UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

There are a few inaccuracies in this post.

 

"But there are many levels and types of certification, and self-certification is possible, depending on the risk profile of the product."

There is only one type of certification for any particular product. All laid out in the tables of this document.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0768&from=EN
 

 

 

 

I am not inclined to bet my neck, but I don't think the above is strictly correct.

I can think of some products where both CE mark and type approval mark would be meaningful.

 

[Jip99]

14 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Parliament will vote it down! It stands no chance.  People just don't want it. 

 

 

 

 

Wrong on on both counts, I am afraid.

 

As I said....... deluded.

[tebee]

 

18 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Wrong on on both counts, I am afraid.

 

As I said....... deluded.

And I still don't see a deal in sight that more than half of parliament will vote for !

 

[aright]

36 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

And I still don't see a deal in sight that more than half of parliament will vote for !

 

Yes it may well be a no deal walk away.

I feel sorry for the 27 leaders who will have to explain and be accountable to EU companies and jobs affected by the federalist refusniks in Brussels who for political reasons refuse to do a deal because of the the RI border . If I were an EU victim of  the economic effects of a  no deal (Aldi, Lidl, Mercedes etc) I would ask the commission  why a border in some far flung province of the EU where only 0.1% of all EU trade crosses borders was of such theological economic and political importance? 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by aright

[tebee]

44 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes it may well be a no deal walk away.

I feel sorry for the 27 leaders who will have to explain and be accountable to EU companies and jobs affected by the federalist refusniks in Brussels who for political reasons refuse to do a deal because of the the RI border . If I were an EU victim of  the economic effects of a  no deal (Aldi, Lidl, Mercedes etc) I would ask the commission  why a border in some far flung province of the EU where only 0.1% of all EU trade crosses borders was of such theological economic and political importance? 

 

 

 

But this is exactly what Brexiters are failing to understand. To the EU principals and solidarity are more important that economics. If the union does not work together to help it's weaker members then there is no reason for them to be part of it. They should understand this, because they themselves are making the same argument about the UK's independence trumping economics! 

 

The only deal that won't do damage to those companies is remaining in the CU and SM - that is not currently on offer from the UK side because of red lines. So EU companies will suffer damage, but then so will UK ones - It's a lose-lose situation. Overall though the Uk side will lose 4 times as much as the Eu side.

 

I still can't see us voting for no deal explicitly - I can't see the DUP supporting it as it would almost invariably end up with the break-up of the UK. I can see us stumbling into it because of government paralysis though.

[tebee]

The government has never understood the Brexit process and therefore has always botched it. It expects the EU to treat the UK both as an equally powerful third country, and as a member state still deserving the EU’s protection. It is neither. And so in a battle of red lines, the UK will lose. That is the most brutal lesson of all.

[transam]

12 hours ago, oilinki said:

Yes, UK is heading it's own, separate direction. 

 

Unless there is some grand tectonic movement in the near future, UK will still stay physically rather close to EU, even if it's mentality is getting closer to USA.

 

We kind of need to get along after the brexit. 

We got along before the EU....

[sandyf]

12 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I am not inclined to bet my neck, but I don't think the above is strictly correct.

I can think of some products where both CE mark and type approval mark would be meaningful.

 

Not quite sure what you are trying to say, the CE mark is all that is required to trade in the EU. If there is any specific approval required, such as EMC, then it would be incorporated in the product technical file.

In the early days of CE marking the Germans tried to insist on the CE mark plus the DVGW mark, but it was ruled as a technical barrier to trade. There is nothing to stop additional marks being fixed but they cannot be enforced within the EU. 

The US does not recognise the CE mark so if a company was selling the same product to the EU and the US it would certainly need some other mark.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

If there are then you haven't actually identified any, just indulged in the usual semantic game based on deliberate misreading of other people's posts. I remember you saying you worked on the certification of a gas related producted, sitting on a committee in the early 80's I think you said. This hardly makes you an expert in the field. If you were you would provide us with some useful experience-based insight rather than the usual cut and paste and antagonism.

