Otis
Well-Known Member
I'm with you, BFAM.
I'm with you, BFAM.On question time last week the people were saying their negotiation style was to stick 2 fingers up until the Eu come and give us what we want. Does this ever work? I understand as a dad, a really bad dad, I can order my children to do what I want and they will but if I do it too often and abuse their trust they’ll hate me and when they can choose they’ll tell me to get lost. But is it different in business? In trade negotiations? That’s even iif we had that power which I don’t think we do with the Eu trade area.
Also British values? What is it that makes us great? Is it not fairness, courage, bravery? Sense of fair play, standing against injustice, seeking the common good, looking out for those in need?
Great Britain doesn’t stand for bullying, taking things not ours, threatening, loud mouth, brash, something for nothing.
Or am I completely wrong and utterly naive?
I’m confused please help me
Yeah, historically you are right.The country’s actions throughout history suggest that’s far from true.
The 2 finger approach is arrogance induced by a sense of self-importance, it’s embarrassing and not going to endear Britain to countries around the world.
To be fair to the public in general, most are pretty tolerant and reasonable. I think they are just fed up with how the whole thing has been handled (both in respect of our own politicians and the EU). They just want it done and dealt with.
When they hear about further delays and they see and read comments, like the one re-released this week from Barnier suggesting his aim was to make the deal so bad the Uk won’t want to leave (sensible if in context !), others about punishing the UK, basically being calling stupid for the way the country voted (Macron), you can understand some of the reactions.
I’ve got to say the consiliatory comments coming out of Germany in recent weeks has been mature, refreshing and impressive. They certainly improved my view of their feelings towards us (in relation to Brexit). Far more sensible than Macrons. The EU have taken one route, the government have taken theirs, both incorrect from my perspective.
If I’d been the EU, whilst still negotiating hard, I would’ve been pushing comments like the recent ones from Germany with an undertones of ‘we understand some of the reasons for the vote and will take them on board as we try to reform and improve the EU’. By now there might have been a far stronger Remain feeling, instead we appear to be the same or as QT showed possibly the opposite.
Like the debate as a whole though, it all depends on your perspective and viewpoint I guess.
I saw the attached article below earlier. Fully appreciate that the Spectator is right wing (so there is bias) but there are some elements of truth in it
Question Time has changed and so has the Brexit debate | Coffee House
It is easy to understand what is going on. Sorting out the shite that is going on is going to be very difficult though.there is definitely mountains of shite to wade through to try and get an understanding of what's going on.
Both sides are sticking their two fingers up hoping they will get their own way.On question time last week the people were saying their negotiation style was to stick 2 fingers up until the Eu come and give us what we want. Does this ever work? I understand as a dad, a really bad dad, I can order my children to do what I want and they will but if I do it too often and abuse their trust they’ll hate me and when they can choose they’ll tell me to get lost. But is it different in business? In trade negotiations? That’s even iif we had that power which I don’t think we do with the Eu trade area.
Also British values? What is it that makes us great? Is it not fairness, courage, bravery? Sense of fair play, standing against injustice, seeking the common good, looking out for those in need?
Great Britain doesn’t stand for bullying, taking things not ours, threatening, loud mouth, brash, something for nothing.
Or am I completely wrong and utterly naive?
I’m confused please help me
Even Macron has said that the EU needs to reform. The problem is that the EU sees reform their way and that is taking more power away from the countries in the EU.To be fair to the public in general, most are pretty tolerant and reasonable. I think they are just fed up with how the whole thing has been handled (both in respect of our own politicians and the EU). They just want it done and dealt with.
When they hear about further delays and they see and read comments, like the one re-released this week from Barnier suggesting his aim was to make the deal so bad the Uk won’t want to leave (sensible if in context !), others about punishing the UK, basically being calling stupid for the way the country voted (Macron), you can understand some of the reactions.
I’ve got to say the consiliatory comments coming out of Germany in recent weeks has been mature, refreshing and impressive. They certainly improved my view of their feelings towards us (in relation to Brexit). Far more sensible than Macrons. The EU have taken one route, the government have taken theirs, both incorrect from my perspective.
If I’d been the EU, whilst still negotiating hard, I would’ve been pushing comments like the recent ones from Germany with an undertones of ‘we understand some of the reasons for the vote and will take them on board as we try to reform and improve the EU’. By now there might have been a far stronger Remain feeling, instead we appear to be the same or as QT showed possibly the opposite.
