Our replacement for the EU?
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
And of course while most of these countries will be more than happy to sell to us, what is the incentive to buy?
They are already doing very nicely as it is, and if we are honest we have little to sell that much more competitive and well financed nations are already exploiting.
To survive we need to reinvent ourselves as a modern industrial nation and prevent investment leaving these shores for the tiger economies.
Frankly I don't see either happening, as rather than do that, those with the money invested in slave labour factories abroad, so why should they bother?
They are already doing very nicely as it is, and if we are honest we have little to sell that much more competitive and well financed nations are already exploiting.
To survive we need to reinvent ourselves as a modern industrial nation and prevent investment leaving these shores for the tiger economies.
Frankly I don't see either happening, as rather than do that, those with the money invested in slave labour factories abroad, so why should they bother?
Last edited:
I found this
http://euromove.org.uk/how-can-we-get-the-most-out-trade-with-the-eu-and-the-commonwealth/
which doesn't seem to offer much encouragement it has to be said
http://euromove.org.uk/how-can-we-get-the-most-out-trade-with-the-eu-and-the-commonwealth/
which doesn't seem to offer much encouragement it has to be said
There were 17 million people who voted leave, but I suspect about 1 million different reasons, and a high % of them have been proven to have zero to do with the EU, and an equal number are now being proven to not be solved by leaving the EU.
So what?
!7 Million are quite capable of being wrong, the same as everyone else, and in this case, what evidence is there to suggest otherwise?
How many imagined the the EU created the immigration crisis? and thought coming out would put it to an end?
How many had checked any of the claims made by the Brexit politicians, or even had the faintest idea of how the EU was organised or affected their well being?
And how many of you checked to see if the Referendum had the power of law?
Most of the Brexit voters really didn't know what was being voted on, for or why, and nobody had a plan what to do did they?
Plus they were lied to, which cannot be denied, so how then can the snap judgement they made against that background of lies disorganisation and misunderstanding be correct?
Last edited:
There is no point in continuing this argument.
Resentment against the EU has been building up for years, and not only in the UK.
I, and many others wanted to remain British and not be consumed by the Euro dreams of what we consider control freaks.
Did the Scots separatists who voted Remain, really understand what the EU monster plans for them?
Resentment against the EU has been building up for years, and not only in the UK.
I, and many others wanted to remain British and not be consumed by the Euro dreams of what we consider control freaks.
Did the Scots separatists who voted Remain, really understand what the EU monster plans for them?
Because the EU has been communicating badly about what it is doing to make peoples lives better.
Because "well meaning" people have been spreading false information about what it actually does.
Because it is a thorn in the side of the USA and its goal of total world domination, financially and militarily if necessary.
There have been mistakes but remarkably few for such an enormous project. Globally our lives are better thanks to the EU (consumer protection, environmental protection, redistribution of investment to needy areas neglected by national governments...). This money has often been seized for personal gain by corrupt politicians in Southern Europe but this has come to light and started a grass roots anti-corruption effort in these nations.
People will always be fearful of what they don't understand. Britain voting UKIP, France voting the Front National into the European parlement was never a very productive idea, those people only ever had personal interest at stake never the interest of the people as a whole.
Because "well meaning" people have been spreading false information about what it actually does.
Because it is a thorn in the side of the USA and its goal of total world domination, financially and militarily if necessary.
There have been mistakes but remarkably few for such an enormous project. Globally our lives are better thanks to the EU (consumer protection, environmental protection, redistribution of investment to needy areas neglected by national governments...). This money has often been seized for personal gain by corrupt politicians in Southern Europe but this has come to light and started a grass roots anti-corruption effort in these nations.
People will always be fearful of what they don't understand. Britain voting UKIP, France voting the Front National into the European parlement was never a very productive idea, those people only ever had personal interest at stake never the interest of the people as a whole.
What is this EU Monster nonsense?
Resentment for the EU has been a progressive poison provided by a Media working for moguls who most certainly are against the many progressive changes that have made your life and mine far better than they were before we joined the EU.
A United States of Europe will come despite people who want to go back to living in the past for no other reason than that they fear change.It is the best possible of futures.
Ironic that Brexiters label the EU "Control Freaks" when their main Mantra is "Taking Back Control!"
What utter Bull! they simply don't want to SHARE and mix as equals with others.
There is a HUGE FLAW in your argument that the EU are control freaks, only Laws that our Government have agreed to are passed by the EU parliament, and we are enjoying special privileges not available to the other member states.
Don't you find it rather odd that having AGREED to the EU Laws our government then blames the EU for IMPOSING them when it did no such thing?
And in many cases like the Fishing Quotas we actually asked for them to be imposed to protect North Sea stocks from Spanish fishermen, and now deny all knowledge of doing so?