I take it the personal attack is some attempt to justify what you posted.

[sandyf]

Standards, approvals and regulations mean very little to brexiteers, shrugged off as project fear.

Something else for them to chew on.

 

Jobs for specialist and technical staff may be at risk if the UK loses its leading role in Europe, but Ms Maskell said that this is an issue that affects everyone.

“This will be about what is in our food chain, it has catastrophic consequences to get this wrong and yet the attention to detail that this government has failed to bring… is quite astounding,” she said.

“This just highlights the complexity of Brexit which the government neither prepared for or has focused on since the vote.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chemicals-brexit-prospect-union-pesticides-eu-reach-hse-a8548716.html

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

 

But this is exactly what Brexiters are failing to understand. To the EU principals and solidarity are more important that economics. If the union does not work together to help it's weaker members then there is no reason for them to be part of it. They should understand this, because they themselves are making the same argument about the UK's independence trumping economics! 

 

The only deal that won't do damage to those companies is remaining in the CU and SM - that is not currently on offer from the UK side because of red lines. So EU companies will suffer damage, but then so will UK ones - It's a lose-lose situation. Overall though the Uk side will lose 4 times as much as the Eu side.

 

I still can't see us voting for no deal explicitly - I can't see the DUP supporting it as it would almost invariably end up with the break-up of the UK. I can see us stumbling into it because of government paralysis though.

Quite. What many fail to grasp is that the EU companies are in a much stronger position, they have a huge domestic market to focus on and whatever the outcome may well turn their back on the UK. After all why get tied up in customs bureaucracy when it it is not necessary.

On July 24th the UK applied to use the EU WTO schedule, if it gets agreed the UK will use the EU tariffs,so much for setting their own. Various sectors of the UK are dependent on the EU to continue functioning so there is no such thing as walking away.

[tebee]

A good discussion on why we can be in or out of the single market, but not half in/half out like Chequers.   http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/britain-is-humiliating-itself.html

 

One of the great dishonesties of the Leave campaign was to obscure or elide the different options, especially by use of the meaningless weasel word of “access” to the single market, the great foolishness of the government since the referendum is to imagine that this campaign dishonesty could be turned into policy in the form of a ‘bespoke’ or ‘red, white and blue’ Brexit.

 

That was and is impossible, not because of EU intransigence but because of basic definitional issues of what the single market means. 

 

A single market, in principle, entails the unification of all of the things that go to make up the production, consumption and distribution of the outputs of economic activity (meaning both goods and services); and this in turn entails a unified regulatory framework and enforcement mechanism, it is true that as a matter of political expediency some parts of this unification are waived (although, most often, where the direction of travel is towards unification)

[welovesundaysatspace]

23 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Well if quotes spanning 70 years from EU founders and leaders all supporting Monnet's original statment of deceit is not enough then maybe you should read some books about the history of the EU.

You were the one claiming the EU constantly lied to European citizens, so

I expect you to provide evidence for your claims. If it’s in a book, you may provide the author, title and page of your source. 

 

What you’ve provided so far doesn’t prove the EU lying to European citizens. What are those lies; what are the false or largely inaccurate statements made by the EU with the deliberate intent to deceive Europeans? For example, A lie is something like “350M per week for the NHS”. 

 

It certainly cannot be statements from a guy who died long before the EU actually existed. That’s ridiculous. 

Edited September 23, 2018 by welovesundaysatspace

[vogie]

A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public

 

[transam]

Did I read somewhere that France didn't want the UK in the EU...?

 

I wonder why they now do, nufink to do wish cash flow is it...?

[vogie]

Just now, transam said:

Did I read somewhere that France didn't want the UK in the EU...?

 

I wonder why they now do, nufink to do wish cash flow is it...?

They still don't Trans.

 

"A poll from YouGov found that 38 per cent of people in France want the UK to leave, versus 32 per cent who want the UK to stay. The rest were undecided.

