Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

[SaintLouisBlues]

21 hours ago, Khun Han said:

I won't be doing anything much, my man. But, my crystal ball tells me that, should there be a brexit reversal, the outcome of the next general election will see a whole new political landscape, and one that the establishment won't like at all. The referendum result was just a shot across the bows. There's  a sea change going on in western politics. Didn't you notice?

Right, so Labor led by Jeremy Corbyn will win the next General Election? I'll start holding my breath. The "sea change" is the underclass collectively holding their middle finger up to the Establishment, nothing more. At best this represents a minority of those who bothered to vote in the USA and a bare majority of those who bothered to vote in the UK - both countries where voting is optional, so only those who actually care actually vote. In countries where voting is compulsory - Australia, say - governments are still formed from either of the major parties, but there is greater impatience with governments who appear incompetent

 

Those who argue for popular action being a driver for political change in an age of universal suffrage need only remember the spectacular failure of the huge anti-war demonstrations in the UK to stop Tony Blair's government supporting America's futile Iraq War

[sandyf]

On 11/17/2016 at 10:58 AM, Orac said:

 

 

It is clearly stated in the Treaty of Rome from back in 1957 so predates the UK joining.

 

http://www.gleichstellung.uni-freiburg.de/dokumente/treaty-of-rome

 

 

 

You have lost the context. This was the original point.(post 557)

It is a “myth” and "<deleted>" that the free movement of people is one of the European Union’s founding principles, according to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

 

So was BJ referring to the EEA(1957) or in fact the EU(1992). The former would make his comments dubious and the latter quite inaccurate.

[Donutz]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It would seem the EU don't give any concern for what other EU countries vote for and just go ahead with their agenda. It basically sums up the EU and their dictatorship style. No wonder the majority of people voted for brexit. The sooner the better. Lets hope the Dutch 'see the light' and send the EU packing with a new political force. The EU will never learn or reform. As I have always said it is about federalization and control of the EU countries.

 

"And today they did precisely that as EU states agreed to waive visas for Ukrainians in a move bound to infuriate Dutch voters and boost support for eurosceptic parties. 

In a display of stunning arrogance, they did not even mention the Dutch vote as they crowed about the completion of the deal."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733581/dutch-referendum-ignored-eu-rubberstamps-visa-free-travel-ukraine

The EU with it's 'dictatorship style'? It hardly gets anything done since for any decision, directive, treaty etc they need a majority of either the EU Parlaiment (democraticly elected by EU citizens) or the EU member states (via the council of ministers or national parlaiments, both voted on by the national citizens of a given country). So if the EU does manage to force something upon the people it's only because your own country (rightfully or wrongfully) gave it's thumbs up. 

 

Certainly there are issiues. For instance I should be able to vote on any party in the EU parlaiment, not just the Dutch ones. And if my national parlaiment is a bit too eager to sign up for something in Brussels the national citizens can't really pull some sort of break. But in such cases one must blame the elected representatives and ministers of your own country! Those might be blamed for acting like dictators if anyone. 

 

Take the propsed new Schengen rules which were presented in april 2014. The memberstates are still argueing over them. Various members want to take entirely different directions so finding a middleground isn't easy. Whatever we end up with no member will be entirely pleased and from the original proposal of more flexibility and less red tape (especially for frequent travelers such as those beloved Thai partners)  isn't a whole lot left. 

 

Something which I would consider an other failure are national parties 'blindly' giving a thumbs up. Earlier this year the Dutch parlaiment got to vote on an EU act that aims to set rules for pension funds that which to move it's capital or base elsewhere in the EU. Some party leaders admitted not having read the act at all except for a summary. Too busy or lazy to read through a few hundred pages of text. Now ofcourse they may have some support staff to do that for them but there certainly is a risk of parlaimential members or parties later saying they didn't know fully what they signed up for. Or they may simply point to Brussels and hope the public is stupid enough to buy into 'bad evil bossy dictator like Brusels made us do it!' ...

[dick dasterdly]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It would seem the EU don't give any concern for what other EU countries vote for and just go ahead with their agenda. It basically sums up the EU and their dictatorship style. No wonder the majority of people voted for brexit. The sooner the better. Lets hope the Dutch 'see the light' and send the EU packing with a new political force. The EU will never learn or reform. As I have always said it is about federalization and control of the EU countries.

