Poland - Is the EU starting to crumble

[Fester]

4 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

And how is that any different from Trump commenting?

Because he was on UK soil, speaking at a joint press conference with PM Cameron - that's how. Additionally he used the word "queue", which is a word hardly used by Americans but almost always used by the English in this context. Americans prefer to use the word "line" in this case. So this slip suggests that this part of his speech was written with the agreed input of the pro EU UK government of the day, implying interference and influence far greater than Trump might have had.  

[Fester]

3 minutes ago, Khunwilko said:

That is stating the a fact.

That is influencing a referendum. Obama was on his way out shortly thereafter anyway, whatever happened. 

[Fester]

17 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I think it's about time that the mods took a look at your posts to me. Now you are persistently trolling.

I would hope that all posts are looked at. For balance at least, if you will.

[BigHewer]

Topic locked pending review.

[BigHewer]

Firstly, let me say this is a very interesting thread idea, and I have enjoyed reading most of the posts. 

There have been two moderator interventions on this topic. This will be the final one. Specifically, members are requested to respect the OP’s intention for the topic and not to turn it into a debate on American politics. If you wish to discuss Trump, Obama or Bannon, please find a topic elsewhere where these comments are relevant.

Thanks,

BigHewer

 

[gummy]

It was posted earlier that other nations are seeking to join the EU, as if I presume a justification that the EU would not crumble rather it would enlarge due to these others wanting to join.

Checking that out it appears that currently these countries are on that list; Albania, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey. With respect to Turkey they have been wanting to join for years but have always been rejected due to human rights issues and rule of law shortcomings. That is not going to be addressed any time soon so suspect they will not become part of the EU for a long time, if ever, so perhaps the EU will have become defunct by then.

With respect to the others then they do not currently meet with the EU financial entry conditions and frankly what advantage to the other remaining 27 EU countries would it provide other then extra flags on the flagpoles in Strasbourg ?   They are hardly major trading nations nor major population centres for consumer products.

 

 

  

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Fester said:

QMV has replaced numerous former vetos, which means that some countries have more and more chance of ending up with rules, or a deal that they really don't want and which they could have rejected previously. So, in cases like this. the national interests of all member states are not considered but overruled. 

The movement in the UK to leave began as soon as we joined (the EEC). Thatcher supported the Common Market but saw the reality of where it was going in the late 80's, politically, and wanted out. That's why she was dumped by Major & Gang. 

The 1999 affair concerned corruption allegations against the commission of Jaques Santer, which resigned before investigations were completed. Wonder why?

NATO Allies were admonished about funding, when most members, including Germany, were guilty of not paying into the kitty according to the agreed obligations. Nothing to do with the EU, of course.

Once the EU expanded, QMV became a necessity. The more countries that were members, the less likely it became that unanimity was achievable. The current rules are that for a measure to be passed, it requires 16 countries representing 65% of the weighted votes. With 27/28 members, the chances of unanimity is so remote, that nothing is likely to get changed if it needs changing. That's why the system needed to be changed. It was also deliberately designed like that so that "big 4" could not effectively operate a veto and turn into their own private club. Those four countries which represented 55% of the EU population, generously watered down their share of the vote so that they only had 34%. Regardless of that, there is no evidence that they ever decided to gang up on the other countries. More to the point, QMV only applied to the Commission. The measure still had to be passed by the Parliament so persistently ramming something through against the interests of small countrie95s was not a given, if it was ever intended at all. Then of course, it was not uncommon for countries to be given an opt-out. Your comment "So, in cases like this. the national interests of all member states are not considered but overruled" is incorrect. They are considered, but they can be overruled for what is considered the greater good, often with the offended country receiving an opt-out.

Of course what you don't take into account is that the Commission did not arbitrarily change these rules. They were agreed to unanimously by the then member states including the UK. Clearly, it was realised that expansion allowing vetoes was going to present major problems in moving forward. It might interest you to know that the country that suffered the most reverses under QMV, was the UK with just 5% of the votes going against them. I've already explained elsewhere, why even that 5% does not reflect a true picture, and many of these cases were the UK gov of the day, opposing measures which they actually wanted to see introduced, or had no real objection to, and were undertaken because they knew they would lose, but had to be seen to making an effort in order to harvest donor money. Regardless, even if we accept that the govs of the day were were genuinely opposed to to those measures, it is difficult to see how the UK can portray themselves as victims when they won 95% of the votes that they took part in.

