1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

If the UK stays a full member can they not veto this?

I'm sure they could try. But the ultimate EU aim will be unchanged.

28 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

The UK opt out is in the Maastricht Treaty and not removed by the Lisbon Treaty which only stipulates that new members of the EU must join the Euro so a new law cannot change that treaty obligation - it would require a new treaty which would need ratification by UK parliament to become legally binding.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

It's a systematic process. How many treaties do they need? How many treaties has the UK refused???? ?? ?? ?? ??

32 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Wrong. There is no time limit on Denmark and U.K. Opting out. Certainly Brussels would like all EU countries to join the EU but this cannot be demanded.

The EEC/EC/EU has been mutating for 50 years. Times change and the rules will change. Look at the history. You are wrong. 

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Toofy Verhofstadt was talking about throwing out any members that don't accept the Euro. Good man is Guy. 

Verhofstadt is just a windbag and is full of the brown stuff.  Nobody takes him seriously 

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

Nothing. Your simple observation is quite consistent with all of your others. 

Pavlov trained....post made, must comment!

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

That must surely be irrelevant, as I cannot see us rejoining.

Once bitten, twice shy. And that’s taking into account,that the E.U will continue to exist.

 

 

 

But first, we are not really leaving, just doing a fudge to say we are not a member, while still abiding by all the rules and obligations of membership.

 

Secondly, it was older voters who predominantly voted for Brexit. Under 35's were by a large majority in favor of remaining. Those older people will continue to get older   and eventually die off.

 

What we are getting has no advantages over over EU membership. There is not going to be a groundswell of opinion in favor for it after we leave and see the results.

 

I think in  the cold light of hindsight we will see this as a ghastly mistake and try to rejoin. 

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

That must surely be irrelevant, as I cannot see us rejoining.

Once bitten, twice shy. And that’s taking into account,that the E.U will continue to exist.

 

 

 

That's an odd cartoon, the man appears to be walking on water, out into the Atlantic and the UK as a country is missing, stepped on and sunk perhaps.

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Be very careful of what you put your faith in.

 

Do you not think that many of those so called experts and civil servants,are out to feather their own nests.

 

Allthough there’s a great deal of truth in what you say. And we did just that in the referendum, the vote out campaign was won by the largest ever democratic vote in the history of the U.K.

 

 

 

It is true that everybody has some sort of agenda but I would place my trust more in a well functioning civil service, the people who work there have no power as individuals but a great deal of power as a unit. The people who work there come from the general population, as rule they are well educated,honest and as a block, neutral. They guide and advise the politicians and in some cases can block them in their excesses, see the USA. In a way they are a true opposition to the ideology of the political parties. The civil service has a great deal of experience and expertise, governments come and go but the civil service remains like some great aunt in the background who calmly oversee's the family dramas of deaths and divorce. Even a dictator has his problems with them because no country can run without them.

If anything parliament is better than it used to be, in days of old it was populated by the powerful gentry ruling a largely ignorant populace downtrodden with poverty and disease.

The populace is swayed by emotions (and they are easily swayed) the civil service acts out of logic.

3 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

It is true that everybody has some sort of agenda but I would place my trust more in a well functioning civil service, the people who work there have no power as individuals but a great deal of power as a unit. The people who work there come from the general population, as rule they are well educated,honest and as a block, neutral. They guide and advise the politicians and in some cases can block them in their excesses, see the USA. In a way they are a true opposition to the ideology of the political parties. The civil service has a great deal of experience and expertise, governments come and go but the civil service remains like some great aunt in the background who calmly oversee's the family dramas of deaths and divorce. Even a dictator has his problems with them because no country can run without them.

If anything parliament is better than it used to be, in days of old it was populated by the powerful gentry ruling a largely ignorant populace downtrodden with poverty and disease.

The populace is swayed by emotions (and they are easily swayed) the civil service acts out of logic.

