So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[Freggyragh]

Oh dear, you’re talking out of your hole again Woolley.

Treaty change, enlargement negotiations, implementation of a common foreign and security policy, a common European defence policy and any lifting of the EU’s revenue ceiling or changes in the UK’s budget rebate - the U.K. had veto rights on them all. 

Any proposal to shift the boundaries between provisions requiring unanimity and those that can be decided by Qualified Majority voting would have needed a treaty change and would have triggered a referendum in the UK, as provided for in the 2011 European Referendum Act – (the “double lock”).

The UK was not required to join the Euro, or Schengen. If the directives that didn’t apply in the U.K. (eg, those relating to olive groves or cotton farms) are excluded then only 13% of U.K. laws came from Brussels and many of those that did were to comply with international treaties or the rulings of agencies that the U.K. would have to comply with anyway, and that the U.K. supported 97% of the time. 

There’s no political will to create a European superstate, and if there was it would require unanimous support to happen. I really don’t get it with you nuts, one day you’re saying the EU is about to break up with a wave of populists exits, the next you’re saying that there’s the political will across the rest of Europe to create a superstate. Does it depend on which lunatic’s blog you’ve just read, what side of the bed you got up on, or whether you’ve popped uppers or downers? 

 

[woody2]

8 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

Oh dear, you’re talking out of your hole again Woolley.

Treaty change, enlargement negotiations, implementation of a common foreign and security policy, a common European defence policy and any lifting of the EU’s revenue ceiling or changes in the UK’s budget rebate - the U.K. had veto rights on them all. 

Any proposal to shift the boundaries between provisions requiring unanimity and those that can be decided by Qualified Majority voting would have needed a treaty change and would have triggered a referendum in the UK, as provided for in the 2011 European Referendum Act – (the “double lock”).

The UK was not required to join the Euro, or Schengen. If the directives that didn’t apply in the U.K. (eg, those relating to olive groves or cotton farms) are excluded then only 13% of U.K. laws came from Brussels and many of those that did were to comply with international treaties or the rulings of agencies that the U.K. would have to comply with anyway, and that the U.K. supported 97% of the time. 

There’s no political will to create a European superstate, and if there was it would require unanimous support to happen. I really don’t get it with you nuts, one day you’re saying the EU is about to break up with a wave of populists exits, the next you’re saying that there’s the political will across the rest of Europe to create a superstate. Does it depend on which lunatic’s blog you’ve just read, what side of the bed you got up on, or whether you’ve popped uppers or downers? 

 

from monnet through to tusk that has always been the plan.....

[The Phat Tog]

Freggy, I would agree to a point about the lack of political will across Europe to create a centrally governed 'superstate' but that isn't where the problem lies.  The problem is within the heirarchy of the EU where in my opinion, the desire for that most certainly exists.  You will also see it in certain individuals who perhaps aspire to join (or re-join) that heirarchy.  I doubt you will find it in a large part of the member states' populace.  But then their opinion doesn't matter...

I voted leave because I don't believe in the 'project'.  This is something the current EU top dogs, such as Juncker, Verhofstadt etc believe in so fervently that it's preventing them from striking a mutually beneficial deal with the UK.  The 'project' being the development of a United States of Europe.  Something that Ted Heath is alleged to have witheld from the population at the time of joining the then EEC because the people would never accept it.

It is my belief that the EU will ultimately fail.  Whether it's 6 months or 6 years or whenever, who knows but I don't believe the talent exists within this organisation to govern a very large area of very different people and cultures.  In the short term I also doubt that they have the talent to cope with the loss of the money we throw at them every year.

It's even been theorised that the UK was taken into the EEC unconstitutionally and therefore our membership is invalid anyway.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

Edited March 3, 2018 by The Phat Tog
typo

[ballaughbiker]

Confirmation bias is helped no end by the internet. Within seconds you can find 'data' to back up any mad idea you want.

 

[Freggyragh]

Where to start with?

1. There may well be many politicians who want an USE, but the EU is composed of democracies with veto rights. The U.K. was not being asked to join a USE, an EU military project, the Euro or Schengen. If there were any elected politician in favour of any of these (let’s imagine a parallel universe where Theresa May’s grip on power relies on the loony pro USE press and backbenchers) they would still have to convince the voters and parliament to back them. None of the things you fear can happen unless the people of each EU member state wants it - which even you admit is not the case. You’ve been sold a ridiculous lie if you think Verhofstadt is capable of leading a popular revolution to topple the administration of the EU and establish a superstate. 

2. You’re convinced the EU will fail, but I guess you think the U.K. will survive. The U.K. has already had to take on another 8,000 civil servants now that resouces aren’t being pooled. It faces a staffing crises in schools, hospitals and crucial industries. Do you think NI will stay when they can’t even form a government and the average wage there is £25,000, but £40,000 in the Republic (as it is now)? Do you think Scotland will stay if it means losing the right to live and work in Europe, to allow Westminster control over immigration (which they are very much more in favour of), and a general drop in living standards. I give the U.K. longer than six months. Six to ten years sounds more achievable. 