I think you might have forgotten that Thatcher's popularity was already plummeting by the time she was dumped. The Tories saw the writing on the wall when women in places like Maidenhead starting demonstrating against the Poll Tax. Her attempts to undermine the then Foreign Sec. Geoffrey Howe was the final straw for many. The fact that she won so narrowly against Anthony Meyer, a Tory MP who was considered a bit of a weirdo in Tory circles confirmed that her days were numbered.

Regarding the Santer Commission, I think the answer to the pre-emptive resignations was an acceptance of collective responsibility, that it happened on their watch. Again, it should be noted that many of those who resigned were later re-nominated by the countries that had appointed them in the first place, and were accepted by the new Commission. 

As for NATO, my view of what took place is that the EU foresaw a possibility that a US led NATO may not possibly be their staunchest ally, and that's why the Lisbon Treaty made provision for the creation of a European Defence Force as a back-up plan. Along comes Trump, who spends a great deal of time trashing many of the members of NATO. Who benefitted most from that? I'd suggest that it was Putin. Funny how so many of Trump's interventions in Europe benefitted Putin. Or maybe not.

[JohninDublin]

41 minutes ago, BigHewer said:

Firstly, let me say this is a very interesting thread idea, and I have enjoyed reading most of the posts. 

There have been two moderator interventions on this topic. This will be the final one. Specifically, members are requested to respect the OP’s intention for the topic and not to turn it into a debate on American politics. If you wish to discuss Trump, Obama or Bannon, please find a topic elsewhere where these comments are relevant.

Thanks,

BigHewer

My apologies regarding subsequent posts following this post by you. I reply to posts in the order that they are written, and only saw yours after my recent posts. No offence intended, and I will now follow your instructions.

[BigHewer]

1 minute ago, JohninDubin said:

My apologies regarding subsequent posts following this post by you. I reply to posts in the order that they are written, and only saw yours after my recent posts. No offence intended, and I will now follow your instructions.

No problem at all @JohninDubin, and thank you for the acknowledgment. Understood

[JohninDublin]

31 minutes ago, gummy said:

It was posted earlier that other nations are seeking to join the EU, as if I presume a justification that the EU would not crumble rather it would enlarge due to these others wanting to join.

Checking that out it appears that currently these countries are on that list; Albania, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey. With respect to Turkey they have been wanting to join for years but have always been rejected due to human rights issues and rule of law shortcomings. That is not going to be addressed any time soon so suspect they will not become part of the EU for a long time, if ever, so perhaps the EU will have become defunct by then.

With respect to the others then they do not currently meet with the EU financial entry conditions and frankly what advantage to the other remaining 27 EU countries would it provide other then extra flags on the flagpoles in Strasbourg ?   They are hardly major trading nations nor major population centres for consumer products.

  

I think it will continue to grow. 

Regarding Turkey specifically, I thought it was outrageous that Bojo in particular played the card that Turkey would soon be joining the EU. I totally agree with you, that it is unlikely, if ever they will be allowed to join, especially with the situation in N. Cyprus. However, the outrage was not at hearing such a blatant lie, but within weeks, Bojo was boasting that he could advise Turkey how to get EU membership having told us that we would need to be frightened of such an event. As Bojo is incapable of organising a screw-up in a brothel full of blind nymphomaniacs, I never had any real worries on that score. It was more about his blatant hypocrisy. I too can tell Turkey how to gain membership. Just comply with the tasks that the EU have set them as prerequisite to membership.

Regarding other candidate states, I take your point that these are not currently "hives of industry", but EU membership is generally about levelling up. When Ireland joined the EU it was by far the poorest country in the EU, but EU aid packages raised them up. They are now per-capita net-contributors to the EU. You can also look at places such as the former Czechoslovakia and Poland. Prior to joining, their streets looked like my recollection Hackney in the late 50's. Cars were few and far between, and most of them were Ford's with drop-wing bonnets, if you are old enough to remember. Similarly, what cars there were in those countries were pre-VW Skodas, Ladas etc. Now you will see how much they have caught up with the rest of Western Europe. I first visited Poland in 1999 and with the exception of the number of horse drawn vehicles, that was 1950's Hackney to me. It should be noted that once a country's membership is imminent, the EU start priming the pumps with large donations. Poland joined in 2005. By the time of my next visit in 2006, it looked more like Hackney in the 80's

