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

[rixalex]

16 minutes ago, oilinki said:

 

The immigration issue is being taken seriously. Even Merkel, who was pro-immigrants at some point, has hardened her stance against illegal immigration. Naturally there were some folks who laughed at her, for changing her point of view, but those are people who are unable to change their views when being presented with new evidence.

Did you really need evidence to know that an open door policy, or as good as, would ultimately end in tears?

 

If the immigration issue really was being taken seriously, the EU would have given Cameron something to go back to the UK with.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

8 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Did you really need evidence to know that an open door policy, or as good as, would ultimately end in tears?

 

Exactly.

 

Free movement of people is central to the EU ethos. Merkel and her cohorts can't do anything effective about the issue of 'refugees' or more aptly economic migrants, now anyway even if they really wanted to. Well over a million (official figure) have streamed in and spread themselves all over the continent. Entering at places like Lampedusa, in the Med, without any proper checks etc. 

 

Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted - comes to mind.

Edited September 20, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, rixalex said:

It's also how EU has been presented to the people.

 

Never mind Farage, the way you are presenting it, with a shared military and all, i really don't think you would get very far in the UK with that.

 

In fact, even the ardent remainers on here, with their comments about the EU army being nothing but anti-EU propaganda, might be shifting uncomfortably in their chairs, hearing what you are saying.

 

 

I mean presented over the past 5, 10, 20 years. Changes of the attitude doesn't happen in a year or two.

 

I know many remainers doesn't want to hear that, but it's still what I think is correct and logical thing to do and to go forward. It's likely that most of the EU citizens are currently against common military, but attitudes change over time. I see nothing wrong by both reducing the military costs and improving the EU defence at the same time. 

 

While I can be proud of certain aspects of my own country, I'm far more happier to be part of the EU, than us being an isolated and yes, independent country. As I'm not a politician and don't hold the power directly, for me it's quite the same who is having the power as long as they produce good and free environment to live, work and have businesses. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Did you really need evidence to know that an open door policy, or as good as, would ultimately end in tears?

 

If the immigration issue really was being taken seriously, the EU would have given Cameron something to go back to the UK with.

No, I didn't. I'm against excess social immigration. I also think that we can and should help the refugees when they really need help from us. 

 

Is UK's problem with immigration based on immigrants coming from EU or from Africa and Middle East? 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

14 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I mean presented over the past 5, 10, 20 years. Changes of the attitude doesn't happen in a year or two.

 

I know many remainers doesn't want to hear that, but it's still what I think is correct and logical thing to do and to go forward. It's likely that most of the EU citizens are currently against common military, but attitudes change over time. I see nothing wrong by both reducing the military costs and improving the EU defence at the same time. 

 

While I can be proud of certain aspects of my own country, I'm far more happier to be part of the EU, than us being an isolated and yes, independent country. As I'm not a politician and don't hold the power directly, for me it's quite the same who is having the power as long as they produce good and free environment to live, work and have businesses. 

 

Sovereignty and self determination clearly mean more to some than others, that's what it comes down to I guess?

 

Democracy matters (or at least should) to those who have been fortunate enough to grow up and reside somewhere where it exists, and has historically functioned well enough. The EU is, basically, anathema to parliamentary democracy and since the UK gave birth to this concept in the modern world along with the rule of law, habeas corpus and constitutional monarchy - rescinding of absolute power consolidation, it could mean more to Britain and it's progeny than it does many others? Or at least it should.

Edited September 20, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

10 minutes ago, oilinki said:

No, I didn't. I'm against excess social immigration. I also think that we can and should help the refugees when they really need help from us. 

 

Is UK's problem with immigration based on immigrants coming from EU or from Africa and Middle East? 

