The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (182 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

Yes you can't defend their crookedness so zzzzz

I’ve never tried zzzz

 

---

[skybluetony176]

Make your mind up.

Either we get a big say as you try to make out or we only get a small say as you say is wrong.

It was like when Juncker got his position. We protested that he shouldn't have got it as his dodgy dealings had cost us billions....And cost billions to countries throughout Europe. A very good reason for him not to get it however much you defend him. But we got outvoted. Would have been good to have a veto.

I haven’t made anything out. I’ve made the point that we have the power of veto. Which we do. I’ve made the point that where we can use it it’s the final say. Which it is.

 

[Astute]

Zzzzzz Salmayr zzzzzzz

I’ve never tried zzzz

Lies, more lies and twisted statistics. Keep it up Tony.

 

[Astute]

I haven’t made anything out. I’ve made the point that we have the power of veto. Which we do. I’ve made the point that where we can use it it’s the final say. Which it is.

So what are we allowed to veto?

I said we don't get much of a say. That is true. But you say I am wrong as we have the veto. The veto which has been mainly taken away and they are planning to get rid of it altogether. Which when we spoke about it previously you thought it was a good idea so things can get pushed through without someone being able to block it. Without the veto we would have no say.

 

[martcov]

Let’s stop going on about it and get out with no deal,That will upset the remoaners and the bbc and maybe Martcov will start contributing on the CCFC general chat pages?
I reckon he doesn’t even like football just likes to moan.
The people spoke you win some you lose some,Deal with it
I voted out that doesn’t mean I am a racist football thug!!!

I do like football, but can't get to Cov every week. Next week, 28.10, is St Pauli Hamburg v Kiel for me.

I am not moaning. Just that my home country is being ruled by a disunited government and has voted to leave a large trading bloc for no real reason.

What form of leave did the people vote for? We have 4 on the table all of which are incompatible with each other.

 

[martcov]

Make your mind up.

Either we get a big say as you try to make out or we only get a small say as you say is wrong.

It was like when Juncker got his position. We protested that he shouldn't have got it as his dodgy dealings had cost us billions....And cost billions to countries throughout Europe. A very good reason for him not to get it however much you defend him. But we got outvoted. Would have been good to have a veto.

Democracy 26:2. Get over it.

 

[skybluetony176]

Lies, more lies and twisted statistics. Keep it up Tony.

Only one doing that and it’s you.

 

[martcov]

So what are we allowed to veto?

I said we don't get much of a say. That is true. But you say I am wrong as we have the veto. The veto which has been mainly taken away and they are planning to get rid of it altogether. Which when we spoke about it previously you thought it was a good idea so things can get pushed through without someone being able to block it. Without the veto we would have no say.

We had a lot more say than most. Making up things again.

 

[martcov]

The veto only applies in certain areas since the Lisbon treaty.
Lisbon Treaty: more of Britain's powers surrendered to Brussels

The main areas.

 

[martcov]

So what are we allowed to veto?

I said we don't get much of a say. That is true. But you say I am wrong as we have the veto. The veto which has been mainly taken away and they are planning to get rid of it altogether. Which when we spoke about it previously you thought it was a good idea so things can get pushed through without someone being able to block it. Without the veto we would have no say.

We had a say on everything through MEPs, Head of Government and ministerial representation in the European Council and a Commissioner in the EC.

VETO: ( Where we have veto rights )

• membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);
  • change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[27]

• taxation;

• the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);

• harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;

• certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);

• the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;

• the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;

• the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;

• citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);

• certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).

• 
  

 

[Grendel]

I do like football, but can't get to Cov every week. Next week, 28.10, is St Pauli Hamburg v Kiel for me.

I am not moaning. Just that my home country is being ruled by a disunited government and has voted to leave a large trading bloc for no real reason.

What form of leave did the people vote for? We have 4 on the table all of which are incompatible with each other.

Which version did we vote yes to remain in in the 70’s

Was it one with 28 countries and where we stuff money into useless corrupt countries to “support them”? One where there is a fiscal limitation in certain areas and supporting a gravy train cesspit in Brussels that makes laws we have no say in?