For that reason, I think it will continue to grow because of the levelling up process,

 

 

[Fester]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Once the EU expanded, QMV became a necessity. The more countries that were members, the less likely it became that unanimity was achievable. The current rules are that for a measure to be passed, it requires 16 countries representing 65% of the weighted votes. With 27/28 members, the chances of unanimity is so remote, that nothing is likely to get changed if it needs changing. That's why the system needed to be changed. It was also deliberately designed like that so that "big 4" could not effectively operate a veto and turn into their own private club. Those four countries which represented 55% of the EU population, generously watered down their share of the vote so that they only had 34%. Regardless of that, there is no evidence that they ever decided to gang up on the other countries. More to the point, QMV only applied to the Commission. The measure still had to be passed by the Parliament so persistently ramming something through against the interests of small countrie95s was not a given, if it was ever intended at all. Then of course, it was not uncommon for countries to be given an opt-out. Your comment "So, in cases like this. the national interests of all member states are not considered but overruled" is incorrect. They are considered, but they can be overruled for what is considered the greater good, often with the offended country receiving an opt-out.

Of course what you don't take into account is that the Commission did not arbitrarily change these rules. They were agreed to unanimously by the then member states including the UK. Clearly, it was realised that expansion allowing vetoes was going to present major problems in moving forward. It might interest you to know that the country that suffered the most reverses under QMV, was the UK with just 5% of the votes going against them. I've already explained elsewhere, why even that 5% does not reflect a true picture, and many of these cases were the UK gov of the day, opposing measures which they actually wanted to see introduced, or had no real objection to, and were undertaken because they knew they would lose, but had to be seen to making an effort in order to harvest donor money. Regardless, even if we accept that the govs of the day were were genuinely opposed to to those measures, it is difficult to see how the UK can portray themselves as victims when they won 95% of the votes that they took part in.

I think you might have forgotten that Thatcher's popularity was already plummeting by the time she was dumped. The Tories saw the writing on the wall when women in places like Maidenhead starting demonstrating against the Poll Tax. Her attempts to undermine the then Foreign Sec. Geoffrey Howe was the final straw for many. The fact that she won so narrowly against Anthony Meyer, a Tory MP who was considered a bit of a weirdo in Tory circles confirmed that her days were numbered.

Regarding the Santer Commission, I think the answer to the pre-emptive resignations was an acceptance of collective responsibility, that it happened on their watch. Again, it should be noted that many of those who resigned were later re-nominated by the countries that had appointed them in the first place, and were accepted by the new Commission. 

As for NATO, my view of what took place is that the EU foresaw a possibility that a US led NATO may not possibly be their staunchest ally, and that's why the Lisbon Treaty made provision for the creation of a European Defence Force as a back-up plan. Along comes Trump, who spends a great deal of time trashing many of the members of NATO. Who benefitted most from that? I'd suggest that it was Putin. Funny how so many of Trump's interventions in Europe benefitted Putin. Or maybe not.

Well, in your first two paragraphs you have highlighted some of the ways which show much the EU has morphed so much since the 1975 referendum. This EU is not what the UK joined in the first place and not what it agreed to remain in, in 1975. So I hope you agree that by 2016, after 5 more very important treaties, it was past time for another referendum.

I haven't forgotten that Thatcher's popularity was declining but Howe was removed over a dispute about the plan for Britain to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) and later the planned single EU currency. Now I hope we all remember was a hit the ERM was! ThenThatcher also railed against the proposals from Delors for European integration at the October 1990 European Council summit meeting in Rome, which was the main reason the Tory Europhile element finally forced Thatcher out, with Major emerging as the silent assassin. 

To use the term "acceptance of collective responsibility", I suppose, is a nice way of saying that the Santer commission accepted its guilt. FYI only four commissioners of the twenty continued from the Santer Commission into the Prodi Commission - so it wasn't many!

My view is that the Lisbon Treaty made provision for the creation of a European Defence Force because the desired EU superstate would need it's own army.  

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by BigHewer
Trump reference removed

[PBS]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

How can you debate centre right politics without balancing the debate and comparing to centre left? 

