Why is the UK struggling more than other countries?

[BritManToo]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

It's true that no UK political party has committed outright to rejoining the EU, but the LibDems have stated that they will rejoin the Single Market; the Labour party and the Greens would seek closer ties and the SNP see their future inside the EU (albeit outside of the UK).

The single market wasn't the problem for anyone.

The problem was allowing the 3rd world countries of Europe to join, then enter the UK as cheap labour.

[hotandsticky]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

The single market wasn't the problem for anyone.

The problem was allowing the 3rd world countries of Europe to join, then enter the UK as cheap labour.

Agree 100%.

 

Golf clubs, for example, offer tiers of membership…….full membership, junior membership, weekday membership.

 

The EU’s mistake was handing out full membership privileges to all and sundry.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Seems like a good idea to me for the EU to speak, through a single person on the international stage, on matters such as the economy and international relations where the bloc is in agreement.

 

There is no suggestion that either of these positions would replace similar posts at the national level. 

 

In any event, it is no way that it is a prelude to a "total European merge" (as you put it). That would require a new Treaty/ Treaty change, something that requires unanimous approval from the member states!

And which 'person' do you think would have the final say? Look back at the timeline of treaties and events - they're all part of the set up to combine into a super state. Vetoes have been reduced in number and potency over time and QMV has replaced many of them.

 

Brexit has put the brakes on the latest steps. For now.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

Well they should have been spared. They had some skin the game after all.

There was also never a myth that bananas were banned , there was some E.U rules that bananas had to be of a certain quality , size and shape in 1994 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

It was deflection.

Still miserable I see.

[kwilco]

The mazing thing is that the English had the arrogance and audacity to drag Scotland and Wales out of the EU with them.

Whether or not you approve of independence for Scotland ad Wales it has basically sealed the fate of a dismantled UK, N.I merger with Eire is also inevitable.

Countries around the world just look on in amazement as a once great nation destroys itself.

Little England is an international joke.....

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The mazing thing is that the English had the arrogance and audacity to drag Scotland and Wales out of the EU with them.

.

 

 

That is untrue .

Wales voted to leave the E.U as well 

 

Wales referendum results :

                          

 

Remain	Leave
772,347	854,572

 

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum/eu-referendum-results-region-wales

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The mazing thing is that the English had the arrogance and audacity to drag Scotland and Wales out of the EU with them.

Whether or not you approve of independence for Scotland ad Wales it has basically sealed the fate of a dismantled UK, N.I merger with Eire is also inevitable.

Countries around the world just look on in amazement as a once great nation destroys itself.

Little England is an international joke.....

 

 

A truly happy chappie.

[Bluespunk]

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Still miserable I see.

Still trolling I see

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

 

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is untrue .

Wales voted to leave the E.U as well 

 

Wales referendum results :

                          

 

Remain	Leave
772,347	854,572

 

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum/eu-referendum-results-region-wales

Put Wales on the Isle of white send all immigrants there, get rid of Scotland and N. Ireland job done Royal Britannia. ????????????

[nigelforbes]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Put Wales on the Isle of white send all immigrants there, get rid of Scotland and N. Ireland job done Royal Britannia. ????????????

What did the Isle of White ever do to you, I like the IOW, put the Welsh somewhere else.

[Kwasaki]

43 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

What did the Isle of White ever do to you, I like the IOW, put the Welsh somewhere else.

OK I'll look into it. ????????

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

 

Whether or not you approve of independence for Scotland ad Wales it has basically sealed the fate of a dismantled UK, N.I merger with Eire is also inevitable.

 

Now that Catholics are the majority in the North . EIRE is now backtracking about Irish unity and have their reservations about even holding a referendum .

   Seems that Ireland isn't too keen on unification with the North

 

 

 

Holding a referendum on Irish unity in the near future would be highly irresponsible and could result in nationalists and republicans voting against it, due to the fact that the necessary preparatory work has not been done, former taoiseach Bertie Ahern has warned.

“To have a referendum on the Border would be highly irresponsible at this time . . . even people who are totally republican, like I am, people who are totally nationalistic and want to see a new Ireland, they would vote no,” said Mr Ahern.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/10/31/former-taoiseach-warns-against-holding-irish-unity-referendum/

[Bluespunk]

46 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Now that Catholics are the majority in the North . EIRE is now backtracking about Irish unity and have their reservations about even holding a referendum .

   Seems that Ireland isn't too keen on unification with the North

 

 

 

Holding a referendum on Irish unity in the near future would be highly irresponsible and could result in nationalists and republicans voting against it, due to the fact that the necessary preparatory work has not been done, former taoiseach Bertie Ahern has warned.

“To have a referendum on the Border would be highly irresponsible at this time . . . even people who are totally republican, like I am, people who are totally nationalistic and want to see a new Ireland, they would vote no,” said Mr Ahern.

 

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/10/31/former-taoiseach-warns-against-holding-irish-unity-referendum/

My family are Irish and I can tell you now that is one man’s view.

 

In addition that view is calling for preparation for unity first, it is not a repudiation of unity. 
 

Do you even read these quotes you post or is it a comprehension issue?
 

Let us not forget which party holds the most seats in the Dáil Éireann…

Edited November 21, 2022 by Bluespunk

[RayC]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

The single market wasn't the problem for anyone.

The problem was allowing the 3rd world countries of Europe to join, then enter the UK as cheap labour.

