Wow BJ eviscerates the EU!!!

[KateR]

I remember how much influence UK had in the UK when Cameron went cap in hand for a few changes in order to avoid the vote and moving to where we are today. Came home like a Dickens novel, cap in hand, sorry they wont listen to me so it really was twist or stick, but of course living in the EU era ,really was Utopia, all the people were happy and prosperous, where all the member countries were equally and followed the same rules.

But the stock market will crash shortly, the financial centres will move to the mainland, Germany will stop making cars in the UK just like the Japanese and it will be a wasteland just like the experts and this board predicted.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

https://www.cityam.com/eu-plans-two-yea ... ng-access/

This is good news isn't it?
Not seen it mentioned on here yet.

[martin_p]

I remember how much influence UK had in the UK when Cameron went cap in hand for a few changes in order to avoid the vote and moving to where we are today. Came home like a Dickens novel, cap in hand, sorry they wont listen to me so it really was twist or stick, but of course living in the EU era ,really was Utopia, all the people were happy and prosperous, where all the member countries were equally and followed the same rules.

But the stock market will crash shortly, the financial centres will move to the mainland, Germany will stop making cars in the UK just like the Japanese and it will be a wasteland just like the experts and this board predicted.

He actually got quite a few concessions, but the bandwagon was already rolling by then and I don’t think things would have been any different had he got absolutely everything he asked for.

EU reform deal: What Cameron wanted an ... m-35622105

[KateR]

all about opinions and perceptions Martin, it also mirrors my thoughts around the graphs/poll that were recently posted, regarding people seeing leaving the EU as an important issue. I think it would have been different but we will never know, so not worth discussing but it is a point of note that people should consider not everyone agrees when statements like the UK holding some power in decision making when it was in the EU, just offering a different thought on that point.

[martin_p]

all about opinions and perceptions Martin, it also mirrors my thoughts around the graphs/poll that were recently posted, regarding people seeing leaving the EU as an important issue. I think it would have been different but we will never know, so not worth discussing but it is a point of note that people should consider not everyone agrees when statements like the UK holding some power in decision making when it was in the EU, just offering a different thought on that point.

But it’s not opinion that we opted out of Schengen and the Euro. It’s not opinion that we had a veto. It’s not an opinion that Cameron had negotiated an opt out of further political integration with the EU.

How does the opinion that the UK had no power in decision making in the EU stack up against these facts?

[AndrewJB]

The EU became more Neo-liberal while we were in it, and I’d say that came down to our influence. We were on the losing side of votes about two percent of the time, so that’s no sign of us being pushed around. We stayed out of the Euro, and of Schengen. In which ways was Britain pushed around by the EU?

[Rowls]

I remember how much influence UK had in the UK when Cameron went cap in hand for a few changes in order to avoid the vote and moving to where we are today. Came home like a Dickens novel, cap in hand, sorry they wont listen to me so it really was twist or stick, but of course living in the EU era ,really was Utopia, all the people were happy and prosperous, where all the member countries were equally and followed the same rules.

But the stock market will crash shortly, the financial centres will move to the mainland, Germany will stop making cars in the UK just like the Japanese and it will be a wasteland just like the experts and this board predicted.

You're spot on about Cameron's "concessions" Kate. They were a pitiful attempt at reform and it was arrogance on the EU's part to think that the UK would remain no matter what.

I really thought that Cameron should have campaigned for Leave once the EU had given him so little.

He demonstrated the same that his successor Theresa May did - if you try to negotiate with the EU without any threat of walking away, they'll walk all over you. If Cameron had been able to persuade the EU that Britain *would* leave unless real reforms, concessions and changes were made then they would have undoubtedly offered a lot more.

But that's all history now.

And I fear you may be right about the stock markets - we're well overdue a crash.

[aggi]

I remember how much influence UK had in the UK when Cameron went cap in hand for a few changes in order to avoid the vote and moving to where we are today. Came home like a Dickens novel, cap in hand, sorry they wont listen to me so it really was twist or stick, but of course living in the EU era ,really was Utopia, all the people were happy and prosperous, where all the member countries were equally and followed the same rules.

But the stock market will crash shortly, the financial centres will move to the mainland, Germany will stop making cars in the UK just like the Japanese and it will be a wasteland just like the experts and this board predicted.