Like the debate as a whole though, it all depends on your perspective and viewpoint I guess.
I saw the attached article below earlier. Fully appreciate that the Spectator is right wing (so there is bias) but there are some elements of truth in it
Question Time has changed and so has the Brexit debate | Coffee House
Quite accurate as I see it. A couple of paragraphs say such a lot.To be fair to the public in general, most are pretty tolerant and reasonable. I think they are just fed up with how the whole thing has been handled (both in respect of our own politicians and the EU). They just want it done and dealt with.
When they hear about further delays and they see and read comments, like the one re-released this week from Barnier suggesting his aim was to make the deal so bad the Uk won’t want to leave (sensible if in context !), others about punishing the UK, basically being calling stupid for the way the country voted (Macron), you can understand some of the reactions.
I’ve got to say the consiliatory comments coming out of Germany in recent weeks has been mature, refreshing and impressive. They certainly improved my view of their feelings towards us (in relation to Brexit). Far more sensible than Macrons. The EU have taken one route, the government have taken theirs, both incorrect from my perspective.
If I’d been the EU, whilst still negotiating hard, I would’ve been pushing comments like the recent ones from Germany with an undertones of ‘we understand some of the reasons for the vote and will take them on board as we try to reform and improve the EU’. By now there might have been a far stronger Remain feeling, instead we appear to be the same or as QT showed possibly the opposite.
Like the debate as a whole though, it all depends on your perspective and viewpoint I guess.
I saw the attached article below earlier. Fully appreciate that the Spectator is right wing (so there is bias) but there are some elements of truth in it
Question Time has changed and so has the Brexit debate | Coffee House
Those who take our own side???????To be fair to the public in general, most are pretty tolerant and reasonable. I think they are just fed up with how the whole thing has been handled (both in respect of our own politicians and the EU). They just want it done and dealt with.
When they hear about further delays and they see and read comments, like the one re-released this week from Barnier suggesting his aim was to make the deal so bad the Uk won’t want to leave (sensible if in context !), others about punishing the UK, basically being calling stupid for the way the country voted (Macron), you can understand some of the reactions.
I’ve got to say the consiliatory comments coming out of Germany in recent weeks has been mature, refreshing and impressive. They certainly improved my view of their feelings towards us (in relation to Brexit). Far more sensible than Macrons. The EU have taken one route, the government have taken theirs, both incorrect from my perspective.
If I’d been the EU, whilst still negotiating hard, I would’ve been pushing comments like the recent ones from Germany with an undertones of ‘we understand some of the reasons for the vote and will take them on board as we try to reform and improve the EU’. By now there might have been a far stronger Remain feeling, instead we appear to be the same or as QT showed possibly the opposite.
Like the debate as a whole though, it all depends on your perspective and viewpoint I guess.
I saw the attached article below earlier. Fully appreciate that the Spectator is right wing (so there is bias) but there are some elements of truth in it
Question Time has changed and so has the Brexit debate | Coffee House
Problems are solved by discussions not soundbites! There’s one for you lolQuite accurate as I see it. A couple of paragraphs say such a lot.
So why are those who demanded a second referendum – who seemed so perky just a few weeks ago – suddenly losing ground? I think there is a very good reason. The tragedy of some Remainers – the fatal flaw in their tactics – is that so few of them have been able to say a bad word about the EU. It doesn’t matter how inflexible, how stubborn the EU has been, how determined it has shown itself to punish Britain, these people just haven’t seemed to have it in them to raise the faintest criticism.
Then the final paragraph
The hardest Brexiteers have not shied away from criticising our own government in its ham-fisted efforts to negotiate a decent deal, prepare for no-deal and so on. How much better those Remainers would have come across had they displayed a slightly more even-handed approach and been prepared to acknowledge the stubbornness and unreasonableness of the EU side. Instead, they just cheered and cheered it on.
This is where I see the difference between myself and others on here who want to stay in the EU. And they have the balls to say that I am biased for looking at both sides.
The hardest Brexiteers have not shied away from criticising our own government in its ham-fisted efforts to negotiate a decent deal,
And as a remainer that’s served better by agreeing a deal and pursuing what mattersProblems are solved by discussions not soundbites! There’s one for you lol
I’m willing to back down and have done on here. It’s a dream of a future together rather than apart
All I know is that I sent him an email and he personally replied, in detail. I hold him in much higher esteem that some of the tossers you pedal propaganda for
That's a good soundbite. :angelic:Problems are solved by discussions not soundbites!
