1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Altruism 

The EU project is to altruism what Genghis Khan was to soft furnishings.

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And now a few words from Margaret Thatcher:

"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers — visible or invisible — giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of 300 million of the world’s wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/world/europe/uk-margaret-thatcher-files.html

 

She also got it right in rejecting the Euro.

 

.

And when she finally got it sussed she was hoisted.

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

The trivial non tangible upsides are not worth the major real risks. Forget it. The poor voted for Brexit. The successful voted remain. That should give you pause.

A pause of disgust.

8 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

I guess it will be a lot easier for EU exporters to find alternative markets than it would be for their counterparts in the UK.

For the EU all the existing trade deals will still be in place as well, not so for the UK...

If you think that E.U. car exporters such as Benz will easily find alternative markets, check first with Donald.

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

The trivial non tangible upsides are not worth the major real risks. Forget it. The poor voted for Brexit. The successful voted remain. That should give you pause.

The trivial non tangible upsides are not worth the major real risks.

 

Are these the trivial non tangible upsides not worth the risk?

 Getting rid of a moribund, unaccountable, bureaucratic union who have made a pigs ear of the migrant crisis.

A Union which imposes punitive tariffs on third world countries, as a consequence, denying them profitable access to a market which would make their lives better and our food cheaper, all in order to artificially protect high EU food prices.

The beneficial effect of the Euro to Germany to the detriment of others in the Eurozone. What happened to all for one and one for all?

Unemployment, corruption, waste, and bailouts in contravention of Maastricht treaty rules. (Ireland -85bill E, Portugal 78bill, Spain 41bill and God knows how much to Greece)

Germany and other freeloaders who aren't prepared to pay the 2% support for the defense  provided by NATO but in Germany's case found millions of euros to give Russia to build a gas pipeline into Germany and managed to get preferential deals on oil prices denied other EU countries in contravention of EU rules.

Dissatisfaction in the EU as evidenced by a surge in right wing parties.

Martin Selmayr whose career and promotion is indicative of everything that is wrong with the proto-Fascist EU.

In truth the rich (Germany) have accrued the economic gains while the poor have faced the social fall out. Ask Italy etc

 

Sorry I need to go and lie down you can't imagine how depressed this reply has made me ?

Who are the UK leaders who can put stop this madness?

 

10 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Who are the UK leaders who can put stop this madness?

 

It will not be one of your fellow Finnish citizens,that’s for sure.

But do join in this discussion, adding your voice to the many other none Brits,who 

want us to stay in the hated E.U.

 

 

1 hour ago, aright said:

The trivial non tangible upsides are not worth the major real risks.

 

Are these the trivial non tangible upsides not worth the risk?

 Getting rid of a moribund, unaccountable, bureaucratic union who have made a pigs ear of the migrant crisis.

A Union which imposes punitive tariffs on third world countries, as a consequence, denying them profitable access to a market which would make their lives better and our food cheaper, all in order to artificially protect high EU food prices.

The beneficial effect of the Euro to Germany to the detriment of others in the Eurozone. What happened to all for one and one for all?

Unemployment, corruption, waste, and bailouts in contravention of Maastricht treaty rules. (Ireland -85bill E, Portugal 78bill, Spain 41bill and God knows how much to Greece)

Germany and other freeloaders who aren't prepared to pay the 2% support for the defense  provided by NATO but in Germany's case found millions of euros to give Russia to build a gas pipeline into Germany and managed to get preferential deals on oil prices denied other EU countries in contravention of EU rules.

Dissatisfaction in the EU as evidenced by a surge in right wing parties.

Martin Selmayr whose career and promotion is indicative of everything that is wrong with the proto-Fascist EU.

In truth the rich (Germany) have accrued the economic gains while the poor have faced the social fall out. Ask Italy etc

 

Sorry I need to go and lie down you can't imagine how depressed this reply has made me ?

I will demolish those points tomorrow after a few beers tonight

20 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I will demolish those points tomorrow after a few beers tonight

I hate hangover points?

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

And now a few words from Margaret Thatcher:

"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers — visible or invisible — giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of 300 million of the world’s wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/world/europe/uk-margaret-thatcher-files.html

 

She also got it right in rejecting the Euro.

 

.

And she finally got it right about the EC/EU; that's why the knives came out in 1990.

7 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

you are right about availability of info now compared to before

but also take into account that in 2016 you were a lot older and presumably wiser than in 1975.

 

(beside the point/thread but your history lesson re 1975 is off,

 I used ARPANET/Internet in the late 70s, where I come from we had mobile phones in the 70s,

 also; I used social media heavily in the late 70s )

 

and how many people had access to that?

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

I know which third of the world I prefer to be allied with.

the third world?

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not the quantity of information that matters, it’s the quality.

 

The number of Brexiteers who make comments betraying their total lack of understanding of the UK’s relationship to the EU, or indeed how British Parliamentary democracy works is shocking.