 

"And today they did precisely that as EU states agreed to waive visas for Ukrainians in a move bound to infuriate Dutch voters and boost support for eurosceptic parties. 

In a display of stunning arrogance, they did not even mention the Dutch vote as they crowed about the completion of the deal."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733581/dutch-referendum-ignored-eu-rubberstamps-visa-free-travel-ukraine

Its an Express article, so best to wait and see whether or not true.

 

It seems unlikely that the EU government would 'shoot itself in the foot' in this way when they already know that a few countries are/are likely to vote against uncontrolled immigration.

[dick dasterdly]

34 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Right, so Labor led by Jeremy Corbyn will win the next General Election? I'll start holding my breath. The "sea change" is the underclass collectively holding their middle finger up to the Establishment, nothing more. At best this represents a minority of those who bothered to vote in the USA and a bare majority of those who bothered to vote in the UK - both countries where voting is optional, so only those who actually care actually vote. In countries where voting is compulsory - Australia, say - governments are still formed from either of the major parties, but there is greater impatience with governments who appear incompetent

 

Those who argue for popular action being a driver for political change in an age of universal suffrage need only remember the spectacular failure of the huge anti-war demonstrations in the UK to stop Tony Blair's government supporting America's futile Iraq War

I think that's the point?

 

Those parties that are supposed to support the 'working man' have turned into their counterparts - leaving the 'working man' no choice other than to vote for anything/anyone that may change the status quo?

[RuamRudy]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its an Express article, so best to wait and see whether or not true.

 

 

I think that the last truthful article from a Northern & Shell publication was when they reported on Dirty Debbie from Derby, in the Express's stablemate, Horny Housewives. 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

 

I think that the last truthful article from a Northern & Shell publication was when they reported on Dirty Debbie from Derby, in the Express's stablemate, Horny Housewives. 

I feel the same way about the Express, but then again we have the Times mis-reporting/lying about a memo prepared by Deloittes for internal consumption.

 

Only proves that no newspaper/media outlet can be trusted to report honestly.  They are quite happy to lie/mis-represent when it suits their own financial interests .

[Laughing Gravy]

17 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its an Express article, so best to wait and see whether or not true.

 

It seems unlikely that the EU government would 'shoot itself in the foot' in this way when they already know that a few countries are/are likely to vote against uncontrolled immigration.

You have a fair point about a few countries voting. Not all express articles are lies or fabricated. Sometimes they do actually get scoops and news first in the mainstream media. I will be looking for other papers/sources to confirm, or deny the article. As for the EU shooting itself in the foot, you would have thought they would have taken some of David Cameron's plans on board but in their usual style, it is our way (EU) or none.

[Donutz]

6 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It would seem the EU don't give any concern for what other EU countries vote for and just go ahead with their agenda. It basically sums up the EU and their dictatorship style. No wonder the majority of people voted for brexit. The sooner the better. Lets hope the Dutch 'see the light' and send the EU packing with a new political force. The EU will never learn or reform. As I have always said it is about federalization and control of the EU countries.

 

"And today they did precisely that as EU states agreed to waive visas for Ukrainians in a move bound to infuriate Dutch voters and boost support for eurosceptic parties. 

In a display of stunning arrogance, they did not even mention the Dutch vote as they crowed about the completion of the deal."

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/733581/dutch-referendum-ignored-eu-rubberstamps-visa-free-travel-Ukraine

And regarding that article, now I'm unfamiliar with the Express but article made me laugh. Words like ' betrayel' usualy fits more sensationalist types of papers and magazines that don't really try to make a fair, balanced and reasoned case (with either a neutral or coloured perspective).

 

Visa free traveling is something that is seperate from trade agreements and such. The EU council (read: all memberstates and thus with approval of all national goverments) and the EU parlaiments have a say in such things and in this case they voted in favour of Ukraine getting visa free access for short term visits forn the purpose of holiday, business etc. Just like pretty much all of the countries in N and S America have. I wouldn't call that rubber stamping, if the Dutch government would have been against it this would not have passed. Not my definition of 'rubber stamping' or ' dictatorship style'. It is my definition of taking a cheap shot and blaming someone else.

[Orac]

You have a fair point about a few countries voting. Not all express articles are lies or fabricated. Sometimes they do actually get scoops and news first in the mainstream media. I will be looking for other papers/sources to confirm, or deny the article. As for the EU shooting itself in the foot, you would have thought they would have taken some of David Cameron's plans on board but in their usual style, it is our way (EU) or none.

