35 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

oilinki, get a grip or have an iso olut or both

 

EU stands for European Union. they don't take up member states from the south Atlantic or the south Indian Ocean

 

My guess is that several of these territories do not even want to become independent states,

not least 'cause of financial aid from the motherland

 

It is also an open question as to if these territories would even be able to satisfy the set of fairly objective criteria which should be met

in order to be recognized as a sovereign state in the UN context

 

 

 

First thumps up for the iso olut! ?

 

Those parts of the world are already part of the EU. I don't think they would like to change their status to become once again, just part of England-Wales partnership. It's a hefty downgrade what they used to have.

 

The state of independency is just a temporary state. After they gain their full independence from England-Wales, they could apply to become part of the EU. This naturally could be agreed beforehand. 

 

Why not? As a resident of those islands, would you prefer to be part of England-Wales or the much larger entity of EU?

 

 

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

From what I have read here and on the various papers and news web sites the EU seems to have rejected everything that the UK has put up for negotiation and they seem to not want to compromise at all.

 

The time scale is getting very short and in less than 7 months some sort of deal needs to be sorted out otherwise the UK will have a solid no deal. The UK PM is in the position where she either accepts that and we walk away or she rejects the no deal and accepts a very soft Brexit.

 

Either way her political career is over.

 

If she goes for the no deal and walks away the Remainers will kill the Tories at the next election. And If she takes the very soft Brexit the  Leavers will kill the Tories at the next election.

 

Who would win the next election I have no idea.

 

The Lib-Dems stand little or no chance.

 

In Scotland the SNP may well push for independence once again but they are not the only political party in Scotland.

 

The Greens and the other also rans stand no chance.

 

That leaves the Labour Party, led or not as the case may be, by Jeremy Corbyn. They are badly split and IMHO stand a chance of winning, but only if they can sort themselves out and decide who they are and who they represent.

 

Would they be the best option? I have no idea.

You are right the EU are not compromising and are sticking to their original stance.  By comparison the UK started by making demands that were never going to be accepted.  This has all been said a hundred times before so forgive me for being so repetitive.  I think it is also true that the Tories are regretting ever kicking off this Brexit fiasco.  They have screwed their party and the country and the country will not forgive them any time soon.  As for Labour, there is a concerted effort to remove Corbyn and if they achieve that and replace him with someone who is relatively sane then I suspect we will see a Labour government, possibly in coalition.

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

You are right the EU are not compromising and are sticking to their original stance.  By comparison the UK started by making demands that were never going to be accepted.  This has all been said a hundred times before so forgive me for being so repetitive.  I think it is also true that the Tories are regretting ever kicking off this Brexit fiasco.  They have screwed their party and the country and the country will not forgive them any time soon.  As for Labour, there is a concerted effort to remove Corbyn and if they achieve that and replace him with someone who is relatively sane then I suspect we will see a Labour government, possibly in coalition.

It's actually weird to see a country, which is going through it's probably greatest decision on written history, to concentrate of nagging and biting on it's internal politics.

 

Seriously, what the frack is wrong with you Birts? (are you really that stupid people?)

 

After Brexit bell, Britain should have had it's clear way of going forward, presented by 3 to 6 months afterwards. That would have been the starting point of the negotiations.

 

Where were are now? Nowhere. Britain has still not even suggested what the truck it wishes to be after brexit.

 

The whole idea of the article 50 two year period was that these two years would allow the exiting country to get it's agreements in order. Time is running out for Britain.

 

 

12 minutes ago, oilinki said:

It's actually weird to see a country, which is going through it's probably greatest decision on written history, to concentrate of nagging and biting on it's internal politics.

 

Seriously, what the frack is wrong with you Birts? (are you really that stupid people?)

 

After Brexit bell, Britain should have had it's clear way of going forward, presented by 3 to 6 months afterwards. That would have been the starting point of the negotiations.

 

Where were are now? Nowhere. Britain has still not even suggested what the truck it wishes to be after brexit.

 

The whole idea of the article 50 two year period was that these two years would allow the exiting country to get it's agreements in order. Time is running out for Britain.

 

 

I would not blame them as the problem is structural. The topic is highly divisive and it is very unlikely that a consensus could be reached. On top of the division between remainers and leavers, I doubt there is a common view among leavers. At one end of the  Brexiters' continuum there are proponents of ultra-liberal economic policy, and at the opposite end anti-globalists.

I only have an external view, but what I perceive is a country that will be persistently divided, with different fractions endlessly  putting the blame the other ones. We'll, I hope for UK that I'm wrong.

