EU rebuffs May, says no-plan Brexiteers deserve 'place in hell'

[Pilotman]

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

So Germany is undemocratic because the Germans cannot vote their president out or in? Sure, if you make up your own definitions. But then I can also turn an elephant into a pig. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not German. What they do and why they do it is a matter for them.  

[rixalex]

6 minutes ago, Spidey said:

You still haven't said what's undemocratic about the EU or the UK.

 

BTW. Your grandparents were lucky. My father was born in Spain and raised in Morocco. My father joined the British army in WW2 having never been to the UK and speaking no English. After fighting for Britain for 5 years, he was told that he had no entitlement to a British passport. He was unable to get a Spanish or Moroccan passport either. Travelled on a Nansen passport for years. Finally got his British passport when he was 50.

 

The British disdain for immigrants runs deep.

Sounds like the Spanish disdain runs deeper, wouldn't you say, if your father was born there but not entitled to a passport. You know, Britain has been far from perfect in its treatment of immigrants at times, but to state that, "the British disdain for immigrants runs deep", is really an insulting characterization of a country that on the whole is very welcoming to immigrants, especially the legal ones keen to integrate.

[david555]

1 minute ago, Pilotman said:

I'm not German. What they do and why they do it is a matter for them.  

So why not let the E.U. do what they like too, as you are leaving anyway ….? 

[Pilotman]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

They have the same rights as the British public to change the PM who, also, isn't elected by the public. They vote for an MEP who has campaigned to remove them.

Sorry, not the same thing at all.  The British Constitution  does not work like that. 

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, JAG said:

As the EU moves towards its "ever closer union" it is to many of us clear that this inevitably means common fiscal, legislative and judicial systems, together with a universal common currecy. We would have to adopt the Euro, and change to a more codified "Napoleonic" judicial and legal systems. Trial by Jury and Common Law would be likely to go. Massive cultural changes for the UK, which even the most resilient nation could not absorb. These are admittedly over the horizon, but nevertheless to be considered. I think that the pressure for them is inevitable.

It's cleat to most people that that's just Brexit's "Project Fear". We were put under pressure to join the ERM and the Euro. We declined. If it were raised again, and I doubt that it would as many Europeans regret that decision, we would decline again. Thanks but no thanks. As easy as that.

[Pilotman]

Just now, david555 said:

So why not let the E.U. do what they like too, as you are leaving anyway ….? 

Sorry, I am confused.  They can indeed do what they like once we are gone, the UK isn't stopping them.  

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Sounds like the Spanish disdain runs deeper, wouldn't you say, if your father was born there but not entitled to a passport. You know, Britain has been far from perfect in its treatment of immigrants at times, but to state that, "the British disdain for immigrants runs deep", is really an insulting characterization of a country that on the whole is very welcoming to immigrants, especially the legal ones keen to integrate.

At the time, Spanish law stated that at least one of your parents needed to be Spanish. Neither of his parents were. You're probably right about Spain at that time, it was governed by the Facist party under Franco. Similar to the Tory party would be under Boris.

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, david555 said:

But it seems U.K.having trouble to find the way out ….! 

Very true, as uk politicians are determined to find a way to leave in name only - without the electorate realising....

 

Unfortunately for them, the media weren't keen on the May/eu 'deal' either - and so pointed out the small print....

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Hi JAG

 

I think that your post traverses several areas/spheres, so let me attempt to get to some of them, piece by piece and point by point.

 

First, Canada did not enter into a trade agreement like the EU, and so comparisons aren't really possible (sorry). Yes, AFTA then NAFTA, now USMCA all have dispute settlement mechanisms (they are the heart of the deal(s)) for which we ceded some sovereignty, but they aren't anywhere near as intrusive as the EU method of regulating things. Sorry, to ask me to react in the North American context to an EU situation simply doesn't work; Canada chose NOT to enter into an agreement like the EU.

 

Let me repeat the last bit of the paragraph above as it is, to me, the key to everything;

 

Canada chose NOT to enter into an agreement like the EU.

 

In counterpoint, the UK chose to enter into the EU.

 

You asked a few times to enter, were refused, asked again, then held a referendum to legitimize/solidify that choice. Further, every single change in status, every single rule, every single alteration to the original agreement, every single new member, every single decision that the EU has made was done with either the direct consent of the UK, or enabled by the UK ceding sovereignty to the EU to make the decision. Or, put more simply, the UK gave the right to make decisions on behalf of the UK to the EU. You did this through various treaties, your de facto acceptance of the rules and regulations, your voluntary participation and acceptance of the changes made, etc. To put it the most simple way that I can; no one forced the UK to be a member of the EU all those years, no one held a gun to your collective heads, no one went to war to make you change your policies;

 

YOU CHOSE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE EU AND ACCEPTED ALL ITS RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC.

