I actually welcome the EU army after brexit.
The EU27 need a similar arrangement, more tightly integrated than NATO.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The EU27 need a similar arrangement, more tightly integrated than NATO.
I'm not buying that for a minute!
Most exposed to propaganda is nearer the mark
everyone is exposed to propaganda.
however, it is difficult to imagine a conservative government not supporting brexit.
Last edited:
In my experience the most politically aware folks I ever met were in N. I.
Still UK of course but they are a different league
Yeah. I can imagine in 50 years when the 4th reich starts vaporising Poland we will all look back on this post and say we had such grand aspirations of giving. Nay! Funding a new German army.
Not you whoosh. But it does make me laugh with the remainders on here. They cry learn the lessons of history without really learning it. Only using it to fit their narrative.
Germany is 2 leaders away from a far right government. Their immigration problem is a genuine ticking time bomb. If their economy dips... Forget about us catching a cold. We will get a dose of measles.
What makes you think britain would oppose it,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/25/nine-eu-states-to-sign-off-on-joint-military-intervention-force#img-1
I didn't watch but I'm pleased to learn this. Dimbleby and his interference with discussion was long overdue replacement.
Just need to get rid of his equally loquacious brother from radio now.
.
Last edited:
This could let JC find an easy way out of supporting a second referendum:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-to-be-delayed-beyond-march-29-cabinet-ministers-reveal-a4036326.html
Ministers think Mrs May will have to allow indicative votes on alternative plans - including a People’s Vote and a Norway deal - if she loses heavily.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-to-be-delayed-beyond-march-29-cabinet-ministers-reveal-a4036326.html
Ministers think Mrs May will have to allow indicative votes on alternative plans - including a People’s Vote and a Norway deal - if she loses heavily.
I can concur with your assessment about NI ..the RoI are pretty sophisticated in that regard also. I put it down to Proportional Representation, where the value of any vote and seat can go to the 20th. Count. The US congress elections and the concept of safe single party seats disencourages voter engagement.
I don't see this, I can envisage the UK crashing out, due to ineptude and a failure of leadership. It is not a conclusion wished for by the vast majority in Europe,and probably the majority in the UK parliament.
In the likely event of the Mrs May Deal being rejected. The 3 day requirement to bring up an alternative may fly in the UK, but will not have any traction with the EU. Meanwhile we are then at 60 days to crash out.
Who in the UK will instruct the Cabinet to seek an extension to Article 50?. The only people who can are a majority of the HoC . While they still have these 60 days, .. see how quickly they erode.
if parliament votes down TM's deal, nobody knows if parliament can produce a plan.
At the moment, there is no majority for:
- TM's deal
- no deal
- people's vote
- Norway+
- Canada+
My guess it's the people's vote that will eventually collects the highest number of supporting MPs. However, I can't see the point of another referendum if you have a government led by one of the ERG.
I am for the Norway model and BTW, the + is superfluous.
Sometimes. Sometimes people remarked on his stupid ties and how tired he looked.
I only replied to someone who had posted how good she looked. And she did. She sparkled but it was the way she chaired that popped more.
One way or another I think you are right.
On the one hand a delay to article 50 could pave the way to remaining, the public so increasingly sick of the whole subject that they'll grudgingly accept that.
Or on the other hand we'll end up with something like Norway, which is effectively being in without a voice while obeying all the rules.
.
The EU`s poisonous Triple Lock explained..
The first lock: the transition period
The first lock is the transition period, which lasts until at least 2021. We must hand over an estimated £39 billion for nothing, be bound by EU law and take orders from an unelected Joint Committee operating under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Will the EU27 agree an equitable free trade agreement before the end of 2020? Unlikely, since all the goodies they want in the “future partnership” are set out in the Northern Ireland backstop, which kicks in automatically on 1st January 2021 unless superseded by a “partnership” agreement. Full ratification by all Member States is required before any such agreement can come into force. Achieving this in time to avoid entering the backstop would be nothing short of miraculous, even if the EU agrees to extend the transition period for one or two years. So it is more pay with no say and a likely doubling of the Brexit bill to £80 billion, to be paid with no reference to British MPs.
The second lock: the backstop
The backstop is intended to be inescapable. It prepares Britain for the final destination set out in the political declaration, as a permanent satellite state of the EU. By which time, of course, it is doubtless hoped that we will be so fed up with our vassalage that we decide to rejoin the EU as a full member – with greatly increased budget contributions and a whole swathe of new EU law to obey. The United States of Europe will have taken shape during our “wilderness years” using our money (“Britgeld” seems to be an appropriate term), but without our political input. No taxation without representation? What a joke.
