So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[Freggyragh]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

And in your world, Freggy, we all sit cowering for protection from invented bogeymen by power usurping blocs, which you tell us are benign. This Russia stuff again. Straight rerun of the US election campaign nonsense. Did you know that Trump is a Russian spy? Funny that, neither did he. ROFLMAO. 

I didn’t invent Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping or Donald Trump, they all actually exist, and they would all like to see both Britain weak and desperate for a deal and a loosening of the EU’s iron grip on trade and standards. By the way, what is this ‘power usurping’ you speak of? As ever, one example will do. (I’ll sit back and wait for one your stock responses ‘you google it’ / ‘there are too many examples to mention’ / ‘it’s obvious and if you can’t see it you’re just not ‘woke’, ‘I’ve definitely given loads of examples at some point in the past’ knowing full well you will never, ever manage to give one concrete example of what you have been played to hate. 

[woolley]

On 8/6/2019 at 3:54 PM, Max Power said:

That one statement sums up what the EU thinks of Britain. "Why can negotiations not be reopened? Because we say so, that's why!" Do they not think for one minute that they, by their intransigent attitude, have helped to sway public opinion away from the EU? 

A link to just one document recommending convergence of the EU into UK government affairs :-

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/csr2015_uk_en_0.pdf

I posted earlier in this thread the EU long term plan for what is basically a USE Federal Government, it stated that time means nothing, they will wait until each country gradually accepts the EU as their new overlords. The UK Government would be a regional assembly, answerable to Brussels.

@ Freggy. I recommend to you this post from max power earlier in the month. I have posted lots of stuff in similar vein concerning the draining of sovereignty from nations states to the centre. The EU turns it out constantly - see link in post above. The EU is big into pooling sovereignty, but it knows full well that sovereignty can't actually be pooled. You either have it uniquely or it resides elsewhere.

 

[Bobbie Bobster]

11 minutes ago, woolley said:

sovereignty can't actually be pooled

Can it be valued?

[woolley]

15 minutes ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

Can it be valued?

Mainly when you've lost it, like all of the most valuable things. It certainly can't be valued in monetary terms. It's far too precious for that.

[Bobbie Bobster]

4 minutes ago, woolley said:

Mainly when you've lost it, like all of the most valuable things. It certainly can't be valued in monetary terms. It's far too precious for that.

[OP steps back from accusations of understanding the price of everything and the value of nothing]

[P.K.]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

Mainly when you've lost it, like all of the most valuable things. It certainly can't be valued in monetary terms. It's far too precious for that.

Expected better.

In the case of trading blocs it absolutely CAN be £valued.

As I suspect we're all going to find out.

Face it, as the UK has done well in the EU there is no justification for brexit.

Hence the biggest con trick of the lot, the so-called illusory "loss of sovereignty" sop to the stupid.

Keep bobbing and weaving Woolster, after all, you can't actually make a £case for brexit.

Can you.....  

[Freggyragh]

That is an EU Council document. The role of the Council is to provide general political impetus, it does not have binding powers and does not initiate legislation. The EU Council is composed of the heads of states and forms policy by consensus. It’s just an intergovernmental conference. If an individual state wishes to opt out of parts of a policy then there is no consensus. The only thing decided by majority voting is the appointment of chairman. The U.K. agreed to progress policies referred to in the document, and the report (prepared by U.K. civil service) sets out how successful or not the U.K. has been in implementing said policies and makes recommendations for areas that have not been successfully implemented. Nothing is binding, it is just a forum for sharing forward-planning and group discussion of how to fulfill OECD objectives. Whilst some members might, from time to time, speak in favour of further integration in areas such as foreign policy, such decisions require unanimity, and as some members (such as Ireland) have articles in their constitution that specifically bar integration it never happens. The constitution of the Council actually makes it impossible to ‘usurp powers’. If you think sharing forward planning and and volunteering to integrate certain economic objectives is ‘usurping powers’ then you’re going to be really mad when you find out how the WTO and OECD work.

[Freggyragh]

Maybe Woolster could help us by pointing out a country that does have sovereignty? As ever, just one will do. 

