Setting out Brexit vision, Britain's May appeals to EU to show flexibility

[Becker]

19 minutes ago, aright said:

Then dismantle the argument and give us your conclusion with regard to my vote which as you suggest young people have to live with for the rest of their lives which are longer term than mine.   

I could do that if you tried to make a minimum of sense and ell me what argument you want me to "dismantle".

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, aright said:

The logical conclusion of your argument is that only young people should have a vote because they have a future, whereas older people are in Gods waiting room waiting for the Grim Reaper and only have a short term future. At what age would you stop giving people the vote?  

18 to retirement for qualified individuals

 

But it's not really an age window; it's a competance window. A lifetime's subscription to the economist should be one way to get a vote ?

Edited March 3, 2018 by Grouse

[aright]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

18

 If I remember the numbers correctly( I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong) if all the young vote had turned out for the last General Election Corbyn would be PM now.

[dunroaming]

7 hours ago, petermik said:

We want OUT of the dictatorship that is the EU.....simple....the EU wants to make it difficult as possible as they cannot afford to lose our contributions...those are the FACTS.

In your world maybe but it that was true why haven't we walked away?  Because we can't as it would be economic suicide.

 

May's speech laid out what she wants to happen, much the same as she has said before except!  She now concedes that we will not get everything we want and we will continue to pay into the EU after Brexit.  Also that the ECJ rules will apply when we deal with the EU.  As for the Irish border debacle,  not a word as to how that issue can be solved.

 

There was quite a lot of detail as to what Britain proposed but again it was all a wish list.  She reiterated that these are negotiations and we have to face up to the hard facts.  Then not one word of what those "facts" were.  It seems to me that she was trying to give herself some wriggle room for the future.

 

One year to go and so much to try to agree.

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, aright said:

 If I remember the numbers correctly( I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong) if all the young vote had turned out for the last General Election Corbyn would be PM now.

Pressed the wrong button! You're quick on the draw!

 

Corbyn would be a disaster, as is May. Must do better?

[dunroaming]

What would be an interesting (and very uncomfortable) conundrum would be if the country were given a vote to either keep backing the current government and their dire attempt to deliver a poor Brexit or vote in Corbyn and scrap Brexit altogether.  Just two choices and no sitting on the fence.

 

I know it is only fantasy but with the mood in the country at the moment it might be a closer call than many think.

[aright]

I'm warming to Matteo Salvini

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/923124/italian-election-2018-matteo-salvini-european-union-italexit-eu-italy-brexit

[Guest]

1 minute ago, aright said:

I'm warming to Matteo Salvini

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/923124/italian-election-2018-matteo-salvini-european-union-italexit-eu-italy-brexit

And when his ties to Russia are released, it will be a big surprise to anyone?

 

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, aright said:

I'm warming to Matteo Salvini

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/923124/italian-election-2018-matteo-salvini-european-union-italexit-eu-italy-brexit

I'm surprised that you are so supportive of fascists! Is it anyone who is anti EU is my friend? Not impressed

[aright]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I'm surprised that you are so supportive of fascists! Is it anyone who is anti EU is my friend? Not impressed

Its not his politics which I find impressive it's his attitude to the EU..

[JAG]

7 hours ago, SouthernDelight said:

Ya'll been screwed by the powers of your government officials and populists!

Before discontinue the association I would've thought it'd be prudent studying & considering the conditions agreed to prior joining the EU...

The problem with that is since joining the "Common Market" in 1973, and the 1975 referendum on whether we wished to remain in,  and today the organisation has changed significantly. From being a simple trading organisation it has evolved into, effectively, a state in its own right, with all the trappings, flags, parliament (albeit with little real power) a powerful and unaccountable executive, a foreign affairs secretariat and diplomatic missions, and increasingly ambitions to supplement and inevitably supplant it's member states on the world stage. That was emphatically not what we joined 40 odd years ago.  Each new treaty and the concomitant transfers of sovereignty to the Brussels commissariat has been passed through parliament with the fiercest whipping of Members of Parliament, and little or no account has been taken of the wishes of the electorate. None of these treaties has been approved by referendum or has been the central issue in a general election.

 

The entrenched opposition and antipathy to  membership of the EU within a large proportion of the UK electorate, and the visceral nature of the current debate are largely a result of the UK political establishment's determination to prevent and stifle meaningful debate on the subject, They approved of the EU, and ignored the fact that their electorate often did not feel the same way, and kept it that way for many years. That is perhaps why, for people like me, and I suspect many others, reservations grew into opposition.