Last edited:
I am still waiting for the apocalypse promised by osborne cameron and lagarde and goodness knows how many others. They tried their best to frighten people into voting remain threatening emergency budgets etc. What happened to that???. I think the EU will have to undergo some profound change and be much more flexible instead of trying to rule countries by stealth. They have undoubtedly done a lot of good but that has been negated by total pig headedness and a reluctance to listen to peoples concerns. They believed in their arrogance that the UK would not vote to leave so Cameron asked for nothing and got even less, and then tried to con us. it backfired on them and now having made the decision we have to move forward and do what is best for the UK. I see they are already whinging about us lowering corporation tax but they don't seem to worry about Luxembourg being a tax haven. A lot of problems await the EU and we are better away from it
Well said in every respect. In my view the EU is by far the best of all the major powers in this world, and all of it's citizens are beneficiaries of its policies.
.
All that we have had so far is the Referendum so actually there should not have been any adverse effects whatsoever yet, should there?
It was just a vote, that's all, and look at the damage to the pound and the extra expense we are being put to to even organise a plan, which will cost Billions
I am no fan of Cameron but perhaps you had better check before making a claim he came back with nothing
lets look at your "Ruling by stealth"
This is what actually happened
"
What the final deal said: "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."
Assessment: Mr Cameron has secured a commitment to exempt Britain from "ever closer union" to be written into the treaties. He has also negotiated the inclusion of a "red-card" mechanism, a new power. If 55% of national parliaments agree, they could effectively block or veto a commission proposal. The question is how likely is this "red card" system to be used. A much weaker "yellow card" was only used twice. The red-card mechanism depends crucially on building alliances. The sceptics say it does not come close to winning the UK back control of its own affairs - and Mr Cameron is set to announce further measures which he claims will put the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament "beyond doubt".
Which blows that part of your argument out of the water.
"
What Cameron wanted: The Conservative manifesto said: "We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years." It also proposed a "new residency requirement for social housing, so that EU migrants cannot even be considered for a council house unless they have been living in an area for at least four years".
The manifesto also pledged to "end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all", adding that "if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave".
Mr Cameron also wanted to prevent EU migrant workers in the UK sending child benefit or child tax credit money home. "If an EU migrant's child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid," says the Tory manifesto.
What the draft deal said:"[New legislation will] provide for an alert and safeguard mechanism that responds to situations of inflows of workers from other member states of an exceptional magnitude over an extended period of time… the implementing act would authorise the member state to limit the access of union workers newly entering its labour market to in-work benefits for a total of up to four years from the commencement of employment."
What the final deal said:
On in-work benefits: The Council would authorise that Member State to limit the access of newly arriving EU workers to non-contributory in-work benefits for a total period of up to four years from the commencement of employment. The limitation should be graduated, from an initial complete exclusion but gradually increasing access to such benefits to take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host Member State. The authorisation would have a limited duration and apply to EU workers newly arriving during a period of 7 years.
On child benefit: A proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems in order to give Member States, with regard to the exportation of child benefits to a Member State other than that where the worker resides, an option to index such benefits to the conditions of the Member State where the child resides. This should apply only to new claims made by EU workers in the host Member State. However, as from 1 January 2020, all Member States may extend indexation to existing claims to child benefits already exported by EU workers. The Commission does not intend to propose that the future system of optional indexation of child benefits be extended to other types of exportable benefits, such as old-age pensions;
Assessment: Mr Cameron had to compromise on this aspect of the deal in the face of strong opposition from Poland and three other central European countries. He got the four-year "emergency brake" on in-work benefits he had set such store by - but new arrivals will have their tax credits phased in over four years. The brake will be in place for a maximum of seven years, rather than the 13 years Mr Cameron is thought to have wanted - but the EU has agreed it would be "justified" to trigger it without delay after the referendum if the UK votes to stay in the EU.
Mr Cameron failed in his original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home. Payments will instead be linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live. The new rules will apply immediately for new arrivals, and for existing claimants from 2020.
The UK government has already reached an agreement on out-of-work benefits. Newly arrived EU migrants are banned from claiming jobseeker's allowance for three months. If they have not found a job within six months they will be required to leave. EU migrant workers in the UK who lose their job, through no fault of their own, are entitled to the same benefits as UK citizens, including jobseekers allowance and housing benefit, for six months.
Neither the draft deal nor the final agreement mention changes to social housing entitlement but they were never part of Mr Cameron's preliminary negotiations.
So I ask you this simple question
How can you seriously believe this statement you made?
"Cameron asked for nothing and got even less, and then tried to con us.
As time goes by it becomes more and more obvious that many Brexit Voters for one reason or another either never checked up on anything they were told, or simply don't care about the truth, and accepted what the press and pro Brexit politicians told them.
Here is a brain twister for you:
As a citizen of a Commonwealth country I cannot live and work in the UK. I'm a third generation New Zealander.
As a permanent resident of the EU I can hold a EU resident card which allows me to live and work in any country of the EU... (holding your breath?) except the UK and Ireland. There you go more special clauses.