[woolley]

1 hour ago, Freggyragh said:

That is an EU Council document. The role of the Council is to provide general political impetus, it does not have binding powers and does not initiate legislation. The EU Council is composed of the heads of states and forms policy by consensus. It’s just an intergovernmental conference. If an individual state wishes to opt out of parts of a policy then there is no consensus. The only thing decided by majority voting is the appointment of chairman. The U.K. agreed to progress policies referred to in the document, and the report (prepared by U.K. civil service) sets out how successful or not the U.K. has been in implementing said policies and makes recommendations for areas that have not been successfully implemented. Nothing is binding, it is just a forum for sharing forward-planning and group discussion of how to fulfill OECD objectives. Whilst some members might, from time to time, speak in favour of further integration in areas such as foreign policy, such decisions require unanimity, and as some members (such as Ireland) have articles in their constitution that specifically bar integration it never happens. The constitution of the Council actually makes it impossible to ‘usurp powers’. If you think sharing forward planning and and volunteering to integrate certain economic objectives is ‘usurping powers’ then you’re going to be really mad when you find out how the WTO and OECD work.

And that is how we got from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Lisbon - without usurping sovereignty.  Right.

It's a work in progress as you have been told time and again. As long as you are in the club you are on the road to ever closer union little by little. I realise it doesn't worry you, and from some of your posts I strongly suspect you would prefer to be governed from Brussels rather than London in any case.

[Freggyragh]

Any chance you could let us know of one clause of the Lisbon Treaty that you disagree with. As ever, sigh, one clause will do. 

Any chance you could explain one part of the UK’s process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty you would consider to have amounted to ‘usurping power’, just one will do. 

And you’re suspicions are wrong. I’d prefer to be governed from Douglas, and I’d much prefer that  that included immigration policy too. As the arguments of the brexit charlatans continue to unravel the chances of having to choose between London and Brussels get slimmer by the day. Talking about what might happen if the the brexit bluff is called is pointless as this stage - brexit hasn’t been a thing that might happen, except in little englander’s wet dream, for a least a year as there clearly is no better deal than the current one. 

[Barrie Stevens]

Quote

 

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/council-eu_en

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/european-council/

Explains

[woolley]

7 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

Any chance you could let us know of one clause of the Lisbon Treaty that you disagree with. As ever, sigh, one clause will do. 

Any chance you could explain one part of the UK’s process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty you would consider to have amounted to ‘usurping power’, just one will do. 

And you’re suspicions are wrong. I’d prefer to be governed from Douglas, and I’d much prefer that  that included immigration policy too. As the arguments of the brexit charlatans continue to unravel the chances of having to choose between London and Brussels get slimmer by the day. Talking about what might happen if the the brexit bluff is called is pointless as this stage - brexit hasn’t been a thing that might happen, except in little englander’s wet dream, for a least a year as there clearly is no better deal than the current one. 

Yes. If you wish to be part of a superstate the EU direction of movement is fine. Don't look at the treaties. Look at the effects. 

[woolley]

7 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

And you’re suspicions are wrong. I’d prefer to be governed from Douglas, and I’d much prefer that  that included immigration policy too. As the arguments of the brexit charlatans continue to unravel the chances of having to choose between London and Brussels get slimmer by the day. 

On the contrary. You have confirmed them. Little manxlander governed from Douglas. Xenophobia towards other parts of the British Isles. What will be the currency? Euro? Who will you send to negotiate the accession to the EU? What will the economy be based upon? But don't you already have the best possible deal with national home rule as a Crown Dependency in the British family of nations? Which part of the arrangement do you object to? 

[Freggyragh]

Just the immigration controls. The rest of the current arrangements I’m fine with. Certainly happy being governed from Douglas as we are at the moment than whatever it is you propose. The arrangements with the U.K. work brilliantly (except for immigration) as they are. If brexit were to ever happen, especially a no-deal brexit, and especially if the U.K. ceased to exist - then other options would have to be looked at. All pointless conjecture at this stage as it looks like the whole fiasco has just been a tragic waste of resources and will never happen. 

[Freggyragh]

3 hours ago, woolley said:

Yes. If you wish to be part of a superstate the EU direction of movement is fine. Don't look at the treaties. Look at the effects. 

Can you let us know of one effect you don’t like? As ever, sigh, just one.