As said elsewhere, I don't think any concessions would have been enough. Look how many people continue to blame the EU for things in control of the UK government (not deporting non-working EU immigrants for instance) or non-stories like restrictions on bendy bananas (I'm sure you know who made that one up).

[KateR]

But it’s not opinion that we opted out of Schengen and the Euro. It’s not opinion that we had a veto. It’s not an opinion that Cameron had negotiated an opt out of further political integration with the EU.

How does the opinion that the UK had no power in decision making in the EU stack up against these facts?

my opinion is irrefutable in the fact our PM at the time said, what was offered was not enough from the EU and therefore we will have a referendum, the rest from that point is a series of well known facts that get us to today. You can blindly continue to offer some fact that you think support your argument but those facts, which I am not denying, did nothing to stop what has happened, so at a crucial point in time Cameron, representing the UK was unable to get the other main parts of the EU to bend enough, which is where my opinion was born. I also offer you a thought, in terms of it was a PM who definitely (in my opinion) did not want to leave the EU and was not someone who created an excuse to leave, because he personally thought that was best.

If you want to challenge my opinion, maybe you could say my opinion is "we did not have enough power in the decision making, as I was not trying to convey "we had no power" in decision making", which your points would be very valid in terms of that/my opinion would be wrong.

[KateR]

As said elsewhere, I don't think any concessions would have been enough. Look how many people continue to blame the EU for things in control of the UK government (not deporting non-working EU immigrants for instance) or non-stories like restrictions on bendy bananas (I'm sure you know who made that one up).

you may well be right, however we will never know will we, what we do know, is that a failure to give enough concessions has got us to where we are today, warts and all and therefore evidence that we did not have a whole lot of power when in the EU.

it can be applied exactly the same to the Tory Gov. no matter how much they do or give it will never be enough for some people, and it would/will be exactly the same when Labour get back in to Gov.

[Spijed]

you may well be right, however we will never know will we, what we do know, is that a failure to give enough concessions has got us to where we are today, warts and all and therefore evidence that we did not have a whole lot of power when in the EU.

it can be applied exactly the same to the Tory Gov. no matter how much they do or give it will never be enough for some people, and it would/will be exactly the same when Labour get back in to Gov.

I bet you believed the rubbish about Turkey joining the EU, didn't you?

[AndrewJB]

my opinion is irrefutable in the fact our PM at the time said, what was offered was not enough from the EU and therefore we will have a referendum, the rest from that point is a series of well known facts that get us to today. You can blindly continue to offer some fact that you think support your argument but those facts, which I am not denying, did nothing to stop what has happened, so at a crucial point in time Cameron, representing the UK was unable to get the other main parts of the EU to bend enough, which is where my opinion was born. I also offer you a thought, in terms of it was a PM who definitely (in my opinion) did not want to leave the EU and was not someone who created an excuse to leave, because he personally thought that was best.

If you want to challenge my opinion, maybe you could say my opinion is "we did not have enough power in the decision making, as I was not trying to convey "we had no power" in decision making", which your points would be very valid in terms of that/my opinion would be wrong.

If you look at what the EU didn’t agree to - the U.K. denying in-work benefits to EU citizens - then it’s no surprise they refused. Essentially making EU citizens second rate citizens in Britain.

What additional powers would you have wanted Britain to have in the EU?

[Rowls]

I bet you believed the rubbish about Turkey joining the EU, didn't you?

From wikipedia:

Negotiations for full membership were started on 3 October 2005.[4] Progress was slow, and out of the 35 Chapters necessary to complete the accession process only 16 had been opened and one had been closed by May 2016.[5] The early 2016 refugee deal between Turkey and the European Union was intended to accelerate negotiations after previous stagnation and allow visa-free travel through Europe for Turks.[6]

Since 2016 accession negotiations have stalled.[7] The EU has accused and criticized Turkey for human rights violations and deficits in rule of law.[8] In 2017, EU officials expressed that planned Turkish policies violate the Copenhagen criteria of eligibility for an EU membership.[9] On 26 June 2018, the EU's General Affairs Council stated that "Turkey has been moving further away from the European Union. Turkey’s accession negotiations have therefore effectively come to a standstill and no further chapters can be considered for opening or closing and no further work towards the modernisation of the EU-Turkey Customs Union is foreseen."

