24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I didn't suggest that they meekly leave the EU to comply with our wishes either. Another add-in from you, Twisty.

      It was a  so called democratic decision to leave the EU,  at any cost ?. 

         So, UK  have no choice but to humbly accept the EU conditions imposed on our Brexit.

          Junter , wins again ..

           

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by elliss

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

So which is correct?

 

A one word answer by Junker in the Dáil Éireann last October, or a detailed statement by Schinas yesterday?

 

As i said, no one, including the EU, wants a hard border; but one of the consequences of a no deal Brexit is very much likely to be one.

 

Will the EU send people to put up a border? Of course not.

 

Will the Irish and British governments put up customs checks etc. in the event of no deal? Probably. 

 

Because, as I said, the ludicrous suggestion by nauseus

 

is basically  the UK saying to the RoI that if you don't want a hard border between the UK then you have to do as we say and leave the UK.

 

That is why I called nauseus' suggestion moronic!

 

Both of you are still, after 2 and a half years, living in the cloud cuckoo land promised by Vote Leave and Leave.EU; a land where the EU simply roll over and give the UK everything we want.

 

As anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, those promises had no basis in real life. We are the ones leaving; the EU don't have to give us anything. Anything we do get is a concession on their part.

 

Of course, the standard pie in the sky leaver response to that is to accuse the EU of threatening and bullying tactics. The reality, of course, is somewhat different. They have the position of strength, not us. They may want a deal as much as we do; but that deal has to be on terms acceptable to all 27 remaining members. We cannot dictate the terms to them.

The Irish and / or the British will not harden the border under any circumstances. There are already checks along the border. Why would they change the existing arrangements, breaking the GFA? Please explain.  

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

So which is correct?

 

A one word answer by Junker in the Dáil Éireann last October, or a detailed statement by Schinas yesterday?

The one word answer from Juncker is correct. Schinas can make empty threats from the safety of Brussels, and that's all it was - an empty threat. 

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

So,all the 17 million Brexit voters were uninformed, whilst all the 15 million remainers all were informed and knowledgeable about the E.U ? 

not need for me to be knowledgeable about the EU as i cannot think of anything they have done that caused me any loss of income employed and self employed or effected by human rights or my working conditions employed or self employed or had to wait for hospital/doctors treatment because of the supposed masses of immigrants in the que before me,same goes for my mother,farther and sisters i have no kids.

I’m for betrayal ... it might upset Putin, Trump, Dyson, Farage, Le Pen, Tommy Islam, and a bunch of old bigots ... but funnily enough I don’t care about them. Let’s take back control with a democratic final say.

Typical snowflakery.
What are you when you realise that nobody cares about you? Proper democracy is already in progress. It’s too late for your Remain subversion.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Monday was the day, a very significant day in Law.......

Just to be clear, Jacob Rees-Mogg has been saying for some time, "you can't just change the law ... we can't prevent the UK leaving the European Union on the basis of one debate."

The European Union Withdrawal Act, (2018), which became law 26th June 2018, when the Queen signed the Royal Assent, states in section 13:

"... if by Monday 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in the negotiations on the substance of the withdrawal arrangements and the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom, the government must publish a statement setting out how the government proposes to proceed, and must arrange for debate about that in Parliament within days."

In other words, the UK leaving the EU is already legally binding and will take place on 29th March at 11pm. The Government and opposition parties, having not been able to agree a satisfactory deal, only have time to meet privately to discuss, and publicly to debate, how the UK leaves, not when.

Parliament can more easily debate significant amendments to the deal Theresa May's government has already put forward, than begin discussing anything completely new, such as another referendum or extension of Article 50. Something new, would have to pass throughseveral debates and readings, where any MP or member of the House or Lords, is permitted to attempt to add an amendment, all of which has to be voted on.

Another referendum would be a new proposed Act of Parliament. As with any new proposal of legislation, it would have to pass through; be debated and voted on several times, by both the House of Commons and House of Lords, before it may become a Bill. Even then, in order to become a legally binding law, and be able to be acted upon, such as the EU Referendum Act (2015), and EU Withdrawal Act (2018), it must receive Royal Assent by the Queen.

The process of making a law has always been deliberately procedural (slow) in order to ensure every consideration is taken. This is what Jacob Rees-Mogg has been doggedly attempting to explain to every media interviewer, in order to prevent the hysteria they are trying to create.

