OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[MadAmster]

In respectful answer, Amster.

1) Having a ‘great dislike of where the EU is heading’ is hardly the same as having ‘no axe to grind either way’.

2) We live in a Parliamentary Democracy...that is to say we elect our representatives to Parliament every five years believing that they have the time and relative expertise to make informed decisions relating to such complex issues on our behalf.

3) Our democracy was compromised as a result of the People voting on the basis of lies, misinformation and electoral rule breaking.

4) The issue of Brexit was always far too complex to be treated as a binary choice. Since the Referendum many people have realised that and those in favour of leaving have proved incapable of making their case or displaying any leadership.

5) Our electorate equates to around 49 million. Of those 17.4 million voted to Leave. You do the maths.

6) Why are you so bothered? By your own admission you’re going to be living in the EU whatever happens and from what I’ve seen Holland, in the heart of the EU, seems a great place to live.

1. I'd much rather we reverted to a Free Trade Area, Much more sensible and it stops those megalomaniacs in the Commission plunging Europe ever closer to a bankrupt dictatorship. France is in financial trouble and from the Gilets Jaunes as well. Germany had negative growth in both Q3 and Q4 of 2018. Two successive quarters of negative growth is the definition of a recession. It looks like the figures for Q! '19 will show a 3rd successive decline. Greece has something like 50% unemployment among U25s, Spain 40%, Italy 32%. Italy Greece Spain.... all stoney broke. Old Eastern bloc countries only doing the things they want to and saying yes but doing no to all the things they don't like. They have learnt that particular lesson very well.

2. They "represent" you. There are constituencies where they voted almost 70% Leave and their MP voted Remain in Parliament. P45 at the ready come the next election for those MPs

3. .... and that should have been hammered at the time. The vast majority of current MPs entered this session of Parliament on the back of a manifesto pledging to implement Brexit and they should do that........ was it not for the fact that they are politicians

4. All because of party politics from most sides.

5. Not an argument anybody will ever win rA. As I said in the post you replied to, 63% didn't vote Leave. 67% didn't vote Remain. More Constituencies, more Regions etc voted Leave than voted Remain. The major problem being that there should have been a caveat of a 2/3 majority or more than half of those allowed to vote.... or similar for such a huge subject. We can, I believe, agree on that. As it is, with the exception of the 63% stance, every way you look at it, Leave did better than Remain. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, only time will tell.

6. We have PR so not a lot gets done and when it does it tends to benefit those needing extra benefitting the least. At the last election, the largest party in the coalition of 4 parties governing the country had these 2 things among others in their manifesto. Increase the lower VAT rate on things like books, clothes and food from 6% to 9%. The other was to scrap dividend tax as this would entice multinationals to move their HQ's here. The other 3 weren't interested in having dividend tax scrapped but agreed provided it was reversed if ot was proven that that multi's wouldn't move HQ. Then Unilever shareholders voted to keeo their HQ in London. Dividend tax was reintroduced. Not scrapping that tax saved the government €2Bn euros a year. The VAT increase delivers €2Bn a year. If oyu don't lose €2BN you don't have to raise it from elsewhere (VAT increase for instance). The VAT did not revert to 6%. That would have helped the man in the street ahve more to spend, he would, meaning more trade etc etc etc jobs, taxes, less dole paid out...... they don't have a clue unless the general idea is that by hook or by crook the gap bwteen rich and poor must grow, whatever the cost.....

Anything that reduces the power the Commission has gets my support. They need taking down at least a dozen pegs. At a time when "Populism" is growing, Verhofstadt stood in Parliament, waving his arms like a whirling dervish, demanding that the member states devolved even more power to "Brussels". The populist movements will get, IMO, at least 40% of the votes/seats in the May Euro Elections and Tusk, Juncker et al will have noone but themselves to blame.

With regard to your reply rA, it was indeed respectful. Yours always are.

[ramAnag]

Do I get a feeling of deja vu here. Cant we just move on from the "it wasnt a majority" and "it was based on lies" since neither side got a majority and both sides lied. Those factors, like it or not, are no longer relevant, so 3 and 5 are dismissed. 6 isn't relevant in the round.

So, lets look at the 2nd one: "parliament is better qualified to make a decision than the people are". Have you been listening for the last two months? or even the last 3 years? If ever a body can be seen as unfit for purpose, it is our parliament. They are a joke. The Tories cant agree amongst themselves what to do; Labour arent interested, they just want to oppose everything the Tories suggest, as they want to make it an election issue, in the hop they might win. The Libdems dont matter. The SNP at least have a consistent approach in favour of remain, albeit a doomed one. The DUP appear to see this as entirely a parochial issue.

So, everyone in parliament is thinking politics still and dont appear to be concerned with the issue that needs resolution. They are great at defining what they dont want, and unable to define what they do. Its a ****ing national disgrace. As I have said before, the Queen should dissolve parliament and all standing MPs banned from seeking reelection.