 

YOU CHOSE TO DO IT.

 

You agreed. Every step of the way, you agreed. Every treaty, you agreed. Every new rule, you agreed. Every new policy, you agreed. If you hadn't agreed, you could have left, but you didn't. You stayed, and thus you agreed.

 

(Hmm... allow me a note of comprehension; when I say "you agreed", I am referring to your Parliament, not you personally).

 

If the UK did not agree, it should have left the EU, but it did NOT.

 

Now, let me move on to the present day. I see a great deal of anger at the EU on behalf of the 'Brexiteers', but respectfully, it is misplaced. The UK Parliament gave consent to everything the EU has/had done by either direct or indirect means, and thus you should direct your anger at the UK Parliament. The EU bureaucracy/commission/institutions (I don't know them all) used the authority given by the UK Parliament to implement their vision of what the EU should be.

 

In respect to the comments quoted in the original article (above), yes, it is a bit obnoxious. That said, I stand by my statement that they were accurate. Like it or not, the UK has been a member of the EU for 40+ years, coordinating your policies, refining your rules and regulations, streamlining your processes, etc. and to "crash out" without a managed agreement in place is idiotic. Sorry, but you would not re-model a bathroom without a plan (this was a point made by another member above; sorry I am not giving you credit!), yet somehow leaving an organization/agreement the size and scope of the EU without a detailed plan is okay? It is idiotic. Sorry, I am being blunt, but...

 

Finally, let me briefly touch on the large question of whether the UK should leave or stay with the EU, as I know we disagree.

 

First, the economic argument. Forgive me, but anyone who believes that the UK can leave the largest, richest free trade area in the history of the planet and do better elsewhere is wrong. The UK is going to be weakened economically. If you disagree, then I simply do not know what to say.

 

Second, the argument in favour of leaving for cultural/identity reasons does hold some validity to me, even though I think it is wrong here. Simply put, in my view the British culture has sustained itself for generations and generations and is much more resilient that the EU influence. I think we disagree on that, so lets just leave it there for now.

 

All told, we will have to agree to disagree on this. I think the UK entered into the EU with its eyes wide open, it agreed (directly or indirectly) with all the actions of the EU for over 40 years, and is culturally strong enough to withstand the EU's influence on it.

 

As above, agree to disagree.

 

Cheers

 

PS Can I suggest that you get angry with your Parliament? That, to me, is where it should be directed.

That was a tour de force! Well said!

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Mavideol said:

you can not have one without the other, if you are not a EU member why should you have access to single market.....if you have a membership in a club that requires you to pay a fee to be able to enjoy the rewards they offer,  would you expect to be able to access/enjoy the same rewards if you didn't hold the membership

Your logic does not hold up there. Nothing to stop the UK harmonising with EU single market even pay a fee if necessary. Norway does.

 

Better to remain but the epsilons don't understand. Yet.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Pilotman said:

His position and therefore he himself, is unelected,  he is appointed by other politicians, not elected by the people of the EU.  let's not forget, or indeed brush over,  that rather important point. 

 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

7 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Of course he’s right. No Tom, Dick and Harry would begin the smallest bathroom renovation without thinking it through properly. Every medium-sized company doing a carve-out, Integration or restructuring these days knows how to plan and prepare for it and to hire consultants to help them. 

 

But Brexiteers insist the biggest political and economical change in the UK’s history can be facilitated through closing your eyes and dreaming. 

 

The sad thing is:

1. It will be the public, especially the poorest, who will suffer from this. 

2. There is still no sense of regret and change. 

The reason why there is still no sense of regret is that there is no sense of regret.  The British people voted for "leave" and that is what they expect to happen, despite all the doom and gloom predictions.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

..... and those who promoted Britain's exit without any understanding of how to deliver it ....

 

Tusk basically says the right thing and he lives up to his mission: to 100% express the interests of the EU.

Of course, then he is perceived as an opponent of the Brexiteers.

 

A Brexit could have been made much smarter and with less damage for everyone.

 

But to do such a gigantic project like Brexit without a fundamental plan is grossly negligent and idiotic.

 

The information behavior of the electorate is also interesting. First vote and then inform. That's Brexit. 

 

 A look at Google Trends shows that two hours after closing the polling stations, the search for "What happens if we leave EU?" Exploded:

 

I think that sums it up nicely! Thanks!

 

Actually, it still genuinely shocks me that some posters here are obviously still poorly informed even after three years of debate! Quite astonishing! I don't mind people drawing different conclusions and taking different opinions but not knowing fundamental facts is a poor show frankly

[Samui Bodoh]

41 minutes ago, JAG said:

One of the main planks of the argument for leaving is that the EU has changed considerably from the trading organisation which we entered, and confirmed membership of with the 1975 referendum.