 

A combination of the two AND they so often go hand in hand. Similar issues on the continent are borne of different origins, and are arguably worse, in certain places within France, Germany, Netherlands and Scandinavia. Once someone enters and is officially granted the right to reside within the EU then it's fair game. How many are coming in from the middle east, north and central Africa every month? How many are actual refugees and how many economic migrants? Who is responsible for them or knows there whereabouts / actions once they enter? All pertinent questions and all woefully mismanaged and left unknown / unanswered by the powers that be. If the UK were part of Schengen and didn't have the English Channel to divide us from the continent, who can say how much worse the situation might be?

Edited September 20, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

I'm planning to live and work in Southern Europe where both the weather and the living costs are reasonable to enjoy a cosy life. EU makes this possible for me.

 

I also like Euro as it's stable and major world currency. I like I don't have to exchange money when I'm in Eurozone.

 

I think it's good to consolidate various services between EU countries. Not every country have to invent the wheel, or rules by itself. There can be general set of EU laws which then are improved by local laws, if needed. 

 

I think it's good to have common projects in sciences and development. This way we don't waste resources doing the same thing concurrently in several locations. 

 

I don't like borders, which restricts my freedom to move around. The borders around the world has not stopped me to travel around, but those have made it more difficult. 

 

 

The weather in southern Europe was famously fine before the EEC/EU. It was also possible to work there.

The Euro stable? Ha ha. Look at the fx history.

All countries used wheels before the EU existed.

EU law is prime - it cannot be overridden by local laws - this is one of the main reasons for leaving.

Common projects were around before the EU - remember Concord?

Borders within Europe seem to be more and more popular these days. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by nauseus

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Sovereignty and self determination clearly mean more to some than others, that's what it comes down to I guess?

You are right. I actually would talk about the image of sovereignty and self determination.

 

As for self determination those two words means for average Jack that he is allowed to present his vote every couple of years where the sovereign entity should steer itself. 

 

For me it doesn't really matter if the sovereign entity is the parliament or the cabinet of my country, or if it's the parliament or the cabinet of the EU. We can vote who are being elected to the EU parliament in the same way we can vote who represent us in our local parliaments. 

 

I personally prefer individual rights and freedoms, which allow me to live my life the way I want. If I would be a member of my country's parliament, I would probably want more local power and therefore would like to have less power transferred to common EU parliament. 

 

We have an onion of rules and power. I prefer model where we do co-operation between entities and still give as much power as possible to local and individual levels. 

 

UN (world) - EU - State - city - neighborhood - family - individual

 

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, oilinki said:

You are right. I actually would talk about the image of sovereignty and self determination.

 

As for self determination those two words means for average Jack that he is allowed to present his vote every couple of years where the sovereign entity should steer itself. 

 

For me it doesn't really matter if the sovereign entity is the parliament or the cabinet of my country, or if it's the parliament or the cabinet of the EU. We can vote who are being elected to the EU parliament in the same way we can vote who represent us in our local parliaments. 

 

 I personally prefer individual rights and freedoms, which allow me to live my life the way I want. If I would be a member of my country's parliament, I would probably want more local power and therefore would like to have less power transferred to common EU parliament. 

 

We have an onion of rules and power. I prefer model where we do co-operation between entities and still give as much power as possible to local and individual levels. 

 

UN (world) - EU - State - city - neighborhood - family - individual

 

If you are so keen on individual rights and freedoms, then you would support leaving the EU.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you are so keen on individual rights and freedoms, then you would support leaving the EU.  

Exactly because I do support individual rights and freedoms, I don't support leaving the EU. I suppose what you see in EU is quite different what I see. That's ok too.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

These reasons have been told many times. Perhaps you have not been listening?

 

The good thing about Brexit is that these EU values and freedoms we have are new lot better known by us EU citizens. We will not repeat UK's mistakes.

 

Nice of you to speak on behalf or every person in the EU. Do you think that they all agree with you?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Nice of you to speak on behalf or every person in the EU. Do you think that they all agree with you?

They better..

[tebee]

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you are so keen on individual rights and freedoms, then you would support leaving the EU.  