#4 I agree with, albeit your perspective is one eyed. Trouble is, the electorate couldnt reach a real majority decision when faced with only 2 choices. More choice would not result in a better decision. A second referendum wouldnt either, I imagine.

So the only solution now, as I see it, is to revoke Article 50 and face the consequences of "revolution".

But before the remainers start to crow about "their victory" - remember its the extreme members of the Brexit coalition that will have caused Brexit not to happen. you, RA, should be cheering Teresa May from on high, exalting in he brilliance as a remainer mole.

Oh and in case you may have missed it, post Brexit, if it happens, one half of Ireland will be on a different time zone from the other half - or perhaps one half of the UK will be on a different time zone from NI. It could be argued that the DUP are already 100 years behind the rest of the world though.

Yes you do...tedious isn’t it...but sadly it does remain relevant. The argument that democracy has been betrayed if Brexit is cancelled/overturned doesn’t stand up because democracy had already been ‘betrayed’ by the rule breakers and liars.

Yes, you’re right, our Parliamentarians have performed abysmally...but that doesn’t alter the premise regarding our system of government...anyway, have you heard Joe Public in the pub?

Never going to happen!

The point is...the binary choice offered was futile. People had no opportunity to say what they actually wanted. The Referendum was simply an exercise in how not to do things, but I have to agree...more choice may well lead to greater confusion even though the electorate is now undeniably better informed.


Totally agree about the DUP.

[swaledale]

As you all know, I am very anti EU. You also know why because I have explained it on more than 1 occasion. Personally I would back any party that that took over my idea of the middle road to scrap the EU completely and revert tp the pre Maastricht position of the whole thing being no more than a free trade area with some necessary rules to make it so. Those rules should include the limitations on the banks, the stock market and the money markets that I have also previously explained. Take some of the power back off the 1% and thereby give the man in the street more cash in hand through lower taxes for him and making the multinationals pay what they ought to as opposed to the cosy little pay nowt deals they have made with various governments TMITS will spend that extra creating more jobs, taking people off the dole, increase turnover/profit/dividend for the multinationals and benefitting everybody in the end. Multis and their share holders will take a hit in year 1 but after that it's all roses for everybody.

US of E? Forget it.

One small problem the Eu was never "just" a free trade area, a common myth perpetuated by those who dont read their history. Its genesis was political union to avoid forever the possibility of another war in europe, which one has to admit it has achieved. Going back to heath's time and you will see that the EEC was a political as well as an economic institution.

Funnily enough the Eu is proposing to clamp down on tax avoidance on multi nationals along the lines you suggest - its one of the main reasons the rich elite (who pretend their not to hoodwink the common man) are so keen on Brexit, they don't want the Eu to force the Uk to clamp down on tax avoidance and tax havens!

[MadAmster]

The EU has been in existence since 1992. How has it kept the peace for 70 odd years?

I find that line of thinking very disrespectful to NATO, the true reason for the lack of War in Europe.

As for the US of E, those who must be obeyed denied for decades that a US of E was the ultimate goal. It was from the minute the "Common Market" of 6 countries was created. It's not what I want.

[ramAnag]

The EU has been in existence since 1992. How has it kept the peace for 70 odd years?

I find that line of thinking very disrespectful to NATO, the true reason for the lack of War in Europe.

As for the US of E, those who must be obeyed denied for decades that a US of E was the ultimate goal. It was from the minute the "Common Market" of 6 countries was created. It's not what I want.

Suspect that Swale is referring to the EU/EEC/Common Market as both a political and an economic union and I don’t think he mentioned ‘70 odd years’, but it is a fact that major European conflict involving the leading European nations has been avoided for seventy four years now and the political/economic alliance as represented by the EU - under whatever name - has almost certainly contributed to that.

Don’t see how it’s at all ‘disrespectful’ to NATO, Amster...they’ve obviously had a role to play, no one denies that, but what goes on in Europe is more likely to be determined by the Europeans than North Americans, especially given that the USA is currently led by someone who gives every impression of being an increasingly insane sociopath.

I wouldn’t want to see a US of E, with an overall European Presidency either, but I don’t think that’s likely and there is much to be said for unity in Europe which we need to be part of rather than the not so splendid isolation of Little Britain.

Coincidentally my local MP...Patrick McLoughlin...’doorstepped’ me yesterday. Frankly I was staggered at the weakness of his argument. He was clearly trying to defend a situation which he didn’t believe in but the level of debate and understanding on here is way above anything he had to offer and only added credence to the notion that a donkey with a blue rosette would be elected in the Derbyshire Dales as I’m sure is the case, with both red and blue, elsewhere in the country. Democracy eh?

