EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Enthusiast]

Our Commissioner wields 29 weighted points out of 345, so about 8% of the total. Is that not influence?

No. Not if the other 92% do not share your interests.

And the reason why a no-deal Brexit (if that's what you mean by "leave properly") will be such a disaster is because it will cut off cooperation suddenly in all these areas.

The areas of co-operation you mention do not need a political union to see them operate effectively. As an aside the UK's fishing industry has been all but destroyed by the EU's fisheries policy. Incredible as it may seem, air travel takes place quite successfully in the rest of the world that is not in the EU. Agreeing standards for traded goods is obviously desirable or even necessary (and is prevalent all over the globe in the form of trading agreements). But nowhere else that I know of does it require free movement of people or submission to a foreign court as pre-conditions.

 

[anme]

No it doesn't (as has been adequately explained by Nagora).

Whatever machinery the EU utilises, it is a fact that to satisfy the political requirements of 28 very disparate nations is impossible. This particularly affects the UK. Since majority voting was introduced in the late 80s the UK has voted against an EU legislative proposal 70 times. On all 70 occasions the vote was carried. The UK has been on the losing side on formal votes in The Council almost three times as often as the next unlucky loser. The EU simply does not work for the UK. Why is this? Is the UK contingent in Brussels/Strasbourg (the circus moves once a month to a duplicate setting at a cost of around £150m per annum) particularly obstructive or intransigent? I think not. The reason that the EU27 vote against the UK's wishes so frequently is that the interests and ambitions of the UK are fundamentally different to those of the other members. We simply don't fit in.

I am not at all misled by the popular press as to how the EU works. I'm perfectly aware of its structure and workings. There is no need to strip apart the decision making process that affect the few examples I cited. There is also no need to suggest that the UK "has influence" over those decisions because it has one Commissioner (of 28) and 12% of the MEPs. It doesn't. UK governments have successively abrogated their responsibilities on a cumulative basis over a wide range of policy areas that are now effectively outside the UK Parliament's control. It has sub-contracted the business of running the country in those respects to unelected officials and foreign MEPs (who, themselves, have precious little influence anyway). To determine just how far this process has gone you only have to listen to the dire warnings of the cataclysmic catastrophe that awaits if we should leave properly. If they are to be believed, the UK is unable to properly function outside a bloc with federal ambitions to become a state in ts own right. No country should be is such a parlous position.

Wow. How can someone post this stuff? Are you not embarrassed? Are you aware that people like Johnson make up things like his kipper lie to laugh at you?

As others have pointed out, the UK has been on the "winning" side 95% of the time in European Council votes the last twenty years. Please can you explain exactly which regulations have been imposed on the UK which are so detrimental, and that should be changed? You need to start giving practical examples of what difference brexit will make. You have had more than enough time to find them.

 

[JamesT]

It's interesting that the UK has been so equivocal on it's role in the EEC/EU since its inception, yet the "national icon" of Winston Churchill was advocating a United States of Europe back in 1946. I wonder if the UK's attitude would have been different had it joined the Coal and Steel Community back in the 1950s, and been part of the "project" from the start. The nature of the project could also have been significantly different too.

There's a certain irony to the idea that the UK just doesn't "fit in" with the EU when its four nations have trouble fitting in with each other at times.

Churchill called for a United States of Europe, but I don’t think he was suggesting that we would be part of it. http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html ends with

Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

which very much sounds like an expectation we would stick with the commonwealth as our trading bloc.

 

[Killingworth]

[QUOTE="krus_aragon, post: 4157836, member: 4110”]
It's interesting that the UK has been so equivocal on it's role in the EEC/EU since its inception, yet the "national icon" of Winston Churchill was advocating a United States of Europe back in 1946. I wonder if the UK's attitude would have been different had it joined the Coal and Steel Community back in the 1950s, and been part of the "project" from the start. The nature of the project could also have been significantly different too.

There's a certain irony to the idea that the UK just doesn't "fit in" with the EU when its four nations have trouble fitting in with each other at times.