Those changes have been ratified by Parliament. In the cases of (at least the two main treaties which significantly changed the EU, and laid the foundations for the putative federal state which it now is): Maastricht and Lisbon, they were ratified by a heavily whipped vote in Parliament, with many Parliamentary rebels. In both cases the Government managed to assemble a majority, but it was arguably against the popular will. The Lisbon Treaty was so unpopular that it was signed, with no publicity, in the ante room of a hotel during an EU summit!

 

The referendum was the result of a long running campaign for a vote on the matter, going back at least as far as Maastricht. The EU had changed from a trading partnership, and was fast becoming a federal state, albeit one not distinguished by the level of democratic representation enjoyed in Canada (or the US). The political establishment had managed to close down the debate on this, particularly at successive general elections, although UKIP snapping at the heels of the Tories in particular led to the referendum being called! The result was a shock to that political establishment. They seem to have reacted by basically trying to arrange "business as usual" whilst claiming by to be arranging for Brexit. They have actually made no real preparations for leaving. They have been rumbled. Hence the "steaming crock of shit" analogy.

I fully accept that NAFTA is not comparable to the EU, but I stand by asked by how you would regard a Mexican politician telling you what to do.

As the EU moves towards its "ever closer union" it is to many of us clear that this inevitably means common fiscal, legislative and judicial systems, together with a universal common currecy. We would have to adopt the Euro, and change to a more codified "Napoleonic" judicial and legal systems. Trial by Jury and Common Law would be likely to go. Massive cultural changes for the UK, which even the most resilient nation could not absorb. These are admittedly over the horizon, but nevertheless to be considered. I think that the pressure for them is inevitable.

Perhaps one could ask whether you could accept a remodeling plan for your bathroom, in which your kitchen was removed, to be replaced by your new bathroom, the fittings colour scheme and contractors for said remodeling being decided by a committee nominated by other householders in your neighborhood, and to an arbitrary timescale over which you had little control. Oh, and a couple of households in the next street wanted new bathrooms as well, but couldn't afford them, so you would be required to contribute towards them.

Extending analogies is always imprecise, but perhaps that illustrates where many of us see our place in the EU.

 

Finally, yes I am angry with my Parliament and government. More angry than I have ever been in 40 odd years of following and thinking about politics and governance in my country. I think that they have managed, through a combination of deceit and woeful incompetence, to make a difficult, challenging process which was however within the ability of our nation to resolve, into a steaming crock of shit.

Greetings from sunny Samui!

 

What can I say? Your post frankly leaves me baffled.

 

What I hear from you is that the UK is simply unable to withstand the overpowering force of the Germans and the French, and that it is inevitable that they will overwhelm you (the Brits) into submission. And, that does not sound like the UK that I know.

 

Is the EU moving towards a 'Super State'? Perhaps... but, instead of running away, why not use your influence and pull with the membership and prevent that? To pull the EU into a more desirable course and future? If you have a good argument on your side, you have many opportunities to influence and/or guide the EU into a better direction. The idea that you are willing to give up on the richest, freest market in the history of Mankind because you are afraid of the Europeans is... I am truly at a loss for words.

 

I am glad to hear that you are angry with your own government, but respectfully, you live in a Democracy; some call the UK the 'Mother of Democracy'. If your government is so bad, change it. Should you be interested, have a look at Canadian history and the election of 1988; this was known as the 'Free Trade' election whereby our Conservative party (a very different thing from your Conservative party) won a majority by campaigning in favour of the initial free trade treaty, which was then signed and implemented. If your government is not acting democratically regarding these matters, do something about it.

 

Finally, let me come back to the French and Germans; the two of them seem to be the UKs nemesis in these matters. Will they be able to force the UK into giving up her common law system of Justice? The Pound? Your Parliament? Etc? I mean no disrespect to either the Germans or the French, but frankly neither is able to do that to the UK unless the UK allows it.

 

At the risk of sounding obnoxious, don't allow it.

 

Forgive me, I do know that these matters are extremely complex, but I think that they are also quite simple and straightforward. If the UK isn't happy with the current situation within the EU, fix it, don't run away. If the influence of the Germans and the French is getting too strong, build your own, internal alliance. If your culture is being threatened (and here is strongly disagree with you that it is), take steps to strengthen it.

 

I think that I am going to cause some offence, so apologies in advance, but...

 

Stop rolling over and running away. You have an EU problem- stop whingeing and fix it.

 

[leither69]

8 hours ago, samran said:

But but, they said it would be alright!!! It would be so simple they said! 

 

 

”After we Vote Leave, we would immediately be able to start negotiating new trade deals with emerging economies and the world’s biggest economies (the US, China and Japan, as well as Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and so on), which could enter into force immediately after the UK leaves the EU.”

