Astute
Well-Known Member
But explain why we should have to give up on sovereignty just so we can trade with the EU.
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (346 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Foreigner? I’m more British than you could ever dream of being.
Anti British? My Union Jack waving will begin in February when I’ll be attending an international indoor athletics event to support team GB.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I recon if all the village idiots in the country moved out of their villages into one single village Ashdown would still be the village idiot.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
You didn’t read that article did you? Free Trade Agreements infringe upon the sovereignty of states, whether we’re trading with the EU, China or the US. It’s governments coming together and restricting what they can do and setting rules for themselves. Of course they can take back sovereignty, so it’s a consensual relationship, but it’s still setting itself rules — it’s ceding low levels of sovereignty. I don’t wish to be high-handed, but you don’t seem to have a grasp on the relationship between free trade agreements.
The EU will invariably want us to remain a part of the customs union which cedes even more sovereignty. To relate it back to May’s deal, we’ll be giving up sovereignty, without actually having a say within the EU.
The Italian budget has literally no relevance to the discussion. Why have you even brought that up?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Corrected it for you.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I try not to read pro EU or pro leave bollocks. You supplied a pro EU link.
You said nobody would have done better than May. But when someone stands up to the EU they back down. Just like they have with Italy.
OK. Would you like to make a list of countries that let someone else make up their rules, regulations and laws so they can trade with them?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
?
Oh. You mean what you’re going to twist what I actually said into at some point probably in the very near future.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
The saying ‘ignorance is bliss’ has never been so appropriate.
Access to the Single Market requires adherence to EU rules and regulations. That is the price The EU has put on that market access.
This link has no leaning on pro-Remain or pro-EU, it’s an analysis on all sorts of FTAs, such as NAFTA.
Free Trade Agreements and Sovereignty - The Permaculture Research Institute
Astute
Well-Known Member
Read what you have put then reconsider your thoughts.
After rules and regulations you missed out laws.
And yet again I ask the same question. Why?
Yes they are trying to rule countries in the EU. This is the part that doesn't sit well with me. We have to follow rules, regulations and laws set by the EU. But they don't follow them themselves. For example look at the Selmayr debacle. Can you imagine what the EU would do if we had a total disregard for the rules and regulations like they had?
You like to talk about financial matters also.
So at the top of the EU you have Juncker. He set up tax dodges that cost many billions each year when he was in charge of his country. Those in the EU wanted an enquiry. But strangely enough if there was an enquiry Juncker would have been in charge of it. Let's move onto Tusk. When he was in charge of his country there was a massive ponzi scheme where a lot of people lost their life savings. They knew about it but did nothing. His son worked for it. Poland recently had an enquiry into the matter. When they questioned Tusk he said they were like the UK and looking like going out of the EU when they didn't want to go. A veiled threat? Because he also said they wouldn't fight to keep Poland in like they were fighting to keep us in the EU.
Yes rules and regulations are good. But not when those who set them don't keep to them. Yet they expect everyone else to keep to them.
You don’t want to understand, or maybe you are not able to understand.
When we had an Empire it was easier to retain sovereignty. We stole other people‘s sovereignty and imposed our terms of trade on them.
Italy put forward proposals which were higher than the other members of the EMU wanted as they increased the sovereign debt.
They made a compromise. The partners accepted some of the new proposals and Italy withdrew others.
It is not rocket science.
Just because the EMU partners accepted Italy‘s proposals in part, doesn’t mean that 27 countries are going to give us our cake and let us eat it. We are not in the EMU anyway, so it is not a good example.
They are not trying to rule countries. They are the countries of the Union pooling their sovereignty to make a stronger Union.
Back to Selmayr. Selmayr was appointed by a college of 3 as allowed in a case of urgency. There were 2 inquiries which confirmed that. People were not happy about how and who defined urgency. As a comparison, May appointed our head of the Civil Service on her own without consultation as a matter of urgency. There were no inquiries and no one could do anything about it as there was no defined procedure for a transparent appointment.