We agreed an EEC arrangement and never had any say in any of the above.

 

[Grendel]

We had a say on everything through MEPs, Head of Government and ministerial representation in the European Council and a Commissioner in the EC.

VETO: ( Where we have veto rights )

• membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);
  • change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[27]

• taxation;

• the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);

• harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;

• certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);

• the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;

• the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;

• the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;

• citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);

• certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).

We have no veto on VAT minimum levels or on the corporation tax “calculation”

 

[Sick Boy]

When did the EU say that?

And how about the celebrations on here when it looked like the EU signing a deal with the USA?

Like I have continually said it is all down to the details. But this is always forgotten about when needed.

It is available online if you look in the obvious places.

 

[martcov]

Which version did we vote yes to remain in in the 70’s

Was it one with 28 countries and where we stuff money into useless corrupt countries to “support them”? One where there is a fiscal limitation in certain areas and supporting a gravy train cesspit in Brussels that makes laws we have no say in?

We agreed an EEC arrangement and never had any say in any of the above.

Not interested. That is ancient history. The EU has evolved and all major alterations were agreed by our sovereign nation. Now answer the question.

 

[martcov]

We have no veto on VAT minimum levels or on the corporation tax “calculation”

Yes we have, but the decision on minimum VAT was unaminous. We agreed with it.

 

[Grendel]

Not interested. That is ancient history. The EU has evolved and all major alterations were agreed by our sovereign nation. Now answer the question.

Of course you are not interested. Any freedom of expression abd democracy scares you. You believe in lack of free speech opinion and expression. You believe in totalitarian rule

 

[Grendel]

Yes we have, but the decision on minimum VAT was unaminous. We agreed with it.

No we haven’t as we now cannot reverse the decision so we are bound by it

 

[martcov]

Of course you are not interested. Any freedom of expression abd democracy scares you. You believe in lack of free speech opinion and expression. You believe in totalitarian rule

No I don't. Making things up again.

 

[Grendel]

No I don't. Making things up again.

Well your the best argument on here for leave with your bigoted tripe - believe me

 

[martcov]

No we haven’t as we now cannot reverse the decision so we are bound by it

We did agree with it. It was a compromise as it required a unanimous vote. We are bound by it until the next time a unanimous vote happens. We knew that when we agreed. Do you want majority voting to make it easier the alter these decisions when needed? Are you moaning about not being able to reverse a democratic vote?

 

[martcov]

Well your the best argument on here for leave with your bigoted tripe - believe me

Bigoted tripe? I told you we agreed to a minimum VAT rate. An undisputable fact as opposed to your usual crap. That makes me a bigot in your mind. You're nuts.

 

[skybluetony176]

No we haven’t as we now cannot reverse the decision so we are bound by it

We don’t even charge the minimum. Why are we going to want to reverse it?

 

[Grendel]

In the end the government should have and still should approach this differently.

There is no need for a transition period as such. We should adopt the Norway arrangement as the interim model. We can join the EFTA and then the EEA

It solves all immediate issues. It’s impossible to see how it wouldn’t get through Parliament. Corbyn would look utterly ridiculous rejecting the most moderate option.

This does not have to be permanent and then the Irish question could be answered. The Irish under the Treaty of Surrender have the right to demand a referendum of its people. The people can support unification or accept they remain in the uk and go with any future arrangement regarding Eu separation. They can arrange another referendum every 7 years anyway.

Then political parties can decide the version of Europe they want in the future and put the view in their manifesto

This way we can gradually move aware and dissipate the bluster on both sides

 

[Grendel]

We don’t even charge the minimum. Why are we going to want to reverse it?

Because we may want to as we may want to nationalise under a labour government

 

[Grendel]

Bigoted tripe? I told you we agreed to a minimum VAT rate. An undisputable fact as opposed to your usual crap. That makes me a bigot in your mind. You're nuts.

So a political party can run for election in the uk on a 4% VAT promise then?

 

[skybluetony176]

Because we may want to as we may want to nationalise under a labour government

Ha ha ha. Yeah OK. I’ll believe when I see it and I don’t believe for one minute that you believe that there’s the slightest possibility that it will ever happen either. Regardless of what you say.