 

Ignorance might be one explanation, but the common reference to points of complete fallacy suggests misinformation is the culprit.

Quality information: like the Guardian? Misinformation - that is well demonstrated by your condescending post.

 

It is access to accurate information that really matters and there isn't any in the above. 

8 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

man,

the lack of understanding of the formalities re the UK parliamentary system, the EU, the EEA, the EFTA, the WTO 

is pretty much spread equally across remainers and leavers

 

but, in order to secure that thaivisa is entertaining, lack of knowledge does not inhibit strong opinions

 

On this TV forum and this thread, accuracy of comment is not a criteria. And yes, that applies to me also. but I'm learning to distinguish between what would be best for Britain and it sure isn't a fudged Brexit.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

Many. Many, many  more fact are known now than were known

 

11 hours ago, The Renegade said:

List just 5 of these facts, backed up with independent sources 

The silence is outstanding ??

12 hours ago, Rally123 said:

And

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-United-Kingdom-want-to-leave-the-European-Union

Trouble is, Rally 123, Theresa May's red lines preclude those more sensible options of joining the European Free Trade Agreement as it would mean remaining in the single market and customs union. And those red lines are not what voters voted for, they voted to leave the EU, not EFTA or Euratom or the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

As this is the referendum proof:-

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

 

For a fuller picture of how this result was interpreted read this very clear and concise post by the Financial Times. It tells of differences in interpretation, which has led to split factions in parliament and across the country. Theresa May, in particular, is culpable of putting Britain and Brexit at risk by insisting HOW the UK could leave the EU, when the referendum question does not provide a mandate for other than an eventual departure from the EU.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/b56b2b36-1835-37c6-8152-b175cf077ae8 

 

 

Quote

A £9.3m pro-EU publicity blitz by David Cameron's government in the run-up to the Brexit referendum gave the Remain side an unfair advantage, the like of which should be outlawed in future votes, an independent commission has suggested.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/21/governments-pro-eu-publicity-blitz-gave-remain-unfair-advantage/

 

An unfair advantage and still the vote did not go their way

 

???

Some appear confused over so called "post brexit trade deals", not surprising as TM is central to the confusion. It is a 2 stage process, the first stage being a withdrawal agreement, no withdrawal agreement means no transition period and no trade deal.

For those that think it is ok to walk away from the withdrawal agreement negotiations they need to bear in mind the UK would need to go cap in hand to the EU for things like landing rights, aviation certification and many other issues. Without a withdrawal agreement in place, many things the UK has taken for granted will just come to an end and who knows how long for.

 

TM made a fundamental error with her soundbite " No deal is better than a bad deal", some have taken that to mean no withdrawal agreement but I doubt if she actually meant that, the consequences would be extremely severe.

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Some appear confused over so called "post brexit trade deals",

Yes Sandy. YOU

 

You are confused because you think that there has to be a 

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

the first stage being a withdrawal agreement, no withdrawal agreement means no transition period and no trade deal.

There has to be no such thing, although it would be mutually beneficial

 

Quote

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Treaties cease to apply on triggering A50

 

1. Immediately.

2. After a period of 2 years

3. Extended, if both Parties require, and agree to it being extended.

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Some appear confused over so called "post brexit trade deals", not surprising as TM is central to the confusion. It is a 2 stage process, the first stage being a withdrawal agreement, no withdrawal agreement means no transition period and no trade deal.

For those that think it is ok to walk away from the withdrawal agreement negotiations they need to bear in mind the UK would need to go cap in hand to the EU for things like landing rights, aviation certification and many other issues. Without a withdrawal agreement in place, many things the UK has taken for granted will just come to an end and who knows how long for.

 

TM made a fundamental error with her soundbite " No deal is better than a bad deal", some have taken that to mean no withdrawal agreement but I doubt if she actually meant that, the consequences would be extremely severe.

 

 

I agree with that, and just another example of May's mismanagement of the process.

 

 

However, surely the EU as a vested interest in ensuring that the ongoing relationship is workable........ trade/travel is reciprocal and the EU would suffer as much as the UK.

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Get the impression that you're a straw man? You don't make points, just flame the posts of others.

 

Like this comment you mean ??

 

You should refrain from talking about yourself in such bad light ??

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Many more facts are know now than were known, released or publicised about the 1975 referendum.

 

In 1975 I voted to join the EEC. I did not know many of the facts.

You mean you voted to remain in the EEC. The UK joined the EEC on 1st Jan 1973, De Gaulle had vetoed the initial application in the 60's.

Your comments regarding information are perfectly valid, The government knew what was on the agenda but Ted Heath was determined to join and the campaign geared to that end.

 

Heath knew the EU would evolve towards a political union, and wanted to make certain the UK contributed to the way it was shaped. There was a realisation by the negotiators that we were setting out a direction of travel, and making certain that we had the right stops on the journey – but we didn’t have great arguments about the ultimate destination.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/how-britain-negotiated-its-entry-to-the-eec-then-failed-to-play-its-part

5 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Like this comment you mean ??

