The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (284 Viewers)

[skybluetony176]

I don't know about oh dear. Brexiteers wanted to preserve our sovereignty, this is the embodiment of our sovereignty, leave voters should be delighted.

You’d think, but let’s see.

 

---

[martcov]

You’d think, but let’s see.

Yes. Democracy at work and Farage, career politician MEP, says he has nothing but contempt for er... career politicians...

Great day for parliamentary democracy.

 

[clint van damme]

Yes. Democracy at work and Farage, career politician MEP, says he has nothing but contempt for er... career politicians...

Great day for parliamentary democracy.

unless they're racist homophobes with a string of sexual assault allegations hanging over them, then he flies to another continent to lend his support!

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

You’d think, but let’s see.

I can confirm this leave voter is more than happy.......

I voted leave......not tory.....im not fucking stupid.

 

[martcov]

Look at the position he left to go back to politics in Germany. Juncker and himself have helped each other out. They held two out of the top 5 jobs in the EU. He wants what Juncker wants. They are not alone in wanting it.

That is just for starters. But of course it will be rubbiahed by some on here. Just like when I said they would find a way of pushing things through. Well here it is.

What has Juncker got to do with Germany? In one of your posts it said that the agreement was that Schulz leaves in 2017. That two people have top jobs is not strange. That they know each other and are friends is not strange, but one is supposed to control the other which is a conflict of interest. Ended by Schulz coming to Germany and Juncker not standing again.

They have not pushed anything through of this suggestion.

 

[Ian1779]

You’d think, but let’s see.

Expect a full scale meltdown on the front of the Daily Mail and/or Daily Express.

 

[Astute]

What has Juncker got to do with Germany? In one of your posts it said that the agreement was that Schulz leaves in 2017. That two people have top jobs is not strange. That they know each other and are friends is not strange, but one is supposed to control the other which is a conflict of interest. Ended by Schulz coming to Germany and Juncker not standing again.

They have not pushed anything through of this suggestion.

Where did I say that one controls the other? They both went for Junckers job. They shook hands when Juncker got it. Then Schulz was given the EU president role. Merkel didn't want him to have it. But she had no say in the matter.

If Merkel agrees to his demands what is there to stop them from pushing it through? Schulz said that they would give a vote to the people of the EU to decide on what changes there would be and that they would have a vote on the matter. Then they would inform the countries of the EU of the changes. They would either agree to them or leave the EU. This certainly looks like the people of the EU are nothing to do with the member countries. So who are the people of the EU?

And yes I have already posted the links to all of this. They even came from sources that are.said to be pro EU.

 

[Astute]

I don't know about oh dear. Brexiteers wanted to preserve our sovereignty, this is the embodiment of our sovereignty, leave voters should be delighted.

I'm unsure if this is a good thing or bad thing.

Yes parliament will get to vote on if to accept a deal or to turn it down. The question is what happens if they vote to turn down any deal made between May and the EU?

It doesn't stop the UK from leaving in any way. Yes it is a kick in the balls for May. But not for the Tories as a whole though as many want to stay in the EU.

So what happens if a deal is turned down? Would we have to go to WTO rules and end up with a bad relationship with the EU? If so it isn't something to celebrate but something to be a bit worried about. Yes it may get you some internet points. It gives May a kick in the balls. But otherwise is it really good news like some on here think?

 

[Astute]

Expect a full scale meltdown on the front of the Daily Mail and/or Daily Express.

Humiliated Theresa May heads to Brussels for summit | Daily Mail Online

Looks a good and well balanced bit of reporting to me.

And as I thought in earlier post if they vote against deal agreed on between the EU and UK we leave without a deal. Can anyone explain what would be good about this as it is what they call a hard Brexit.

 

[clint van damme]

I'm unsure if this is a good thing or bad thing.

Yes parliament will get to vote on if to accept a deal or to turn it down. The question is what happens if they vote to turn down any deal made between May and the EU?

It doesn't stop the UK from leaving in any way. Yes it is a kick in the balls for May. But not for the Tories as a whole though as many want to stay in the EU.

So what happens if a deal is turned down? Would we have to go to WTO rules and end up with a bad relationship with the EU? If so it isn't something to celebrate but something to be a bit worried about. Yes it may get you some internet points. It gives May a kick in the balls. But otherwise is it really good news like some on here think?

I think it's great news. Otherwise someone like David Davis who has been lying to Parliament for months and shouldn't be in a job would have far too much say over the final deal.