Perhaps more constructive, you may find the following URL informative regards current EU centre left politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/28/after-spd-win-in-germany-is-europes-centre-left-on-the-rise

As the UK is no longer a member of the EU, it is Off Topic.

Edited October 10, 2021 by Smithydog
Removed commentary linked to Mods request.

[Soidog]

49 minutes ago, PBS said:

Perhaps more constructive, you may find the following URL informative regards current EU centre left politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/28/after-spd-win-in-germany-is-europes-centre-left-on-the-rise

As the UK is no longer a member of the EU, it is Off Topic.

Sorry but it’s not “Off Topic”. The question relates to how the EU could crumble. Surely lessons learned from the past and understanding why the U.K. people voted to leave is extremely relevant. 
 

Im not going to waste my time reading an article from such a biased left wing source as The Guardian. Hardly a balanced piece, just as The Telegraph would be a right wing bias 

[Soidog]

An earlier post of mine was missed as the topic was temporarily locked at the time. I’m not going to retype what was a long post. Suffice to say, the initial idea of an economic trading bloc was fine. What Happened post Maastricht and Lisbon treaty’s simply went too far. Remember however that people under the age of 35-40 have grown up knowing little else and hence see the obvious next big Federal push as a small step. Maybe when people aged 40 and over have died, it will move towards a United States of Europe?….

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Fester said:

Well, in your first two paragraphs you have highlighted some of the ways which show much the EU has morphed so much since the 1975 referendum. This EU is not what the UK joined in the first place and not what it agreed to remain in, in 1975. So I hope you agree that by 2016, after 5 more very important treaties, it was past time for another referendum.

I haven't forgotten that Thatcher's popularity was declining but Howe was removed over a dispute about the plan for Britain to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) and later the planned single EU currency. Now I hope we all remember was a hit the ERM was! ThenThatcher also railed against the proposals from Delors for European integration at the October 1990 European Council summit meeting in Rome, which was the main reason the Tory Europhile element finally forced Thatcher out, with Major emerging as the silent assassin. 

To use the term "acceptance of collective responsibility", I suppose, is a nice way of saying that the Santer commission accepted its guilt. FYI only four commissioners of the twenty continued from the Santer Commission into the Prodi Commission - so it wasn't many!

My view is that the Lisbon Treaty made provision for the creation of a European Defence Force because the desired EU superstate would need it's own army. I've already said that Trump's issue with NATO was with NATO member contributions, not anything to do with the EU. 

Regarding the 2016 referendum my issue with that it was probably the worst run attempt at popular democracy in the history of the UK. Research after the poll showed that of the 52% who voted leave, most were voting for a variety of different options. Farage in particular told people that if they voted to leave, they could have the "Norway option", effectively "associate membership". After the vote was won, he then said that he feared that we would accept "... a Norway type deal...which is not what the country voted for"

Others were advocating "clean break", "Canada", "Canada +" "Canada++". "Swiss". "Customs Union" to name but a few. But of the 52% who voted leave, 31% voted because of free movement, with many of those hoping to see total repatriation of EU migrants. We never saw any pro-Brexit politicians stating the obvious, that with 3 mill EU migrants and an unemployment figure of 1.5 mill, this was going to lead to labour shortages. And look at what we have today. The same applied to those who having read distorted stories in The Sun, thought that they were voting to leave the ECHR. No pro-Brexit campaigners as far as I am aware, ever did anything to point out these issues. It was also predicted by remainers,  that that the £ would take a big hit. It went from €1.32 to €1.15 overnight and currently stands at €1.175 having been as low as €1.06. And of course there were also predictions of supply chain disruptions if there was a clean break. Do you recall the scenes from Dover at last Xmas/New Year.

Many of the predictions that were made came through, though Osborne in particular tended to be OTT. However, every time someone predicted bad news, it was met with "Project Fear". How could people possibly believe that their dream of repatriating 3 mill Poles etc, was not going to lead to labour shortages? Why were the pro-Brexit politicians ignoring this glaringly obvious fact? 

Then there those who said if the vote to leave was successful, there would be a second vote on whether to accept the deal the EU was offering. Suddenly, they decided that there should be no vote because the referendum "must be respected". Regarding a deal with the EU, the battle cry of the day was, "They need us more than we need them. Of course we are going to get a better deal outside than in the EU. The German car manufacturers wont let Merkle give us a bad deal". Of course, as reality set in, that battle cry became a silent thought in the minds of the deluded. It was so obvious that if they gave us a better deal because we left, then all the other countries would also leave.