Yes and no! The drivers possibly are logic but also finance plus a series of intangible traits, I'm thinking specifically of the actions of Treasury during the last Labour government, were they really doing their job and were they acting in the best interests of the country. I suppose they have only limited powers and if their concerns are raised by a Cabinet Secretary to the PM and overruled, both logic and financial considerations become irrelevant. Those things being true, the PM of the day is the most important part of any picture.

8 hours ago, nontabury said:

And the same can be said of France. Germany and most of the other countries,Who sensible intend to keep out of this mess caused initially by Tony WMD Blair.

I don't think Blair caused it, he just played poodle to Bush, If anything the foundations of the middle East problems were caused by the empire builders France and the UK who liked drawing up spheres of influence with straight lines on a map.

On 4/11/2018 at 7:53 PM, Grouse said:

They even have a footie team! Don't they?

We would rather not talk about that... 

It's a systematic process. How many treaties do they need? How many treaties has the UK refused???? ?? ?? ?? ??

That the U.K. hasn’t refused to sign any of the treaties it has negotiated with other EU countries does not deny the fact that you are trying to obfuscate that the UK parliament must ratify it to be legally binding and I cannot picture any parliament, especially given the current climate, that would vote away our opt out from the Euro.

All this talk about being forced to join the euro is sheer scaremongering and belongs in the made-up rubbish bin that has been the stock in trade of tinfoil hat nutters for many years - note the reason it has just reared its head again in this thread is that someone posted a video from 2004 that had the same lie in it.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

8 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Verhofstadt is just a windbag and is full of the brown stuff.  Nobody takes him seriously 

Good point. After all, he is a remainer.  

10 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Be very careful of what you put your faith in.

 

Do you not think that many of those so called experts and civil servants,are out to feather their own nests.

 

Allthough there’s a great deal of truth in what you say. And we did just that in the referendum, the vote out campaign was won by the largest ever democratic vote in the history of the U.K.

 

 

 

Still repeating the claim about the largest ever majority vote?  It was pretty much the same as the vote in Scotland for devolution in 1979.  

 

Parliament is doing their job - working in our best interests, as we appointed them to do, because we did not have the time or competence to run the country for ourselves.  Brexit seems to me to really highlight the benefits of a parliamentary democracy.

33 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

That the U.K. hasn’t refused to sign any of the treaties it has negotiated with other EU countries does not deny the fact that you are trying to obfuscate that the UK parliament must ratify it to be legally binding and I cannot picture any parliament, especially given the current climate, that would vote away our opt out from the Euro.

All this talk about being forced to join the euro is sheer scaremongering and belongs in the made-up rubbish bin that has been the stock in trade of tinfoil hat nutters for many years - note the reason it has just reared its head again in this thread is that someone posted a video from 2004 that had the same lie in it.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

No obfuscation, scaremongering, nor denial. The EU has been quite open about the aim for all members to use the Euro. This is a clear goal of the EU and actually makes sense (from a EU perspective). The Euro will be imposed on all members eventually, if the EU itself survives that long. 

No obfuscation, scaremongering, nor denial. The EU has been quite open about the aim for all members to use the Euro. This is a clear goal of the EU and actually makes sense (from a EU perspective). The Euro will be imposed on all members eventually, if the EU itself survives that long. 

How - by using the EU army they are creating to invade the UK and impose it on us?

It is interesting you view the EU and Euro as so strong as to be able to do this down the line since many of your fellow brexiteers are claiming that the EU is failing and the Euro will not exist soon as it is not sustainable.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Of interest to the board:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43745447

2 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

How - by using the EU army they are creating to invade the UK and impose it on us?

It is interesting you view the EU and Euro as so strong as to be able to do this down the line since many of your fellow brexiteers are claiming that the EU is failing and the Euro will not exist soon as it is not sustainable.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

The EU, via a succession of treaties, has steadily been centralizing its power and the Euro is coming to a treaty near you! I have not denied that parliament has to approve these treaties but debate on these has been limited historically, and approval has always been given. What would be the outcome, if as an EU member, the next treaty was rejected. Oh! I know. Vote again!