 

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.html

Who says these talks aren't currently underway? 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, whatsupdoc said:

Why keep spreading these falsehoods?

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/8/how-are-the-commission-president-and-commissioners-appointed

Yes. All these false posts need to stop. We've been explaining this to Epsilons for three years and STILL they post falsehoods  or misleading statements. I will start reporting if it continues.

[mlmcleod]

My UK friends are about to enter a world where they are bereft of friends.  This world will be a lot like Trump's vision for the USA.  Brexit was originally all about stopping illegal and legal immigration.  The English speaking world pride's itself on being strong and to hell with everyone else.  

[Loiner]

..... and those who promoted Britain's exit without any understanding of how to deliver it ....
 
 A look at Google Trends shows that two hours after closing the polling stations, the search for "What happens if we leave EU?" Exploded:
 

Aren’t all Leavers tech illiterates, so cant be them. Granny’s don’t google anyway - only the kids get their instructions from the Big G.
That’s all the Remainers realising that they have failed and we will be Leaving, probably No Deal.
“Nobody managed to overturn the vote, so let’s see what we will have to do on our own.”


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Mavideol]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Your logic does not hold up there. Nothing to stop the UK harmonising with EU single market even pay a fee if necessary. Norway does.

 

Better to remain but the epsilons don't understand. Yet.

understand there are many ways to peel a rabbit, the op make the incorrect statement thus the irrelevant answer if you read the other post you will see that I mention Norway and Canada to a different non sense answer, thks anyway

[vogie]

Compliments of The Telegraph.

 

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Of course he’s right. No Tom, Dick and Harry would begin the smallest bathroom renovation without thinking it through properly. Every medium-sized company doing a carve-out, Integration or restructuring these days knows how to plan and prepare for it and to hire consultants to help them. 

 

But Brexiteers insist the biggest political and economical change in the UK’s history can be facilitated through closing your eyes and dreaming. 

 

The sad thing is:

1. It will be the public, especially the poorest, who will suffer from this. 

2. There is still no sense of regret and change. 

By "change" I assume that you mean reverse?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, mlmcleod said:

My UK friends are about to enter a world where they are bereft of friends.  This world will be a lot like Trump's vision for the USA.  Brexit was originally all about stopping illegal and legal immigration.  The English speaking world pride's itself on being strong and to hell with everyone else.  

Simplistic and mostly wrong.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

..... and those who promoted Britain's exit without any understanding of how to deliver it ....

 

Tusk basically says the right thing and he lives up to his mission: to 100% express the interests of the EU.

Of course, then he is perceived as an opponent of the Brexiteers.

 

A Brexit could have been made much smarter and with less damage for everyone.

 

But to do such a gigantic project like Brexit without a fundamental plan is grossly negligent and idiotic.

 

The information behavior of the electorate is also interesting. First vote and then inform. That's Brexit. 

 

 A look at Google Trends shows that two hours after closing the polling stations, the search for "What happens if we leave EU?" Exploded:

 

Something similar was up on another topic a couple of years ago - most of the hits were from London - the capital if Remania.  

[melvinmelvin]

have a bunch of so called funny Brexit pics,

usually, I wait for a suitable post before I post them

However, I am in pretty bad shape yesterday and today, so I share them now,

cant be bothered to wait

 

[melvinmelvin]

another one

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

and again

 

 

[david555]

1 minute ago, melvinmelvin said:

have a bunch of so called funny Brexit pics,

usually, I wait for a suitable post before I post them

However, I am in pretty bad shape yesterday and today, so I share them now,

cant be bothered to wait

 

Let me help you ...

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

No she wasn't. People vote for MP's who may represent a particular party or be independent. 

 

May became leader of the in-government Tory party after Cameron did a runner. As such she automatically became PM. She called an election and lost her majority although managed to keep in government, and as Tory leader, the PM role by being propped up by the DUP.

 

Just so you know, Juncker is appointed by the Council of Leaders - those EU member state democratically elected leaders, who are responsible to the people. Juncker is responsible to them and too the EU parliament - the MEP's many people in the UK never bothered voting for!

And Cameron tried to block Juncker's selection - about as much success with that as getting anything else out of the EU. Waste of time.

[david555]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

and again

 

 

Another version

[JAG]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Forgive me, I do know that these matters are extremely complex, but I think that they are also quite simple and straightforward. If the UK isn't happy with the current situation within the EU, fix it, don't run away.

If we simplify things to the extent you suggest, the problems which we have discussed are intractable. We leave.

 

We're not running away, we're leaving.

 

As for the people challenging the countries political class/establishment and their cosy consensus: perhaps that is what the 2016 referendum, and the current political mess, is about?