So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

On 12/14/2018 at 8:02 PM, Freggyragh said:

Your ‘meaningless amendments’ were, amongst others, a commitment for all members to hold a permanent veto over an EU army - a major plank in your project fear, and exemption for the U.K. and Ireland from participation in Schengen - in other words, border controls. Brought about by democracy. If these are ‘meaningless’, what exactly are your meaningful objections to membership? What are these ‘instruments’ you talk of?  Can you name one? Why was Lisbon a disgrace? Can you tell us which bit you don’t like? 

You leavers, you’re just so NEBULOUS. 

NEBULOUS - (of a concept) vague or ill-defined.

It’s actually the EU itself that is both purposely and purposefully nebulous. Instruments are used by the EU Commission to exert control and its will in all policy areas; environmental, agriculture, financial etc, where they have replaced rightful national jurisdiction across the various treaties. The bloc continually probes the boundaries of the member states’ sovereignty and takes further ground as and when it is able, strategically withdrawing if faced down, only to achieve the same goals by alternative devious machinations later on. This means national energies have to be needlessly expended in perpetually fighting a rearguard action against attacks upon the rights and competencies of statehood by the monster.

A very good example was the proposed 2001 EU Constitution, billed as "a tidying up exercise". After ratification by most of the states it was found impossible to get it past France and The Netherlands in referenda. Solution? Strategic withdrawal; sweep it under the carpet for a while; “reflect”, talk about it. In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty then emerged which largely achieved the same result for the EU as the abortive constitution but does not have to surmount awkward national referenda. Except in Ireland, but of course they don’t really count and they could be told to vote again and get it right – as can we all! By the time of the second Irish referendum the country was hobbled by financial collapse and was in no position to argue. This is why Lisbon was and is a disgrace – an EU constitution in disguise along with the abolition of the veto to be replaced by qualified majority voting in a number of fields. Brown as PM was so shamefaced that he didn’t turn up on time to sign it and sloped in alone when everyone else had gone. He might as well have put a bag over his head.

Against this duplicitous and treacherous backdrop, and the assurance that we were joining a free trade organisation (common market) in the first place, how can anyone have any faith in “permanent” exemptions and opt outs? They are permanent until they change, like everything else. Basically, you cannot take anything they say or do at face value. If we were having this debate in 1997, no doubt you would be telling us, as Blair and the europhiles did, that we should join the single currency, and if we didn’t what a wasteland the UK would become. Thank goodness they didn’t prevail. That would have been a bigger disaster than Brexit could ever be.

Nothing about the Union was brought about by democracy. It is a top down imposition into which sovereign states were inveigled with malign intent. The original architects probably designed it with good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

[woolley]

On 12/14/2018 at 3:45 PM, P.K. said:

We have tripwire troops based in The Baltics to make sure that doesn't happen...

NATO does. So how does the EU give us safety in numbers? It doesn't even have a role! Yet.

[P.K.]

"malign intent" indeed.

Maybe I was right about the Evil Goblins running Brussels after all. Don't think so.

Proof of the "malign intent" please.

Thanks.

[woolley]

On 12/14/2018 at 4:09 PM, P.K. said:

In any event I did not mean a resurgent Russia in military terms. The annexation of Crimea notwithstanding.

But Trump questioning the basis of NATO is strategically bloody stupid....

I agree to a point, but making the laggards in continental Europe, such as Germany, pay their rightful share is eminently sensible. Should have been done years ago!

 

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, woolley said:

NATO does. So how does the EU give us safety in numbers? It doesn't even have a role! Yet.

The bigger the trading bloc. The more financial/trading clout it has.

This isn't rocket science.

Don't confuse NATO with the EU. The tripwire troops include a large Canadian contingent.

[woolley]

1 minute ago, P.K. said:

"malign intent" indeed.

Maybe I was right about the Evil Goblins running Brussels after all. Don't think so.

Proof of the "malign intent" please.

Thanks.

You really do wait for me 24/7 don't you? Any time of day, any season of the year; there you are. Go away for 6 months then come back and post, there you are immediately. I am sure that if I took a trip around the solar system, came back and posted in 300 years, there you would be within seconds. Quite something. Your proof: Loss of sovereignty in increasing areas of policy. Been happening for 45 years old chap. If we don't get out now, how long will we have the choice? If we do get out now, we may have saved the situation for the young and naive.