Those who take our own side???????
From...
Thread by @LBSProtect: "Given that @guyverhofstadt Guy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will n […]"
Given that @guyverhofstadtGuy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will not accept I thought I would do a thread about him.
In particular, where does he get his power?
What democratic mandate has he got?
Guy is a Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") and is the EP's spokesperson on Brexit.
He therefore speaks for around 500 million European people.
Let's see with what level of democratic legitimacy he speaks for 500 million people...
What you are about to see is typical EU democracy.
A hint of a vote here, a smattering of consent there, overall, just enough to make the system appear democratic to a casual observer.
But it's just a veneer of democracy hiding a deeply authoritarian reality.
Guy was not elected as an MEP.
The Belgians do not elect individuals in the EP elections; they vote for political parties.
Guy's political party is the Open Flemish Liberals & Democrats ("the OFLD").
The OFLD got 858,872 votes in the 2014 election.
Under the Belgian electoral college system that meant the OFLD got 3 MEPs (out of 21).
The OFLD got 12.89% of the popular vote in the 2014 EP election.
To put that into context, UKIP got 12.6% of the popular vote in the 2015 UK general election.
The winners of the 2014 EP election in Belgium were the New Flemish Alliance, a centre-right nationalist and separatist party who increased their share of the vote by three hundred percent.
The reality...
GUY IS AN MEP BECAUSE HIS PARTY GOT HAMMERED IN AN ELECTION.
So how did this MEP from this minority party in one of the European small states come to speak for the EP - and 500 million people - on Brexit?
The process I am about to outline should make anyone who cares about democracy feel very unsettled
MEPs elect a Brexit spokesperson in an open vote, choosing from a range of possible candidates with different views from across the political spectrum?
No.
Of course they didn't.
Guy was APPOINTED by the CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE EP ("the Conference").
The Conference meets twice a month, in private, and is closed to all but 8 - yes 8 - MEPs.
The 8 MEPs are the chairs of the 8 broad political groups into which the EP has organised itself.
"What groups?" you ask, "I don't vote for a group in the EP elections".
Oh yes you do.
The political parties from all the member states have organised themselves into 8 broad political groups. It is those 8 groups which operate in the EP, not the political parties themselves.
Each of the 8 groups has a "President".
Each of the 8 Presidents attends the Conference.
One of the 8 groups is the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe ("ALDE").
The Belgian party OFLD is in ALDE.
Guy is the (unelected, obviously) president of ALDE.
So Guy attends the Conference.
Do you see how the VOTERS are getting more and more distant?
It gets worse.
So did the Conference meet, consider a range of candidates, hold an open vote and declare the winner?
No.
Of course not.
Well did they even meet and have a debate about candidates then?
Nope.
The Conference didn't even meet and there was no vote.
Guy met up with Martin Schulz (remember him?) informally.
MS was the President of EP group Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats ("PASD").
Two other group Presidents joined them.
In a backroom, they alone appointed Guy to speak for 500m people.
WITH NO VOTE AT ALL.
The Presidents of the other political groups were informed of the appointment and the announcement was made to the world that Guy was the EP spokesperson on Brexit.
An ARCH-FEDERALIST, an extremist even by EU standards, a fanatic basically had become the EP Brexit spokesperson.
Look at Guy's timeline today.
He has tweeted that the EP will refuse to approve any form of Withdrawal Agreement without the Backstop in it.
How the hell does he know?
It's supposed to be a vote. But democracy never works properly in the EU.
Even the Parliament - the only quasi-democratic institute in the whole rotten Union - is controlled, co-ordinated and centrally managed by the political groups.
Guy knows which way the EP will vote because he and few of his buddies control the EP.
This man hold the interests and the well-being of 500 million in his hands. He is a key player in a set of extremely important international negotiations.
All because his fringe party, in a small state, lost an election.
And because three other blokes decided he should be.
Try and think about this from the point of view of a French agricultural worker or a German manufacturing worker.
In what credible democratic sense does Guy speak for them?
How the hell does he know whether they want a backstop or not?
Try to follow the democratic chain?
If you cannot follow the democratic links in the chain from the people to the representative, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot comprehend, or even ascertain, the process by which the representative obtains his power, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot conceive of a possible democratic method by which the representative can be removed, censured or otherwise controlled by the electorate, IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
What is a Spanish worker supposed to do to replace Guy? Where should she start? Who does she protest to?