3 hours ago, dunroaming said:

You are right the EU are not compromising and are sticking to their original stance.  By comparison the UK started by making demands that were never going to be accepted.  This has all been said a hundred times before so forgive me for being so repetitive.  I think it is also true that the Tories are regretting ever kicking off this Brexit fiasco.  They have screwed their party and the country and the country will not forgive them any time soon.  As for Labour, there is a concerted effort to remove Corbyn and if they achieve that and replace him with someone who is relatively sane then I suspect we will see a Labour government, possibly in coalition.

Your interpretation is somewhat of a gloss. There is a fight going on inside the Tory Party just as there was a fight going on inside the Labour Party. The difference between them is that the lunatic wing of the Tory is not yet in charge, but with the Labour Party the lunatic wing is in charge and Corbyn is not going away any time soon. Wanting to paint this story as just a Tory mess a nonsense.

19 minutes ago, candide said:

I would not blame them as the problem is structural. The topic is highly divisive and it is very unlikely that a consensus could be reached. On top of the division between remainers and leavers, I doubt there is a common view among leavers. At one end of the  Brexiters' continuum there are proponents of ultra-liberal economic policy, and at the opposite end anti-globalists.

I only have an external view, but what I perceive is a country that will be persistently divided, with different fractions endlessly  putting the blame the other ones. We'll, I hope for UK that I'm wrong.

The economics split is an echo of our old friend free trade Vs protectionism. Well for sure we know where the Hard Left ie Corbyn stands and that is why the Hard Left is anti-EU despite some of the Labour supporters on this forum being in complete denial it appears.

1 hour ago, candide said:

I would not blame them as the problem is structural. The topic is highly divisive and it is very unlikely that a consensus could be reached. On top of the division between remainers and leavers, I doubt there is a common view among leavers. At one end of the  Brexiters' continuum there are proponents of ultra-liberal economic policy, and at the opposite end anti-globalists.

I only have an external view, but what I perceive is a country that will be persistently divided, with different fractions endlessly  putting the blame the other ones. We'll, I hope for UK that I'm wrong.

For me UK seems to lack of leadership of any kind. 

 

Few years back May became the PM once all others didn't want the poisonous post. May wanted power and she got it.

 

Unfortunately for UK May lacks the skills to hold the position. That's why we are in this silly situation where UK still does not have any plan nor even idea how it want's Brexit to happen. We have been in this situation since she rushed to give the Brexit papers to EU officials.

 

Seriously, what the truck UK is going to do with Brexit. What UK wants from Brexit? At the moment, nobody knows.

44 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The economics split is an echo of our old friend free trade Vs protectionism. Well for sure we know where the Hard Left ie Corbyn stands and that is why the Hard Left is anti-EU despite some of the Labour supporters on this forum being in complete denial it appears.

Labour's bad faith is dishonest in many respects but mainly because Corbyn and McDonnell have opposed the EU throughout their political careers.

Corbyn's far left supporters have trapped themselves in a personality cult. Because he supports it they must too.

Can anyone remember the last time Corbyn and McDonnell debated Brexit in public?

 

 

59 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The economics split is an echo of our old friend free trade Vs protectionism. Well for sure we know where the Hard Left ie Corbyn stands and that is why the Hard Left is anti-EU despite some of the Labour supporters on this forum being in complete denial it appears.

Why Corbyn is allowed to lead the Labour party? Without him UK could go forward. With Corbyn Uk will stay in it's stagnated state.

 

Corbyn is like one of our very left wing political leaders and Russian lackey, Tuomioja, who we fortunately pushed to shadows.

 

Judge yourself. 

 

To clarify, the photo is not Corbyn, it's our little Russian Tuomioja.

 

Edited September 7, 20187 yr by Guest

Yet another Brexit bonus?....... you won't be disturbed by role-playing air craft....as there are unlikely to be any.....

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6137259/Britain-draws-27-different-pacts-protect-flights-theres-no-Brexit-deal.html

 

 

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

Few years back May became the PM once all others didn't want the poisonous post. May wanted power and she got it.

Actually no. May got the job because her opponents knocked themselves out, clearing the path. No way any of them did not want the PM job. Johnson for sure wanted the PM position and still does, but at the time Gove, his supporter, stabbed Johnson in the back and then was ruled out himself for his public treachery.

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Your interpretation is somewhat of a gloss. There is a fight going on inside the Tory Party just as there was a fight going on inside the Labour Party. The difference between them is that the lunatic wing of the Tory is not yet in charge, but with the Labour Party the lunatic wing is in charge and Corbyn is not going away any time soon. Wanting to paint this story as just a Tory mess a nonsense.