 

When finally pressure for such a referendum became so significant that it looked like damaging the Conservative party and its chances of re-election, David Cameron agreed to hold one. To his evident surprise, he lost it, and in an act of supreme political cowardice, rather than respond to the countries decision, walked away.

 

Anyway, my first paragraph I hope outlines why considering the conditions agreed to in joining the Common Market in 1973 bears little relevance to the utterly different conditions which apply to our departure from the EU today. It is a totally different organisation.

 

Incidentally, it is deeply ironic that Sir John Major, who forced through the UK ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 ( a treaty which ceded a huge raft of powers to the executive of the EU) by using what has been described as unprecedented pressure by the Conservative Party whips,  is now calling for a free vote in the House of Commons as to whether we should leave!

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by JAG

[Becker]

34 minutes ago, aright said:

Its not his politics which I find impressive it's his attitude to the EU..

So, anything goes as long as they're anti-EU. I find that kind of attitude quite....better not.

[dunroaming]

30 minutes ago, JAG said:

The problem with that is since joining the "Common Market" in 1973, and the 1975 referendum on whether we wished to remain in,  and today the organisation has changed significantly.

Not looking for an argument here and I really do understand your position.  The EU has evolved and being one of the more influential members of the EU, Britain has been heavily involved and instrumental in that.  Within the last forty years we have grown to be the fifth richest country, all achieved by being part of the ever evolving EU.

 

The remainers (I think) believe that being in the EU gives us more economic clout than being outside of it.  The leavers (I think) believe it is more important to have their own sovereignty and have the option of controlling the flow of EU citizens.

 

That is massively over simplifying the arguments I know, but my point is both sides have a point. But we can't have both, although listening to the PM's speech, she clearly still thinks we can.  Question is which one is the most important for Britain's future, because that is what we are playing with.  

[Samui Bodoh]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

The problem with that is since joining the "Common Market" in 1973, and the 1975 referendum on whether we wished to remain in,  and today the organisation has changed significantly. From being a simple trading organisation it has evolved into, effectively, a state in its own right, with all the trappings, flags, parliament (albeit with little real power) a powerful and unaccountable executive, a foreign affairs secretariat and diplomatic missions, and increasingly ambitions to supplement and inevitably supplant it's member states on the world stage. That was emphatically not what we joined 40 odd years ago.  Each new treaty and the concomitant transfers of sovereignty to the Brussels commissariat has been passed through parliament with the fiercest whipping of Members of Parliament, and little or no account has been taken of the wishes of the electorate. None of these treaties has been approved by referendum or a general election.

 

The entrenched opposition and antipathy to  membership of the EU within a large proportion of the UKs electorate, and the visceral nature of the current debate are largely a result of the UKs political establishments determination to prevent and stifle meaningful debate on the subject, They approved of the EU, and ignored the fact that their electorate often did not feel the same way, and kept it that way for many years.

 

When finally pressure for such a referendum became so significant that it looked like damaging the Conservative party and its chances of re-election, David Cameron agreed to hold one. To his evident surprise, he lost it, and in an act of supreme political cowardice, rather than respond to the countries decision, walked away.

 

Anyway, my first paragraph I hope outlines why considering the conditions agreed to in joining the Common Market in 1973 bears little relevance to the utterly different conditions which apply to our departure from the EU today. It is a totally different organisation.

 

Incidentally, it is deeply ironic that Sir John Major, who forced through the UK ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 ( a treaty which ceded a huge raft of powers to the executive of the EU) by using what has been described as unprecedented pressure by the Conservative Party whips,  is now calling for a free vote in the House of Commons as to whether we should leave!

 

As always a good post. However... let me have a go at rebutting it, or more accurately, offering a different interpretation of events; this is one of those things that reasonable people can disagree on reasonably. And, for the record, I am not British, so if I have a detail wrong here or there, please feel free to correct me without the abuse!

 

The Common Market began as a bare bones economic cooperation agreement in the early seventies, but it was realized that in order to deliver its full potential, it needed to grow and expand. Simply put, it was realized that in order to achieve the full benefits of economic integration, a controlling body had to be created to manage the new entity. Further, as one of the goals of the entire exercise was to allow for integration in order to avoid any future war(s), it was decided that there needed to be a political element to the project. A slow and steady path was laid out, and in the case of the UK, each and every step along the way was approved by a vote in Parliament.