[woolley]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

The bigger the trading bloc. The more financial/trading clout it has.

This isn't rocket science.

Don't confuse NATO with the EU. The tripwire troops include a large Canadian contingent.

I'm not. You were when you invoked "safety in numbers".

[woolley]

On 12/15/2018 at 9:16 AM, ballaughbiker said:

Nobody mentioned intelligence and stupidity apart from you. 

Really? Allow me to introduce you to PK, Freggy and Richard!

[woolley]

On 12/14/2018 at 11:43 PM, P.K. said:

I'm still waiting to hear what terrible insights came out of Maastricht....?

Fundamentally and obviously it established political European union and economic integration, which nobody asked for and nobody had even been told about when joining the Common Market. Full of surprises eh? This is anathema to most of the citizens of Europe, I would venture, and is the single most treacherous document signed since the inauguration of "The Common Market".

[P.K.]

15 minutes ago, woolley said:

Fundamentally and obviously it established political European union and economic integration, which nobody asked for and nobody had even been told about when joining the Common Market. Full of surprises eh? This is anathema to most of the citizens of Europe, I would venture, and is the single most treacherous document signed since the inauguration of "The Common Market".

Then they didn't have to vote for it.

But they did....

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

You really do wait for me 24/7 don't you? Any time of day, any season of the year; there you are. Go away for 6 months then come back and post, there you are immediately. I am sure that if I took a trip around the solar system, came back and posted in 300 years, there you would be within seconds. Quite something. Your proof: Loss of sovereignty in increasing areas of policy. Been happening for 45 years old chap. If we don't get out now, how long will we have the choice? If we do get out now, we may have saved the situation for the young and naive.

Oh dear.

Not the hackneyed and totally debunked "sovereignty" card being played yet again!

That nice PK did a complete hatchet job on that load of old nonsense. The facts of the matter tell a completely different story. Plus an excellent demonstration on why the likes of the Barclay brothers are willing to pay a wedge to keep the presses rolling to "get their message across" to the idiots who buy The Daily Telegraph and are unlikely to bother to check if they're being shafted by the Brexiteers yet again:

 

On 10/16/2018 at 3:16 PM, P.K. said:

This "taking back control" and "sovereignty" was a central plank of the whole brexit nonsense and probably the one with the most falsehoods hung on it to get the required majority.

Remember Nigel Farage claiming that 75% of UK law was made in Brussels? Well, the rabid right-wingers of the UK press, which is to say pretty much all of it, naturally fell in line behind this complete and utter fabrication. For example the Barclay brothers supported the idea wholeheartedly with this puff piece:

"Two thirds of Britain's laws 'made or influenced by EU!'

"Business for Britain says more power must given back to Parliament amid concerns that EU red tape is strangling companies"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11443085/Two-thirds-of-Britains-laws-made-or-influenced-by-EU.html

Since the Maastricht Treaty up to 2014 the Sovereign Parliament of the UK passed 945 Acts of Law of which 231 implemented EU trading obligations. Over the same period  the Sovereign Parliament of the UK passed 33,160  Statutory Instruments (secondary legislation) which also implemented 4,283 EU trading obligations.

So out of a total of 34,105 pieces of legislation 4,514 were about adhering to EU trading regulations as a member of the bloc.

That's not 75%. 

It's just 13%.

It's not as if the UK was coerced into passing any of this legislation either!

So the "taking back control" of 75% of our legislation was just more brexit lies for the simple-minded.

Before any brexiteers cry "foul!" the figures were produced by the HoC Library.

"Taking back control" - you're having a laugh....!

The more we get into the truth of what brexit actually involves the more the brexiteers' Unicorn comes across as a tired whitewashed old donkey with a dildo on it's head....

Truth to tell (I don't lie. Unlike the brexiteers I don't have to...) my shadowing your return to this field of sorrow was a complete and utter coincidence and nothing more!

I hope you find it as funny as I do....

Don't you think that the Workers Directives issued by the EU are really beneficial for workers everywhere?

As a liberal I like legislation for the betterment of those working at the coalface. Don't you.....?

[Freggyragh]

Thanks for your detailed reply Woolley.