 

Look at the EU today and tell me how strong it is? It is fracturing and becoming weaker year by year. Billions of Euros still being created every month. Members already bickering about how much they will have to contribute after 2020. Disobedient members that won't take their "refugee" quotas. EU sceptic governments in Austria and Italy. Mutti has far less control of Germany now. All looking good, eh? 

36 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Good point. After all, he is a remainer.  

A typical response from your group. As long as the person is pigeonholed into the group that doesn't match with your wants then he must be a remainer, regardless of whatever opinion he expressed on which subject. As though saying that justifies and accounts for everything - it's an unintelligent response, you can do much better than that. 

The EU, via a succession of treaties, has steadily been centralizing its power and the Euro is coming to a treaty near you! I have not denied that parliament has to approve these treaties but debate on these has been limited historically, and approval has always been given. What would be the outcome, if as an EU member, the next treaty was rejected. Oh! I know. Vote again!
 
Look at the EU today and tell me how strong it is? It is fracturing and becoming weaker year by year. Billions of Euros still being created every month. Members already bickering about how much they will have to contribute after 2020. Disobedient members that won't take their "refugee" quotas. EU sceptic governments in Austria and Italy. Mutti has far less control of Germany now. All looking good, eh? 

OK, so you are confirming parliament would have to agree to us joining the euro and the EU is ‘fracturing and becoming weaker’ so clearly in no position to enforce pushing the euro onto other countries that haven’t adopted it yet - hardly a compatable argument that the euro will be forced on us.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

A typical response from your group. As long as the person is pigeonholed into the group that doesn't match with your wants then he must be a remainer, regardless of whatever opinion he expressed on which subject. As though saying that justifies and accounts for everything - it's an unintelligent response, you can do much better than that. 

I don't represent a "group". Of course he is a remainer. Is there anyone in Brussels that wants the UK to leave?  

 

11 hours ago, oldlakey said:

Thats what you say I am making the best of it 

 

  13 hours ago, Grouse said:

Worth repeating: The pedants revolt was led by Which Tyler ?

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't represent a "group". Of course he is a remainer. Is there anyone in Brussels that wants the UK to leave?  

 

Why is it necessary to label everyone in this debate, the debate is not about labels but about the points people wish to make and their validity.

13 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

 

OK, so you are confirming parliament would have to agree to us joining the euro and the EU is ‘fracturing and becoming weaker’ so clearly in no position to enforce pushing the euro onto other countries that haven’t adopted it yet - hardly a compatable argument that the euro will be forced on us.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Parliament should certainly have a vote on adopting the Euro but I'm not actually sure about this - there was no vote, as far as  can remember, when we joined the ERM, which turned out to be a total disater. It is more likely that adoption of the Euro would be included in some future EU treaty, as part of the small print! Little is clear as far as the EU goes but the weaker it gets, the more desperate it is likely to become.  

11 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Why is it necessary to label everyone in this debate, the debate is not about labels but about the points people wish to make and their validity.

Well, you labelled me as a "group".

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well, you labelled me as a "group".

Gawd almighty nauseus,  how pathetic can you possibly get! 

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

Gawd almighty nauseus,  how pathetic can you possibly get! 

I have a label for you too. 

Parliament should certainly have a vote on adopting the Euro but I'm not actually sure about this - there was no vote, as far as  can remember, when we joined the ERM, which turned out to be a total disater. It is more likely that adoption of the Euro would be included in some future EU treaty, as part of the small print! Little is clear as far as the EU goes but the weaker it gets, the more desperate it is likely to become.  

The ERM was a mistake and should serve as a lesson of what can happen when you have a politically weak PM (Thatcher at that point in time) forced into a position she disagreed with by members of her own party - remember how Lawson resigned the previous year because Thatcher wouldn’t allow him to sign up for ERM.

Either way the option was always there for parliament to remove her through a confidence vote.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

Why is it necessary to label everyone in this debate, the debate is not about labels but about the points people wish to make and their validity.

No it's not.  It's about who can shout loudest, and whose gang is biggest

5 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

No it's not.  It's about who can shout loudest, and whose gang is biggest

It's certainly about emotions so logic doesn't play a big role.