Note that at the time of the referendum in 2016 the negotiations for Turkey to join the EU were still taking place.

Even if Erdogan was somehow overthrown Turkey is, and would remain, a long way from achieving the stated requirements to join the EU but claiming it is "rubbish" is clearly false.

Turkey joining the EU is the stated aim of both parties.

[KateR]

I bet you believed the rubbish about Turkey joining the EU, didn't you?

if you want to be insulting I think you could have done a much better job to be honest. It seems to me there was a discussion, opinions were politely discussed as were some facts, now we have moved from being able to dispute some facts and opinions, to let's change the game, let's insult and move to an area I know I am on safe ground with, didn't you?

I bet you believed the UK was a major player in the EU and had enough power to ensure we wouldn't go to a referendum didn't you and if we did it's obvious that we will stay in, didn't you. Then of course you will have moved to it's obviously the stupid people voted to leave, morphing in to, it's all the faulty of those pesky right wing media sorts and the guess what, the stupidity of people who read them, didn't you.

but it's ok, one day you are bound to be right about something, but today's little futile attempt failed miserably, sorry because you again picked a subject where you were wrong, again, didn't you?

[JohnMcGreal]

From wikipedia:



Note that at the time of the referendum in 2016 the negotiations for Turkey to join the EU were still taking place.

Even if Erdogan was somehow overthrown Turkey is, and would remain, a long way from achieving the stated requirements to join the EU but claiming it is "rubbish" is clearly false.

Turkey joining the EU is the stated aim of both parties.

Even if Turkey did eventually meet the criteria for accession, the UK would have had a veto on that.

[KateR]

If you look at what the EU didn’t agree to - the U.K. denying in-work benefits to EU citizens - then it’s no surprise they refused. Essentially making EU citizens second rate citizens in Britain.

What additional powers would you have wanted Britain to have in the EU?

Andrew, I am not saying what powers we should or shouldn't have, that has never been my point, the EU may well have been right to refuse, I have no argument about that, the only thing I am saying, which are all facts you and your friends know is that the PM went to the EU, did not get what he wanted and believed was needed to avoid a referendum. Therefore, I feel it is irrelevant and somewhat fictional to now be saying today, had we stayed we would have had all this power to effect the EU decision making, I disagree, I don't want to change hearts and minds but I want people who say that to understand not everyone agrees with them.

[Rowls]

Even if Turkey did eventually meet the criteria for accession, the UK would have had a veto on that.

Fair enough. But what's the point of being member of a club just to block them from achieving their stated aims?

And if Turkey didd -somehow- meet all the criteria then on what reasonable grounds would we use our veto?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Fair enough. But what's the point of being member of a club just to block them from achieving their stated aims?

And if Turkey didd -somehow- meet all the criteria then on what reasonable grounds would we use our veto?

The remainers seem to think we'd use it just because we have it.

[JohnMcGreal]

Fair enough. But what's the point of being member of a club just to block them from achieving their stated aims?

And if Turkey didd -somehow- meet all the criteria then on what reasonable grounds would we use our veto?

Racism? I don't know. It would be up to the UK government to make that decision and justification.

Also if Turkey joining the EU is as contentious as it seems, the UK wouldn't have been the only member state vetoing their accession.

[Rowls]

If you look at what the EU didn’t agree to - the U.K. denying in-work benefits to EU citizens - then it’s no surprise they refused. Essentially making EU citizens second rate citizens in Britain.

What additional powers would you have wanted Britain to have in the EU?

It's not as simple as that, especially when it comes to access to benefits.

The UK has a largely means-tested benefits system whereas the majority of other countries have solely contributions based benefits systems. Net result - our benefit system is a large draw for those wishing to abuse it.

Why do you think there are so many people wanted to cross the Channel?

[KateR]

Racism? I don't know. It would be up to the UK government to make that decision and justification.

Also if Turkey joining the EU is as contentious as it seems, the UK wouldn't have been the only member state vetoing their accession.

yet you knew enough to state a fact in that the UK would Veto them, where all this came from I'm not sure because we were leaving the EU and therefore I don't believe we have Veto rights, just my thought on this.