Well apart from the blatant fact that Brexit is a Tory mess.

 

The referrendum was a direct result of internal fighting within the Tory Party and it is the Trories who are supposed to be managing Brexit.

 

Nothing to do with Labour, nothing  do with Corbyn.

 

4 hours ago, SheungWan said:

The economics split is an echo of our old friend free trade Vs protectionism. Well for sure we know where the Hard Left ie Corbyn stands and that is why the Hard Left is anti-EU despite some of the Labour supporters on this forum being in complete denial it appears.

Let’s see what the Party Conferences bring.

8 hours ago, dunroaming said:

You are right the EU are not compromising and are sticking to their original stance.  By comparison the UK started by making demands that were never going to be accepted.  This has all been said a hundred times before so forgive me for being so repetitive.  I think it is also true that the Tories are regretting ever kicking off this Brexit fiasco.  They have screwed their party and the country and the country will not forgive them any time soon.  As for Labour, there is a concerted effort to remove Corbyn and if they achieve that and replace him with someone who is relatively sane then I suspect we will see a Labour government, possibly in coalition.

Serious question how can Labour remove Corbyn when it's the left wing union and the Labour members who control the selection of its leader. Corbyn has destroyed the Labour party, now it is a party of Stalinists, Trots and Communists. When all Corbyn can offer as his left and righthand comrades is Abbott and McDonnall there will never ever be a credible opposition to the Tories and Brexit. 

There is talk now of decent Labour MPs and maybe members from other partys breaking away and starting a new centrist party, maybe the countrys only option now, but will the MPs have the balls to do it, but new partys do not do well in Westminster.

On 9/6/2018 at 12:15 PM, rixalex said:

Haven't seen the interview but if he's saying that Brexit is the ONLY reason there isn't enough money for certain services, then yes, I disagree.

Re, "they want money for Brexit", no, they NEED some money for Brexit, and have NEEDED it since the day parliament all voted to let the people decide in or out and promised to implement that decision.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Nobody ever told the people how much money would be needed for brexit, apart from the physical expenses like a fancy 'sat nav', TM was bragging in PMQ's that there was about 8000 civil servants employed on leaving the EU.

Nobody ever told the people that essential services would be starved of funding to satisfy the need for brexit.

 

Should the whole nation suffer because David Cameron's government screwed up?

On 9/6/2018 at 6:42 PM, melvinmelvin said:

 

in my view, pretty much so

but, with things like these you never really know before the moment is there

 

anyway,

what is it you refer to when you say constitution?

In many media reports Article 127 has been referred to as a constitutional requirement. It is Article 127 of the 1994 European Economic Area(EEA) Agreement.

 

As far as clarification, it is far from over.

 

The problem for the government is that leaving the EEA extinguishes rights. Some of these are beyond the scope of the EU – such as the reciprocal rights for British citizens to live and work in Norway and Iceland. As the Miller case established, only parliament can terminate rights, not the prime minister under royal prerogative. Unless parliament votes to trigger article 127, then, a strong argument exists that those rights remain – and that Britain should continue to consider itself a member of the single market.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/21/mps-soft-brexit-article-127-eea

14 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

And yet the odd poster still insists on dragging it up as a 'point supporting their cause'.  Entirely oblivious to the fact that nobody believes it - and it's one of the best examples of 'project fear'!

It would appear that some are incapable of differentiating between warnings and scaremongering, like the weatherman, condemned if he does and condemned if he doesn't.

 

The reality is that in the event of no constructive deal the aviation agreements will come to an end on 29th March 2019. Should that come about new aviation agreements would need to be drawn up under panic conditions and that is when mistakes happen. This is a warning to the politicians it must be dealt with and dealt with right.

If by some remote possibility the worst case scenario did come about, it would be immediately resolved. The get out of jail card is an extension to Art 50.

9 hours ago, dunroaming said:

You are right the EU are not compromising and are sticking to their original stance. 

Compromise does not come into it, something many of the leavers cannot seem to understand. The EU stance is based on treaties and the complexity is such that any amendment is just a non starter.

TM must be well aware and I fail to understand why she is pushing a proposal that was never going to be accepted. I sometimes wonder if she has a hidden agenda that when it comes to the end there is little option but to capitulate on the single market. The way things are going it would probably go through parliament without a problem.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well apart from the blatant fact that Brexit is a Tory mess.

The referrendum was a direct result of internal fighting within the Tory Party and it is the Trories who are supposed to be managing Brexit.

Nothing to do with Labour, nothing  do with Corbyn.