If another law is to be agreed, in order to delay the UK's withdrawal from the EU, then the law it supersedes, has to be repealed, and this increases Parliament's debating time.

If you are a Remain voter feeling upset about all this, and want someone to blame for demanding to have everything in writing and fully legal with regards Brexit, then think back to a certain lady, who in the Autumn of and Winter of 2016-17, caused a furore over taking the Government to court in order to ensure the UK's procedure of withdrawal would be legally binding.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

She was against a federal Europe, as is every Remainer I know.

Surely if every remainer was against a federal Europe they would all be voting leave. Every indication is that the EU project is heading in the direction of a federal Europe. Surely you can see that. 

its a good bet the persons in charge will ( are) make money no matter which direction it goes 

an aside / anecdote

 

presently there is a fight going on between Norway an EU/EFTA officials

this winter is very harsh in large parts of Norway, tons of snow and temperatures

varying between +2 and -20 resulting in snow becoming steelhard inch thick ice

 

the road network in Norway is pretty crappy to put it nice

 

Police and road authorities are stopping lots and lots of heavy transport on the borders,

saying, no way you can take this vehicle into Norway now, come back in April/May and we will see.

These huge vehicles 22/24 wheelers / juggernauts do not have tires and chains for  Norwegian winter

badly maintained vehicles -bad brakes etc

(and the drivers are not trained for the conditions)

typically drivers from Poland Slovak Check etc 

 

Drivers; vehicle approved in Germany last week

Norwegian Police; this is Norway winter, your vehicle ain't good enough, you turn around or stay here

 

Norwegian government pissed off; follow the rulez

Police; NO! we save lives, these vehicles cause too many fatal accidents

EU; pissed off, follow the rulez

Norwegian Police, NO we focus on saving lives

 

Brussels made rulez have some limitations, they can't even imagine the conditions wintertime in Norway

 

this is going on right now

 

 

13 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Surely if every remainer was against a federal Europe they would all be voting leave. Every indication is that the EU project is heading in the direction of a federal Europe. Surely you can see that. 

I agree. The long term goal of the EU has always been the creation of a federal European superstate.

Economic integration was simply a means to a political end.

 

7 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

an aside / anecdote

 

presently there is a fight going on between Norway an EU/EFTA officials

this winter is very harsh in large parts of Norway, tons of snow and temperatures

varying between +2 and -20 resulting in snow becoming steelhard inch thick ice

 

the road network in Norway is pretty crappy to put it nice

 

Police and road authorities are stopping lots and lots of heavy transport on the borders,

saying, no way you can take this vehicle into Norway now, come back in April/May and we will see.

These huge vehicles 22/24 wheelers / juggernauts do not have tires and chains for  Norwegian winter

badly maintained vehicles -bad brakes etc

(and the drivers are not trained for the conditions)

typically drivers from Poland Slovak Check etc 

 

Drivers; vehicle approved in Germany last week

Norwegian Police; this is Norway winter, your vehicle ain't good enough, you turn around or stay here

 

Norwegian government pissed off; follow the rulez

Police; NO! we save lives, these vehicles cause too many fatal accidents

EU; pissed off, follow the rulez

Norwegian Police, NO we focus on saving lives

 

Brussels made rulez have some limitations, they can't even imagine the conditions wintertime in Norway

 

this is going on right now

 

 

Very interesting. We don't hear these types of stories through the MSM. 

 

I can imagine the same exchange between the EU and Ireland if the EU had the audacity to tell them to put up a border:

 

EU; pissed off, follow the rulez

Irish government, NO we focus on saving lives

 

 

3 minutes ago, aright said:

I agree. The long term goal of the EU has always been the creation of a federal European superstate.

Economic integration was simply a means to a political end.

 

It would take only one vote against it to prevent this from happening - and many Member States absolutely do not want that ‘superstate’.

12 minutes ago, damascase said:

It would take only one vote against it to prevent this from happening - and many Member States absolutely do not want that ‘superstate’.

Look at where we started off as a simple trading block, and then consider the various developments we've witnessed such as the Maastricht Treaty and introduction of the Euro. Then we had the Lisbon Treaty creating a vastly different legal structure, appointing a permanent president, and a timetable toward further integration that is still in process now (see what happens next year!). Serious discussions about an EU army are already underway. 