Whether the EU should have expanded as quickly as it did is a moot point. However, once again the UK public should blame its' own government rather than Brussels for any problems. The UK could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states for up to 7 years if it had wanted to. Germany did this. The UK chose not to.

[RayC]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

But when did either ever happen concerning anything of substance? Treaties that were rejected once were just rehashed and offered again (Denmark and France) - all have been accepted in one way or another. 

You obviously didn't read @Candice's post. EU treaties don't suddenly just appear on the desks of the member states' heads of government. There are often years of negotiation involved. The final draft will have been given the seal of approval by the governments of the member states before it is presented for approval according to their individual constitutions.

 

If the Danish or French governments had been so inclined then they could have informed the European Commission that, "Sorry, this isn't going to work", and that would have been the end of it (apart from 25 other disgruntled members).

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You are dreaming. However, as you say. the ultimate choice was always available to the UK, as Brexit demonstrates.  

 

I'm dreaming but then I wake up and I'm still right.

[Mac Mickmanus]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

Whether the EU should have expanded as quickly as it did is a moot point. However, once again the UK public should blame its' own government rather than Brussels for any problems. The UK could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states for up to 7 years if it had wanted to. Germany did this. The UK chose not to.

What Countries are you referring to and what year did they join the E.U , as the 12 Countries that joined the E.U in 2004/07 , that 7 year restrictions would have finished in 2011/14 , which was before the Brexit vote , it would only have been one Country (Croatia) who would have had restrictions in place 

[RayC]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

And which 'person' do you think would have the final say?

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states.

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Look back at the timeline of treaties and events - they're all part of the set up to combine into a super state.

That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Vetoes have been reduced in number and potency over time and QMV has replaced many of them.

Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto.

 

On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion.

 

Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter.

 

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

Brexit has put the brakes on the latest steps. For now.

Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU.

[RayC]

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What Countries are you referring to and what year did they join the E.U , as the 12 Countries that joined the E.U in 2004/07 , that 7 year restrictions would have finished in 2011/14 , which was before the Brexit vote , it would only have been one Country (Croatia) who would have had restrictions in place 

What is your point?

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

What is your point?

If the UK Gov would have restricted movement for new E.U members for 7 years , that 7 years would have expired any years before the Brexit vote , so you cannot blame the Government for not applying those restrictions because it would have expired anyway

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states.

 

That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory

 

Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto.

 

On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion.

 

Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter.

 

Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU.

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states. Why have an extra  EU FM then?

 

That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory. More like the EU wet dream of decades. 

 

Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto - very few left now and all those are probably on the endangered list. 

 

On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion. How about a bit less speed and far less greed?

 

Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter. See above.

 

Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU. I'm sure.

[RayC]

40 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If the UK Gov would have restricted movement for new E.U members for 7 years , that 7 years would have expired any years before the Brexit vote , so you cannot blame the Government for not applying those restrictions because it would have expired anyway

I still don't understand your point or, more specifically, the point(s) of mine which you object to. You, not me, are the one conflating the date of the Brexit referendum with the fact that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states.

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

I still don't understand your point or, more specifically, the point(s) of mine which you object to. You, not me, are the one conflating the date of the Brexit referendum with the fact that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states.

That you cannot put the blame on the Government for not implementing the seven year restriction rule on new joiners, because that seven year restriction rule would have expired years before the Brexit vote and those new joining Countries would then have freedom of movement anyway

[RayC]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states. Why have an extra  EU FM then?

 

I answered this question earlier in this thread.

 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory. More like the EU wet dream of decades. 

If you say so.

 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto - very few left now and all those are probably on the endangered list. 

 

Any link confirming the actual numbers?

 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion. How about a bit less speed and far less greed?

You might be right but it doesn't actually address my point. There are now 27 members and a change in voting procedure is probably necessary.

 

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter. See above.

 

Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU. I'm sure.

Excellent. We agree.

[RayC]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That you cannot put the blame on the Government for not implementing the seven year restriction rule on new joiners, because that seven year restriction rule would have expired years before the Brexit vote and those new joining Countries would then have freedom of movement anyway

That is just nonsense.

 

As I inferred previously, the date of the Brexit vote was, and is, completely immaterial. Indeed it wasn't even known at the time (2004).

 

The fact is that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for the 10 'new' members of the EU from 2004-11. There was nothing preventing them from doing so. It was their decision - and their's alone - not to do so. It really is as simple as that!

[candide]

6 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There was also never a myth that bananas were banned , there was some E.U rules that bananas had to be of a certain quality , size and shape in 1994 

 

 

 

Another fake news from the Brexiteers. The so-called bent bananas have not been banned, they have been classified as cat.2. This has been done at the request of professional organisations, who wanted clear criteria to distinguish between premium quality bananas and other categories, so that consumers would be be offered clear choices. ????

It is not uncommon for fruits and vegetables to be classified into different categories.

[candide]

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

The single market wasn't the problem for anyone.

The problem was allowing the 3rd world countries of Europe to join, then enter the UK as cheap labour.

It should be noted that, starting with Thatcher, the position of the UK has always been to push for the adhesion of Eastern Europe countries. One reason, among others, was to counter-balance the influence of France and Germany. Blair accelerated the process, and in particular, decided to allow free entry to UK for Eastern Europe people, even before the mandated date defined by the EU.

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.  

 

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, Could you explain the joke/humour to me ?

If you didn't get it before I doubt I could explain it in a way you would appreciate the humour, but it was humerous in a non laugh out loud sort of way. Just a little chuckle.