The world changes and the European Community had to change. The other members of the EC was concerned about re-united Germany, and the newly democratic states to the east - that’s why they wanted to tie Germany into the single market and why they wanted more political integration. That isn’t easy when each country has different laws on health, hygiene, safety, training, education and rights and makes it very difficult to negotiate with third countries. The obvious thing to do was pool sovereignty, knowing that the limited clout each country had within the EU was going to be magnified each time a new country, such as Canada or Japan, signed a deal and had to enact the same standards - eg; both Canada and Japan had to enact gdpr legislation before they got their FTAs. When it comes to EU  standards and regs the U.K., whether it helps frame them or not, will have to comply, just like Japan and Canada have to. I can’t think of any European legislation that has caused me any trouble at all. I still buy ale in pints and pay in pounds. I don’t want the smoking ban overturned and I’m happy with the working-time regs. The only benefit you’ve ever cited for leaving is the obsolete tungsten lamp theory. Better than the bendy bananas or the 3 pin plug nonsense, but surely you must have some other reason?

The Balkans wars brought home to everyone the need for some agreement on foreign policy - as the various countries all held different views. It was a reminder to everyone of the stupid situation during the Falklands where French exocet missiles were being used against the Brits. I understand why the Russians, Saudis, Turks, ISIS and Chinese might not like European cooperation on security, defence and foreign policy, decided on by democratic states working together - but I can’t  understand why you don’t. 

Not everyone wanted to adopt the euro, or Schengen - and those who didn’t opted out. They were allowed to opt out, whether by referendum or not. I agree, a good thing in many ways, but don’t forget that pound was trading at €1.60 on the first day of circulation on 02/01/02 - and since then the pound has dropped 30%. 

I appreciate your viewpoint - but, sorry to say, it is nebulous. I’m not interested in sweeping generalisations that can’t be backed up, like ‘fundamentally’ and ‘obviously’ - if it’s so obvious give us a few, no, just one or two clear examples of what it is you don’t like. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Freggyragh

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Freggyragh said:

I appreciate your viewpoint - but, sorry to say, it is nebulous. I’m not interested in sweeping generalisations that can’t be backed up, like ‘fundamentally’ and ‘obviously’ - if it’s so obvious give us a few, no, just one or two clear examples of what it is you don’t like. 

Take it from me Woolley really doesn't like the EU directives on, in general terms, workers rights.

The EU creating a "level playing field" re workers rights means pulling everyone up to the France / German level.

IMHO it is this issue above all else which has had the UK right wing press, which is to say pretty much all of it, railing against the EU for so many years.

It's like racism being a major driver for the Leave vote. If stopped in the street by a film crew when asked why they voted "Leave" no-one is going to say "To get shot of Johnny Foreigner" but they are going to say "Immigration" and use the backstop (sorry) of "overwhelming public services" when pressed on the subject straight out of the "Farage Book Of Bollox".

According to Woolley EU workers directives means "they're very good at spending other peoples' money" but whether this means the revenue earned by workers for the business wasn't made clear....

 

 

[Freggyragh]

I can’t comment on whether immigration is causing problems, it clearly is in some areas, just as depopulation causes problems in others. That’s mostly down to how the U.K. government controls immigration (or not) and investment in communities. Not the EU’s fault. 

The workers’ rights issue is a probably a problem for right wingers - but more of a problem is the total detachment from, and Luddite suspicion of, the modern world. I can imagine someone explaining to Rees-Mogg that Brexit means having to develop an independent Sat Nav system and him asking what on earth is wrong with six inch to the mile OS maps. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Freggyragh

[P.K.]

15 minutes ago, Freggyragh said:

I can’t comment on whether immigration is causing problems, it clearly is in some areas, just as depopulation causes problems in others. That’s mostly down to how the U.K. government controls immigration (or not) and investment in communities. Not the EU’s fault. 

The workers’ rights issue is a probably a problem for right wingers - but more of a problem is the total detachment from, and Luddite suspicion of, the modern world. I can imagine someone explaining to Rees-Mogg that Brexit means having to develop an independent Sat Nav system and him asking what on earth is wrong with six inch to the mile OS maps. 

The only maps Rees-Mogg remembers have "Here Be Dragons" written on them...