Churchill called for a United States of Europe, but I don’t think he was suggesting that we would be part of it. http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html ends with

which very much sounds like an expectation we would stick with the commonwealth as our trading bloc.[/QUOTE]

In 1940 Churchill offered a union with France. Events moved too fast and one wonders how he'd have got that through Parliament. We need to put all these "what if" events in the context of their times. However it seems reasonable to suggest that if we had united with France in 1940, or entered the Coal and Steel Community in it's early formative years in the 1950s we'd be seeing things differently today. We might have avoided Suez.................. and what else?

 

[najaB]

No. Not if the other 92% do not share your interests.

"I can't get my way all the time so I'm not playing at all."

 

[nidave]

No it doesn't (as has been adequately explained by Nagora).

Whatever machinery the EU utilises, it is a fact that to satisfy the political requirements of 28 very disparate nations is impossible. This particularly affects the UK. Since majority voting was introduced in the late 80s the UK has voted against an EU legislative proposal 70 times. On all 70 occasions the vote was carried. The UK has been on the losing side on formal votes in The Council almost three times as often as the next unlucky loser. The EU simply does not work for the UK. Why is this? Is the UK contingent in Brussels/Strasbourg (the circus moves once a month to a duplicate setting at a cost of around £150m per annum) particularly obstructive or intransigent? I think not. The reason that the EU27 vote against the UK's wishes so frequently is that the interests and ambitions of the UK are fundamentally different to those of the other members. We simply don't fit in.

I am not at all misled by the popular press as to how the EU works. I'm perfectly aware of its structure and workings. There is no need to strip apart the decision making process that affect the few examples I cited. There is also no need to suggest that the UK "has influence" over those decisions because it has one Commissioner (of 28) and 12% of the MEPs. It doesn't. UK governments have successively abrogated their responsibilities on a cumulative basis over a wide range of policy areas that are now effectively outside the UK Parliament's control. It has sub-contracted the business of running the country in those respects to unelected officials and foreign MEPs (who, themselves, have precious little influence anyway). To determine just how far this process has gone you only have to listen to the dire warnings of the cataclysmic catastrophe that awaits if we should leave properly. If they are to be believed, the UK is unable to properly function outside a bloc with federal ambitions to become a state in ts own right. No country should be is such a parlous position.

Didn't those votes the uk lost cover things like safe drinking water and clean beaches.

 

[nidave]

No. Not if the other 92% do not share your interests.



The areas of co-operation you mention do not need a political union to see them operate effectively. As an aside the UK's fishing industry has been all but destroyed by the EU's fisheries policy. Incredible as it may seem, air travel takes place quite successfully in the rest of the world that is not in the EU. Agreeing standards for traded goods is obviously desirable or even necessary (and is prevalent all over the globe in the form of trading agreements). But nowhere else that I know of does it require free movement of people or submission to a foreign court as pre-conditions.

were the uk not the only EU country to sell its fishing rights to other member States.?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Churchill called for a United States of Europe, but I don’t think he was suggesting that we would be part of it. http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html ends with

In the early stages of WWII, did Churchill not offer Ulster to Eire as a part of a united Ireland if Eire relinquished its neutrality and joined forces against Germany?

 

[bramling]

So where do we think things are heading now?

I've not been able to follow in detail, however it seems to me:
* Corbyn is floating the idea of a no-confidence vote as a potential path to power
* Sturgeon will support this, but no doubt a second independence referendum will be asked in return at some point
* The suggestions of Harman or Clarke smack of desperation
* Lucas's suggestion of an all-women cabinet is ridiculous, and demonstrates that she too has a hidden agenda
* It's notable that all these suggestions of a "unity" government seem to completely exclude anyone on the leave side.

From what I'm sensing at work anger in response to all this is increasing *very* quickly. Labour's position is becoming increasingly ridiculous IMO, but of course there remains no mechanism to replace Corbyn.

 

[AM9]

were the uk not the only EU country to sell its fishing rights to other member States.?

