P.K. Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 2 hours ago, pongo said: Britain could, for example, officially leave the EU whilst simultaneously deciding to continue on more or less the same basis - the terms of the referendum would have been satisfied. The most likely outcome is something between the two positions. Much closer to remain than Farage-Corbyn would like. All true but politicians across the UK spectrum are very aware that the Leave campaign won because the majority voted to keep Johnny Foreigner and their damn work ethic out of the UK. You cross that sizeable political lobby at your peril - because imho it will mean big trouble ahead if you do. Nice irony though! Hmmm..... keep them out at any price it would seem.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 2 hours ago, woody2 said: if the ecj do play a role in the future what is to stop them finding tax laws are against eu citizen or anything else the uk does... the fact is the uk has voted to leave the eu, remainers like miss miller only want to stop exit... most of the eu right came from english law, all eu rights are been made into uk law, what's the problem? parliament needs full control of the future..... the remainers clearly don't want parliament in control despite miller's case.... The ECJ can only deal with EU law so the only nexus will have to be some tax process in the UK that is part of EU law and which by agreement has remained relevant and connected...There is no federal tax.. The ECJ deals with EU law. You think in terms of "rights" applying in the EU as coming from English law. I bet that surprises the EU which is based on the Code Napoleon ie Napoleon's idea of law.. This is why the "Anglo" peoples bristle. The Code Napoleon is based on telling you what to do...ie the famous "EU Directives one size fits all" The "Anglo" principle is you can do what you like save were the law applies reasonable restrictions and proscribes certain activities...ie personal freedom of which the USA is the great protagonist. The British clash with the EU is based on this faceless bureaucratic dictation of "what you will do and do it this way" as opposed to the more relaxed way in principle of our traditional laws and freedoms. It is like a software conflict on a computer. I think you have yet to understand the difference between human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights which may indeed reflect "Anglo" attitudes as moulded from Anglo-Saxon village life. I think you have yet to understand the difference between the Council of Europe founded in London in 1949 and the European Council which runs the EU. They are not the same although the Council of Europe did adopt the EU flag. "EU" rights whatever they are be not the same as Human Rights from the Human Rights Convention.. Although as it says on the link I provided earlier the EU may indeed take notice of and incorporate Council of Europe doings in its work and deliberations. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 5 hours ago, pongo said: Interesting to see that your are beginning to shift your emphasis. In a similar vein - of course Britain is going to have to pay to leave the EU. And that's normal - it invariably costs money to get out of a contract / commitment. The only question explicitly asked related to "leaving the EU". Nothing else. Britain has not voted to leave the free trade area or any of the agreements which relate to that. And Britain has not voted to end free movement. These issues are not implicit. Everything else is a negotiation with the EU clearly holding a much stronger negotiating position in terms of reaching an agreement which British business, and therefore the Conservative govt, can pragmatically accept. If the agreement does not work for business then the government will be quickly replaced from within. Britain could, for example, officially leave the EU whilst simultaneously deciding to continue on more or less the same basis - the terms of the referendum would have been satisfied. The most likely outcome is something between the two positions. Much closer to remain than Farage-Corbyn would like. i am not shifting my emphasis i don't believe the eu or its institutions should have any role in the uk when it leaves... it was made clear by both side what the voting out would lead to.... the political firework that is waiting to go off if its not deemed to have left by the public is what most politicians fear not businesses that have no say on future elections.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 3 hours ago, P.K. said: All true but politicians across the UK spectrum are very aware that the Leave campaign won because the majority voted to keep Johnny Foreigner and their damn work ethic out of the UK. You cross that sizeable political lobby at your peril - because imho it will mean big trouble ahead if you do. Nice irony though! Hmmm..... keep them out at any price it would seem.... i agree with PK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Barrie Stevens said: waffle . in case you missed it bazza, there wont be any eu laws left in the uk after the repel bill, hence like the rest of the world, no need for the ecj in the uk...