It might not be that the article is wrong as such but more about what it doesn't say and conflating visa-free travel for a short period and free movement of people and immigration which is a different kettle of fish.

As an example, as a brit I am entitled to visa free travel for a short period of time to Thailand.

[Donutz]

More on the Visa Liberisation:

 

Quote

Council agrees its negotiating position on visa liberalisation for Ukraine

 

On 17 November, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) agreed, on behalf of the Council, a negotiating position on visa liberalisation for Ukraine. It confirmed the Commission proposal to provide for visa-free travel for EU citizens when travelling to the territory of Ukraine and for citizens of this country when travelling to the EU, for a period of stay of 90 days in any 180-day period.

The Council takes the view that the entry into force of visa liberalisation for Ukraine should be at the same time as the entry into force of the new suspension mechanism. (...)

Background

In December 2015 the Commission concluded that Ukraine had met all the benchmarks for the exemption of the visa requirement. On 20 April 2016 the Commission published the proposal for visa liberalisation.

Once the new visa regime for Ukraine is agreed with the Parliament and formally adopted, it will  move the country from Annex I of Regulation 539/2001 (countries whose nationals need a visa to enter the Schengen area) to Annex II of the same regulation (visa free countries),

 

(...)

The discussions between the Parliament and the Council on the visa suspension mechanism are still ongoing.

 

Ireland and the United Kingdom will not be subject to the application of these measures, in accordance with the protocols annexed to the EU treaties. The visa regime of these member states remains subject to their national legislation.

From: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/11/17-visa-liberalisation-ukraine/

 

As a Dutchy I'm mostly familiar with Dutch newspapers/media, which write (translation by me):

Quote

EU agreement on visa free travel for Ukraine

The ambassadors of the 28 members of the European Union have given their 'green light' (go ahead) for visa free travel by Ukrainian citizens. So reports the European Council. This wil only come into force once the ' emergency break mechanisme' has bee implemented. With this the memberstates can retract or visa free access incase of abuse or excessive numbers of people wishing access to the memberstates.

(...)

This will allow Ukrainian citizens visa free access for a stay of up to 90 day in any 180 day period. Labour is not permitted.The European Commission already gave a positive advice last year, the Dutch government made known to support it last May. (...) Visa The promise of visa free travel has been agreed upon before the association treaty between the EU and Ukraine. This treaty has been rejected by the Dutch in the Ukraine-referendum

Source: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/17/eu-akkoord-over-visumvrij-reizen-oekrainers-a1532289

 

In todays Dutch news there are reports on a reseach paper by a Dutch university on the motivations of people regarding how they responded to the referendum. Those who voted no mostly did so because they find Ukraine too corrupt (and better not have to close a relation with) and because they fear it is a step into Ukraine joining the EU. Only 7,5% voted no to protest against the EU (...) Only 2,5% of those in favour of the treaty stayed home in the hopes of the referendum not having a high enough turnout to be valid. Source:

http://nos.nl/artikel/2143690-tegenstem-oekraine-referendum-kwam-niet-door-afkeer-van-eu.html

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, Donutz said:

More on the Visa Liberisation:

 

From: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/11/17-visa-liberalisation-ukraine/

 

As a Dutchy I'm mostly familiar with Dutch newspapers/media, which write (translation by me):

Source: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/17/eu-akkoord-over-visumvrij-reizen-oekrainers-a1532289

 

In todays Dutch news there are reports on a reseach paper by a Dutch university on the motivations of people regarding how they responded to the referendum. Those who voted no mostly did so because they find Ukraine too corrupt (and better not have to close a relation with) and because they fear it is a step into Ukraine joining the EU. Only 2,5% of those in favour of the treaty stayed home in the hopes of the referendum not having a high enough turnout to be valid. Source:

http://nos.nl/artikel/2143690-tegenstem-oekraine-referendum-kwam-niet-door-afkeer-van-eu.html

Good luck Dutchy   It seems that Brussels have teed this one up nicely and it will certainly be seen as the first step to membership.  Here's hoping you and your fellow sane and solid countrymen will have the good sense to get out long before that can happen.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You have a fair point about a few countries voting. Not all express articles are lies or fabricated. Sometimes they do actually get scoops and news first in the mainstream media. I will be looking for other papers/sources to confirm, or deny the article. As for the EU shooting itself in the foot, you would have thought they would have taken some of David Cameron's plans on board but in their usual style, it is our way (EU) or none.