I've done this kind of research exercise many times with regard to the EU's democratic credentials.
I promise you the result is the same every single time.
Try it. Pick an EU bigwig and unravel where his/her power comes from.
And then try telling me the EU is democratic.
END
A Belgian chap has asked me to point out that I have over-simplified the Belgian electoral college. He has provided two links. I don't really understand them but am posting them for transparency sake.
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/results…
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/preferr
And as a remainer that’s served better by agreeing a deal and pursuing what matters
In the article. The implication being those who want to leave and bugger the consequences are on the side of the U.K. when the reality is both sides can be on the uk’s sideSorry Pete, not sure I follow ?
So you are happy to agree there are no factual errors in my post?
You just like the fanatical Europhile appointed politician because you agree with his rhetoric.
In the article. The implication being those who want to leave and bugger the consequences are on the side of the U.K. when the reality is both sides can be on the uk’s side
You have very similar views to my own. I don't have to name those who I mean. Everyone knows who they are.Problems are solved by discussions not soundbites! There’s one for you lol
I’m willing to back down and have done on here. It’s a dream of a future together rather than apart
So what is the problem with our monarchy? They bring in much more than they cost. And you make out that we have to follow their orders.Haha for saying he engages a lot more with the ordinary people compared to those that you continually support and won’t hear a bad word against, including all of your previous Breitbart bile? I’d much rather be like Guy than you and Breitbart readers, thanks.
The UK is also a country which has overwhelmingly support for the monarchy, a completely unelected head of state based upon hereditary power. Then no doubt those who attack him are also fierce supporters of the monarchy.
So what is the problem with our monarchy? They bring in much more than they cost. And you make out that we have to follow their orders.
Yet you are happy for us to take orders from the nobodies running the EU. I can never work out if you are being serious.
Haha for saying he engages a lot more with the ordinary people compared to those that you continually support and won’t hear a bad word against, including all of your previous Breitbart bile? I’d much rather be like Guy than you and Breitbart readers, thanks.
The UK is also a country which has overwhelmingly support for the monarchy, a completely unelected head of state based upon hereditary power. Then no doubt those who attack him are also fierce supporters of the monarchy.
From...
Thread by @LBSProtect: "Given that @guyverhofstadt Guy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will n […]"
Given that @guyverhofstadtGuy Verhofstadt is gobbing off about what post-Brexit arrangements the European Parliament ("EP") will and will not accept I thought I would do a thread about him.
In particular, where does he get his power?
What democratic mandate has he got?
Guy is a Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") and is the EP's spokesperson on Brexit.
He therefore speaks for around 500 million European people.
Let's see with what level of democratic legitimacy he speaks for 500 million people...
What you are about to see is typical EU democracy.
A hint of a vote here, a smattering of consent there, overall, just enough to make the system appear democratic to a casual observer.
But it's just a veneer of democracy hiding a deeply authoritarian reality.
Guy was not elected as an MEP.
The Belgians do not elect individuals in the EP elections; they vote for political parties.
Guy's political party is the Open Flemish Liberals & Democrats ("the OFLD").
The OFLD got 858,872 votes in the 2014 election.
Under the Belgian electoral college system that meant the OFLD got 3 MEPs (out of 21).
The OFLD got 12.89% of the popular vote in the 2014 EP election.
To put that into context, UKIP got 12.6% of the popular vote in the 2015 UK general election.
The winners of the 2014 EP election in Belgium were the New Flemish Alliance, a centre-right nationalist and separatist party who increased their share of the vote by three hundred percent.
The reality...
GUY IS AN MEP BECAUSE HIS PARTY GOT HAMMERED IN AN ELECTION.
So how did this MEP from this minority party in one of the European small states come to speak for the EP - and 500 million people - on Brexit?
The process I am about to outline should make anyone who cares about democracy feel very unsettled
MEPs elect a Brexit spokesperson in an open vote, choosing from a range of possible candidates with different views from across the political spectrum?
No.
Of course they didn't.
Guy was APPOINTED by the CONFERENCE OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE EP ("the Conference").
The Conference meets twice a month, in private, and is closed to all but 8 - yes 8 - MEPs.
The 8 MEPs are the chairs of the 8 broad political groups into which the EP has organised itself.
"What groups?" you ask, "I don't vote for a group in the EP elections".
Oh yes you do.
The political parties from all the member states have organised themselves into 8 broad political groups. It is those 8 groups which operate in the EP, not the political parties themselves.
Each of the 8 groups has a "President".
