The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (18 Viewers)

[SkyblueBazza]

I knowingly voted to stay in the common market in 1975 in the assumption of further integration.

Judging by many of your posts...you are one of probably only a few at the time to forsee what that actually would mean for us.

I am well aware of sovereignty and know that when you are in organisations such as NATO and the UN, you do not have sovereignty - in the extreme way you see it.

We have far more freedom to make our own decisions on many issues being out of the EU. I think that is something people voted to leave for.

What exactly do you mean by 'extreme'?

Of course we can set our conditions in negotiations, but that does not mean that the other side accepts all of them.

But your rantings seem to suggest that Britain has to accept everyone else's conditions! EU, India, US are 3 you have recently referred to.

I see no unicorns or a brighter future alone.

That is your problem. I can!

I criticised a portion of leavers who are racist, and because of that I am a racist in your eyes? Don’t know what you are on, but I would stick to beer if I were you.

You used racist terms to make a point about racism...which is the 'pot calling the kettle black' scenario. Then pointed out how discriminatory your dear EU is all in the same paragraph!!!


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

---

[martcov]

What hidden agenda or desire do you have with this Empire/Empire2 crap exactly?
Again, just because India says Indian immigration will be in discussions doesn't mean anything other than Britain & India will talk about it. Not have an open door policy or anything.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Any deal will be conditional on more visas. India said that. India also said they don’t want Empire 2.0. Ask them what they mean by that. I interpret that as meaning they won’t let us tell them the terms of our future relationship as we did in the past.

 

[Grendel]

Any deal will be conditional on more visas. India said that. India also said they don’t want Empire 2.0. Ask them what they mean by that. I interpret that as meaning they won’t let us tell them the terms of our future relationship as we did in the past.

It’s all part of a negotiating process. Clueless as ever.

 

[martcov]

Judging by many of your posts...you are one of probably only a few at the time to forsee what that actually would mean for us.



We have far more freedom to make our own decisions on many issues being out of the EU. I think that is something people voted to leave for.

What exactly do you mean by 'extreme'?



But your rantings seem to suggest that Britain has to accept everyone else's conditions! EU, India, US are 3 you have recently referred to.



That is your problem. I can!



You used racist terms to make a point about racism...which is the 'pot calling the kettle black' scenario. Then pointed out how discriminatory your dear EU is all in the same paragraph!!!


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Leaving the EU doesn’t give us the complete freedom to as you seem to suppose.

That is a myth. Any deals we make will be based on negotiation, not us telling other countries on what terms they will be trading with us. There will also be an arbitration procedure which we will have to agree to.

We will have to accept some trade regulations and quality standards.

Obviously we will ask for things in return.

We have already pledged e.g. to send our troops to protect Estonia should Russia invade it. Nothing to do with an EU army, but we are bound by the conditions of membership of NATO.

We are also bound by UN treaties.

An extreme version of sovereignty conveniently ignores the above mentioned restrictions on sovereignty.

 

[martcov]

It’s all part of a negotiating process. Clueless as ever.

Which is what I keep saying. There will be no Empire 2.0 where we set the rules.

 

[martcov]

Judging by many of your posts...you are one of probably only a few at the time to forsee what that actually would mean for us.



We have far more freedom to make our own decisions on many issues being out of the EU. I think that is something people voted to leave for.

What exactly do you mean by 'extreme'?



But your rantings seem to suggest that Britain has to accept everyone else's conditions! EU, India, US are 3 you have recently referred to.



That is your problem. I can!



You used racist terms to make a point about racism...which is the 'pot calling the kettle black' scenario. Then pointed out how discriminatory your dear EU is all in the same paragraph!!!


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

What racist term was that then?

 

[martcov]

Try telling your German friends that mart

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Telling them what? That 28 countries accepted the EU treaties for the good of Germany? You’re on planet Brexit up there with Farage, BoJo and the lesser likes of Grendel.

 

[Grendel]

Which is what I keep saying. There will be no Empire 2.0 where we set the rules.

No one wants an empire!

 

[martcov]

No one wants an empire!

No. He was being metaphorical. The message is India will not be told what to do as it was under the Empire. Quite easy to understand for most people.