 

Over the course of many years, there was a certain indifference or even outright dislike of the EU among elements of the British population. However, this 'dislike' never reached the point where any political party in Parliament ran and won on a platform of pulling of the EU.

 

When David Cameron became PM of the UK, he had trouble holding his caucus together and in an act of utter political cowardice decided to hold a referendum in the hope of silencing his critics. This act of stupidity will be the twenty-first century's version of Chamberlain at Munich.

 

Today, it is much, much more difficult to walk away from the EU as it has been evolving for forty years or so. The integration achieved through all the changes over forty years means that removing a country from its embrace is an operation of questionable value, and would require vast amounts of political energy spaced over many years. Simply put, the act of leaving and then re-organizing British society will consume so much energy that it is almost inevitable that the UK 'falls behind' for a decade or so while it does so.

 

However, the discussion continues! 

 

And, it should be noted, that as this is a change of such magnitude, there should be another referendum at the end of negotiations to see if the British people are satisfied with the outcome.

 

Cheers

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

As always a good post. However... let me have a go at rebutting it, or more accurately, offering a different interpretation of events; this is one of those things that reasonable people can disagree on reasonably. And, for the record, I am not British, so if I have a detail wrong here or there, please feel free to correct me without the abuse!

 

The Common Market began as a bare bones economic cooperation agreement in the early seventies, but it was realized that in order to deliver its full potential, it needed to grow and expand. Simply put, it was realized that in order to achieve the full benefits of economic integration, a controlling body had to be created to manage the new entity. Further, as one of the goals of the entire exercise was to allow for integration in order to avoid any future war(s), it was decided that there needed to be a political element to the project. A slow and steady path was laid out, and in the case of the UK, each and every step along the way was approved by a vote in Parliament.

 

Over the course of many years, there was a certain indifference or even outright dislike of the EU among elements of the British population. However, this 'dislike' never reached the point where any political party in Parliament ran and won on a platform of pulling of the EU.

 

When David Cameron became PM of the UK, he had trouble holding his caucus together and in an act of utter political cowardice decided to hold a referendum in the hope of silencing his critics. This act of stupidity will be the twenty-first century's version of Chamberlain at Munich.

 

Today, it is much, much more difficult to walk away from the EU as it has been evolving for forty years or so. The integration achieved through all the changes over forty years means that removing a country from its embrace is an operation of questionable value, and would require vast amounts of political energy spaced over many years. Simply put, the act of leaving and then re-organizing British society will consume so much energy that it is almost inevitable that the UK 'falls behind' for a decade or so while it does so.

 

However, the discussion continues! 

 

And, it should be noted, that as this is a change of such magnitude, there should be another referendum at the end of negotiations to see if the British people are satisfied with the outcome.

 

Cheers

 

The EU dates back considerably further than the 1970s, the project began with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950. By 1957 that had become the Common Market, which we (the UK) joined in 1973.  Certainly, many of it's founding fathers intended that it should be a journey to a European Union. I assume that there was a similar consensus between the peoples of its founding states. There was in the UK, throughout the 1960s, amongst many influential politicians, led by Edward Heath, a desire or intention to join, principally I believe because of the economic benefits they expected it to bring. Britain was at that time hampered economically by industrial obsolescence, trades union militancy and questionable industrial management. We were also, it should be noted, shouldering a disproportionate share of the costs and effort in defending Western Europe during the Cold War. Our initial attempts to join throughout the 1960s were rebuffed by France, arguably because they offended the sensibilities of  Charles de Gaulle, of whom it could be said had a chip the size of the Massif Central on both shoulders when it came to "Les Anglais"...

 

When Heath and his pals finally managed to get us in, in the early 1970s the potential/intention to drive for "ever greater union" was conveniently understated. It is one of (the many) tragedies that have dogged British political discourse on Europe that the two greatest opponents of joining,  Anthony Wedgewood Benn for Labour and Enoch Powell for The Conservatives were effectively sidelined by other matters, Benn because of his left wing views and perceived instability (Mr Zig Zag Loon as an influential columnist dubbed him) and Powell by the fallout from his "Rivers of Blood " speech which left him tarred (unfairly) as a raving racist. So right from the start discussion of and recognition of the prospect of a union was left off the table within the UK.