 

Of those who wanted the UK to leave, 46 per cent said it should go “immediately”, while 50 per cent said the UK should leave after the Brexit negotiations have taken place."

 

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-latest-news-french-people-uk-leave-eu-stay-franch-european-union-a7929156.html

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Not quite sure what you are trying to say, the CE mark is all that is required to trade in the EU. If there is any specific approval required, such as EMC, then it would be incorporated in the product technical file.

In the early days of CE marking the Germans tried to insist on the CE mark plus the DVGW mark, but it was ruled as a technical barrier to trade. There is nothing to stop additional marks being fixed but they cannot be enforced within the EU. 

The US does not recognise the CE mark so if a company was selling the same product to the EU and the US it would certainly need some other mark.

never mind, I'll offer an example (I do not think that what you say holds water in all cases)

 

EEA flagged commercial ships

in international trade

having GMDSS radiocommunication equipment

 

these equipment pieces are subject to national (flag state) approval

and must be marked accordingly (in addition to the CE mark)

and yes, this is enforced

any such ship (in a port state control) without the proper markings on

this life/death  radiocommunication equipment will quite simply be detained

until proper equipment pieces are found and installed

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by melvinmelvin

[Orac]

A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public
 

Seems odd that The Express make such a fuss about this secret document but do not provide any link to it but just selectively quote it out of context.

FYI, the actual document can be found here:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/acft/FCO+30+1048.pdf



Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It certainly cannot be statements from a guy who died long before the EU actually existed. That’s ridiculous. 

Monnet was one of the key founders of the EU (though it obviously wasnt called the EU at the time of course), and has supplied the playbook for the EU superstate, and for leaders of the EU. He said in 1952 “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state [this is the same superstate that people like Macron are advocating now] without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually lead to federation.”

 

Juncker: ”I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic... I am for secret, dark debates.”

 

Juncker on  the Lisbon treaty: “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

 

Juncker on the introduction of the Euro: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

 

You could also check out some of CanterbrigianBangkoker's choice quotes.

 

There are many books on the history of the EU. You can find them for yourself on google or Amazon. Monnet is acknowledged as one of the founders of the EU - denying  this is ahistorical.

 

I have never denied that lies were told by both UK sides in the run up to the referendum. The fact that lies were told in the UK does not invalidate the fact that lies have been told by EU leaders. The big difference is that the EU's playbook for achieving a superstate was created 70 years ago on the basis of lying to the European public (as you can see from the Monnet quote), and successive EU leaders have worked to that same playbook, as you can see by the more recent quotes from Juncker, Macron et al. There have also been numerous UK leaders who deliberately concealed increasing loss of sovereignty, Heath being one. This is historical fact, which anyone interested in the history of the EU and EU affairs can research for themselves.

Edited September 23, 2018 by My Thai Life

[welovesundaysatspace]

3 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

The fact that lies were told in the UK does not invalidate the fact that lies have been told by EU leaders.

Yet you fail to show us any of those lies but keep getting back to the phantasies of a guy who died long before the EU was founded. Let me be clear: I don’t care of a dead guy’s playbook. I care about the present. 

 

3 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 successive EU leaders have worked to that same playbook, as you can see by the more recent quotes from Juncker, Macron et al.

I don’t support what Juncker says in the quotes you provided with regards to not drawing people’s attention to difficult decisions. Even though I think it’s common playbook of all politicians around the world, I completely disagree to such practice. 

 

But it’s something different than lying. A lie is false statement, deliberately being made to deceive someone. 

 

You claimed the EU did that continuously and I want to see examples that prove this claim. 

 

 

[tebee]

 

 

The people with the strongest opinions about the EU have turned out to be the people who knew the least about it. Remarkably, they knew even less about the Good Friday Agreement.

 

Understand this & it all makes sense of sorts... 

But still they spout their nonsense.