Why exactly ? I've had occasion to use EU rights that the UK government would prefer to deny me. I have more rights under the EU than I have from being a UK citizen. I feel more confident that my human rights are enshrined better in EU law than in UK law.

[aright]

6 minutes ago, tebee said:

Why exactly ? I've had occasion to use EU rights that the UK government would prefer to deny me. I have more rights under the EU than I have from being a UK citizen. I feel more confident that my human rights are enshrined better in EU law than in UK law.

Please explain.

[My Thai Life]

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

I personally want EU to become United States of Europe.

I can understand that smaller countries might feel safer like that, and maybe some countries that are closer to Russia. But even within these countries there's quite a lot of dissent, and it's growing.

 

What language do your propose for your superstate. In your super-army how will the troops communicate with each other?

[BwindiBoy]

2 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I can understand that smaller countries might feel safer like that, and maybe some countries that are closer to Russia. But even within these countries there's quite a lot of dissent, and it's growing.

 

What language do your propose for your superstate. In your super-army how will the troops communicate with each other?

Ironically, it would probably be English - can't we put a tariff on that?! ?

[My Thai Life]

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

I'm planning to live and work in Southern Europe where both the weather and the living costs are reasonable to enjoy a cosy life. EU makes this possible for me.

 

I also like Euro as it's stable and major world currency. I like I don't have to exchange money when I'm in Eurozone.

 

I think it's good to consolidate various services between EU countries. Not every country have to invent the wheel, or rules by itself. There can be general set of EU laws which then are improved by local laws, if needed. 

 

I think it's good to have common projects in sciences and development. This way we don't waste resources doing the same thing concurrently in several locations. 

 

I don't like borders, which restricts my freedom to move around. The borders around the world has not stopped me to travel around, but those have made it more difficult. 

Living and working in another country does not require you to be a member of the EU. I have worked in over 25 at last count, and you seem to have managed to get to Thailand ok. 

 

Ease of having a single currency when travelling. Just go to an ATM and withdraw local currency. Much better than travelling around with pockets full of money.

 

Points 3 and 4 I agree with. But co-operation between European countries should not need to go through the EU. There are other pan-European bodies, and ad hoc groups can be formed. Actually this is an area where the EU has unnecessarily usurped power.

 

A world without borders? Ahem. You are in an infinitesimally small minority on this – nothing wrong with being in a minority though

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I can understand that smaller countries might feel safer like that, and maybe some countries that are closer to Russia. But even within these countries there's quite a lot of dissent, and it's growing.

 

What language do your propose for your superstate. In your super-army how will the troops communicate with each other?

Using the de facto Esperanto - English, naturally. I'm sure NATO has clarified how their troops communicate with each other. Air traffic at least have. 

[aright]

10 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I can understand that smaller countries might feel safer like that, and maybe some countries that are closer to Russia. But even within these countries there's quite a lot of dissent, and it's growing.

 

What language do your propose for your superstate. In your super-army how will the troops communicate with each other?

More importantly will Germany be using hard or soft wood ammunition?

 

German army used broomsticks instead of guns during training

A German battalion assigned to Nato's rapid response force used broomstick handles instead of guns on a joint exercise due to chronic equipment shortages.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11420627/German-army-used-broomsticks-instead-of-guns-during-training.html

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Living and working in another country does not require you to be a member of the EU. I have worked in over 25 at last count, and you seem to have managed to get to Thailand ok. 

 

Ease of having a single currency when travelling. Just go to an ATM and withdraw local currency. Much better than travelling around with pockets full of money.

 

Points 3 and 4 I agree with. But co-operation between European countries should not need to go through the EU. There are other pan-European bodies, and ad hoc groups can be formed. Actually this is an area where the EU has unnecessarily usurped power.

 

A world without borders? Ahem. You are in an infinitesimally small minority on this – nothing wrong with being in a minority though

Everything can be done without the EU. But if EU helps to make things easier, I'll take it. I'm so lazy and I absolutely hate all paperwork and bureaucracy , that I prefer an easy solution if that's available. With EU it's all in one package. 