 

[Astute]

Once again the UK isn't going to be in a strong bargaining position when discussing trade deals with superpowers. We were told that the UK had the better hand compared to the EU and they'd be the easiest negotiations in history- turns out that was another lie as well.

So it will be harder for the UK to make a deal than 27 different countries trying to decide on a deal at the same time?

 

[Grendel]

No. He was being metaphorical. The message is India will not be told what to do as it was under the Empire. Quite easy to understand for most people.

No one expects anyone to be told what to do either. It’s a negotiation which no one (though you think you can) can predict the outcome.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Any deal will be conditional on more visas. India said that. India also said they don’t want Empire 2.0. Ask them what they mean by that. I interpret that as meaning they won’t let us tell them the terms of our future relationship as we did in the past.

And you think I, or others - have a problem with that? The UK telling others the terms of a y relationship with us will still happen. But as i pointed out before - many yrs ago they would have accepted it out of fear. We don't work that way anymore. We no doubt feel exactly the same as they do on the visa side too.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

So it will be harder for the UK to make a deal than 27 different countries trying to decide on a deal at the same time?

27 countries trying to decide? I thought that the EU was a dictatorship with Heir Merkel at the helm? Wouldn’t that mean that only one country is negotiating on behalf of the EU as the others don’t have sovereignty and that’s why we have to leave? All of a sudden the EU is a democracy. Surprising.

 

[skybluetony176]

No one expects anyone to be told what to do either. It’s a negotiation which no one (though you think you can) can predict the outcome.

So you’re saying that people didn’t know what they voted for?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Once again the UK isn't going to be in a strong bargaining position when discussing trade deals with superpowers. We were told that the UK had the better hand compared to the EU and they'd be the easiest negotiations in history- turns out that was another lie as well.

I agree our bargaining power is in some ways reduced. As for 'being told'...I suspect you didn't believe it, so are you assuming any/everyone else did?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Sick Boy]

I agree our bargaining power is in some ways reduced. As for 'being told'...I suspect you didn't believe it, so are you assuming any/everyone else did?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Of course some people would have seriously believed it.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Leaving the EU doesn’t give us the complete freedom to as you seem to suppose.

It gives us choice to exercise our own approach, influence & decisions on matters. It doesn't mean we will simply ignore or deliberately annoy our neighbours.

deals we make will be based on negotiation, not us telling other countries on what terms they will be trading with us. There will also be an arbitration procedure which we will have to agree to.

You're at it again. You really need to choose words carefully. What your words are suggesting to me is that we will have to negotiate - which is true! - then in the very next sentence you contradict it by saying that "we will have to agree to"...which means we are simply rolling over & accepting anything wanted by whoever we are 'negotiating' with!

We will have to accept some trade regulations and quality standards.

And others may have to raise their standards to trade here - these things are NOT all one way (i.e. detrimental to the UK)

Obviously we will ask for things in return.

Good God! A hint of realism!!!

We have already pledged e.g. to send our troops to protect Estonia should Russia invade it. Nothing to do with an EU army, but we are bound by the conditions of membership of NATO.

We are also bound by UN treaties.

What the same ones as the UN treaties that are disregarded left, right & centre all over the world you mean? For example chemical weapons!
We will make the right choice & abide by them, but don't go suggesting the UN has any more real specific influence than the UK itself, just perhaps wider influence

As for Estonia & NATO...I have no idea where you are going on about...NATO is not the EU. We will remain in NATO! And I have much greater faith in being a part of NATO militarily than being involved in any EU force. If Russia chose to invade Estonia - US & Britain...possibly joined by France are the ones that would respond regardless of an EU posturing & discussion - because I feel pretty sure the EU would not take direct military action.

An extreme version of sovereignty conveniently ignores the above mentioned restrictions on sovereignty.

So you now saying I have an extreme view of sovereignty?


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Which is what I keep saying. There will be no Empire 2.0 where we set the rules.

Who, where & when did anyone suggest there would be an Empire 2 where the UK sets the rules??? Unless I missed something.

I think the Commonwealth can become a great trading group again. But this time around hopefully it will be more common wealth in reality than previously when it was the asty old Empire. The world & views have mostly moved on mart

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[martcov]

No one expects anyone to be told what to do either. It’s a negotiation which no one (though you think you can) can predict the outcome.