 

That has continued to be the case - as I said, the consensus within the political establishment if not to support then certainly not to rock the European Boat by opposing that intention has certainly meant that debate within the UK has been stifled. The level of scepticism. discontent with and dislike for many aspects of the European project has grown amongst the people of the UK for the last forty odd years. At the risk of sounding jingoistic (I'm not) we are not "continentals", but an Island Nation with a very long tradition of looking beyond Europe globally for trade, influence and cultural matters. It matters that we have long regarded the Dominions (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) together with the United States as "cousins", and have a lot in common with them, a view certainly not shared on the continent. Not for nothing do the French lump us together as "Les Anglo-Saxons". Whilst that may underline British scepticism, it was further compounded by the refusal by our political establishment to allow meaningful debate. That groundswell of scepticism, eventually led to David Cameron agreeing to a referendum, in order to hold his party together during the 2015 election campaign. He won and was held to his commitment.

 

The act of cowardice, in my opinion, was in then walking away from the situation which resulted when the referendum returned a decision to leave. It is another tragedy that this massive challenge has coincided with a period of epic political ineptitude, on both sides of politics!

 

Yes, you are right that leaving the EU is a massive undertaking, which will undeniably hurt the UK, for some time to come. But the decision was taken, by the electorate. largely swayed by the deceit and contempt with which public scepticism about the EU has been regarded by our political class, for many of whom (Kinnock, Mandelson, Brittain, Patten to name some from left and right) the EU has been very beneficial.

 

I am less sanguine about the long-term prospects for the EU. The original six may have been able, realistically to manage political and fiscal union, but now the organisation has grown, and I cannot see the same goal being realisable with the disparate economies of the Mediterranean, Eastern European and in due course the Balkan countries. What is more in leaving we will avoid the defining battle which was to come, which would be the integration (replacement) of our common law legal system by the European (Napoleonic) system. That was on the long-range radar, along with EU control of our financial industry, and would have changed the UK almost beyond recognition.

 

It's going to hurt, and for some time, but personally, I think it will eventually be worth it.

 

A bit of an essay, I'm sorry, but it is a big subject.

Edited March 3, 2018 by JAG

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, aright said:

Its not his politics which I find impressive it's his attitude to the EU..

Ah, Now I understand! I found Hitler's attitude to roads impressive.

[aright]

34 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Ah, Now I understand! I found Hitler's attitude to roads impressive.

 

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

 

You shouldn't automatically reject these countries.

I met a man in India who lives in North Korea. I asked him what life was like there.

He said "I can't complain"

[Scott]

Baiting post and replies removed. 

[Mojomor]

Teresa May has dug a deep hole for herself and does not know how to get out of it, so she is pleading with the EU for help. Please Lord, spare us the gruesome details. This could get very ugly.

[Air Smiles]

Just now, Mojomor said:

Teresa May has dug a deep hole for herself and does not know how to get out of it, so she is pleading with the EU for help. Please Lord, spare us the gruesome details. This could get very ugly.

 

She is struggling to break the news of Brino to the Brexiteers as she knows all hell will break loose once they realise(that could take a while) what has happened.

[Samui Bodoh]

7 hours ago, JAG said:

The EU dates back considerably further than the 1970s, the project began with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950. By 1957 that had become the Common Market, which we (the UK) joined in 1973.  Certainly, many of it's founding fathers intended that it should be a journey to a European Union. I assume that there was a similar consensus between the peoples of its founding states. There was in the UK, throughout the 1960s, amongst many influential politicians, led by Edward Heath, a desire or intention to join, principally I believe because of the economic benefits they expected it to bring. Britain was at that time hampered economically by industrial obsolescence, trades union militancy and questionable industrial management. We were also, it should be noted, shouldering a disproportionate share of the costs and effort in defending Western Europe during the Cold War. Our initial attempts to join throughout the 1960s were rebuffed by France, arguably because they offended the sensibilities of  Charles de Gaulle, of whom it could be said had a chip the size of the Massif Central on both shoulders when it came to "Les Anglais"...