 

Philosophically I prefere world without locks and keys while I know it's not possible in reality.

[billd766]

41 minutes ago, oilinki said:

They better..

 

Or.....

11 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I can understand that smaller countries might feel safer like that, and maybe some countries that are closer to Russia. But even within these countries there's quite a lot of dissent, and it's growing.

 

What language do your propose for your superstate. In your super-army how will the troops communicate with each other?

 

Will all the ammunition be standardised, all the military vehicles, ships, aircraft be standard and ONLY EU equipment be allowed? Will all the uniforms, ranks training etc be standardised and who will set and vet those standards? Will all the EU countries be entitled to all the military intelligence and satellite data irrespective of which country provided it.

 

And now the easy question. Who will be in charge and run it?

 

What will happen if a country signs up to all that and is then told to attack a neighbour country that they have been friends with for decades and refuses to obey that order?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Or.....

 

Will all the ammunition be standardised, all the military vehicles, ships, aircraft be standard and ONLY EU equipment be allowed? Will all the uniforms, ranks training etc be standardised and who will set and vet those standards? Will all the EU countries be entitled to all the military intelligence and satellite data irrespective of which country provided it.

 

And now the easy question. Who will be in charge and run it?

 

What will happen if a country signs up to all that and is then told to attack a neighbour country that they have been friends with for decades and refuses to obey that order?

Yes. The basis would be NATO standards. Even now at least some EU members (at least Finland and Sweden), who are not part of the NATO, keep their equipment and standards integratable to NATO requirements. 

 

In fact France is currently forming some type of European rapid forces, which might become the starting point of EU forces. Naturally these huge changes take a long time to become reality.

 

I suppose EU must become a country before the common defence forces are formed. 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Yes. The basis would be NATO standards. Even now at least some EU members (at least Finland and Sweden), who are not part of the NATO, keep their equipment and standards integratable to NATO requirements. 

 

In fact France is currently forming some type of European rapid forces, which might become the starting point of EU forces. Naturally these huge changes take a long time to become reality.

 

I suppose EU must become a country before the common defence forces are formed. 

Without the UK I hope....

[aright]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

That is a distorted way of putting it, and you are wrong, many SME's are subject to CE marking. As a member of the EU, UK companies get their product tested and certified by a notified body in the UK. Once out of the EU companies will have to send their product to a notified body within the EU. As of March 2019, all UK certification will become invalid and have to be renewed.

The UK notified bodies made a significant contribution to the UK economy by testing and certifying product from outside the UK, but brexit has put the 200 or so notified bodies in the UK out of business.

In the early days of the Gas Appliance Directive, the Germans refused to recognise the CE mark using local installations requirements as an excuse. I had to have our product tested at the University of Karlsrhue and what many may fail to realise is that during the testing several visits to the testing centre may be required, Germany was a bit more awkward than the normal testing centre near Slough. You have to bear in mind this testing is in respect of new product and changes may be required to comply with the standards, many companies may well have to build their own laboratory to prepare for submission.

Post brexit the whole process is going to be much more difficult and expensive for UK manufacturers, but of course feel free to brand it as project fear or any other title you can dream up.

Firstly you tell us we shouldn't leave the EU because 52% of the electorate are uneducated and leaving would only serve their needs not yours then you try to support the argument with we shouldn't leave because getting products certified would be difficult ,my word, several visits to the testing centre….horrific. This would phase none of the business people I know, so yes "It's Project Fear"  their mantra would be by all means recognize and feel the fear but  never let fear define your limits or decide your future. Have you ever built a successful SME from scratch?

[sandyf]

5 minutes ago, aright said:

Firstly you tell us we shouldn't leave the EU because 52% of the electorate are uneducated and leaving would only serve their needs not yours then you try to support the argument with we shouldn't leave because getting products certified would be difficult ,my word, several visits to the testing centre….horrific. This would phase none of the business people I know, so yes "It's Project Fear"  their mantra would be by all means recognize and feel the fear but  never let fear define your limits or decide your future. Have you ever built a successful SME from scratch?