Tusk‘s son worked for an airline owned by the Ponzi scheme. This had nothing to do with the EU.
The present right wing government in Poland doesn’t like Tusk and is trying to suppress some parts of democracy in Poland by breaking agreed EU rules on protecting the democratic functions of the individual states. Tusk wouldn’t fight for them to stay, but he has no say on their membership.
Tusk was annoyed because they made statements or suggestions at the public hearing and wouldn’t let him answer, or just turned his mike off so that TV viewers couldn’t hear his answers.
Just because you write „veiled threat“ doesn’t mean it was. He has no power to expel a country as representative of a council of 28 sovereign states.
Juncker allowed lax laws on banking whilst he was PM of Luxemburg. That was not in his EU capacity.
The EU is bringing out coordinated controls to make tax evasion harder. Hence leave lobby groups and think tanks urgently pushing us to crash out of the EU. More relevant to the UK at the present than Juncker‘s CV. You won’t be calling them out though or praising the EU for taking coordinated action.
Although you claim to be neutral.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but there's also a fair few deaf people come forwards and say he definitely said 'people'.
It doesn't really matter, apart from the fact that a lot of the right wing press are all over it and have it as their number one headline.
You are discussing on a relatively high level with a brick wall. Expect your words to be twisted, all your links to rational explanations to be declared as pro EU ( or bilge ), and if you keep proving him ( and others like him ) wrong you will be increasingly insulted, called a traitor and asked if you can identify a player who played 5 games in 1992, or similar. You may also be called a „fxxking foreigner“ if you don’t live, or come from, an unknown village near Coventry which has become a hell hole because of the EU, black lads, Muslims and drug Dealers.
You may be wrong in your assumption that „ignorance is bliss“ as there are some very angry people on here. They don’t appear to live in bliss.
Would that be the same press that says our judiciary are enemies of the people? Saying that your opponent who has got herself into a stupid position is a stupid woman or person, is not anywhere like printing pictures of top judges and details of their private lives to intimidate them.
If he says that he said person, we just have to accept it and ask questions about why the scrapping of free movement will make the UK better when most migrants are non EU and the EU part is reducing anyway? Stupid woman would be a stupid thing for the leader of the opposition to say, but the country is in a precarious position and this petty scandal, if it is actually fact based, is not worth a major distraction.
No. He is neutral and always looks at both sides. He likes fair debate and as long as you agree with his half truths or misunderstandings he won’t twist your words or insult you.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
"Ireland unveils 'stark' contingency plans for no-deal Brexit" - Ireland unveils 'stark' contingency plans for no-deal Brexit | Reuters
Highlights several things about the impact of 'no deal'...Paragraphs 10-12 is indication of either reinforcing what I know you & I have said before about EU changing rules when it suits them. I think that this so far stubborn 'no other deal' approach will begin to weaken the closer we get to no deal.
As for Tusk's stance on Poland...it devalues one member...but puts perpective on all but 3-4 other members as to their importance in the EU in reality. Like a football team, even just one player can upset the whole squad's performance. Perhaps the rot inside the core is beginning to manifest elsewhere in the apple?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Astute
Well-Known Member
Absolute bollocks from start to finish. And you know it is.
As you know they looked into the Selmayr debacle. They said rules and regulations were broke. But they were handed a big bribe. They ended up getting paid well after leaving their role. Worth over a quarter of a million each for those in the investigation. Even you had to admit this. So then nothing was done. Have you forgotten already?
This is why it is impossible to try and have a debate with you. You just lie all the time. Go take your bullshit elsewhere.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I am starting to favour the no deal. Because the no deal means we are not tied to the EU until they are willing to let us go. And the EU no deal contingency is carry on as we are now for 12 months after we leave. In other words similar to what they offered May but without the backstop and with a timescale. Then we have 12 months to make a deal between us.