Not only does the backstop carve out Northern Ireland as an EU province and set a border in the Irish Sea, it creates a partial “customs union” that requires us to implement EU trade tariffs and policy with no decision-making powers. Under highly restrictive “non-regression clauses”, the UK also agrees to implement all EU environmental, competition, state aid and tax harmonisation laws, with the unelected Joint Committee and the ECJ once again able to punish us for any perceived backsliding. British farmers will be locked into a subsidy regime well below support received by EU27 farmers, who nevertheless retain tariff-free access to the UK. British agriculture would be decimated. It means we could not support British businesses, give ourselves a competitive edge in new technologies where we excel, strike independent trade deals or diverge in key policy areas such as goods regulations and tax. Free EU access to UK fisheries is set down as a marker for negotiation in the future “deal”.
The third lock: the “future partnership”
Anyone expecting the EU27 to give up the immense advantages they gain under the backstop is delusional. Retaining tariff-free access to the UK market and effective control of UK trade and competition policy must be nirvana for them. To ensure they reap the full benefit, there is the third and final lock in the Withdrawal Agreement. Unless we agree to a “future partnership” as set out in the political declaration, the backstop will endure in perpetuity.
The Political Declaration replicates all the onerous “non-regression” clauses of the backstop and requires even more surrender of sovereignty via participation in and funding of the EU’s aerospace and defence programmes, free access to UK waters for EU fishermen, a full customs union and common trade policy, free movement by the backdoor under “mobility” clauses, EU control of UK agriculture via the state aid rules and in general full adherence to the acquis communautaire in all policy areas.
The first lock: the transition period
The first lock is the transition period, which lasts until at least 2021. We must hand over an estimated £39 billion for nothing, be bound by EU law and take orders from an unelected Joint Committee operating under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Will the EU27 agree an equitable free trade agreement before the end of 2020? Unlikely, since all the goodies they want in the “future partnership” are set out in the Northern Ireland backstop, which kicks in automatically on 1st January 2021 unless superseded by a “partnership” agreement. Full ratification by all Member States is required before any such agreement can come into force. Achieving this in time to avoid entering the backstop would be nothing short of miraculous, even if the EU agrees to extend the transition period for one or two years. So it is more pay with no say and a likely doubling of the Brexit bill to £80 billion, to be paid with no reference to British MPs.
The second lock: the backstop
The backstop is intended to be inescapable. It prepares Britain for the final destination set out in the political declaration, as a permanent satellite state of the EU. By which time, of course, it is doubtless hoped that we will be so fed up with our vassalage that we decide to rejoin the EU as a full member – with greatly increased budget contributions and a whole swathe of new EU law to obey. The United States of Europe will have taken shape during our “wilderness years” using our money (“Britgeld” seems to be an appropriate term), but without our political input. No taxation without representation? What a joke.
Not only does the backstop carve out Northern Ireland as an EU province and set a border in the Irish Sea, it creates a partial “customs union” that requires us to implement EU trade tariffs and policy with no decision-making powers. Under highly restrictive “non-regression clauses”, the UK also agrees to implement all EU environmental, competition, state aid and tax harmonisation laws, with the unelected Joint Committee and the ECJ once again able to punish us for any perceived backsliding. British farmers will be locked into a subsidy regime well below support received by EU27 farmers, who nevertheless retain tariff-free access to the UK. British agriculture would be decimated. It means we could not support British businesses, give ourselves a competitive edge in new technologies where we excel, strike independent trade deals or diverge in key policy areas such as goods regulations and tax. Free EU access to UK fisheries is set down as a marker for negotiation in the future “deal”.
The third lock: the “future partnership”
Anyone expecting the EU27 to give up the immense advantages they gain under the backstop is delusional. Retaining tariff-free access to the UK market and effective control of UK trade and competition policy must be nirvana for them. To ensure they reap the full benefit, there is the third and final lock in the Withdrawal Agreement. Unless we agree to a “future partnership” as set out in the political declaration, the backstop will endure in perpetuity.
The Political Declaration replicates all the onerous “non-regression” clauses of the backstop and requires even more surrender of sovereignty via participation in and funding of the EU’s aerospace and defence programmes, free access to UK waters for EU fishermen, a full customs union and common trade policy, free movement by the backdoor under “mobility” clauses, EU control of UK agriculture via the state aid rules and in general full adherence to the acquis communautaire in all policy areas.
I'm sober because I don't drink alcohol, but I'd happily buy you a drink or three.
.
Well, somewhere in Channel 4 tonight, a producer is emptying their desk. The best thing you’ll see on Twitter this week,
Poor Jon Snow, he thought he had an audience of young Remoaners!
I saw it. Was very good. Snow getting a convincing argument back from an 18 year old. Was quite funny, seemed to me it was him trying to incite offensive comments from leavers and derogatory ones from remainers. He did come over biased and made him look stupid. (I accept he isnt but he was glad to hand over)
The audience made their points well without insult or being condescending. Perhaps the old folk on here should try to do same.
I thought there werent any leavers under 25.Another remainer myth exposed.