Obviously not very familiar with manufacturing SME's if you think they can afford the many thousands of pounds to have each product in the range tested and certified in a foreign country over and above the current costs in the UK.

The brexit way of thinking, if you do not recognise the problem then it cannot exist.

[My Thai Life]

46 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm sure NATO has clarified how their troops communicate with each other.

I'm sure they have, but they are not a single army representing a superstate.

 

Talking of NATO - you mention that you hate duplication. So why duplicate NATO with an EU-Superstate-Army, apart from giving Macron something to latch his Napoleonic fantasies onto?

 

And talking of NATO again - given that the majority of NATO members don't pay their agreed share now, do you think it's likely they'll step up to the mark in the absence of Uncle Sam?

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by My Thai Life

[candide]

3 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I'm sure they have, but they are not a single army representing a superstate.

 

Talking of NATO - you mention that you hate duplication. So why duplicate NATO with an EU-Superstate-Army, apart from giving Macron something to latch his Napeolonic fantasies onto?

 

And talking of NATO again - given that the majority of NATO members won't pay their agreed share, do you think it's likely they'll step up to the mark in the absence of Uncle Sam?

 

 

Anyway, before starting to think about a common army, there are a few preliminary steps: a common foreign policy and a common defense policy. We are far from it yet. 

[aright]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

Obviously not very familiar with manufacturing SME's if you think they can afford the many thousands of pound to have each product in the range tested and certified in a foreign country over and above the current costs in theUK.

The brexit way of thinking, if you do not recognise the problem then it cannot exist.

Clueless! The decision, as it has always been, is made on affordability and the cost to benefit ratio not on your demonstrated fear of everything. In my local C of C  no one is expressing your concerns, thank goodness.  Can you point to the business communities world wide who will stop dealing with the EU because of these costs and can you point out why a Union which depends heavily on exports would want to make access to their market so costly and difficult their suppliers would be forced to play quid pro quo?    

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

41 minutes ago, transam said:

In fact France is currently forming some type of European rapid forces, which might become the starting point of EU forces

 

Well that information has got the rest of the world shaking in its boots! ? Baguettes and berets to the ready monsieurs!

 

Whats more, you just know the French would hate having English as the official language of an EU military, which would be quite hilarious and perhaps a good enough reason to form such a group all by itself.

 

Seriously though, the whole idea of a United States of Europe is an unsavoury one and an EU military unworkable and ill advised to put it mildly. If you're a native of a smaller, less capable country I can understand why this might be more appealing, but the idea of a supranational army, hmmm. NATO is in place already. The EU described by a few of its more radical supporters here is starting to sound increasing like a successor to the USSR. No thanks, I think not just us Brits, but the majority of continental Europeans don't want this, definitely didn't vote for it (as naturally enough for the EU - they were never asked) and wouldn't have done so if they were asked.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[transam]

4 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

Well that information has got the rest of the world shaking in its boots! ? Baguettes and berets to the ready monsieurs!

 

Whats more, you just know the French would hate having English as the official language of an EU military, which would be quite hilarious and perhaps a good enough reason to form such a group all by itself.

 

Seriously though, the whole idea of a United States of Europe is an unsavoury one and an EU military unworkable and ill advised to put it mildly. If you're a native of a smaller, less capable country I can understand why this might be more appealing, but the idea of a supranational army, hmmm. NATO is in place already. The EU described by a few of its more radical supporters here is starting to sound increasing like a successor to the USSR. No thanks, I think not just us Brits, but the majority of continental Europeans don't want this, definitely didn't vote for it (as naturally enough for the EU - they were never asked) and wouldn't have done so if they were asked.

 

 

 

 

 

I never wrote the post you have replied too...?