The government still have a majority, albeit slender, just because some MPs rebelled over this doesn't mean they will go against the government in future. But they obviously value the countries sovereignty more than some who have been banging the drum about it.

 

[Astute]

I think it's great news. Otherwise someone like David Davis who has been lying to Parliament for months and shouldn't be in a job would have far too much say over the final deal.

The government still have a majority, albeit slender, just because some MPs rebelled over this doesn't mean they will go against the government in future. But they obviously value the countries sovereignty more than some who have been banging the drum about it.

Good news in that way maybe. But how about looking at the whole picture.

For once we need to get away from the parties that we normally vote for and want what is best for the UK. Even MP's on both sides are voting against orders. And there would have been many more who would have voted against their party if they had the bottle and wanted what they saw as best and not what is best for themself.

So who would still count this as a victory of some sort if it causes a hard Brexit?

I don't think it will myself. The UK government is just like the EU government. They will try their best to force through what they want. And the chances are that they will succeed.

 

[clint van damme]

Good news in that way maybe. But how about looking at the whole picture.

For once we need to get away from the parties that we normally vote for and want what is best for the UK. Even MP's on both sides are voting against orders. And there would have been many more who would have voted against their party if they had the bottle and wanted what they saw as best and not what is best for themself.

So who would still count this as a victory of some sort if it causes a hard Brexit?

I don't think it will myself. The UK government is just like the EU government. They will try their best to force through what they want. And the chances are that they will succeed.

I do want what's best for the UK. That's why I don't want parliament by-passed and major decisions left to charlatans like Davis, Johnson etc. Why would anyone think that scenario would be good for the country?
I think you are correct about a hard Brexit, I don't think this will lead to that happening.

 

[Macca]

I wish they would stop this expensive charade. Just admit that they made a schoolboy error by putting it to the people and tell them to fall in line. It isn't going to happen. Leaving Europe puts too many barriers in the way of the agenda of the majority of MP's from both sides of the political divide.

 

[clint van damme]

I wish they would stop this expensive charade. Just admit that they made a schoolboy error by putting it to the people and tell them to fall in line. It isn't going to happen. Leaving Europe puts too many barriers in the way of the agenda of the majority of MP's from both sides of the political divide.

When the express starts running brexit bad stories like they did the other day then you know something's up and there's a hidden agenda.
I would not be surprised to see them try and get out of leaving. I think it will be catastrophic if they do and will take longer to recover from than a hard brexit, not economically, but in terms of morale and the divides it will cause in society.

Having said that, I still don't think it's coincidence that we leave just as new EU wide tax avoidance laws come into play so maybe they will push ahead.

 

[martcov]

Where did I say that one controls the other? They both went for Junckers job. They shook hands when Juncker got it. Then Schulz was given the EU president role. Merkel didn't want him to have it. But she had no say in the matter.

If Merkel agrees to his demands what is there to stop them from pushing it through? Schulz said that they would give a vote to the people of the EU to decide on what changes there would be and that they would have a vote on the matter. Then they would inform the countries of the EU of the changes. They would either agree to them or leave the EU. This certainly looks like the people of the EU are nothing to do with the member countries. So who are the people of the EU?

And yes I have already posted the links to all of this. They even came from sources that are.said to be pro EU.

If Merkel were to agree to his demands, which she won’t, there would still be the other 26 countries to convince.

The people of Europe would decide who the MEPs were and who their governments were.

You can be pro EU and disagree with Schulz‘ vision. In fact most people don’t agree with his idea at the moment.

I think the Germans have other priorities and I don’t get why you think Schulz can just push it through. If he did, the influence of the voters would increase because their representatives in the EU parliament would have more power on a European level and the second chamber would be more transparent so they would know what their national governments were up to.

I don’t get the bit about informing the countries after consulting the people. Firstly he said he would present it to them, not inform them. The countries are the people who in turn are the countries. They are not two different things. How could he ask the people without their governments noticing the debate?

The suggestion that Merkel has only to agree and that’s that is really far fetched. More of the fourth Reich Express story.

 

[skybluetony176]

Good news in that way maybe. But how about looking at the whole picture.

For once we need to get away from the parties that we normally vote for and want what is best for the UK. Even MP's on both sides are voting against orders. And there would have been many more who would have voted against their party if they had the bottle and wanted what they saw as best and not what is best for themself.

So who would still count this as a victory of some sort if it causes a hard Brexit?

I don't think it will myself. The UK government is just like the EU government. They will try their best to force through what they want. And the chances are that they will succeed.