I have said there will be negotiations and there will be an agreement. If we are not in the CU. Not a difficult prediction is it?

 

[SkyblueBazza]

What racist term was that then?

You've referred to skin & religion in trying to make points.

And you are most definitely anti-British

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Telling them what? That 28 countries accepted the EU treaties for the good of Germany? You’re on planet Brexit up there with Farage, BoJo and the lesser likes of Grendel.

No, actually - I don't think any of them need to be told that tbh. They accepted such treaties on the promise of nice little sweeteners & little earners from the EU. Which with us leaving with our pot of money may in years to come bring some uncomfortable outcomes for Germany.

Like I have said before, I am choosing to see opportunities & positives (as well as negatives) You see only negatives.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Of course some people would have seriously believed it.

Like some believed in the emergency budget? Pound collapsing? Etc

We all have to choose what to believe in the wonderful world of media & politics. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes wrong.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[martcov]

It gives us choice to exercise our own approach, influence & decisions on matters. It doesn't mean we will simply ignore or deliberately annoy our neighbours.



You're at it again. You really need to choose words carefully. What your words are suggesting to me is that we will have to negotiate - which is true! - then in the very next sentence you contradict it by saying that "we will have to agree to"...which means we are simply rolling over & accepting anything wanted by whoever we are 'negotiating' with!



And others may have to raise their standards to trade here - these things are NOT all one way (i.e. detrimental to the UK)



Good God! A hint of realism!!!



What the same ones as the UN treaties that are disregarded left, right & centre all over the world you mean? For example chemical weapons!
We will make the right choice & abide by them, but don't go suggesting the UN has any more real specific influence than the UK itself, just perhaps wider influence

As for Estonia & NATO...I have no idea where you are going on about...NATO is not the EU. We will remain in NATO! And I have much greater faith in being a part of NATO militarily than being involved in any EU force. If Russia chose to invade Estonia - US & Britain...possibly joined by France are the ones that would respond regardless of an EU posturing & discussion - because I feel pretty sure the EU would not take direct military action.



So you now saying I have an extreme view of sovereignty?


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

You are totally confused. We will negotiate and we will have to accept some things. Our partners will have to accept something’s we want. That is the whole point of negotiations. That means we are not free to do anything we want to if we want to trade with people. Simple.

I know NATO is not the EU. People are always on about an EU army forcing us to defend e.g. Estonia. We have to anyway in the EU or out because of NATO. Simple.

We always had the chance to influence the EU through the Council and we did. We didn’t get everything we wanted and we never will anywhere else. The days of having a world Empire are long gone. We will always be restricted in some form. Simple.

We have agreed to the UN charter and the Geneva Convention. Just because others break agreements, doesn’t mean we are free to do what we want.

We will never be a totally sovereign nation. If you believe we will be or that it is desirable to be, then you have an extreme view of sovereignty.

The whole idea of sovereignty is a Brexit red herring.

 

[Grendel]

So you’re saying that people didn’t know what they voted for?

Oh Tony I’m talking about a trade deal with India

 

[Grendel]

I have said there will be negotiations and there will be an agreement. If we are not in the CU. Not a difficult prediction is it?

Well you’ve said we will have to accept India’s visa conditions so you say they won’t negotiate?

 

[Sick Boy]

Like some believed in the emergency budget? Pound collapsing? Etc

We all have to choose what to believe in the wonderful world of media & politics. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes wrong.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

The claims of the £350m a week for the NHS and Turkey on the verge of joining the EU were outright lies. I'm sure that you'll recall that the Vote Leave leaflet even shaded in and labelled Syria as being bordered with Turkey just to alarm people even more.

 

[martcov]

No, actually - I don't think any of them need to be told that tbh. They accepted such treaties on the promise of nice little sweeteners & little earners from the EU. Which with us leaving with our pot of money may in years to come bring some uncomfortable outcomes for Germany.

Like I have said before, I am choosing to see opportunities & positives (as well as negatives) You see only negatives.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

You seem know things about treaties that no one here does. They were all negotiated and ratified, which would contradict your conspiracy theory. 27 governments didn’t come to the same conclusion as yourself. 1% of UK GDP is not the end of the world in itself. That would not be the biggest loss of Brexit. The EU is not just about money, despite the BS flying around the Brexit media.