 

When Heath and his pals finally managed to get us in, in the early 1970s the potential/intention to drive for "ever greater union" was conveniently understated. It is one of (the many) tragedies that have dogged British political discourse on Europe that the two greatest opponents of joining,  Anthony Wedgewood Benn for Labour and Enoch Powell for The Conservatives were effectively sidelined by other matters, Benn because of his left wing views and perceived instability (Mr Zig Zag Loon as an influential columnist dubbed him) and Powell by the fallout from his "Rivers of Blood " speech which left him tarred (unfairly) as a raving racist. So right from the start discussion of and recognition of the prospect of a union was left off the table within the UK.

 

That has continued to be the case - as I said, the consensus within the political establishment if not to support then certainly not to rock the European Boat by opposing that intention has certainly meant that debate within the UK has been stifled. The level of scepticism. discontent with and dislike for many aspects of the European project has grown amongst the people of the UK for the last forty odd years. At the risk of sounding jingoistic (I'm not) we are not "continentals", but an Island Nation with a very long tradition of looking beyond Europe globally for trade, influence and cultural matters. It matters that we have long regarded the Dominions (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) together with the United States as "cousins", and have a lot in common with them, a view certainly not shared on the continent. Not for nothing do the French lump us together as "Les Anglo-Saxons". Whilst that may underline British scepticism, it was further compounded by the refusal by our political establishment to allow meaningful debate. That groundswell of scepticism, eventually led to David Cameron agreeing to a referendum, in order to hold his party together during the 2015 election campaign. He won and was held to his commitment.

 

The act of cowardice, in my opinion, was in then walking away from the situation which resulted when the referendum returned a decision to leave. It is another tragedy that this massive challenge has coincided with a period of epic political ineptitude, on both sides of politics!

 

Yes, you are right that leaving the EU is a massive undertaking, which will undeniably hurt the UK, for some time to come. But the decision was taken, by the electorate. largely swayed by the deceit and contempt with which public scepticism about the EU has been regarded by our political class, for many of whom (Kinnock, Mandelson, Brittain, Patten to name some from left and right) the EU has been very beneficial.

 

I am less sanguine about the long-term prospects for the EU. The original six may have been able, realistically to manage political and fiscal union, but now the organisation has grown, and I cannot see the same goal being realisable with the disparate economies of the Mediterranean, Eastern European and in due course the Balkan countries. What is more in leaving we will avoid the defining battle which was to come, which would be the integration (replacement) of our common law legal system by the European (Napoleonic) system. That was on the long-range radar, along with EU control of our financial industry, and would have changed the UK almost beyond recognition.

 

It's going to hurt, and for some time, but personally, I think it will eventually be worth it.

 

A bit of an essay, I'm sorry, but it is a big subject.

Another excellent post.

 

I am not going to try to answer it all, but I do understand the general attitude towards Europe; if I lived next door to the French I'd likely share it!   

 

However, I will reiterate what I think is the central point; you can't claim lack of knowledge or lack of consent when all the steps have been passed through Parliament. And, to my knowledge, no party has ever campaigned on leaving the EU and won, not even the Tories fully agreed on that.

 

Not much else to say. Despite my thoughts that it is a terrible decision, I certainly do hope that the UK is able to 'muddle through' without too much harm, if of course 'Brexit' actually happens (I still think there is some doubt...).

 

Cheers

 

Oh, BTW... I do enjoy mocking the idea of 'Brexit' and will likely continue to do so whenever possible. Sorry in advance! 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[Samui Bodoh]

I will let Sir Humphrey have the last word...

 

 

[JAG]

10 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Oh, BTW... I do enjoy mocking the idea of 'Brexit' and will likely continue to do so whenever possible. Sorry in advance! 

Don't worry, I enjoy poking fun at some of the more extraordinary antics of our "American cousins"!

 

Mind you, I did once get into slightly deep water for referring to the USMC during a presentation at Camp Le Jeune in NC as "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children". A senior Marine Corps Officer had a rather Teutonic sense of humour failure, and I had to apologise!

[the guest]

UK should leave the EU without the whining. The has been made, the country will find it's feet (at some point),

[malagateddy]

The UK should walk away from negociations now!
WTR will do just fine..what will the corrupt eu do to fill their black financial hole???

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chomper Higgot]

Brexit supporters spitting out the dummy because things are not going the way they thought they would (despite often repeated warnings that this is how it would be).

 

PM May has once again said nothing, other than admitting the UK will be in a worse position after Brexit than before. 

 

Perhaps she needs to wheel David Davis out again to tell some more lies.