 

You should refrain from talking about yourself in such bad light ??

Like throwing the same insult back at someone, doubled down, that they have thrown at you. Most people stopped that childish habit at the age of 10. Shows someone who is incapable of original thought.

 

Must try harder.

12 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Some appear confused over so called "post brexit trade deals", not surprising as TM is central to the confusion. It is a 2 stage process, the first stage being a withdrawal agreement, no withdrawal agreement means no transition period and no trade deal.

For those that think it is ok to walk away from the withdrawal agreement negotiations they need to bear in mind the UK would need to go cap in hand to the EU for things like landing rights, aviation certification and many other issues. Without a withdrawal agreement in place, many things the UK has taken for granted will just come to an end and who knows how long for.

 

TM made a fundamental error with her soundbite " No deal is better than a bad deal", some have taken that to mean no withdrawal agreement but I doubt if she actually meant that, the consequences would be extremely severe.

And to the delight of many Brexiteers, Raab is doing some grandstanding:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/22/brexit-no-divorce-payment-without-trade-deal-says-dominic-raab

How long before reality kicks in again (or Barnier calls his bluff)?

For those who do not know, the 'divorce' money is owed for prior commitments (in many cases for projects that  already are being carried out), it is an obligation. Refusing to pay debts will not go down well, it would make the UK a unreliable partner to any future trading partner.

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

Trouble is, Rally 123, Theresa May's red lines preclude those more sensible options of joining the European Free Trade Agreement as it would mean remaining in the single market and customs union. And those red lines are not what voters voted for, they voted to leave the EU, not EFTA or Euratom or the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

As this is the referendum proof:-

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

 

For a fuller picture of how this result was interpreted read this very clear and concise post by the Financial Times. It tells of differences in interpretation, which has led to split factions in parliament and across the country. Theresa May, in particular, is culpable of putting Britain and Brexit at risk by insisting HOW the UK could leave the EU, when the referendum question does not provide a mandate for other than an eventual departure from the EU.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/b56b2b36-1835-37c6-8152-b175cf077ae8 

 

 

The influence of the ECJ was a major reason for leaving. Don't talk rubbish. 

How bizarre.

 

My app from 

 

WWW. BANISHMULTIUSERNAMETROLLSFOREVER.COM

 

Has just kicked in and red flagged someone ??

6 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You mean you voted to remain in the EEC. The UK joined the EEC on 1st Jan 1973, De Gaulle had vetoed the initial application in the 60's.

Your comments regarding information are perfectly valid, The government knew what was on the agenda but Ted Heath was determined to join and the campaign geared to that end.

 

Heath knew the EU would evolve towards a political union, and wanted to make certain the UK contributed to the way it was shaped. There was a realisation by the negotiators that we were setting out a direction of travel, and making certain that we had the right stops on the journey – but we didn’t have great arguments about the ultimate destination.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/how-britain-negotiated-its-entry-to-the-eec-then-failed-to-play-its-part

If Heath expected any credibility then he should have told the truth instead of intentionally deceiving the people. Now the Guardian wants to blame the UK? What a joke. 

9 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I agree with that, and just another example of May's mismanagement of the process.

 

 

However, surely the EU as a vested interest in ensuring that the ongoing relationship is workable........ trade/travel is reciprocal and the EU would suffer as much as the UK.

Quite. Trade and travel are separate issues. Without a withdrawal agreement in place the EU arrangement on landing rights would come to an end on 29th March next year. The UK would need to negotiate a new arrangement with the EU and the EU would need to negotiate an agreement with the UK. Nobody wants this kind of scenario to arise and walking away from the withdrawal agreement is almost suicidal.

 

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The influence of the ECJ was a major reason for leaving. Don't talk rubbish. 

 

Every single thing that can be blamed, will be blamed. Not one person is willing to face facts, especially those that keep banging on about '73 & '75

 

In 1988, in preparation for her Bruge speech, Thatcher had this to say

 

Quote

But he shared the prime minister’s clear direction, declaring: “We did not vote in 1973 for the creation of a new European union super state.” He added: “We have not embarked on the business of throwing back the frontiers of the state at home only to have a super nation state getting ready to exercise a new dominance.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/21/margaret-thatcher-backed-single-market-in-draft-bruges-speech

 

We all know what happened next, the knives & swords were sent to be sharpened.

 

13 hours ago, The Renegade said:

List just 5 of these facts, backed up with independent sources 

 

 

I'll give you one - Commercial drivers are screwed, that is for both passenger vehicles and goods vehicles. To be a union operator you will need a transport manager in the EU27, otherwise you are a third country operator. That means you can’t do cabotage runs (not gonna explain that, look it up and use the word cabotage much much more) and if you do a lot of commercial transport in the EU27 you are going to have to seriously consider moving there.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/brexit-notice-to-stakeholders-road-transport.pdf