The fact is that this country was saved from economic disaster because there were sufficient MP's who prevented Bojo crashing out in his do or die style. You only have to look at the chaos of Dover for proof of that. 

Oh! BTW, did I mention the bus? You know the one I mean I take it? The one that suggested that if we left the EU, we would be able to spend an extra £350 mill a week on the NHS? Of course the problem with that was that our nett contributions were only £155 mill per week. If I am honest with you, I think that became Bojo's Achilles heel. The morning after the vote, I watched three interviews in succession regarding Cameron, Merkle and Bojo. The first announced his resignation. The next showed Merkle who was stunned and dismayed by the vote. Then it was the turn of Bojo, who was now considered to be the PM in waiting. He was asked about the £350 mill, and suddenly it changed to, "Maybe not £350 mill. Maybe £100 mill for now". When asked what the next step would be, he said,  "We need to enter into some non-negotiation negotiations". As soon as Merkle it became obvious to her that not only had Bojo expected to lose the vote, but as we have now come to expect from him, he did not have a clue what to do next". By 4.00 pm that day, Merkle was standing shoulder to shoulder with the French and Italian PM's and stated that there will be no negotiations until they had received the A.50 letter.

The ERM incident was a total fiasco, and stemmed from the stupidity of Lamont saying that he was going to defend the £ at all costs in the ERM. When Soros heard this he knew he was on a one-way ticket to success, as he was trading the £ on a 20% margin, thus leveraging the potential losses of the £ at 5:1. Off topic slightly, but had we joined the Euro, the £ in our pocket would have 13% greater purchasing power than it has today.

I stand corrected on the "many" Commisioners who were re-appointed. In defence of my mistake, apart from it being one of the lesser articles I was familiar with I did not factor in that many of those appointed were appointed by govs that had since changed. I think it more be more accurate to say that many of those who were reappointed had the benefit of continuity of the govs that had originally  appointed them. But you are correct. As for your trying to put words into my mouth, I do not accept you characterisation. Some were guilty of corruption, but the majority of the then Commissioners accepted they were negligent in not spotting this. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by BigHewer
Reply to Trump reference removed

[JohninDublin]

53 minutes ago, Soidog said:

An earlier post of mine was missed as the topic was temporarily locked at the time. I’m not going to retype what was a long post. Suffice to say, the initial idea of an economic trading bloc was fine. What Happened post Maastricht and Lisbon treaty’s simply went too far. Remember however that people under the age of 35-40 have grown up knowing little else and hence see the obvious next big Federal push as a small step. Maybe when people aged 40 and over have died, it will move towards a United States of Europe?….

I am not too sure what the objection to a Federal Europe is beyond the fact that there are some that don't want it. Not challenging your post, but my own thoughts are, "What harm will it do us"? 

Regarding Maastricht, the UK were granted an opt out on the Social Chapter. However, Parliament subsequently voted to adopt this. Just my opinion, but I think that the social chapter was the greatest piece of legislation ever drafted by the EU. For the first time, it gave workers some real rights as well as removing the meagre compensation caps on Industrial Tribunals. 

[Fester]

20 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Regarding the 2016 referendum my issue with that it was probably the worst run attempt at popular democracy in the history of the UK. Research after the poll showed that of the 52% who voted leave, most were voting for a variety of different options. Farage in particular told people that if they voted to leave, they could have the "Norway option", effectively "associate membership". After the vote was won, he then said that he feared that we would accept "... a Norway type deal...which is not what the country voted for"

Others were advocating "clean break", "Canada", "Canada +" "Canada++". "Swiss". "Customs Union" to name but a few. But of the 52% who voted leave, 31% voted because of free movement, with many of those hoping to see total repatriation of EU migrants. We never saw any pro-Brexit politicians stating the obvious, that with 3 mill EU migrants and an unemployment figure of 1.5 mill, this was going to lead to labour shortages. And look at what we have today. The same applied to those who having read distorted stories in The Sun, thought that they were voting to leave the ECHR. No pro-Brexit campaigners as far as I am aware, ever did anything to point out these issues. It was also predicted by remainers,  that that the £ would take a big hit. It went from €1.32 to €1.15 overnight and currently stands at €1.175 having been as low as €1.06. And of course there were also predictions of supply chain disruptions if there was a clean break. Do you recall the scenes from Dover at last Xmas/New Year.