[tebee]

 

 

Duplicate post 

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by tebee

[transam]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

 

The people with the strongest opinions about the EU have turned out to be the people who knew the least about it. Remarkably, they knew even less about the Good Friday Agreement.

 

Understand this & it all makes sense of sorts... 

But still they spout their nonsense.

Perhaps we didn't care....Well murderers did walk free, didn't they..?

[Esso49]

10 minutes ago, transam said:

Perhaps we didn't care....Well murderers did walk free, didn't they..?

Political expediency under pressure from the US who lets face it providing most of the funding to the IRA. 

[My Thai Life]

59 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

But it’s something different than lying. A lie is false statement, deliberately being made to deceive someone. 

 

You claimed the EU did that continuously and I want to see examples that prove this claim. 

Have you heard of the expression being "economical with the truth"? Is that lying - I say "yes", I guess you say "no".  I think the simple definition that you propose is not sufficient.

 

Politicians as we all know are adept at lying, it's a necessary skill for that "profession". But deliberate witholding of critical information over a period of 70 years in accordance with a gameplan laid down by Monnet can hardly be said to be honest. I would say that deliberate witholding of information over 70 years according to a long-term gameplan, as clearly evidenced in my quotes, is deceit of the highest order.

 

If you want to use semantics to support your state of denial that's your choice.

 

While the "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" may be too high an ideal for politicians, it does give a different perspective on "lying" than the one that you adhere to.

 

It's truly unbelievable that the people who wanted to keep the UK in the EU knew so little about the EU's 70 year campaign of deception, and seem to care even less.

[aright]

 

 

 

7 hours ago, tebee said:

 

But this is exactly what Brexiters are failing to understand. To the EU principals and solidarity are more important that economics. If the union does not work together to help it's weaker members then there is no reason for them to be part of it. They should understand this, because they themselves are making the same argument about the UK's independence trumping economics! 

 

The only deal that won't do damage to those companies is remaining in the CU and SM - that is not currently on offer from the UK side because of red lines. So EU companies will suffer damage, but then so will UK ones - It's a lose-lose situation. Overall though the Uk side will lose 4 times as much as the Eu side.

 

I still can't see us voting for no deal explicitly - I can't see the DUP supporting it as it would almost invariably end up with the break-up of the UK. I can see us stumbling into it because of government paralysis though.

If economics are so important why hasn't the EU done something about unemployment, especially youth unemployment and immigration which has profound effects on overall economics and voter push back and failing banks. Can I suggest they have done nothing because they are unelected and unaccountable and the overall project is more important than uncomfortable details.

 

You refer to working together to help weaker members, where is the evidence? On two of my recent posts I asked these two questions, I am still waiting for answers :-

 

"It will be good to get away from a Union which seems to have no answer to record unemployment, bank bailing out, extreme right wing political parties and dealing with millions of third world migrants. If any Remainers can point me to a link showing the Commissions plans to deal with these problems I would be grateful."

 

"I would ask the commission  why a border in some far flung province of the EU where only 0.1% of all EU trade crosses borders was of such theological economic and political importance?" 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by aright

[welovesundaysatspace]

55 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 I think the simple definition that you propose is not sufficient.

I didn’t propose a simple definition. It is what you can find in every dictionary and how people have defined lying for ages.

 

That definition is sufficient for describing the situation of someone deliberately making a false statement to deceive someone which was the case with Brexit and, therefore, correctly pointed out by Macron.

 

The fact that you cannot find any lies made by the EU and therefore need to frame other things as lying (which clearly are not) doesn’t change that.

 

Quote

deliberate witholding of critical information over a period of 70 years in accordance with a gameplan laid down by Monnet can hardly be said to be honest.

(...) the EU's 70 year campaign of deception (...)

That’s a ridiculous conspiracy theory lacking any factual evidence. I’ve asked you a few times now already to provide evidence for this, yet still all you have is that dead guy and your ridiculous claim that 60 years later he’s pulling the strings from his grave.

 

Quote

If you want to use semantics to support your state of denial that's your choice.