The only problem is that it means we WILL be leaving. And I'm not sure it is the right thing to do. Yes those running the EU are totally incompetent, corrupt and untrustworthy. But there are still benefits of being in the EU.
A much better idea than leaving would be to make the changes that are needed in the EU. Macron is the latest leader to say so. But I can't see them wanting to give up the power they have on the present 28 members.
No bullshit at all. I posted the actual rules of appointment. There are 2 possibilities. The normal procedure or in case of urgency, the fast track which they used. That is a fact. You claim people were bribed. That is not a proven fact. People in the commission got rights given back that had been reduced. Very sus, but there were two inquiries. The second by the ombudswoman who no one has claimed to be bias. Fact.
It is you who constantly lies and distorts. Now explain how May can just appoint her loyal lieutenant to the same job without discussion and process to complain about.
You can’t.
You keep on about „they“. Who are „they“?
Macron wants reforms. Merkel wants reforms. Everyone wants reforms. Everyone has a different version of reforms. Macron wants a fiscal union for the Eurozone, but you would say they want to rule us by telling other countries how to set our taxes. Merkel wants to share the burden of refugees. I don’t need to mention your answer to that. So if you think there should be reforms, then tell us what they are.
Astute
Well-Known Member
More lies.
I didn't even use the word 'they'
Yes they all want reform. Many have wanted reform for years. But all is happening is they are taking even more power instead of looking at reform. They are in charge. The leaders of the countries in the EU are not in charge.
Merkel wants to share the burden of refugees? So why are they stranded in Greece and Italy? Because the prisons they want for them were said to be illegal.
Hilarious. You went on about them and they. „They are in charge“.
What prisons are you on about?
Sharing the burden between 28 countries ( 27 actually because the UK already had an out ) as the EU has nothing to do with „prisons“, real or not.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Yes on the post after you said it. And there was no doubt each time I used the word either.
Can't you see that people are not as thick as you would like them to be?
The so called holding areas that were supposed to go where anyone would have them. But they were deemed illegal. Yes a good plan on a good way to treat refugees.
What has that got to do with sharing the burden? If they don’t hold people to be processed, they get complained about by people like you, if they set up centres to process claims quickly you say they are prisons. You have no idea or no suggestions as to how to deal with sorting out genuine refugees from people looking for a better life.
We were talking about reforms and I said Merkel wants a common EU refugee policy to share the burden. The example to show that when you say you want to see reforms, you should say which ones as there are some that you don’t want to see or you don’t have an answer to the problem.
Which reforms do you want to see?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep completely agree. I’d prefer adult insults rather than babyish stuff. So stupid woman is about right but viscious, nasty, lacking compassion, mechanistic evil would all work
Poland has devalued itself by moving away from democratic principles and trying to turn a hearing into a show trial. Whatever Tusk‘s stance on the right Wing Polish government it has nothing to do with devaluing other countries.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Norway would be one wouldn’t they?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I like it when you balance opinions. I think no deal will be disastrous for business
„A much better idea than leaving would be to make the changes that are needed in the EU. Macron is the latest leader to say so. But I can't see them wanting to give up the power they have on the present 28 members.“
Who are they ( them )? And what power do they have over 28 countries?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
For those like her and others in her party that thinks food banks are 'empowering' - c*nt is a wholly accurate description.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Fucking hell
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
I believe he actually comes from a rather middle class village in Leicestershire.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
She signed the Single European Act in 1986 which created the Single Market and thus all the regulations that came with it.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Single European Act that Maggie signed, forerunner to Maastricht
The resultant treaty aimed to create a "Single Market" in the Community by 1992, and as a means of achieving this adopted a more collaborative legislative process, later known as the cooperation procedure, which gave the European Parliament a real say in legislating for the first time and introduced more majority voting in the Council of Ministers.[1] Under the procedure the Council could, with the support of Parliament and acting on a proposal by the Commission, adopt a legislative proposal by a qualified majority, but the Council could also overrule a rejection of a proposed law by the Parliament by adopting a proposal unanimously.[2]