Dissatisfaction with the EU did not originate solely from a split in the Tory Party. Only a sectarian Labour Party supporter would pull that nonsense out of the rabbit's hat. And as for Corbyn, some seem to conveniently forget what it was that caused Labour MPs to declare and vote no confidence in Corbyn. Please do remind us when you have the time. As for the nothing to do with us guv ridiculousness, I will remind you again that ultimate responsibility for managing the Brexit process is that of Parliament. Do we see Labour looking across the aisle to block the Hard Brexiteers? No. Do we see Corbyn pandering to the UKIP vote and stepping back from just watching the weather? Yes. It is always a question as dear old Lenin used to say, of asking 'what is to be done?' And what is Labour doing on the Brexit front? Nothing but meally-mouthed equivocation and blame avoidance. Hopeless.

Edited September 8, 20187 yr by SheungWan

33 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It would appear that some are incapable of differentiating between warnings and scaremongering, like the weatherman, condemned if he does and condemned if he doesn't.

The reality is that in the event of no constructive deal the aviation agreements will come to an end on 29th March 2019. Should that come about new aviation agreements would need to be drawn up under panic conditions and that is when mistakes happen. This is a warning to the politicians it must be dealt with and dealt with right.

If by some remote possibility the worst case scenario did come about, it would be immediately resolved. The get out of jail card is an extension to Art 50.

Because of the lack of planning and unpreparedness on the UK side I am inclined towards the UK goverment agreeing a transitional arrangement with the EU and being able to carry at least that in the Commons. The Hard Brexiteers have little to offer on that front. This will eat least enable Aviation and other issues to have cover for a period of time. As for a new agreement, maybe that will be kicked down the road for a little while longer ie during the transitional period.

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

In many media reports Article 127 has been referred to as a constitutional requirement. It is Article 127 of the 1994 European Economic Area(EEA) Agreement.

 

As far as clarification, it is far from over.

 

The problem for the government is that leaving the EEA extinguishes rights. Some of these are beyond the scope of the EU – such as the reciprocal rights for British citizens to live and work in Norway and Iceland. As the Miller case established, only parliament can terminate rights, not the prime minister under royal prerogative. Unless parliament votes to trigger article 127, then, a strong argument exists that those rights remain – and that Britain should continue to consider itself a member of the single market.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/21/mps-soft-brexit-article-127-eea

well, my preference is scholarly papers, yours seems to be rags

Nobody ever told the people how much money would be needed for brexit, apart from the physical expenses like a fancy 'sat nav', TM was bragging in PMQ's that there was about 8000 civil servants employed on leaving the EU.
Nobody ever told the people that essential services would be starved of funding to satisfy the need for brexit.
 
Should the whole nation suffer because David Cameron's government screwed up?

While I agree that the government was woefully unprepared for the leave vote, and deserves plenty of criticism for that, at the end of the day, leaving the EU is something that has never been done before, and so by nature, it is not something that can be plotted out with certainty every step of the process. There are far too many unknown variables involved, and it's not only up to Britain, there is a third party from which agreement needs to be sought. How can that be predicted?

So for those arguing Brexit should have been planned out before the vote, you're asking for something that could have only been provided by someone who was lying. It's simply not possible. Not in detail anyway.

What is the solution to this? Either you use the unpredictability as a reason to forever deny the people a say, since what you demand will never be available (a nice and convenient outcome for remainers), or you accept that the people have a right to have their say and that allowing that say comes before being able to precisely plot out the future of the country, something which can't be done even inside the EU anyway.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Nobody ever told the people how much money would be needed for brexit, apart from the physical expenses like a fancy 'sat nav', TM was bragging in PMQ's that there was about 8000 civil servants employed on leaving the EU.

Nobody ever told the people that essential services would be starved of funding to satisfy the need for brexit.

 

Should the whole nation suffer because David Cameron's government screwed up?

8000?

Chinese army approach to Brexit.

 

No wonder the process is a mess. 8000 cooks make a lot of ......

11 hours ago, dunroaming said:

You are right the EU are not compromising and are sticking to their original stance.  By comparison the UK started by making demands that were never going to be accepted.  This has all been said a hundred times before so forgive me for being so repetitive.  I think it is also true that the Tories are regretting ever kicking off this Brexit fiasco.  They have screwed their party and the country and the country will not forgive them any time soon.  As for Labour, there is a concerted effort to remove Corbyn and if they achieve that and replace him with someone who is relatively sane then I suspect we will see a Labour government, possibly in coalition.

 

An interesting little snippet from the BBC news website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45453807

 

I shall make no comment.

