O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[BigLadonOS]

I think that this flurry of posts prove more is that some people will distort fact and even create fiction to attack the EU. There is much to be critical of, but the fact that even Kerr is running rings around Leave posters, pointing out obvious flaws in repeated evidence for arguments against the EU, speaks volumes about the fact that the arguments are transparently flimsy.

Again I say that this has been hatching for over a decade and has nothing to do with the BREXIT vote. Dont you get it yet? A vote to stay in the EU in 2016 would have led to this anyway and we would have been signed up to it from the start.

Why are all you remoaners making all this a post Brexit issue when it is not? I am not making this a post Brexit issue I am letting people know what was going to happen if we had voted to stay in the EU.

[KerrAvon]

He means beyond our membership of the EU after the 29th of March 2019 as of that date we would no longer be members of the EU.

The point is that Protocol 15 specifically provides that UK monetary policy falls outside the jurisdiction of the EU.

[KerrAvon]

What is it about you lot that do not understand this?

This was all done prior to our even having an in or out vote in 2016. If you had voted to stay in the EU then we had already signed up to it. It has nothing at all to do with Brexit so why are you trying to link it to that.

I understand that you are wrong.

I agree that the concept of a European Army has nothing to do with Brexit. I haven't suggested otherwise. It has everything to do with the Lisbon Treaty, which provides that the creation of such a body would require the unanimous agreement of member states, which isn't going to happen.

[KerrAvon]

Unreal just unreal. The simple fact that we are choosing to go with it and keep our people in austerity and continue to keep the EU happy while food banks are still needed is yet another reason why we need rid of this dictatorship.

Or perhaps it's a good idea not to spend what we don't have?

[BigLadonOS]

The point is that Protocol 15 specifically provides that UK monetary policy falls outside the jurisdiction of the EU.

Monetary policy regarding the Euro but it does not mean we do not have to follow guidelines set out by the EU regarding spending etc it just means we can keep the pound thats all.

[BigLadonOS]

I understand that you are wrong.

I agree that the concept of a European Army has nothing to do with Brexit. I haven't suggested otherwise. It has everything to do with the Lisbon Treaty, which provides that the creation of such a body would require the unanimous agreement of member states, which isn't going to happen.

And you know this for a fact how?

[BigLadonOS]

Or perhaps it's a good idea not to spend what we don't have?

Or maybe its the fact that GDP is at 2.2% when the EU require it to be 1.6% of GDP

[BigLadonOS]

Look. At the end of the day you remoaners can throw back anything you want about the fact that we had so called veto's of the plans that are currently and have been worked on for decades where we have already agreed to things in principle (which is what you remoaners fail to understand) so although we might have the opportunity to use our veto on these things I would argue we would not use our veto and there is where we differ on BREXIT.

As for pup saying "that the UK has successfully agreed 95% of new laws/law amendments with the EU. 95% we get our way. " he fails to mention that every single time we have voted NO to anything in the EU we have lost. We have not won a single NO vote which proves that unless we vote with the majority we have no say in our own right and that is why we have no power to change anything in the EU.

Argue with this fact.

“The lack of influence is quite marked. Over the past twenty years… there have been 72 occasions in the Council of Ministers where the United Kingdom has opposed a particular measure. Of those 72 occasions, we have been successful precisely 0 times and we have lost 72 times. That is a fact.”

[great_fire]

The EU are recommending this and we are choosing to comply. Choosing is the key point. We don't have to go along with it if we choose not to. Redwood is, in true Eurosceptic stylie, blaming the EU for policies that we choose to follow.

There is a bit of that, the EU doing things and governments saying they're against them and saying "don't blame us, it was the EU" when really they were in favour of them all along.

But can't you see how undemocratic that is? These things should be decided in the House of Commons and be debated. They're dodging democratic scrutiny.

[ragingpup]

Again I say that this has been hatching for over a decade and has nothing to do with the BREXIT vote. Dont you get it yet? A vote to stay in the EU in 2016 would have led to this anyway and we would have been signed up to it from the start.

Why are all you remoaners making all this a post Brexit issue when it is not? I am not making this a post Brexit issue I am letting people know what was going to happen if we had voted to stay in the EU.

Sorry but you are pointing out potential dangers of what might happen if we had stayed in the EU. And you are backing that up with a mixture of opinion pieces and short pieces of EU figures stating the direction that they would like to go in but in no way have these become anything more than vague ideas, let alone the fear that we wouldn't have the powers to veto and block such developments. You are passing these off as facts and they are simply not facts. This is very different to expressing concerns about the way the future directions, which are quite valid. But many Leave folks are twisting these beyond belief.