[Rowls]

Racism? I don't know. It would be up to the UK government to make that decision and justification.

Also if Turkey joining the EU is as contentious as it seems, the UK wouldn't have been the only member state vetoing their accession.

You think we should have refused Turkey accession to the EU out of racism? That's an awful thing to admit.

[JohnMcGreal]

You think we should have refused Turkey accession to the EU out of racism? That's an awful thing to admit.

No, I don't think we should have done that. You asked on what grounds would we veto their accession. And in this hypothetical scenario I could well imagine that a British government would veto their accession pretty much on those grounds.

In a parallel universe where the UK is still a member of the EU, and Turkey is on the verge of joining, I could fully envisage certain political parties (along with their tabloid cheerleaders) pledging to veto Turkey's membership in an election manifesto. You know what I mean. It would be very popular and would win a lot of votes.

[Rowls]

No, I don't think we should have done that. You asked on what grounds would we veto their accession. And in this hypothetical scenario I could well imagine that a British government would veto their accession pretty much on those grounds.

In a parallel universe where the UK is still a member of the EU, and Turkey is on the verge of joining, I could fully envisage certain political parties (along with their tabloid cheerleaders) pledging to veto Turkey's membership in an election manifesto. You know what I mean. It would be very popular and would win a lot of votes.

So hang on, I'd like to get this straight.

Are you saying that you do NOT think that (had we remained) we should have used our veto to block Turkey to join the EU?

[RMutt]

It's not as simple as that, especially when it comes to access to benefits.

The UK has a largely means-tested benefits system whereas the majority of other countries have solely contributions based benefits systems. Net result - our benefit system is a large draw for those wishing to abuse it.

Why do you think there are so many people wanted to cross the Channel?

I thought they were coming to take our jobs not our benefits. What percentage of those crossing do you think are doing it to abuse our benefit system Rowls?

[JohnMcGreal]

So hang on, I'd like to get this straight.

Are you saying that you do NOT think that (had we remained) we should have used our veto to block Turkey to join the EU?

Based on Turkey's recent form, we would have been absolutely right to veto their accession. They are not fit to be an EU member state, in a lot of ways.

You're the one who posed the hypothetical situation where they one day did meet all the criteria. In which case it would be difficult for a member to justifiably veto their accession. But I don't think that day will ever come, to be honest. They will never be close to joining the EU. They never were.

[Rowls]

I thought they were coming to take our jobs not our benefits. What percentage of those crossing do you think are doing it to abuse our benefit system Rowls?

Of the tiny fraction of immigrants who come from Calais I'd guess a high percentage of them are attracted by our benefits system.

Unless any of them admit this (and I doubt many would) then there's no way of telling.

These specific immigrants are clearly very problemtatic and our undesirable. They are, at very least, illegal immigrants and we ought to do all we can to discourage them.

We owe it to all true refugess fleeing war zones, conflict and persecution to uphold the spirit and letter of offering asylum to those who are genuine. The immigrants in Calais attempting to illegally cross the Channel undermine the whole asylum and immigration process.

What am I basing my theory on? A good working knowledge of welfare and benefit systems across Europe.

[Rowls]

Based on Turkey's recent form, we would have been absolutely right to veto their accession. They are not fit to be an EU member state, in a lot of ways.

You're the one who posed the hypothetical situation where they one day did meet all the criteria. In which case it would be difficult for a member to justifiably veto their accession. But I don't think that day will ever come, to be honest. They will never be close to joining the EU. They never were.

See my post above. Negotiations only stopped in 2019.

It is still the stated aim of both parties that one day Turkey will join the EU.

Why would we remain a member of a club committed to something the vast majority of our population do not want?

[Rowls]

Yet another triumph for Great Britain compared to those Johnny Europeaners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bij-Jjz ... l=TomScott

[aggi]

you may well be right, however we will never know will we, what we do know, is that a failure to give enough concessions has got us to where we are today, warts and all and therefore evidence that we did not have a whole lot of power when in the EU.

it can be applied exactly the same to the Tory Gov. no matter how much they do or give it will never be enough for some people, and it would/will be exactly the same when Labour get back in to Gov.

however we will never know will we

what we do know, is that a failure to give enough concessions has got us to where we are today

I don't think you can really follow that first line with that second line, we don't know that at all. Looking at how hard a Brexit the ERG want I don't think any concessions would have been enough.