Given that you’ve just spent umpteen pages banging on about how the EU is going to become a dictatorship it’s ironic that you’re concerned that Parliament isn’t going to allow itself to be dictated to choosing instead to hold up the countries sovereign laws that some are so keen we leave the EU to safeguard. It’s democracy. Get over it.

 

[martcov]

Where did I say that one controls the other? They both went for Junckers job. They shook hands when Juncker got it. Then Schulz was given the EU president role. Merkel didn't want him to have it. But she had no say in the matter.

If Merkel agrees to his demands what is there to stop them from pushing it through? Schulz said that they would give a vote to the people of the EU to decide on what changes there would be and that they would have a vote on the matter. Then they would inform the countries of the EU of the changes. They would either agree to them or leave the EU. This certainly looks like the people of the EU are nothing to do with the member countries. So who are the people of the EU?

And yes I have already posted the links to all of this. They even came from sources that are.said to be pro EU.

You didn’t say one is supposed to control the other. The Parliament and the Commission are supposed to control each other as a check and balance thing. The Spiegel explained that and gave an example of Schulz switching an enquiry into Juncker’s tax deal to a date after his election.

 

[Astute]

I do want what's best for the UK. That's why I don't want parliament by-passed and major decisions left to charlatans like Davis, Johnson etc. Why would anyone think that scenario would be good for the country?
I think you are correct about a hard Brexit, I don't think this will lead to that happening.

If the agreement is turned down and a new one can't be made then there will be no deal. This is what they call a hard Brexit.

 

[Astute]

Having said that, I still don't think it's coincidence that we leave just as new EU wide tax avoidance laws come into play so maybe they will push ahead.

But what has happened in the past will just go away. Juncker will make sure of this.

 

[Macca]

When the express starts running brexit bad stories like they did the other day then you know something's up and there's a hidden agenda.
I would not be surprised to see them try and get out of leaving. I think it will be catastrophic if they do and will take longer to recover from than a hard brexit, not economically, but in terms of morale and the divides it will cause in society.

Having said that, I still don't think it's coincidence that we leave just as new EU wide tax avoidance laws come into play so maybe they will push ahead.

It's been my gut feeling all along. Showed tremendous arrogance by putting it to the vote and expecting the people to do what they wanted in the first place. I think I would have preferred to have had no vote in the first place and sucked it up than go through this patronising pantomime

 

[martcov]

Given that you’ve just spent umpteen pages banging on about how the EU is going to become a dictatorship it’s ironic that you’re concerned that Parliament isn’t going to allow itself to be dictated to choosing instead to hold up the countries sovereign laws that some are so keen we leave the EU to safeguard. It’s democracy. Get over it.

Now the concern is that a hard Brexit will be worse than a deal is coming out. Why? I thought we were leaving, get over it, and anything is better than the EU Schulz Juncker dictatorship ( Astute‘s fear should Merkel agree with Schulz ).

Personally, I think anything is better than the present government presenting a done deal to parliament without a vote on it.

Astute thinks giving Parliaments a yes no option on a deal is not democracy. He has pointed this out on the Schulz discussion. It is blackmail according to him. Yes to the deal or you’re out without a deal.

 

[Astute]

If Merkel were to agree to his demands, which she won’t, there would still be the other 26 countries to convince.

The people of Europe would decide who the MEPs were and who their governments were.

You can be pro EU and disagree with Schulz‘ vision. In fact most people don’t agree with his idea at the moment.

You just don't get it do you?

Or if you do you are trying to make it sound different to what it is.

Schulz has said the people of the EU will decide. Then it will be put to the countries of the EU to either agree to the changes or leave the EU.

So which part of that says the countries of the EU will get a vote on losing their vote?

And how do you know that Merkel won't agree? She wants to hold onto power. Agreeing will keep her in power. And the EU are putting pressure on her to sort out a government. She could always have a minority coalition which would stop Schulz. But that also isn't ideal.

 

[Sick Boy]

Humiliated Theresa May heads to Brussels for summit | Daily Mail Online

Looks a good and well balanced bit of reporting to me.

Now there's a surprise!

 

[clint van damme]

If the agreement is turned down and a new one can't be made then there will be no deal. This is what they call a hard Brexit.

Hard Brexit would be a disaster, but not in the same league as letting the likes of Davis by pass parliament. If we go down that route we may as well get rid of Parliament all together.

 

[martcov]

You just don't get it do you?

Or if you do you are trying to make it sound different to what it is.

Schulz has said the people of the EU will decide. Then it will be put to the countries of the EU to either agree to the changes or leave the EU.