Many of the predictions that were made came through, though Osborne in particular tended to be OTT. However, every time someone predicted bad news, it was met with "Project Fear". How could people possibly believe that their dream of repatriating 3 mill Poles etc, was not going to lead to labour shortages? Why were the pro-Brexit politicians ignoring this glaringly obvious fact? 

Then there those who said if the vote to leave was successful, there would be a second vote on whether to accept the deal the EU was offering. Suddenly, they decided that there should be no vote because the referendum "must be respected". Regarding a deal with the EU, the battle cry of the day was, "They need us more than we need them. Of course we are going to get a better deal outside than in the EU. The German car manufacturers wont let Merkle give us a bad deal". Of course, as reality set in, that battle cry became a silent thought in the minds of the deluded. It was so obvious that if they gave us a better deal because we left, then all the other countries would also leave.

The fact is that this country was saved from economic disaster because there were sufficient MP's who prevented Bojo crashing out in his do or die style. You only have to look at the chaos of Dover for proof of that. 

Oh! BTW, did I mention the bus? You know the one I mean I take it? The one that suggested that if we left the EU, we would be able to spend an extra £350 mill a week on the NHS? Of course the problem with that was that our nett contributions were only £155 mill per week. If I am honest with you, I think that became Bojo's Achilles heel. The morning after the vote, I watched three interviews in succession regarding Cameron, Merkle and Bojo. The first announced his resignation. The next showed Merkle who was stunned and dismayed by the vote. Then it was the turn of Bojo, who was now considered to be the PM in waiting. He was asked about the £350 mill, and suddenly it changed to, "Maybe not £350 mill. Maybe £100 mill for now". When asked what the next step would be, he said,  "We need to enter into some non-negotiation negotiations". As soon as Merkle it became obvious to her that not only had Bojo expected to lose the vote, but as we have now come to expect from him, he did not have a clue what to do next". By 4.00 pm that day, Merkle was standing shoulder to shoulder with the French and Italian PM's and stated that there will be no negotiations until they had received the A.50 letter.

The ERM incident was a total fiasco, and stemmed from the stupidity of Lamont saying that he was going to defend the £ at all costs in the ERM. When Soros heard this he knew he was on a one-way ticket to success, as he was trading the £ on a 20% margin, thus leveraging the potential losses of the £ at 5:1. Off topic slightly, but had we joined the Euro, the £ in our pocket would have 13% greater purchasing power than it has today.

I stand corrected on the "many" Commisioners who were re-appointed. In defence of my mistake, apart from it being one of the lesser articles I was familiar with I did not factor in that many of those appointed were appointed by govs that had since changed. I think it more be more accurate to say that many of those who were reappointed had the benefit of continuity of the govs that had originally  appointed them. But you are correct. As for your trying to put words into my mouth, I do not accept you characterisation. Some were guilty of corruption, but the majority of the then Commissioners accepted they were negligent in not spotting this. 

Well the topic is not about the 2016 referendum and I won't be going into that again too much. I followed this very closely and I'm aware of the history. It's done... could have been done better..but it's done. In the 2016 camaigning there were a lot of individuals saying a lot of things on both sides, including a lot of lies, promises and propaganda. In the end, the real issue was about sovereignty -  by that time most people had realised that they had to ask themselves if the survival of their UK, as a nation, was preferable to it becoming a mere province of a new European superstate directed from Brussels - that was the bottom line. 

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth regarding the 1999 scandal - but they are the words I would use.

[riclag]

crumble  hmm !  Love to see a socialist union secluded amongst themselves.

I imagine some countries can make a go of it with out belonging  and yet some others were meant to belong to it. 

Keep that experiment right where it is ,in Europe

Edited October 10, 2021 by riclag

[JohninDublin]

41 minutes ago, Fester said:

Well the topic is not about the 2016 referendum and I won't be going into that again too much. I followed this very closely and I'm aware of the history. It's done... could have been done better..but it's done. In the 2016 camaigning there were a lot of individuals saying a lot of things on both sides, including a lot of lies, promises and propaganda. In the end, the real issue was about sovereignty -  by that time most people had realised that they had to ask themselves if the survival of their UK, as a nation, was preferable to it becoming a mere province of a new European superstate directed from Brussels - that was the bottom line. 

