to the current responses to date from the EU officials (bureaucrats) in Brussels, they appear to have hardened their approach, they appear intent on following an obstructive approach where necessary, in other words defend their ideals to prevent any contagion to other member states.
So with this in mind it now appears a foregone conclusion that the EU officials are presenting little option to accept these ideals or leave the EU.
The problem then becomes (and I take little pleasure in having to consider this) what will the EU do in this interim period to "use" the UK as an example and demonstrate to the other member states how leaving the EU will be made as painful as possible.
In other words we have to take this worst case scenario and plan accordingly.
So, given the above, I'd be interested to know, what realistic options are then at our disposal to protect all UK citizens, both living in and outside of the UK, and our trading options.
0
Like
|
Perry
I don't need to get into a debate about my reasons for wanting to leave the EU. I don't hate the EU I just like many others hate what it has become. It won't make any difference what I say to you about the rights and wrongs of being in the EU, you have made your choices as I have mine. If the referendum had been to stay in, although I wouldn't be happy about it, I would have accepted the choice of the majority even if it had been by a single person, it's a pity that those who chose to remain are trying to block the leave vote. They are pretending that the detail matters knowing full well that should the UK show its hand before any negotiations then the tables may well be turned by the EU and there might be a slim chance to overturn the decision of the people. You are kidding no-one.
On a final note I would ask everyone who posts on here one question which I asked many of my friends before the referendum.
If we weren't already a part of the EU before the referendum and the choice was to join or not how many would vote to join?
My guess would be that the majority vote for not joining would be a far greater difference than the referendum vote.
0
Like
|
Looking to the current responses to date from the EU officials (bureaucrats) in Brussels, they appear to have hardened their approach, they appear intent on following an obstructive approach where necessary, in other words defend their ideals to prevent any contagion to other member states.
Fortunately it is the national leaders, who are answerable to their electorates, rather than the functionaries that will have the final say.
A good reason why we should get on with it and start before some of the forthcoming elections.
2
Like
|
Is this Theresa May's reasoning?
0
Like
|
Who knows?
She seems to have taken the view that she had to get her Brexiteers to build a team before enacting article 50. Given the legal challenge it might have been better to have enacted article 50 straight away.
1
Like
|
No point to that if legally challenged at a later date.....
1
Like
|
Not much point in finding that parliament should have a say before enactment, if article 50 had already been enacted.
Not much point in discussing it really either, we are in a different place.
Who thinks that the decision is likely to be reversed or annulled?
Do the Judges really interperate the law or are they giving their opinions?
Is it really a legal question in a country that has no constitution?
Are the Americans more realistic when they make the supreme court subject to political appointment.
(Last q really a bit off beam for a Brexit thread).
0
Like
|
I don't think for a second the decision will be annulled and the judges do not, in my experience, become swayed by opinion concerning judgements. They will have to battle their own opinions of course because the judgement they deliver has to be impartial and based on law.
The next three questions are nothing to do with me and I don't have any knowledge to make an opinion, sorry.
I feel the longer we carry on towards brexit and the other states see we didn't fall into life support measures as was predicted, EU has some changes to make to keep the union together. Other countries will see a support to leave gathering some momentum.
This message was last edited by briando55 on 18/11/2016.
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
3
Like
|
Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens. Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works. Britain’s lack of a ‘written’ constitution can be explained by its history. In other countries, many of whom have experienced revolution or regime change, it has been necessary to start from scratch or begin from first principles, constructing new state institutions and defining in detail their relations with each other and their citizens. By contrast, the British Constitution has evolved over a long period of time, reflecting the relative stability of the British polity. It has never been thought necessary to consolidate the basic building blocks of this order in Britain. What Britain has instead is an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more accurate to refer to Britain’s constitution as an ‘uncodified’ constitution, rather than an ‘unwritten’ one.
2
Like
|
Perrypower.
The Magna Carta is the British constitution. It's written and is the basis for all modern democratic laws all over the world.
We call this common law, and it's built on and layered on to make the constitution and law we have today.
Britain is different because it has been used to leading rather than following, that's probably why we have the courage to go our own way.
_______________________
Best wishes, Brian
0
Like
|
Actually Brian there are a number of documents that make up our constitution of which the key is the 1689 Bill of Rights that made Paliament Supreme.
The UK has been a world Leader but Leaders don't walk away when the going gets tough. They Lead not leave.
1
Like
|
Britain us used to leading really
Yes they invaded countries and took over forcing people to adopt the British way great leadership Not
No real leadership in the eu and are leaving when it gets tough
The empire died years ago
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
Tadd referred to ".....no real leadership in the EU"
Is this correct or is it more the case that EU leadership does not appear to be listening or is representative of its citizens in each of the member states? Each state having such diverse needs and priorities.
How many British citizens for instance living in the UK feel empowered by EU leadership? It appears that those living outside their country of birth feel very different to those still wishing to live and still feel proud to remain in their country of birth. Whereas many living abroad in Spain for instance appear, for whatever reason, to have become disaffected with their own country and therefore have a very different perspective.
So is the problem here that the EU bureaucrats have lost sight of the needs and aspirations of those nationals remaining in their own country and the impact that their EU policies and lack of flexibility is having on their everyday lives?
Isn't there a better compromise to be reached here since the majorities ( nationals remaining in their own countries) appear to be paying the price for the failures in the current EU system?
That is not to say that politicians in their own country also need to better respond to their citizens needs and better manage their economies and systems, but at least citizens feel more in control to make their political representatives accountable "at home" than they do with their EU representatives. They feel more empowered by their own leaders.
Or do EU bureaucrats consider this price is worth paying to achieve their longer term ideological beliefs to attain a federal state?
This message was last edited by ads on 19/11/2016.
0
Like
|