Hence my post, wait and see whether the EU would 'shoot itself in the foot' in this way.

 

Edit - I was on 'holiday' when the Deloittes memo hit the headlines - and watched in disbelief as pretty much nobody pointed out the lie - even after Deloittes finally admitted that the Times article (saying it was a cabinet document) was not the case at all....

 

Bit worried now as this post is entirely off topic, and so may result in another 'holiday' 

[stevenl]

50 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Good luck Dutchy   It seems that Brussels have teed this one up nicely and it will certainly be seen as the first step to membership.  Here's hoping you and your fellow sane and solid countrymen will have the good sense to get out long before that can happen.

 

 

You're conveniently omitting this part " The promise of visa free travel has been agreed upon before the association treaty between the EU and Ukraine. This treaty has been rejected by the Dutch in the Ukraine-referendum ".

[jpinx]

53 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You're conveniently omitting this part " The promise of visa free travel has been agreed upon before the association treaty between the EU and Ukraine. This treaty has been rejected by the Dutch in the Ukraine-referendum ".

Not omitted, but now we all know how tricky it is to convert  a referendum result into action..  It's going to take some serious cage-ratteling to make the Dutch referendum and Brexit a reality. 

[jpinx]

2 hours ago, Donutz said:

And regarding that article, now I'm unfamiliar with the Express but article made me laugh. Words like ' betrayel' usualy fits more sensationalist types of papers and magazines that don't really try to make a fair, balanced and reasoned case (with either a neutral or coloured perspective).

 

Visa free traveling is something that is seperate from trade agreements and such. The EU council (read: all memberstates and thus with approval of all national goverments) and the EU parlaiments have a say in such things and in this case they voted in favour of Ukraine getting visa free access for short term visits forn the purpose of holiday, business etc. Just like pretty much all of the countries in N and S America have. I wouldn't call that rubber stamping, if the Dutch government would have been against it this would not have passed. Not my definition of 'rubber stamping' or ' dictatorship style'. It is my definition of taking a cheap shot and blaming someone else.

Does your PM, as member of the EU council, consult with his government every time there is a vote to be cast, in order to allow the opposing views to be heard?

[jpinx]

Is there a requirement for a Quorum in the EU council: and if so - what are the rules about that?  The Veto is widely seen and the ultimate brake, but what effect do abstentions have.?

[stevenl]

Not omitted, but now we all know how tricky it is to convert  a referendum result into action..  It's going to take some serious cage-ratteling to make the Dutch referendum and Brexit a reality. 

Since it was not in your post: yes, omitted.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[7by7]

51 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Is there a requirement for a Quorum in the EU council: and if so - what are the rules about that?  The Veto is widely seen and the ultimate brake, but what effect do abstentions have.?

 

Council of the European Union

 

Quote

• Role: Voice of EU member governments, adopting EU laws and coordinating EU policies
• Members: Government ministers from each EU country, according to the policy area to be discussed.........

Together with the European Parliament, the Council is the main decision-making body of the EU..........

How does the Council work?

• All discussions & votes take place in public.
• To be passed, decisions usually require a qualified majority :
  • 55% of countries (with 28 current members, this means 16 countries)
  • representing at least 65 % of total EU population.

To block a decision, at least 4 countries are needed (representing at least 35% of total EU population)

• Exception - sensitive topics like foreign policy and taxation require a unanimous vote (all countries in favour).
• Simple majority is required for procedural & administrative issues

 

So no quorum as such; but to be passed at least 16 member states must agree. If the other 12 abstain the measure will be passed, but if four vote against then it wont be, even if the other 24 are in favour.

 

Except for the areas where a unanimous vote is required; in which case, of course, just one member can block it. As Cameron did in 2011 when he used the UK's veto to block the Franco-German plan to rescue the Euro.

 

As Donutz has already said, EU laws and decisions are not dictated by faceless, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, but by elected MEPs and the ministers appointed to the council by each member state's government, who presumably vote according to the instructions given them by the democratically elected government of that member state and are therefore answerable to that states parliament.