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Nobody ever told the people how much money would be needed for brexit, apart from the physical expenses like a fancy 'sat nav', TM was bragging in PMQ's that there was about 8000 civil servants employed on leaving the EU.

Nobody ever told the people that essential services would be starved of funding to satisfy the need for brexit.

 

Should the whole nation suffer because David Cameron's government screwed up?

Should the whole nation suffer as a result of medium to long term damage inflicted by staying in the EU?

Do we want to tie ourselves to a Union dominated by Germany who have used the Euro not as a financial but a political tool ?  A Union which caused Greece to fold so easily and handed over their country to Germany in exchange for folding money. IMO Italy will follow soon...…...things like this happen...……..a bit like a Dictatorship really.

I can see Italy being forced out of the Euro which will result in massive pressure on the German banking system (already faltering), Italy et al will then start defaulting on their massive loans. Other countries will follow soon in this slow motion car crash. France and the Netherlands will be powerless to help......they have problems as well.

I am not sure if this is scaremongering or a warning but I am sure you will advise me and if the rise of extreme right wing parties in Europe isn't a warning I don't know what is. . 

No thanks! I will take the short to medium  term economic difficulties which can be resolved with good intent on both sides and/or globally over the impending EU implosion.

 

Edited September 8, 20187 yr by aright

7 hours ago, oilinki said:

Why Corbyn is allowed to lead the Labour party? Without him UK could go forward. With Corbyn Uk will stay in it's stagnated state.

 

Corbyn is like one of our very left wing political leaders and Russian lackey, Tuomioja, who we fortunately pushed to shadows.

 

Judge yourself. 

 

To clarify, the photo is not Corbyn, it's our little Russian Tuomioja.

 

 

 

Finish politician;   my favorite ; same hair colour as yours

 

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Compromise does not come into it, something many of the leavers cannot seem to understand. The EU stance is based on treaties and the complexity is such that any amendment is just a non starter.

TM must be well aware and I fail to understand why she is pushing a proposal that was never going to be accepted. I sometimes wonder if she has a hidden agenda that when it comes to the end there is little option but to capitulate on the single market. The way things are going it would probably go through parliament without a problem.

 

where I come from there is a saying along the lines of;

     thy shall hear an awful lot before the ears fall off

 

compromise does not come into it? what the f

whats the point of negotiating then?

 

treaty based my a,

treaties are routinely amended, I would guess, almost every damned day of the year

treaty stuff and international law is fairly soft shit, you can do almost what you like as long as the memberships agree

 

the EEA treaty is a special case,

probably by far the most complex treaty ever put on paper,

very very few people in the world know all the ins and outs of that treaty, fewer than 10 I'd say.

and none of them are in the UK

 

now, that is NO REASON WHATSOEVER not to change it

 

1 hour ago, aright said:

Should the whole nation suffer as a result of medium to long term damage inflicted by staying in the EU?

Do we want to tie ourselves to a Union dominated by Germany who have used the Euro not as a financial but a political tool ?  A Union which caused Greece to fold so easily and handed over their country to Germany in exchange for folding money. IMO Italy will follow soon...…...things like this happen...……..a bit like a Dictatorship really.

I can see Italy being forced out of the Euro which will result in massive pressure on the German banking system (already faltering), Italy et al will then start defaulting on their massive loans. Other countries will follow soon in this slow motion car crash. France and the Netherlands will be powerless to help......they have problems as well.

I am not sure if this is scaremongering or a warning but I am sure you will advise me and if the rise of extreme right wing parties in Europe isn't a warning I don't know what is. . 

No thanks! I will take the short to medium  term economic difficulties which can be resolved with good intent on both sides and/or globally over the impending EU implosion.

 

This is (a bad attempt at) scaremongering and the chance that your 'EU implosion' will happen anytime soon is lower than the chance that planes will be grounded after Brexit.

Is this the Leavers 'Project Fear' propaganda?

20 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

This is (a bad attempt at) scaremongering and the chance that your 'EU implosion' will happen anytime soon is lower than the chance that planes will be grounded after Brexit.

Is this the Leavers 'Project Fear' propaganda?

 

don't be too critical

 

without all the scaremongering and project fear the Brexit process  would

be a terribly dull and boring drag ......

 

 

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

An interesting little snippet from the BBC news website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45453807

 

I shall make no comment.

Moderate politics seems to have been eclipsed; it hasn't done much for the ordinary man anyway.  If I'm going to be faced with a choice of extreme right or left, then left I go.  Plus, Corbyn appears to be strong, charismatic, and honest to his cause. In contrast....... well, I don't really need to say more.

 

I think Labour would get a better deal than the Tories, whose integrity I very much doubt.