[KateR]

however we will never know will we

what we do know, is that a failure to give enough concessions has got us to where we are today

I don't think you can really follow that first line with that second line, we don't know that at all. Looking at how hard a Brexit the ERG want I don't think any concessions would have been enough.

and that is what is called having different opinions, I have reached a perfectly logical conclusion for me, it is not a logical conclusion for you. I am not arguing, not telling you that you are wrong or that you have to change your mind, but I can certainly, and did, follow the first line with the second line, but I will totally agree we don't know and I could easily be very wrong, but......................

[FactualFrank]

I asked the librarian when the book about Boris managing the pandemic would be available.

"I haven't a clue," she replied,

"Yeah, that's the one," I answered.

[martin_p]

my opinion is irrefutable in the fact our PM at the time said, what was offered was not enough from the EU and therefore we will have a referendum, the rest from that point is a series of well known facts that get us to today. You can blindly continue to offer some fact that you think support your argument but those facts, which I am not denying, did nothing to stop what has happened, so at a crucial point in time Cameron, representing the UK was unable to get the other main parts of the EU to bend enough, which is where my opinion was born. I also offer you a thought, in terms of it was a PM who definitely (in my opinion) did not want to leave the EU and was not someone who created an excuse to leave, because he personally thought that was best.

If you want to challenge my opinion, maybe you could say my opinion is "we did not have enough power in the decision making, as I was not trying to convey "we had no power" in decision making", which your points would be very valid in terms of that/my opinion would be wrong.

But you said

‘it is a point of note that people should consider not everyone agrees when statements like the UK holding some power in decision making when it was in the EU’

If you don’t agree with a statement that the uk hold some power in decision making then you either believe it has all the power or no power, that’s just logic. I assume that out of those two options you were saying the uk had no power. So you may not have been trying to covey we had no power, but that’s exactly what you did.

[wickdkewlclaret]

Basically if you are still defending this government, you are officially a Cnut.

[KateR]

But you said

‘it is a point of note that people should consider not everyone agrees when statements like the UK holding some power in decision making when it was in the EU’

If you don’t agree with a statement that the uk hold some power in decision making then you either believe it has all the power or no power, that’s just logic. I assume that out of those two options you were saying the uk had no power. So you may not have been trying to covey we had no power, but that’s exactly what you did.

yes Martin, you read my mind, ignored my points and come to this conclusion, that's fine let me just say your obviously 100% correct in your mind and your opinion, that's the end of this minor discussion for me.

You wrote:
If we hadn’t voted to leave we’d be one of the biggest voices in defining those rules and would have an opt out of any of the major ones.

I wrote:
I remember how much influence UK had in the UK when Cameron went cap in hand for a few changes in order to avoid the vote and moving to where we are today.

we had a veto, we exercised it, the biggest voices defined the new rules and we left

[Spijed]

I see Chris Grayling gets a £100k job, for advising.

Given that he's completely useless it clearly is another job for the 'Tory' boys.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54185180

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Normal isn't it for former minister to get advisory jobs?
Even if they've been crap, or caused massive unrest across the world.

[martin_p]

yes Martin, you read my mind, ignored my points and come to this conclusion, that's fine let me just say your obviously 100% correct in your mind and your opinion, that's the end of this minor discussion for me.

You wrote:
If we hadn’t voted to leave we’d be one of the biggest voices in defining those rules and would have an opt out of any of the major ones.

I wrote:
I remember how much influence UK had in the UK when Cameron went cap in hand for a few changes in order to avoid the vote and moving to where we are today.

we had a veto, we exercised it, the biggest voices defined the new rules and we left

If you don’t think the U.K. had no power in the EU then you need to stop writing sentences that imply you do!

Anyway this all started by me refuting someone’s claim that Germany held all the power in the EU and that the U.K. was an insignificance and if you’re agreeing with me that that wasn’t the case then fine.

Anyway, I thought you were just ‘monitoring’ these threads these days and refusing to get involved in debate!

[KateR]

wrong yet again, I said I was going to be more like Lancaster and, I think his term was "dip in and out" when someone wrote drivel, sorry I mean something I disagree with. I will not be part of the overall debate surrounding blame game you spend your life on, which is not debate with you.