I had to explain you what a lie is because you were trying to blame someone of lying who wasn’t. You wouldn’t like it either if someone called you a liar because: “Look, I don’t want to get into semantics here. Your simple definition of a lie just isn’t sufficient. So you’re a liar because I define it that way.”

Edited September 23, 2018 by welovesundaysatspace

[nauseus]

58 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Have you heard of the expression being "economical with the truth"? Is that lying - I say "yes", I guess you say "no".  I think the simple definition that you propose is not sufficient.

 

Politicians as we all know are adept at lying, it's a necessary skill for that "profession". But deliberate witholding of critical information over a period of 70 years in accordance with a gameplan laid down by Monnet can hardly be said to be honest. I would say that deliberate witholding of information over 70 years according to a long-term gameplan, as clearly evidenced in my quotes, is deceit of the highest order.

 

If you want to use semantics to support your state of denial that's your choice.

 

While the "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" may be too high an ideal for politicians, it does give a different perspective on "lying" than the one that you adhere to.

 

It's truly unbelievable that the people who wanted to keep the UK in the EU knew so little about the EU's 70 year campaign of deception, and seem to care even less.

Economical with the truth or just good old deception. Here's a few more quotes, some showing this deception but others showing the political and economic reality of the EU. Clarke's starter is honest, at least:

 

“I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe.”
(Kenneth Clarke, Conservative Chancellor in International Currency Review Vol 23 No 4 1996)

 

“The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes”
(President Gorbachev)

 

“Europe’s power is easy to miss. Like an ‘invisible hand’, it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The British House of Commons, British law courts, and British civil servants are still here, but they have all become agents of the European Union implementing European law. This is no accident.”
(Mark Leonard co-founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, the first pan-European think tank).

 

“A coup d’état by a political class who did not believe in popular sovereignty”.
(Tony Benn on the European Communities Act 1972)

 

“EU Parliament is incredibly responsive to lobbying institutions, but is unresponsive to public opinion”.
(Gisela Stuart, Labour MP 2009)

 

“I have lived in your future ….and it doesn’t work”.
(Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky on the EU)

 

“Millions of people in this country will feel as I do, that legislation passed in this way, with no consent, cannot command the assent of the country and would lack moral and constitutional validity.”
(Douglas Jay MP during 2nd reading of European Communities Bill 1972)

 

“It is an illusion to think that [EU] states can hold on to their autonomy.”
(Hans Tietmeyer, head of the Bundesbank 1991)

 

“There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty”
(Ted Heath)

 

“We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: “Let it end.” But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.”
(Hugh Gaitskell Labour Party Leader – Speech at Labour Party Conference 03-Oct-1962)

 

“The economist members of an academic group to which I belong have checked the Treasury forecasts of post-Brexit doom and found them fundamentally flawed. But the house journals of the elite, like The Economist and The Financial Times, ignore it, because it does not fit their catastrophic … abysmally negative narrative. If you take an optimistic view, it could be quite galvanising”.
(Robert Tombs, Prof. Emeritus Cambridge University Jun-2018)

 

“I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account at all,”
(French PM Raymond Barre)

 

“I believe neither the French nor the Dutch really rejected the constitutional treaty.”
(Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg)

“Now we’ve signed it – we had better read it”
(Douglas Hurd, former Foreign Secretary on the Maastricht Treaty)

 

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and diguised” 
(Valery Giscard D’Estang. on the Lisbon treaty)

Edited September 23, 2018 by nauseus

[aright]

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Here's a few more quotes, some showing this deception but others showing the political and economic reality of the EU.

All they show is the personal opinion of the respective person. It’s like making an accusation, then quoting your buddy saying the same and calling that evidence. 

 

My question still hasn’t been answered: Whereas the Leave campaign clearly lied to its people, where is the evidence proving that the EU lied to European citizens? After all, this is how the discussion started; Macron calling out the Brexiteers doe lying, someone else claiming the EU did that as well.