 

Of course, the Brussels bureaucrats, including the commission, draft, advise on and implement policy; in exactly the same way that the civil service does in the UK; but the actual decisions are made by democratically elected representatives.

[jpinx]

45 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Council of the European Union

 

 

So no quorum as such; but to be passed at least 16 member states must agree. If the other 12 abstain the measure will be passed, but if four vote against then it wont be, even if the other 24 are in favour.

 

Except for the areas where a unanimous vote is required; in which case, of course, just one member can block it. As Cameron did in 2011 when he used the UK's veto to block the Franco-German plan to rescue the Euro.

 

As Donutz has already said, EU laws and decisions are not dictated by faceless, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, but by elected MEPs and the ministers appointed to the council by each member state's government, who presumably vote according to the instructions given them by the democratically elected government of that member state and are therefore answerable to that states parliament.

 

Of course, the Brussels bureaucrats, including the commission, draft, advise on and implement policy; in exactly the same way that the civil service does in the UK; but the actual decisions are made by democratically elected representatives.

Thanks 7, always a reliable source of facts in the labyrinth of politics. ; )

[Donutz]

Thanks 7by7. That pretty much explains it. Now where things may go wrong is when elected MEPs and the ministers as appointed by the national goverments decide or vote differently than what an individual or perhaps even the majority of citizens may have wished.

 

It wouldn't be the first time when a PM in say the Netherlands or the UK found himself (herself) with a not very amused bunch of voters about something, that the EU agreed upon in either the EU Parlaiment or the council, and rather then taking flak and defending smoething the goverment actually backed, point in the general direction of Brussels and say "Brussels is responsible for this!!".

 

The general public isn't entirely stupid though. The research paper on the Ukraine referendum results say that only a protest vote against the EU/Brussels for a handful of people but far more did vote no because they do not trust the Dutch government coalition (Prime Minister Mark Rutte, has had a poor habbit of pointing towards Brussels while the representatives of his own coalition voted in favour or even strongly advocated certain legislation or decisions). If Rutte is acting this two faced how can we trust that he would not vote in favour of an Ukrainian membership if that came up for a vote later down the line?

 

The UK public may have had such reasons as well, it wouldn't suprise me if it was atleast one of the primairy factors to vote for brexit. And if that is what a majority of the public genuinly wants and is aware fo the expected consequences (positives and negatives), I would ofcourse say it's entirely fine for the UK to leave the EU. That's democracy. I really want to make sure though that this is not just either a temporary mood/feeling or based on wrong expectations and only to find peopel regretting a Brexit and it's results. Getting back in would be harder and under the current special favours that the UK has had obtained in the past... that's pretty much entirely out of the question.

 

I personally would miss the Britons though a positve effect might be that we have one less member that did not exactly had a track record for benig eager to cooperate, join and combine powers, legislation and what not.The Netherlands, as one of the founding nations of what we now know as the EU Always has been very eager to work together and integrate more and more and doing it's best to meet whatever is agreed upon in Brussels amongst the memberstates. With less but more eager members forming the Union we might have a better shot at more democracy, transparancy and so on to further improve hwo Brussels operates (which currently is okay but not exactly perfect either IMHO).

 

Edit: Our 'minister president'  or prime minister Rutte, is the leader of the VVD (Peoples party for freedom and democracy) party. It's a liberal conservative party more geared towards those that are well off and big business. It's coaltion partner is the PvdA (party of Labour) which is as the name already shows much like the British labour. It too suffers from internal fights on those who think that the PvdA abdandond the working class in favour of big money and liberasation versus those who support third way economics. The public on both the left and the right are not exactly fans of the current Dutch government so the March 2017 general elections will be very interesting

 

 

[Loeilad]

Hands up those who think Brexit it going smoothly as planned?

 

No?

 

Hands up those who think it's someone else's fault?

[RuamRudy]

Hands up those who think Brexit it going smoothly as planned?
 
No?
 
Hands up those who think it's someone else's fault?

Maybe not smoothly, but certainly drama filled. Now that the Scottish and Welsh governments are to be represented in the Supreme Court case, things are going to get even more interesting. I predict that references to the Krankies, ungrateful Jocks, Hadrian's Wall etc will increase significantly.