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 5 hours ago, pongo said: of course Britain is going to have to pay to leave the EU. And that's normal - it invariably costs money to get out of a contract / commitment. what even if "the contract" doesn't state so? you must be mad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 23 minutes ago, woody2 said: the political firework that is waiting to go off if its not deemed to have left by the public is what most politicians fear not businesses that have no say on future elections.... I don't believe that. Of the roughly 50% who voted to leave, there is no reason to believe that anything other than a minority support a simplistic / ideological 'hard' Brexit. A pragmatic middle route, something like a Norway solution, would clearly have majority support amongst both sides. The issue, of course, is that what Brexit means was never defined. Really there should be a second vote in order for people to chose what sort of Brexit they actually want. 27 minutes ago, woody2 said: i am not shifting my emphasis You're saying it's an if. Not a done thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) @ Pongo: For me it's entirely a sovereignty and accountability issue. Totally that. The EU is a top down supra-nationally imposed quasi-state organisation dreamed up after WW2 by idealists first as a common market and then as a creeping progression towards a super-state. Nobody asked for "ever closer union". Nobody wanted it. It was imposed from above by the type of people who know better than you because you're too stupid to know what's good for you. It is for this reason that it has been a running sore in British politics virtually from the outset, attacked by patriots from throughout the political spectrum because of its illegitimacy of purpose. What then is the EU for? There is nothing that the EU does that could not be arranged perfectly well by the independent states that comprise it on a bilateral or multilateral basis. We don't need a European Parliament - it's a joke anyway, and we don't need the EU Commission or the 4 presidents and army of bureaucrats that suck on the teat. We certainly don't need an EU Court to tell our Courts what they can and can't do. In short, no foreign body should exercise sovereignty "pooled" or otherwise sitting above national institutions. It is a matter of national self-respect for all European countries. For matters of common interest we can set up joint boards that can hammer out proposals but with the members always under the authority of their own national governments. We can also have free trade between independent European nations - or we could, if it was not for the EU blocking it if you are not in the club, or dare to leave. The EU is the impediment to free trade unless you accept all of the onerous conditions and costs that go with membership. What does Brexit mean? Well, really anything that slams the brakes on "ever closer union" and reverses it as far as Britain is concerned. Anything that means we never end up in a superstate with ever more remote figures setting the agenda. Anything that frees the country from the dead hand of "one size fits all" rules. So long as Britain is legally outside and no longer a member state then the rest can go do whatever they like and it will be interesting to see for how long they can hold it together, single currency et al. Edited July 21, 2017 by woolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, woolley said: @ Pongo: For me it's entirely a sovereignty and accountability issue. Totally that. The EU is a top down supra-nationally imposed quasi-state organisation dreamed up after WW2 by idealists first as a common market and then as a creeping progression towards a super-state. Nobody asked for "ever closer union". Nobody wanted it. So let's see your proof and not just your opinion. Clue: check out the maps of Europe pre and post WW2. You might just notice some subtle differences..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) Good Morning PK. Well I lived through most of that time, travelled widely and I don't remember a general clamouring for, or people marching in the streets carrying banners supporting the establishment of a United States of Europe. As I said, it's a top down imposition by an elite who think they know what is good for you. What really clinches it is that they could not come out and say they were fashioning "Euroland" because they knew that people wouldn't wear it. Instead it has been done largely on the pretext of doing something else. Let us dispense with the notion that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years. War weariness, the cold war, nuclear weapons and common NATO membership of the major players has done that. The EU is actually dangerous because of the internal pressures and resentment it breeds such as those growing between the centre and Greece and the centre and Hungary, Poland etc. These are not going away and the clock is ticking. Edited July 21, 2017 by woolley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Morning Woolster. I agree that the formation of the EU did not supersede NATO in keeping the peace in Europe. That's a load of guff. However as I have posted previously the collective guilt carried by modern Germans makes the EU pretty much essential to them. I'm surprised you didn't realise that on your travels although it's not an easy subject to broach I guess. As to Greek resentment I'm just glad I'm not Dutch! Something to consider though. In the early eighties I think it was we took a coach excursion on Crete. We stopped at a village and the tour guide told the Germans not to go into the hills on their own! Can you imagine how those Germans felt? It's also obvious how the EU would grow ie these days it's better to be in a trading bloc than outside one. As I suspect we are going to find out..