[mistaram]

Suspect that Swale is referring to the EU/EEC/Common Market as both a political and an economic union and I don’t think he mentioned ‘70 odd years’, but it is a fact that major European conflict involving the leading European nations has been avoided for seventy four years now and the political/economic alliance as represented by the EU - under whatever name - has almost certainly contributed to that.

Don’t see how it’s at all ‘disrespectful’ to NATO, Amster...they’ve obviously had a role to play, no one denies that, but what goes on in Europe is more likely to be determined by the Europeans than North Americans, especially given that the USA is currently led by someone who gives every impression of being an increasingly insane sociopath.

I wouldn’t want to see a US of E, with an overall European Presidency either, but I don’t think that’s likely and there is much to be said for unity in Europe which we need to be part of rather than the not so splendid isolation of Little Britain.

Coincidentally my local MP...Patrick McLoughlin...’doorstepped’ me yesterday. Frankly I was staggered at the weakness of his argument. He was clearly trying to defend a situation which he didn’t believe in but the level of debate and understanding on here is way above anything he had to offer and only added credence to the notion that a donkey with a blue rosette would be elected in the Derbyshire Dales as I’m sure is the case, with both red and blue, elsewhere in the country. Democracy eh?

RA you can name your local MP Bet you will struggle to name your local MEP lol

[MadAmster]

Suspect that Swale is referring to the EU/EEC/Common Market as both a political and an economic union and I don’t think he mentioned ‘70 odd years’, but it is a fact that major European conflict involving the leading European nations has been avoided for seventy four years now and the political/economic alliance as represented by the EU - under whatever name - has almost certainly contributed to that.

Don’t see how it’s at all ‘disrespectful’ to NATO, Amster...they’ve obviously had a role to play, no one denies that, but what goes on in Europe is more likely to be determined by the Europeans than North Americans, especially given that the USA is currently led by someone who gives every impression of being an increasingly insane sociopath.

I wouldn’t want to see a US of E, with an overall European Presidency either, but I don’t think that’s likely and there is much to be said for unity in Europe which we need to be part of rather than the not so splendid isolation of Little Britain.

Swale didn't mention 70 years as such but inferred that the EU in its many guises over the years has kept the peace. I disagree. I think it's NATO. I also think that if we hadn't had NATO, especially in the cold war years, including the UKs nuclear deterrent, then Russia would have had a go at conquering Europe.

I refer my learned friend to my previous paragraph in this reply. Fortunately, the current POTUS wasn't around in those days and I hope he is gone in 2020.

As for a full blown US of E with a President, one set of Laws, one taxation system, European army, navy air force etc etc etc, that was, is and shall remain the goal of the Eurocrats.

[ramAnag]

RA you can name your local MP Bet you will struggle to name your local MEP lol

No idea, mista...but I bet people will be more aware if those elections do go ahead this time.

It may be one aim and idea of the Eurocrats, Amster...but isn’t that all the more reason for remaining and helping shape the future of Europe rather than being on the periphery for ever more?

[MadAmster]

Only the Commission can put forward Bills to the EU Parliament and they are determined to go for more and more centralisation. The UK wasn't, isn't, and never will be, in a position to do the slightest thing about it.

[ramAnag]

Only the Commission can put forward Bills to the EU Parliament and they are determined to go for more and more centralisation. The UK wasn't, isn't, and never will be, in a position to do the slightest thing about it.

Disagree MA...the UK is one of the three wealthiest members of the EU. Our outbursts of arrogance and intransigence may at times make us unpopular but our views matter. We will only be able to ‘do the slightest thing’ - or a lot more - about the future direction of the EU by remaining as a leading part of it.

[swaledale]

The EU has been in existence since 1992. How has it kept the peace for 70 odd years?

I find that line of thinking very disrespectful to NATO, the true reason for the lack of War in Europe.

As for the US of E, those who must be obeyed denied for decades that a US of E was the ultimate goal. It was from the minute the "Common Market" of 6 countries was created. It's not what I want.

Ah fallen into the classic trap - NATO was formed to counter the threat from the eastern block, with the USSR as the main power. A threat that appeared after WW2.

The political and economic partnership between the original 6 with Germany and France the main partners was specifically aimed at preventing what happened after WW1 happening after WW2 - that there would be economic and political cooperation which would never again see countries in western europe go to war.

It might pay you to do some historical research!

With respect what you want is not necessarily what happens! And whose to say what you want is the best option anyway? I thought you wanted a clamp down on tax evasion by the rich? Thats what the Eu is proposing!

The facts of the matter are, power ha shifted within the world, the Uk is no longer in a position to be on equal terms with the big economies of the USA, China, India etc. The EU on the otherhand is able to have more muscle and we are/were in an advantageous position within the EU with our veto on the things we dont like - but you know its like any club, there always rules which members don't like but thats the nature of cooperation, as a member one can always change or influence these, but of course you can't always have exactly what you would like but then there are also huge benefits.