 

Do you see any sign of this being stopped? 

 

People think it's difficult to leave the EU now.  Just wait and see how difficult it would be once we're fully integrated! 

 

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by CG1 Blue

3 hours ago, vinny41 said:

The Vote to Leave was the to Leave the EU, SM and Customs union as stated many times by Cameron, Osborne and Clegg and many others likewise the vote to Remain was to remain in the EU, SM and CU I haven't heard a single person that voted Remain and thought their vote to remain would exclude remaining in the SM and CU

You get what it said on the ballot paper. Basta! Consider yourselves fortunate.

7 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Very interesting. We don't hear these types of stories through the MSM. 

 

I can imagine the same exchange between the EU and Ireland if the EU had the audacity to tell them to put up a border:

 

EU; pissed off, follow the rulez

Irish government, NO we focus on saving lives

 

 

well, its all over Norwegian msm

 

it is very rare that Norway joins the unruly mob club

but this is actually quite serious - the road network in Norway is total crap

you need skills to navigate fully loaded juggernauts and 24  wheelers

and you need quality vehicles and professional drivers

 

this winter is especially harsh - there has been a number of fatal accidents so far

police does not fancy that number increasing

 

some times it feels ok to be part of the unruly mob

 

-----

 

we have had other clashes with Brussels before,

related to agriculture, Brussels making up directives that cannot work in Norway

Solution; bring 20-30 redtapers from Brussels to Norway

show them how mountain and mountain side agriculture is done

it makes them understand and revise

its just a different reality from flat Europe farming

 

 

19 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Look at where we started off as a simple trading block, and then consider the various developments we've witnessed such as the Maastricht Treaty and introduction of the Euro. Then we had the Lisbon Treaty creating a vastly different legal structure, appointing a permanent president, and a timetable toward further integration that is still in process now (see what happens next year!). Serious discussions about an EU army are already underway. 

 

Do you see any sign of this being stopped? 

 

People think it's difficult to leave the EU now.  Just wait and see how difficult it would be once we're fully integrated! 

 

I think the May elections in the EU will give us a good indication of "current EU think"

The UK will of course lose its 73 seats ; I wonder how they will be reallocated.

It will also be interesting to see if support for politicians/parties hostile to the EU continues to grow.

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

 Most of the contributors on this topic, who actually live in the U.K. such as myself,are in favour of Britexit. While on the other hand, most of those who support remain, are in fact none Brits who do not live in the U.K.

 I think that speaks volumes.

 

 

All nationalities and viewpoints welcome here. If you don't like it, face a complaint!

1 hour ago, elliss said:

      It was a  so called democratic decision to leave the EU,  at any cost ?. 

         So, UK  have no choice but to humbly accept the EU conditions imposed on our Brexit.

          Junter , wins again ..

           

The EU are obliged by their own treaty to negotiate with a departing member state. These preset conditions that were imposed very early on do not imply that any real negotiations have taken place. The UK can accept them or not. 

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by nauseus

1 hour ago, damascase said:

It would take only one vote against it to prevent this from happening - and many Member States absolutely do not want that ‘superstate’.

Well we know how the EU reacts when votes don't go the way it likes. Don't we? And I wouldn't be too confident about any vetoes that you might think would make a difference, in the future.

Edited January 23, 20197 yr by nauseus

41 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

well, its all over Norwegian msm

 

it is very rare that Norway joins the unruly mob club

but this is actually quite serious - the road network in Norway is total crap

you need skills to navigate fully loaded juggernauts and 24  wheelers

and you need quality vehicles and professional drivers

 

this winter is especially harsh - there has been a number of fatal accidents so far

police does not fancy that number increasing

 

some times it feels ok to be part of the unruly mob

 

-----

 

we have had other clashes with Brussels before,

related to agriculture, Brussels making up directives that cannot work in Norway

Solution; bring 20-30 redtapers from Brussels to Norway

show them how mountain and mountain side agriculture is done

it makes them understand and revise

its just a different reality from flat Europe farming

 

 

your fishies are too bendy as well.????

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

And here's what the FT says as a bonus:

https://www.ft.com/content/0b0afe92-ac40-11e8-8253-48106866cd8a

That link is behind a pay wall.