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 15 hours ago, woody2 said: in case you missed it bazza, there wont be any eu laws left in the uk after the repel bill, hence like the rest of the world, no need for the ecj in the uk...... This is not totally correct. The idea is to drag all the laws, rules and regs back to the UK so that they can be sorted, shifted and cherry picked to sift the good from the bad, the relevant from the irrelevant and what may have to kept, maintained adapted etc for the sake of establishing whatever final Brexit "deal" is arrived at.....The show ain't over till the fat lady sings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) @ PK: Well we'll see. It's possible that the EU will survive as a genuine trade bloc without the ulterior motives which I wouldn't have too much of a problem with, so long as it knows its place and remains subordinate to the constituent nations. That's what it should have been in the first place without the ambitions of statehood, the "government", the massive budget, the flag, the currency, the court etc. There are some people at the centre who are in denial about the future, but I think there are others who see which way the wind's blowing and are pragmatic enough to salvage what is worthwhile. Business will find a way in any case, and it will not ignore the fifth largest economy on the planet. At least your 1980s Germans were warned about historical resentment from the Greeks. If they go there now they have to run the gauntlet of freshly created Greek hatred about EU constraints over their economy and the destitution they are suffering because of it. At the same time the Germans themselves are sick of funding the bail outs. Anyone who spends time in Greece knows that all is not well with the EU. I think some of the problem is the idea that has been pushed at every opportunity that the UK is "leaving Europe" and this engenders a sense of loss in some people. The EU is not Europe. Britain can never leave Europe. It will continue to be semi-detached from it as it always has been. Maybe it would have been easier if the organisation had a different name that wasn't so emotive. Had it still been called the "Common Market" or something equally abstract, then I doubt that many of those of tiny attention span would be quite so animated. Anyway. That's me on this for a while. People start throwing things at the wall if I overdo it. Edited July 22, 2017 by woolley 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 15 hours ago, woody2 said: what even if "the contract" doesn't state so? you must be mad.... There is no need for a contract just brute force and ignorance...Might is right... There was once a land that was in a union with three other countries but that land was not happy. One day about 120 years after joining that union it had imposed on it a plan to withdraw from that union albeit with free trade and to a great extent free movement... Some people did not want to leave that union and so they allowed one part of that land to remain and the others to leave but under the terms of an interim agreement and the payment of what was for that land a very large sum of money. Eventually that land decided to do a total "Exit" and became a republic...This was in 1948 but it was not legal until the union passed its own superior legislation a year later. And despite all that the head of state of that union retained a sovereign position within that land and does so to this very day. Well my little ones. That land was Ireland. The interim agreement was the nebulous Irish Free State...The sum of money was paid to the union by that state was its "Brexit Divorce Bill"...in 1948 that land became the Republic of Ireland but it was not fully effective and agreed until the union passed its very own Ireland Act 1949. That land may have left the union but in many respects nothing much changed...And the union still has its head of state in place within that land as Queen in Ireland but not Queen of Ireland. I have a feeling in my bones that the UK will be like the Free State and at the end of the day nothing much will change and that the interim stage will of necessity stretch on a few more years and that legislation will permit this to be until such time as the UK can fully break away..But like Ireland I do not think that it will ..fully that is. Yes. I think the UK will become the British Free State but linked to the EU just as happened to Ireland and its links to the UK.. I think that it will always be a mess but it is anyway so muddle on chaps! ...Also, I get the feeling the British politicians in charge of Brexit are little better than the Irish bumpkins who created and ran the Free State until people of greater calibre appeared in the 1970s. I post a link about the Irish legislation..https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKl_CkyJzVAhUsJcAKHQMSBiAQFggxMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIreland_Act_1949&usg=AFQjCNEyMjrMzIC29Ozncf9IsoZLQEV5lQ and one day after being a pain in the ass for about 120 years it was offered a chance to leave that union Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Once again I recommend this link regarding the progress of the Irish Free State as it does have similarities as to how Brexit may yet evolve. Uncanny in some places. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKl_CkyJzVAhUsJcAKHQMSBiAQFggxMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIreland_Act_1949&usg=AFQjCNEyMjrMzIC29Ozncf9IsoZLQEV5lQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.