It's taken three years of this thread for somebody to mention the UK fishing industry's self destruction by selling it's fishing quotas for a quick cash profit. 80% of English quotas have been sold either to other EU national operators or to a few wealthy families who aren't landing anywhere near their allowance. The quotas are seen as investment vehicles, so these public quotas are being abused.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From what I'm sensing at work anger in response to all this is increasing *very* quickly. Labour's position is becoming increasingly ridiculous IMO, but of course there remains no mechanism to replace Corbyn.

I am sure that MI6 have a few ideas that will cover the last point you made.

 

[AM9]

So where do we think things are heading now?

I've not been able to follow in detail, however it seems to me:
* Corbyn is floating the idea of a no-confidence vote as a potential path to power
* Sturgeon will support this, but no doubt a second independence referendum will be asked in return at some point
* The suggestions of Harman or Clarke smack of desperation
* Lucas's suggestion of an all-women cabinet is ridiculous, and demonstrates that she too has a hidden agenda
* It's notable that all these suggestions of a "unity" government seem to completely exclude anyone on the leave side.

From what I'm sensing at work anger in response to all this is increasing *very* quickly. Labour's position is becoming increasingly ridiculous IMO, but of course there remains no mechanism to replace Corbyn.

Well, Corbyn can be replaced as leader of the Labour Party by a majority of the party's members voting another person in, (similar to how the Conservative party would remove a leader in opposition).

 

[bramling]

Well, Corbyn can be replaced as leader of the Labour Party by a majority of the party's members voting another person in, (similar to how the Conservative party would remove a leader in opposition).

I know, but do we think there's *any* chance of that happening any time soon?

 

[Killingworth]

I know, but do we think there's *any* chance of that happening any time soon?

No, we're effectively trapped with Boris and Jeremy until after 31st October. There is no consensus to form any credible alternative government from a fragmented collection of odds and ends split from Tory and Labour with all sorts of others.

The remain campaign failed 3 years ago and has smouldered ever since. It hasn't caught fire to the point where there would be a clear 2:1 majority in a 2nd referendum to remain.

On the other hand Brexiteers haven't convinced the public either to the point that they could guarantee a 2:1 majority if there were a second vote. They'd probably get over 55% just to get the thing done, however it's done!

The nation is fed up with it all. The majority aren't prepared to wade through contradictory facts and consider intricate details.

Corbyn has been a disaster, his deputy in many ways as bad. How the Labour Party recovers is anyone's guess, but without major defections in their favour I can't see the LibDems (or Greens) having a hope of becoming the party of opposition, even in alliance with SNP.

We face a Johnson led government trying to do deals with an apparently intractable EU. Seeing the shambolic British alternative must strengthen his hand. Bizarre, but that's how it's going.

 

[AM9]

I know, but do we think there's *any* chance of that happening any time soon?

I think that there are two ways that he could exit:

1) he will eventually he seen to be unelectable and there will be a combination of a significant switch of members'support for a new (hopefully more in touch) leader, and consequentially a boost of currently disenfranchised 'normal' Labour Party members
Or
2) a migration of centre left (and centre right) voters to a centre party, - 'Liberal Democrats +' which would break up the current two-party deadlock, at least until a sensible position on Europe is delivered. At that point he would probably give up.​

I imagine that whatever happens on or after 31-10-19, Johnson's term will quickly finish. Even if the extremists propping up the Conservatives at the moment leave the part for Farage's lot, it will cause a similar a d opposite reaction from many remainers so once again the current duopoly will dissolve.

 

[bramling]

I think that there are two ways that he could exit:

1) he will eventually he seen to be unelectable and there will be a combination of a significant switch of members'support for a new (hopefully more in touch) leader, and consequentially a boost of currently disenfranchised 'normal' Labour Party members
Or
2) a migration of centre left (and centre right) voters to a centre party, - 'Liberal Democrats +' which would break up the current two-party deadlock, at least until a sensible position on Europe is delivered. At that point he would probably give up.​

I imagine that whatever happens on or after 31-10-19, Johnson's term will quickly finish. Even if the extremists propping up the Conservatives at the moment leave the part for Farage's lot, it will cause a similar a d opposite reaction from many remainers so once again the current duopoly will dissolve.