[woolley]

11 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

Oh dear, you’re talking out of your hole again Woolley.

Treaty change, enlargement negotiations, implementation of a common foreign and security policy, a common European defence policy and any lifting of the EU’s revenue ceiling or changes in the UK’s budget rebate - the U.K. had veto rights on them all. 

Any proposal to shift the boundaries between provisions requiring unanimity and those that can be decided by Qualified Majority voting would have needed a treaty change and would have triggered a referendum in the UK, as provided for in the 2011 European Referendum Act – (the “double lock”).

The UK was not required to join the Euro, or Schengen. If the directives that didn’t apply in the U.K. (eg, those relating to olive groves or cotton farms) are excluded then only 13% of U.K. laws came from Brussels and many of those that did were to comply with international treaties or the rulings of agencies that the U.K. would have to comply with anyway, and that the U.K. supported 97% of the time. 

There’s no political will to create a European superstate, and if there was it would require unanimous support to happen. I really don’t get it with you nuts, one day you’re saying the EU is about to break up with a wave of populists exits, the next you’re saying that there’s the political will across the rest of Europe to create a superstate. Does it depend on which lunatic’s blog you’ve just read, what side of the bed you got up on, or whether you’ve popped uppers or downers? 

 

Slowly, slowly catchy monkey. There are varying degrees of political will to create a European superstate, but not among the populations of the great nations of Europe. There lies the problem. If this was a genuine trading bloc and nothing more there would be no issue whatsoever, but it has always had a bad case of mission creep. Of what can be got away with at any given time along the way without frightening the horses too much. Common Market to European Economic Community to European Community to European Union. Can you not see the direction of travel there? I can only conclude that either you support "The Project" or you really are as dim as a Toc-h lamp.

[woolley]

@ Freggy: If you seriously believe that NI will leave the UK and throw it's lot in with Ireland you are even more deluded than I thought. The Republic itself cannot survive without handouts from the UK taxpayer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9813358/British-taxpayers-funded-Irelands-14bn-bail-out.html

[Freggyragh]

The idea that Ted Heath behaved unconstitutionally is ridiculous. If there was a legal case to answer the multi-millionaire leavers would have tried it. 

Let me explain why: 

The U.K. doesn’t have a written constitution, it has traditions, conventions, customs and acts of Parliament. It’s a great system that means a simple majority of Parliament can give or take away rights as they see fit. In the US the right to bear arms is in their constitution, so it is very difficult to change (2/3 majority of both houses and presidential approval?), that’s why the mentally ill can buy assault rifles there. People in the U.K. (well, Protestants anyway) were given the right to bear arms in the 1689 Bill of Rights, but Parliament has impinged on that right repeatedly, by simple majority, to ensure the general public doesn’t have the right to bear arms in this age of rapid fire weapons, the tabloid press, conspiracy theories and Internet forums. In short, the U.K. constitution is this:  If parliament voted for it, its constitutional.

[Freggyragh]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

@ Freggy: If you seriously believe that NI will leave the UK and throw it's lot in with Ireland you are even more deluded than I thought. The Republic itself cannot survive without handouts from the UK taxpayer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9813358/British-taxpayers-funded-Irelands-14bn-bail-out.html

That was necessary to stop the Irish selling off billions in U.K. property holdings and crashing the U.K. economy. 

[woolley]

Nobody said he acted unconstitutionally. He was simply economical with the truth, to coin a phrase, as have been many others on the subject down the years.

[woolley]

3 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

That was necessary to stop the Irish selling off billions in U.K. property holdings and crashing the U.K. economy. 

UK has contributed a good deal more than that. Various tranches via EU and via the Irish banking system as well as direct bail out. Much of Ireland's economy is based on its tax haven activities which, as we well know, can turn out to be illusory in the long term.

[woolley]

That's me out. I promised myself I wouldn't go back to chain posting. It's all yours!!

[Freggyragh]

29 minutes ago, woolley said:

Nobody said he acted unconstitutionally. He was simply economical with the truth, to coin a phrase, as have been many others on the subject down the years.

See Phat Tog’s comment about eight posts back.

[Freggyragh]

19 minutes ago, woolley said:

UK has contributed a good deal more than that. Various tranches via EU and via the Irish banking system as well as direct bail out. Much of Ireland's economy is based on its tax haven activities which, as we well know, can turn out to be illusory in the long term.

When Northern Ireland was set up in 1921 it held 80% of Ireland’s industrial capacity. It now has an economy a tiny fraction of the Republic’s, and relies on huge subsidies from the rest of the U.K.

Ireland got its fingers burned in the 2008 crash, but the Irish banking system held so much collateral in the U.K. it was always going to get bailed out. If they’d been forced to sell their holdings in the U.K. (and IOM, by the way) the British financial system (which is largely based on the book value of inflated property prices) would have collapsed like a house of cards. 

Anyway, things are changing in the North, not just the economy, but the demographics:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/northern-ireland_uk_5a4d0d92e4b0df0de8b06eaf/

[woody2]

schengen- another remoaner myth, after 3 months they become eu citizens and are free to travel to the uk......