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth regarding the 1999 scandal - but they are the words I would use.

My apologies. I forgot to thank you for your previous post which though I disagreed with much of it, was no longer about pointless trolling. Intelligent comment is always welcomed.

Personally, I never bought into this line about being ruled by Brussels or claims regarding sovereignty. Any agreement, whether it be personal or trans-national requires the ceding of sovereignty. You only have to look at last week's news regarding the conditions set by Oz, that we could not impose conditions relative to climate change on a trade agreement. That was in spite of the gov saying that CC would be a major factor in any trade deal.

Edit: It was you who introduced the 2016 referendum. My point was that it should have been conducted with more honesty. The result was that many who voted leave were sold a pig in a poke.

[Fester]

16 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

My apologies. I forgot to thank you for your previous post which though I disagreed with much of it, was no longer about pointless trolling. Intelligent comment is always welcomed.

Personally, I never bought into this line about being ruled by Brussels or claims regarding sovereignty. Any agreement, whether it be personal or trans-national requires the ceding of sovereignty. You only have to look at last week's news regarding the conditions set by Oz, that we could not impose conditions relative to climate change on a trade agreement. That was in spite of the gov saying that CC would be a major factor in any trade deal.

Edit: It was you who introduced the 2016 referendum. My point was that it should have been conducted with more honesty. The result was that many who voted leave were sold a pig in a poke.

 

 

Well, after taking a long and careful look at the EU and the step-by-step treaty changes, it does seem that a superstate is the ultimate aim. This was already very close to being until the UK referendum stopped the train and was so important. As far as I am concerned, far too much sovereignty was already lost by then.

I think we avoided the pig.

 

 

[JohninDublin]

5 minutes ago, Fester said:

Well, after taking a long and careful look at the EU and the step-by-step treaty changes, it does seem that a superstate is the ultimate aim. This was already very close to being until the UK referendum stopped the train and was so important. As far as I am concerned, far too much sovereignty was already lost by then.

I think we avoided the pig.

I don't know whether the ultimate aim is a super-state or not. All I've ever heard on this subject is some people saying, "I don't want it". I've never heard anyone telling me why they don't want it. 

But I also suspect, that if the UK were still in the EU and the plan was for it to become a super-state tomorrow, with the UK being asked to lead it. I think many of those opposed, would suddenly drop their objections.

[23RD]

On 10/9/2021 at 7:36 AM, PBS said:

You're denying fact, trump and co have been cultivating anti government / anti democratic ideology throughout Western democracies; actually actively standing beside budding authoritarians in e.g. in Poland and Hungary; We are observing some of the outcomes of their efforts. 

God Bless Poland and Hungary looking after the interest of their People first.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

I am not too sure what the objection to a Federal Europe is beyond the fact that there are some that don't want it. Not challenging your post, but my own thoughts are, "What harm will it do us"? 

Regarding Maastricht, the UK were granted an opt out on the Social Chapter. However, Parliament subsequently voted to adopt this. Just my opinion, but I think that the social chapter was the greatest piece of legislation ever drafted by the EU. For the first time, it gave workers some real rights as well as removing the meagre compensation caps on Industrial Tribunals. 

Yes I can’t disagree with that. I’m not against a federal Europe as a stated objective. What I am against is the drip drip drip of new policies to move us to that point. It feels like stealth rather than a stated objective people can decide upon. 
 

As for the social chapter, agsin I can’t disagree. Workers should have protection against the lowest forms of management. 

[mickkotlarski]

7 hours ago, Fluke said:

What is racist about that poster ?

Nigel Farage is in it.

[Convert54]

19 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I don't know whether the ultimate aim is a super-state or not. All I've ever heard on this subject is some people saying, "I don't want it". I've never heard anyone telling me why they don't want it. 

But I also suspect, that if the UK were still in the EU and the plan was for it to become a super-state tomorrow, with the UK being asked to lead it. I think many of those opposed, would suddenly drop their objections.

While that outcome involving leadership by the UK remains relegated to theory the vision of Boris trundling into the EU Parliament and proceeding to disjointedly "err, um, etc" as  is really quite funny !