Each of the 8 Presidents attends the Conference.
One of the 8 groups is the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe ("ALDE").
The Belgian party OFLD is in ALDE.
Guy is the (unelected, obviously) president of ALDE.
So Guy attends the Conference.
Do you see how the VOTERS are getting more and more distant?
It gets worse.
So did the Conference meet, consider a range of candidates, hold an open vote and declare the winner?
No.
Of course not.
Well did they even meet and have a debate about candidates then?
Nope.
The Conference didn't even meet and there was no vote.
Guy met up with Martin Schulz (remember him?) informally.
MS was the President of EP group Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats ("PASD").
Two other group Presidents joined them.
In a backroom, they alone appointed Guy to speak for 500m people.
WITH NO VOTE AT ALL.
The Presidents of the other political groups were informed of the appointment and the announcement was made to the world that Guy was the EP spokesperson on Brexit.
An ARCH-FEDERALIST, an extremist even by EU standards, a fanatic basically had become the EP Brexit spokesperson.
Look at Guy's timeline today.
He has tweeted that the EP will refuse to approve any form of Withdrawal Agreement without the Backstop in it.
How the hell does he know?
It's supposed to be a vote. But democracy never works properly in the EU.
Even the Parliament - the only quasi-democratic institute in the whole rotten Union - is controlled, co-ordinated and centrally managed by the political groups.
Guy knows which way the EP will vote because he and few of his buddies control the EP.
This man hold the interests and the well-being of 500 million in his hands. He is a key player in a set of extremely important international negotiations.
All because his fringe party, in a small state, lost an election.
And because three other blokes decided he should be.
Try and think about this from the point of view of a French agricultural worker or a German manufacturing worker.
In what credible democratic sense does Guy speak for them?
How the hell does he know whether they want a backstop or not?
Try to follow the democratic chain?
If you cannot follow the democratic links in the chain from the people to the representative, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot comprehend, or even ascertain, the process by which the representative obtains his power, then IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
If you cannot conceive of a possible democratic method by which the representative can be removed, censured or otherwise controlled by the electorate, IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
What is a Spanish worker supposed to do to replace Guy? Where should she start? Who does she protest to?
I've done this kind of research exercise many times with regard to the EU's democratic credentials.
I promise you the result is the same every single time.
Try it. Pick an EU bigwig and unravel where his/her power comes from.
And then try telling me the EU is democratic.
END
A Belgian chap has asked me to point out that I have over-simplified the Belgian electoral college. He has provided two links. I don't really understand them but am posting them for transparency sake.
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/results…
verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/eur/preferr
Many countries in Europe have a monarchy
I’m lost.
Did you not understand how proportional representation works compared to FPTP?
It’s not some conspiracy, I’m genuinely confused as to the issue here.
Quite accurate as I see it. A couple of paragraphs say such a lot.
So why are those who demanded a second referendum – who seemed so perky just a few weeks ago – suddenly losing ground? I think there is a very good reason. The tragedy of some Remainers – the fatal flaw in their tactics – is that so few of them have been able to say a bad word about the EU. It doesn’t matter how inflexible, how stubborn the EU has been, how determined it has shown itself to punish Britain, these people just haven’t seemed to have it in them to raise the faintest criticism.
Then the final paragraph
The hardest Brexiteers have not shied away from criticising our own government in its ham-fisted efforts to negotiate a decent deal, prepare for no-deal and so on. How much better those Remainers would have come across had they displayed a slightly more even-handed approach and been prepared to acknowledge the stubbornness and unreasonableness of the EU side. Instead, they just cheered and cheered it on.
This is where I see the difference between myself and others on here who want to stay in the EU. And they have the balls to say that I am biased for looking at both sides.
I’m lost.
Did you not understand how proportional representation works compared to FPTP?
It’s not some conspiracy, I’m genuinely confused as to the issue here.
If I have to explain the problem then you don't understand how democracy should work.
The link Captain put up explains both of us. You praise the EU as much as you can and applaud what they do. I look at the faults of each side.You are biased.
Is there anything you like about the UK?Where have I said the UK follows the order of the monarchy? Can you point it out?
I’m a republican myself and think the monarchy should be sacked off, unbelievably I’ve been called anti-British before on this forum for having this POV.
The link Captain put up explains both of us. You praise the EU as much as you can and applaud what they do. I look at the faults of each side.
Then you have the balls to call me biased
Is there anything you like about the UK?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?