 

[Grendel]

Ha ha ha. Yeah OK. I’ll believe when I see it and I don’t believe for one minute that you believe that there’s the slightest possibility that it will ever happen either. Regardless of what you say.

That’s not the point. We also can’t nationalise anything without permission from the Eu can we?

 

[skybluetony176]

That’s not the point. We also can’t nationalise anything without permission from the Eu can we?

Of course it’s the point. If the EU stopped us using elephants for taxis just because we’re leaving doesn’t mean we’ll be seeing elephants at taxi ranks. You’re talking pie in the sky and that’s the point.

 

[Sick Boy]

In the end the government should have and still should approach this differently.

There is no need for a transition period as such. We should adopt the Norway arrangement as the interim model. We can join the EFTA and then the EEA

It solves all immediate issues. It’s impossible to see how it wouldn’t get through Parliament. Corbyn would look utterly ridiculous rejecting the most moderate option.

This does not have to be permanent and then the Irish question could be answered. The Irish under the Treaty of Surrender have the right to demand a referendum of its people. The people can support unification or accept they remain in the uk and go with any future arrangement regarding Eu separation. They can arrange another referendum every 7 years anyway.

Then political parties can decide the version of Europe they want in the future and put the view in their manifesto

This way we can gradually move aware and dissipate the bluster on both sides

Hmmm...perhaps it is the afternoon beers but I think that you've finally said something on this thread that I could agree with as a compromise.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

In the end the government should have and still should approach this differently.

There is no need for a transition period as such. We should adopt the Norway arrangement as the interim model. We can join the EFTA and then the EEA

It solves all immediate issues. It’s impossible to see how it wouldn’t get through Parliament. Corbyn would look utterly ridiculous rejecting the most moderate option.

This does not have to be permanent and then the Irish question could be answered. The Irish under the Treaty of Surrender have the right to demand a referendum of its people. The people can support unification or accept they remain in the uk and go with any future arrangement regarding Eu separation. They can arrange another referendum every 7 years anyway.

Then political parties can decide the version of Europe they want in the future and put the view in their manifesto

This way we can gradually move aware and dissipate the bluster on both sides

Spot on. EEA members can also suspend freedom of movement under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement.
So the Norway Option ticks most boxes.
It's the perfect interim solution and the EU's least preferred because it nullifies their power to stonewall and deter others from exiting.

 

[Sick Boy]

Spot on. EEA members can also suspend freedom of movement under Article 112 of the EEA Agreement.
So the Norway Option ticks most boxes.
It's the perfect interim solution and the EU's least preferred because it nullifies their power to stonewall and deter others from exiting.

Some members of the EEA have previously objected to the UK joining it though and it wouldn't be a given.

 

[martcov]

So a political party can run for election in the uk on a 4% VAT promise then?

Not if we are in the EU. Although I think 1 or 2 exceptions were allowed in the decision.

 

[martcov]

In the end the government should have and still should approach this differently.

There is no need for a transition period as such. We should adopt the Norway arrangement as the interim model. We can join the EFTA and then the EEA

It solves all immediate issues. It’s impossible to see how it wouldn’t get through Parliament. Corbyn would look utterly ridiculous rejecting the most moderate option.

This does not have to be permanent and then the Irish question could be answered. The Irish under the Treaty of Surrender have the right to demand a referendum of its people. The people can support unification or accept they remain in the uk and go with any future arrangement regarding Eu separation. They can arrange another referendum every 7 years anyway.

Then political parties can decide the version of Europe they want in the future and put the view in their manifesto

This way we can gradually move aware and dissipate the bluster on both sides

More sensible than usual. I agree with the Northern Irish being able to ask for a referendum. If they don't vote for reunification, then they have accepted Brexit. At the moment they are remainers.

 

[Grendel]

Some members of the EEA have previously objected to the UK joining it though and it wouldn't be a given.

Which again would show the uk citizens the unfairness of the system and would strengthen a leave argument

 

[Grendel]

More sensible than usual. I agree with the Northern Irish being able to ask for a referendum. If they don't vote for reunification, then they have accepted Brexit. At the moment they are remainers.

They don’t need to ask