[sandyf]

More speed bumps?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-fresh-blow-for-theresa-may-as-supreme-court-rules-scotland-and-wales-can-intervene-in-article-a7424796.html

[SgtRock]

13 hours ago, Donutz said:

I really want to make sure though that this is not just either a temporary mood/feeling or based on wrong expectations and only to find peopel regretting a Brexit and it's results. Getting back in would be harder and under the current special favours that the UK has had obtained in the past... that's pretty much entirely out of the question.

 

A measured and well thought out post Donutz.

 

To address the point above.

 

There is nothing temporary / kneejerk about the Brexit vote. This has been building slowly for at least 2 decades. The fact that some have there heads buried in the sand and refuse to believe this is neither here nor there.

 

The current ( favours ) opt-outs that the UK currently has, all come to an end in 2020, with the exception of joining the euro. I make no apologies for not posting corresponding links, but I have posted them previously on other threads.

 

In conjuction with the UK's opt-outs ending in 2020. There is also this to consider.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10935617/After-2020-all-EU-members-will-have-to-adopt-the-euro.html

 

This was written in July 2014, by Andrew Lilico, who is the Chairman of Europe Economics, so it would be fair to suggest that he actually knows what he is talking about. Now what would have happened in 2020 if the vote had been for remain ? I believe that it is now written into UK Law that the UK will never join the euro. So, vote remain and big problems in 2020.

 

A further trawl through the ECB's and the EU's official websites and you will find more information on 2020. It is all there in black and white.

 

Racist idiots aside, and every Country has them, most sane, sensible people knew exactly what the pro's and con's were.

[SgtRock]

2 hours ago, Loeilad said:

Hands up those who think Brexit it going smoothly as planned?

 

No?

 

Hands up those who think it's someone else's fault?

 

No, it is not going smoothly. Yes, it is someone else's fault. His name is Cameron.

 

Instead of being a spineless jellyfish, he should have invoked A50 the day after the referendum as he said he would, as well as staying on as PM to steer the exit process, and as everyone expected.

 

Instead, he showed his true colours and ran away like the FRUB that he is.

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

A measured and well thought out post Donutz.

 

To address the point above.

 

There is nothing temporary / kneejerk about the Brexit vote. This has been building slowly for at least 2 decades. The fact that some have there heads buried in the sand and refuse to believe this is neither here nor there.

 

The current ( favours ) opt-outs that the UK currently has, all come to an end in 2020, with the exception of joining the euro. I make no apologies for not posting corresponding links, but I have posted them previously on other threads.

 

In conjuction with the UK's opt-outs ending in 2020. There is also this to consider.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10935617/After-2020-all-EU-members-will-have-to-adopt-the-euro.html

 

This was written in July 2014, by Andrew Lilico, who is the Chairman of Europe Economics, so it would be fair to suggest that he actually knows what he is talking about. Now what would have happened in 2020 if the vote had been for remain ? I believe that it is now written into UK Law that the UK will never join the euro. So, vote remain and big problems in 2020.

 

A further trawl through the ECB's and the EU's official websites and you will find more information on 2020. It is all there in black and white.

 

Racist idiots aside, and every Country has them, most sane, sensible people knew exactly what the pro's and con's were.

No matter who he is, he is just giving his opinion. Not facts, not policies, an opinion.

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, Loeilad said:

Hands up those who think Brexit it going smoothly as planned?

 

No?

 

Hands up those who think it's someone else's fault?

 

Well you got your volunteer (see above) soon enough, but really to expect Brexit to proceed in a smooth manner (whatever that means) is not a reasonable expectation. Smooth/not smooth irrelevant. There are two major factors in the process: firstly the hard brexit/soft brexit split and secondly the legal process. Both involve fights and resolution. Smooth is not the issue.

[SgtRock]

30 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No matter who he is, he is just giving his opinion. Not facts, not policies, an opinion.

 

Try this:

 

1 hour ago, SgtRock said:

A further trawl through the ECB's and the EU's official websites and you will find more information on 2020. It is all there in black and white.

 

Then come back and tell me it is just his opinion.

 

Top Tip for you.

 

It will not take you 20 minutes to trawl through to find what you are looking for.

[stevenl]

48 minutes ago, SgtRock said:

 

Try this:

 

 

Then come back and tell me it is just his opinion.

 

Top Tip for you.

 

It will not take you 20 minutes to trawl through to find what you are looking for.

I had a good look, and nothing on anybody being forced to join the Euro.

 

The most interesting news was the ECB's plan to start a T20 competition to rival the IPL.