When I saw If we hadn’t voted to leave we’d be one of the biggest voices in defining those rules and would have an opt out of any of the major ones. I just wanted to add my opinion that you can't be serious when you say that, but again I see you were, and that's fine. So as I said last time I am (trying at least) to pop out until the next time. I provided my response on why I thought what you said was less than true, and as I keep repeating ad nauseum, it's just my opinion, you can keep yours, and as I said to Andrew, it was merely to ensure you realize that we all don't think like you or believe what you say.


Hopefully this time you can accept someone else's opinion, as merely an opinion, rather than trying to drag me back in continually, bye for now. However, I suspect you will want to have the last word on this trivia and minute detail of conjecture and opinion.

[martin_p]

wrong yet again, I said I was going to be more like Lancaster and, I think his term was "dip in and out" when someone wrote drivel, sorry I mean something I disagree with. I will not be part of the overall debate surrounding blame game you spend your life on, which is not debate with you.

When I saw If we hadn’t voted to leave we’d be one of the biggest voices in defining those rules and would have an opt out of any of the major ones. I just wanted to add my opinion that you can't be serious when you say that, but again I see you were, and that's fine. So as I said last time I am (trying at least) to pop out until the next time. I provided my response on why I thought what you said was less than true, and as I keep repeating ad nauseum, it's just my opinion, you can keep yours, and as I said to Andrew, it was merely to ensure you realize that we all don't think like you or believe what you say.


Hopefully this time you can accept someone else's opinion, as merely an opinion, rather than trying to drag me back in continually, bye for now. However, I suspect you will want to have the last word on this trivia and minute detail of conjecture and opinion.

You got something right! I love it that you spend ages writing these long posts that say nothing by the way. And I’m sorry you don’t like your opinion challenging. Bye!!

[Bordeauxclaret]

It’s been a hard days night for Kate.

[KateR]

It’s been a hard days night for Kate.

still only 4 pm for me so hopefully will not be getting into night regarding any of this.

I mean you just have to laugh at some people, I mean the irony of Marty's last post cracked me up, but it's all in good fun, well at least that's what he tells me.

[martin_p]

still only 4 pm for me so hopefully will not be getting into night regarding any of this.

I mean you just have to laugh at some people, I mean the irony of Marty's last post cracked me up, but it's all in good fun, well at least that's what he tells me.

I love to have my opinion challenged if it’s backed up with anything. The U.K. not being a major player in the EU just isn’t supported by how much of a bespoke deal we were getting.

[aggi]

Normal isn't it for former minister to get advisory jobs?
Even if they've been crap, or caused massive unrest across the world.

They normally at least wait until they've stepped down as an MP before getting the really lucrative ones. Obviously this is why he had to resign from the Security committee, he'd found something more lucrative. I think the country really dodged a bullet there when Johnson's plans were thwarted.

[Rowls]

I see Chris Grayling gets a £100k job, for advising.

Given that he's completely useless it clearly is another job for the 'Tory' boys.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54185180

Can't argue with that spijed. He's not the most impressive mind of his generation.

That's money down the pan for whoever is paying him.

[HunterST_BFC]

How does a useless company like serco keep winning government contracts?

Oh wait a minute, the ceo was in the bulingdon club.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-talks

The attitude of “we will do whatever we like, and shape reality to our own liking” isn’t working in the real world. Even if Trump is re-elected, the Democrats can still block a UK deal via the legislative branch.

[Rowls]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... exit-talks

The attitude of “we will do whatever we like, and shape reality to our own liking” isn’t working in the real world. Even if Trump is re-elected, the Democrats can still block a UK deal via the legislative branch.

That would only show up their priorities - a stupid culture war would take precedence over an economic trade deal.

No wonder people as awful as Trump can get elected when that is the opposition.

[martin_p]

That would only show up their priorities - a stupid culture war would take precedence over an economic trade deal.

Isn’t that how the whole thing started? We already had some perfectly good trade deals.

[Rowls]

Isn’t that how the whole thing started? We already had some perfectly good trade deals.

No, the EU certainly does not have a "perfectly good trade deal" with the USA. Neither did we when we were part of the EU.

With a bit of luck we soon will have though.