 

As for the rest of your post, you still haven't answered the question; if Thatcher was so against the EU, why did she sign the Single European Act?

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

I didn't suggest that they meekly leave the EU to comply with our wishes either. Another add-in from you, Twisty.

You said that they should leave the EU in order to maintain an open border with us; despite the fact, which you continue to ignore, that over 90% of the Irish people have no desire to so do.

 

Deny it all you like; but the post is there for all to see.

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Your effort was an argument?

Yes.

 

Going to continue with the childish remarks or actually produce a counter argument; if you can?

Baiting and bickering are going to result in suspensions.   Keep it civil.   Keep it on topic.  

 

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The Irish and / or the British will not harden the border under any circumstances. There are already checks along the border. Why would they change the existing arrangements, breaking the GFA? Please explain.  

I have already explained; because the EU will not tolerate an open border between a member and a non member who is not in the customs union. That is why there must be some deal to prevent that. 

 

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The one word answer from Juncker is correct. Schinas can make empty threats from the safety of Brussels, and that's all it was - an empty threat

Schinas is not the only person saying this. From today's Irish Times Is there any way to avoid a hard Border in a no-deal Brexit?

Quote

Can a hard Border on the island of Ireland be avoided in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Probably not, is the answer. Just as the European Commission spokesman said on Tuesday.

The reason for the qualification is that there would technically be ways around it, but not ones which the governments involved – in Ireland, the UK and the rest of the EU – would be likely to all sign up to. So if there is a no-deal Brexit, some kind of checks and controls at the Irish Border look inevitable. Where there may be scope for discussions is how these would operate.

 

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Surely if every remainer was against a federal Europe they would all be voting leave. Every indication is that the EU project is heading in the direction of a federal Europe. Surely you can see that. 

A federal Europe will only happen if the government of each and every member state agrees to it.

 

I can't see that ever happening.

 

Like other myths, from the Euro Army to straight cucumbers, a federal Europe is just another Brexiteer scare story; and you accuse Remain of running a project fear!

 

 

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Look at where we started off as a simple trading block, and then consider the various developments we've witnessed such as the Maastricht Treaty and introduction of the Euro. Then we had the Lisbon Treaty creating a vastly different legal structure, appointing a permanent president, and a timetable toward further integration that is still in process now (see what happens next year!). Serious discussions about an EU army are already underway.

All those developments have been approved by the member states; with opt outs negotiated by some. For example both the UK and Denmark opted out of joining the Euro. Both the UK and RoI opted out of joining the Schengen area.

 

As for the EU army. This has been suggested periodically since the 1950s. You say that serious discussions are under way about such an army. Well, Merkel and Macron both spoke in favour of it last year, but where are these discussions taking place, and amongst whom? Again, such a measure would require the unanimous agreement of all members, and even if it ever did come about would very likely allow members to opt out; as per the Euro and Schengen opt outs.

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

A federal Europe will only happen if the government of each and every member state agrees to it.

 

I can't see that ever happening.

 

Like other myths, from the Euro Army to straight cucumbers, a federal Europe is just another Brexiteer scare story; and you accuse Remain of running a project fear!

 

 

Tell me, is the EU project closer to a federal Europe than it was 40 years ago? Is it closer to a federal Europe than it was 20 years ago? 10 years ago? You must be able to see the direction of travel!

 

The ECJ was a myth at one time, as was an EU President...

 

It seems you would prefer to have our country sleepwalk into a US of E. 

 

 

41 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I have already explained; because the EU will not tolerate an open border between a member and a non member who is not in the customs union. That is why there must be some deal to prevent that. 

 

Schinas is not the only person saying this. From today's Irish Times Is there any way to avoid a hard Border in a no-deal Brexit?

 

The EU will not tolerate the current Irish border arrangements you say.  What exactly will they do to Ireland when Ireland refuses to harden the border? 

Or do you think Ireland will cave in and harden the border, risking a return to the troubles? 

 

Please answer this. 

It seems the EU chief negotiator today admitted there will be no hard border.  From the Independent today: 

Michel Barnier said repeated requests for a time limit on the controversial backstop had already been discussed and rejected twice by EU leaders. But he also signalled there could be a way to avoid a hard border in Ireland in the event of a no deal, telling an EU committee on Wednesday: “We will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border.”