I suppose the other way of Corbyn leaving might be some kind of health scare.

I don't think there will be any movement for a while though.

 

[nlogax]

I know, but do we think there's *any* chance of that happening any time soon?

Not a chance in hell, sad to say.

 

[fowler9]

It's all so depressing. Our PM once supported Turkey joining the EU then decided he was pro Brexit and now it looks like a Turkish company is going to save 4000 plus jobs in the steel industry in Scunthorpe. You couldn't make it up. The whole thing is a monumental farce.

 

[AM9]

It's all so depressing. Our PM once supported Turkey joining the EU then decided he was pro Brexit and now it looks like a Turkish company is going to save 4000 plus jobs in the steel industry in Scunthorpe. You couldn't make it up. The whole thing is a monumental farce.

Surely the PM would protect the realm by refusing the sale of British Steel on the suspicion that 83m turks might see BS as a back door for immigration.

 

[fowler9]

Surely the PM would protect the realm by refusing the sale of British Steel on the suspicion that 83m turks might see BS as a back door for immigration.

Well that clown just isn't talking to anyone until the backstop is removed which isn't going to happen. How the hell did this idiot end up in charge.

Don't get me wrong when I call Johnson an idiot. I know he is intelligent but he is also irresponsible and makes bad choices (I flatter myself that me and many of my friends are similar) but Johnson is also cocky, self centred and privileged. I think that is where we diverge. He is the last person I would want in charge in this sh*t storm. Alright, perhaps JRM might beat him for people I wouldn't want in charge. I would add evil to the list for him.

 

[Billy A]

In the early stages of WWII, did Churchill not offer Ulster to Eire as a part of a united Ireland if Eire relinquished its neutrality and joined forces against Germany?

I've often wondered why some English people (and it tends to be English rather than British in general) refer to Ireland as Éire rather than Ireland.
According to the Constitution, the correct name is Ireland (in the English language) and Éire (in Irish). When writing in English one would no more refer to Éire than Deutschland or Sverige.
No, it's not the Republic of Ireland either. That's a soccer team.

 

[JonasB]

I've often wondered why some English people (and it tends to be English rather than British in general) refer to Ireland as Éire rather than Ireland.
According to the Constitution, the correct name is Ireland (in the English language) and Éire (in Irish). When writing in English one would no more refer to Éire than Deutschland or Sverige.
No, it's not the Republic of Ireland either. That's a soccer team.

A guess: To not confuse the country Ireland with the island Ireland?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A guess: To not confuse the country Ireland with the island Ireland?

I blame philately, which was a hobby at school in the 1950s, for my use of the word Eire. Old habits die hard.

 

[najaB]

Republic of Ireland

To be fair, while that's not the name of the country, it is an accurate description. In the same vein as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland describes the country where I live.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I used to laugh at the abbreviation of "Rep of Ire" used in some sports competitions, as it always conjured up an image of a very angry salesman.

 

[Struner]

There’s Ireland & then there is the six counties I suppose...

 

[EM2]

The Government planning for No Deal is being reported in the Sunday Times today, having got access to the documents for what is being called Operation Yellowhammer.
The Reverend Richard Coles points out that the call of the yellowhammer is often described as 'a little bit of bread and no cheese', which sounds very much like what we'll have to live on.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Reverend Richard Coles points out that the call of the yellowhammer is often described as 'a little bit of bread and no cheese', which sounds very much like what we'll have to live on.

Looking at examples of the "fast food" individuals in cities and towns, perhaps a more basic diet would be a very good idea.

 

[najaB]

Looking at examples of the "fast food" individuals in cities and towns, perhaps a more basic diet would be a very good idea.

The problem being that many of the "basics" are imported. Especially in November/December.

 

[Ianno87]

Looking at examples of the "fast food" individuals in cities and towns, perhaps a more basic diet would be a very good idea.

No thanks. I like things and variety the way they are.