So which part of that says the countries of the EU will get a vote on losing their vote?

And how do you know that Merkel won't agree? She wants to hold onto power. Agreeing will keep her in power. And the EU are putting pressure on her to sort out a government. She could always have a minority coalition which would stop Schulz. But that also isn't ideal.

They aren’t losing a vote. They are losing a veto ( should it ever happen). They have the choice of accepting or leaving. By the time it gets that far ( if it ever does ) there will have been negotiations and debates and the governments will know the feelings of their electorates, There may have been referenda and so the governments will have weighed up the options. They will also know what powers they would be giving up. Even Schulz doesn’t want all powers to be delegated to the parliament. The governments retain local and national powers - to be defined in the discussions.

I don’t know that Merkel will not agree to pursue the matter, but her party have drawn up a list of points of common ground and according to them they have other priorities. Which means it is not on the list. The SPD have said they will be pushing for the points in their manifesto. This vision wasn’t in it. I can’t see it happening.

 

[Sick Boy]

The "fair and balanced" Daily Mail's front page appears to be a direct attack on our country's democracy.

 

[Astute]

Now there's a surprise!

Which is why I like to read all of what is supposed to be pro and anti EU, Tory Labour or whatever before making my mind up on anything. Look at the middle ground and you should be close.

 

[Astute]

Hard Brexit would be a disaster, but not in the same league as letting the likes of Davis by pass parliament. If we go down that route we may as well get rid of Parliament all together.

I don't understand what you exactly mean here. Are you saying that a hard Brexit would be better than a hard Brexit being stopped?

 

[Astute]

They aren’t losing a vote. They are losing a veto ( should it ever happen). They have the choice of accepting or leaving. By the time it gets that far ( if it ever does ) there will have been negotiations and debates and the governments will know the feelings of their electorates, There may have been referenda and so the governments will have weighed up the options. They will also know what powers they would be giving up. Even Schulz doesn’t want all powers to be delegated to the parliament. The governments retain local and national powers - to be defined in the discussions.

I don’t know that Merkel will not agree to pursue the matter, but her party have drawn up a list of points of common ground and according to them they have other priorities. Which means it is not on the list. The SPD have said they will be pushing for the points in their manifesto. This vision wasn’t in it. I can’t see it happening.

Wrong wrong wrong.

And you know it.

Or would you like to explain why the countries of the EU will be given the choice of losing their vote or leave the EU? How can they use their veto when they won't even have a vote?

 

[clint van damme]

I don't understand what you exactly mean here. Are you saying that a hard Brexit would be better than a hard Brexit being stopped?

I'm saying that the way they are trying to by pass parliament is dangerous and would set a precedent going forward. This is bigger than just Brexit.
I wanted to remain but respect the result of the referendum.
I don't want a hard Brexit but would accept it if it came about as a result of maintaining Parliamentary integrity.

 

[Sick Boy]

Which is why I like to read all of what is supposed to be pro and anti EU, Tory Labour or whatever before making my mind up on anything. Look at the middle ground and you should be close.

I'd rather not read a newspaper that describes be in gay as some kind of major fault of someone's personality.

 

[Astute]

I'd rather not read a newspaper that describes be in gay as some kind of major fault of someone's personality.

How did you notice the front page? I didn't. I also didn't read the paper. I just read different news outlets from a google search. And as you saw their article on it was one of the better ones.

 

[Astute]

I'm saying that the way they are trying to by pass parliament is dangerous and would set a precedent going forward. This is bigger than just Brexit.
I wanted to remain but respect the result of the referendum.
I don't want a hard Brexit but would accept it if it came about as a result of maintaining Parliamentary integrity.

I don't know how you could be happy with a hard Brexit in any way. Maybe pissed off with both.

And this is why I don't trust politicians from any party. They are all as bad as each other.

 

[clint van damme]

I don't know how you could be happy with a hard Brexit in any way. Maybe pissed off with both.

And this is why I don't trust politicians from any party. They are all as bad as each other.

I didn't say I was happy. But I would except it to maintain the integrity of Parliament. I can't believe you'd rather leave it all to the whim of someone who has been proven to have lied to and mislead the people of the country.

 

[martcov]

Wrong wrong wrong.

And you know it.

Or would you like to explain why the countries of the EU will be given the choice of losing their vote or leave the EU? How can they use their veto when they won't even have a vote?

What vote are you on about? They would be in the second chamber. They won’t have a veto if the second chamber is majority VOTING.