 

[martcov]

Well you’ve said we will have to accept India’s visa conditions so you say they won’t negotiate?

They have made that a precondition, so it is at least a possibility. They have a population of 1,3 billion including a sizable ( in relation to us ) and growing middle class with spending power. They are set to overtake us in GDP shortly. We are out on our own and are a medium sized country desperately needing trade deals, politically and economically. Who do you think has the better hand?

 

[Grendel]

They have made that a precondition, so it is at least a possibility. They have a population of 1,3 billion including a sizable ( in relation to us ) and growing middle class with spending power. They are set to overtake us in GDP shortly. We are out on our own and are a medium sized country desperately needing trade deals, politically and economically. Who do you think has the better hand?

I’m not sure how a population of that size is an advantage. I would say we have a very strong hand with India - have you ever been over there for any period of time and understand their physche and approach with Britain?

Also I’d be careful on economic forecasts of emerging nations - look at Brazil as an example.

Also you rubbish Britain again with snide anti British remarks.

 

[martcov]

I’m not sure how a population of that size is an advantage. I would say we have a very strong hand with India - have you ever been over there for any period of time and understand their physche and approach with Britain?

Also I’d be careful on economic forecasts of emerging nations - look at Brazil as an example.

Also you rubbish Britain again with snide anti British remarks.

What snide remarks?

 

[shmmeee]

I’m not sure how a population of that size is an advantage. I would say we have a very strong hand with India - have you ever been over there for any period of time and understand their physche and approach with Britain?

Also I’d be careful on economic forecasts of emerging nations - look at Brazil as an example.

Also you rubbish Britain again with snide anti British remarks.

Repeat after me: geography tops all when it comes to trade.

The biggest trading pairs across the planet are neighbours. Fucking “psyche” don’t mean shit when shipping times are treble the alternative.

You’re living in a fantasy land.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Haha it's always someone else's fault, isn't it? Even if in 20 years it turns out to be a disaster, there will still be those pointing the finger before looking closer to home and actually taking some responsibility.

Well it may be unpalatable to you and German Mart but it’s a fact. A reasonable gesture from Tusk and Juncker to Cameron two years ago and the result would have almost certainly been different. Their arrogant intransigence put the PM and his campaign in a very weak position and was manna from heaven for the leave campaign who found that their job had been made considerably easier. I suspect millions of ‘undecideds’ were swayed as a direct result.

So it’s not a case of whose fault this is as you put it, it’s a case of recognising the facts.

In any case you’re the last one to talk about the blame game, for almost two years now you’ve been boring everyone by blaming a bus for the result and I suspect it’ll be you who’ll probably continue to do so for the next 20 years.

No worry though, the EU will be dead and buried long before then.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Fucking “psyche” don’t mean shit .

You're a teacher?
Seriously?

 

[martcov]

Well it may be unpalatable to you and German Mart but it’s a fact. A reasonable gesture from Tusk and Juncker to Cameron two years ago and the result would have almost certainly been different. Their arrogant intransigence put the PM and his campaign in a very weak position and was manna from heaven for the leave campaign who found that their job had been made considerably easier. I suspect millions of ‘undecideds’ were swayed as a direct result.

So it’s not a case of whose fault this is as you put it, it’s a case of recognising the facts.

In any case you’re the last one to talk about the blame game, for almost two years now you’ve been boring everyone by blaming a bus for the result and I suspect it’ll be you who’ll probably continue to do so for the next 20 years.

No worry though, the EU will be dead and buried long before then.

FOM is not negotiable. There is already a 3 month limit which we could at least try and enforce.

Benefits tourism, tax dodging and corruption all have to fought. The UK could have gone big there. That is in everyone’s interest.

The EU is arguably more likely to succeed without the UK.

 

[Astute]

You are totally confused. We will negotiate and we will have to accept some things. Our partners will have to accept something’s we want. That is the whole point of negotiations. That means we are not free to do anything we want to if we want to trade with people. Simple.

Why is that different if in or out of the EU?

In fact it is better being out of the EU for negotiations in a way. We will decide what WE want and will negotiate for us. Being in the EU you have to accept what they want and what they negotiate.