Personally the chances of a US of E are distinctly remote, these things ebb and wane according to who is in power.

AS for they who must be obeyed, do some research and you will find a lot of EU directives and rules were suggested by the UK, some good some not so good but also there is no country in the EU, except perhaps for germany who so loves implementing EU directives and rules as the UK - a case in point being control of migration, which the UK government could if it had wanted to controlled using various mechanisms open to it under the EU.

[MadAmster]

Ah fallen into the classic trap - NATO was formed to counter the threat from the eastern block, with the USSR as the main power. A threat that appeared after WW2.

The political and economic partnership between the original 6 with Germany and France the main partners was specifically aimed at preventing what happened after WW1 happening after WW2 - that there would be economic and political cooperation which would never again see countries in western europe go to war.

It might pay you to do some historical research!

With respect what you want is not necessarily what happens! And whose to say what you want is the best option anyway? I thought you wanted a clamp down on tax evasion by the rich? Thats what the Eu is proposing!

The facts of the matter are, power ha shifted within the world, the Uk is no longer in a position to be on equal terms with the big economies of the USA, China, India etc. The EU on the otherhand is able to have more muscle and we are/were in an advantageous position within the EU with our veto on the things we dont like - but you know its like any club, there always rules which members don't like but thats the nature of cooperation, as a member one can always change or influence these, but of course you can't always have exactly what you would like but then there are also huge benefits.

Personally the chances of a US of E are distinctly remote, these things ebb and wane according to who is in power.

AS for they who must be obeyed, do some research and you will find a lot of EU directives and rules were suggested by the UK, some good some not so good but also there is no country in the EU, except perhaps for germany who so loves implementing EU directives and rules as the UK - a case in point being control of migration, which the UK government could if it had wanted to controlled using various mechanisms open to it under the EU.

.. and there you have the weakest link in the EU chain. With the exceptions of Germany, the UK and the Netherlands they all say yes to evrything and then do what the hell they like.

Spain exceeds their fishing quota. No action taken

France exceeds the 3% overspend on GDP every year. They should get fines every year. They don't. When asked why Juncker said "because they are the French".

The old Eastern bloc countries won't (most of them) take African immigrants/refugees despite them having to under EU Law.

Greece, Italy and others lied about their economy in order to be allowed to join the Euro.

All in all it's not a club I feel I can trust in any way, shape or form.

[Andy_Faber]

..they all say yes to evrything and then do what the hell they like.

I can only speak for the countries I have connections to - I’m in Spain at the mo, in the community not on holiday. The habit of UK (and Germany, the Nordics and The Netherlands) to stick in broad terms to the rules is seen as a bit of laugh here, the people of the territory I’m in dont even respect central Spanish law if they can avoid it, forget EU law - their view seems to be that ‘the town hall’ (ie local government) must be obeyed and the further away the seat of govt the less it’s listened to. Their allegiance to EU is purely as a meal ticket - however I can’t help think that’s a reflection on the relatively remote territory I’m in, I’d guess the big cities would take a different view (same as uk as it goes)

[swaledale]

.. and there you have the weakest link in the EU chain. With the exceptions of Germany, the UK and the Netherlands they all say yes to evrything and then do what the hell they like.

Spain exceeds their fishing quota. No action taken

France exceeds the 3% overspend on GDP every year. They should get fines every year. They don't. When asked why Juncker said "because they are the French".

The old Eastern bloc countries won't (most of them) take African immigrants/refugees despite them having to under EU Law.

Greece, Italy and others lied about their economy in order to be allowed to join the Euro.

All in all it's not a club I feel I can trust in any way, shape or form.

Thats as may be but economically and politically we are still better off in it with influence than outside it and with any institution or organisation that is run by human beings there will be flaws, Brexiteers claim they want the Uk to have sovereignty, have control, yet when parliament exercises its power they moan its not to their liking!

The truth is that the EU is the only way of exercising some control over multi nationals and whatever the flaws its a lot more benign than the wealthy Brexit supporting elite who want a low tax low regulation low wage economy that makes millions for them and their cronies who don't give a flying **** about the "ordinary citizen".

[MadAmster]

Most of us won't be around in 50 years time. If we were I am certain I would be typing "I bloody well told ya so" on page 37153 of the Brexit thread on here to the news that all member state Laws are now defunct and only EU Brussels Laws are in effect with severe penalties for breaking them............... unless you are French, of course. Some things never change

90% of EU Parliament seats will be held by the 1% party and the rest of us will each have 50 zero contracts, all on the minimum wage and the new slavery will be a fact.

Also derogatory remarks on the EU on internet fora will be viewed as anti-EUtic and carry a 6 months prison sentence douling for each subsequent offence.

If its slavery and censorship you want then bring on the US of E and you will get exactly that.