I checked out the numbers of those EU immigrants picking your spuds and over running your country. Underwhelming! And what percentage of those who want them out are after their spud picking job? Magical zero unemployment in the UK as soon as they are gone and English people go back to picking English spuds? I don't believe a word of that because I was on a working holiday visa and have worked among your unwashed masses. Very eye opening that was...
As a citizen of a Commonwealth country I cannot live and work in the UK. I'm a third generation New Zealander.
As a permanent resident of the EU I can hold a EU resident card which allows me to live and work in any country of the EU... (holding your breath?) except the UK and Ireland. There you go more special clauses.
I checked out the numbers of those EU immigrants picking your spuds and over running your country. Underwhelming! And what percentage of those who want them out are after their spud picking job? Magical zero unemployment in the UK as soon as they are gone and English people go back to picking English spuds? I don't believe a word of that because I was on a working holiday visa and have worked among your unwashed masses. Very eye opening that was...
Who wants the migrants out of the U.K.? Why are you deliberately making false statements? Do you think it makes you look clever?
At this time, we do not need people deliberately manipulating information and facts in order to suit their own agenda. There is enough uncertainty as we adjust to life outside the EU without fools injecting further synthetic uncertainty into the mix.
You sound as though you don't like the English people very much, so why do you feel the need to involve yourself? If you harbour such contempt, surely you would be better off keeping your hooter out and doing whatever it is that you do, elsewhere.
Last edited:
Here is a recent poll result
"
An overwhelming majority of Britons – including those who voted to leave the European Union – believe EU nationals living in the UK should be allowed to stay in the country after Brexit, according to a new poll.
Perhaps surprisingly, given that immigration was the cornerstone of the Leave campaign, 77 per cent of those who voted for Brexit and 78 per cent of Ukip supporters agreed EU nationals currently in the UK should be free to remain.
Although 62 per cent of those polled wanted to see a reduction in the number of unskilled migrants coming to the UK, a majority - including Leave voters - did not want to reduce the influx of highly-skilled migrants, such as engineers and doctors.
So it would appear that 23% of those who voted for Brexit don't agree with you tillson, and it isn't a false statement after all, is it?
It is at least partially true for nearly a quarter of the Brexit vote assuming of course that polls prove anything any more than referendums do.
Assuming that those figures are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, it appears that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Brexit have no issue with migrants currently living and working within the UK. Those figures roughly aline with my thoughts. But there are the percentage of people who would like to reduce the number of foreign national is living in the country. Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but personally I don't agree with that.
To be honest, I don't really see the point you're trying to make.
To be honest, I don't really see the point you're trying to make.
Good old tillson, usual spin, imputing no one wanted migrants out of the UK .
Who wants migrants of of the UK? Why are you deliberately making false statements?
I provided you with details from a poll that clearly suggests nearly a quarter of brexit voters wanted that.
And now you come the old "I don't understand "ploy?
I do so love your style!
Put the telescope to your good eye, admiral[emoji1]
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Could we drag this thread back to what Flecc intended when he started it? (O.K. What I think he intended...)
Britain is (probably) going to leave the EU. Some of us wanted that, some of us didn't. It's happening and we need to make the best of it.
So the question here is: What do we replace the EU with? Flecc suggested the Commonwealth. How about a "Nordic League" of not quite EU members and shaky members on the North-western fringe (Norway, Iceland, Denmark...)? Would they have us? Britain would be their Eastern Europe. They might accept Scotland.
Do we need to replace the EU at all?
There's an opportunity in Brexit as well as massive risks. What kind of country do we want to build?
Britain is (probably) going to leave the EU. Some of us wanted that, some of us didn't. It's happening and we need to make the best of it.
So the question here is: What do we replace the EU with? Flecc suggested the Commonwealth. How about a "Nordic League" of not quite EU members and shaky members on the North-western fringe (Norway, Iceland, Denmark...)? Would they have us? Britain would be their Eastern Europe. They might accept Scotland.
Do we need to replace the EU at all?
There's an opportunity in Brexit as well as massive risks. What kind of country do we want to build?
we shouldn't leave the EU until we can find a better club that we can join. A club that protects us from our bullying cousins across the pond (buy our Trident or else). Let's face it, there is only one superpower that can bully us, the USA, and there is only one club that can stand up to the USA at the moment (read the story the EU v tax cheating multinationals).
we don't have to leave the EU until we have a plan.
we don't have to leave the EU until we have a government that wants it.
we don't have to leave the EU until we have a parliament that wants it.
brexit may never happen. But to keep the brexiters out of mischief, this current government gives them plum jobs.
we don't have to leave the EU until we have a plan.
we don't have to leave the EU until we have a government that wants it.
we don't have to leave the EU until we have a parliament that wants it.
brexit may never happen. But to keep the brexiters out of mischief, this current government gives them plum jobs.
Last edited: