|
Post by aghast on Dec 22, 2016 21:58:22 GMT
Was going to post similar earlier ,but got side tracked, however i disagree that we started the collapse, to my mind the collapse started with the end of the eastern bloc, which gave germany a claim on an even bigger slice of the pie,which in effect had a slow but corrosive effect on the poorer eu countries(of that time) ,then with more poorer countries from the former iron bloc coming into the eu, our contribution went up(as with some other countries) , germany still took more. The Fourth Reich was always going to be about money and mass land grab but this time through making germany dominant financially, and then by uniting europe into one superstate.(sound familiar) . People can't seem to get their heads around the thought that germany is once again being dominant in europe but this time through stealth and without the same bloodshed(yet) , i feel after a few 10's of more attacks on europe you would have seen the superstate , once achieved a total police state declared in the name of fighting terrorism ,although this seems far fetched look at bLiars time in office more personal freedoms eroded and more laws bought in than at anyother time in our history(if i remember correctly it was just over 1 law made (or changed to benefit the state) per day . Some achievement that, the reality is many countries were looking for a way out, and we were the first, if and when we are ruling ourselves again, if we prosper i think these other countries will awaken and opt out. As a country built on trade we will survive and are in a fairly unique position in that we are an island, i also suspect many eu countries are still afraid to show their hands as unlike us they are literally landlocked and it would be suicide at present for a show of hand, just think if belgium left, the eu could destroy that county in a matter of days, but charging high fees for use of air space, shutting down borders etc. Before calling me a loon just remember i'm protected by my tinfoil hate, but look into the expansion of the Third Reich (it's no coincidence that Germany had vast cash resources around the world then) , the eu mimics that but in a supposed peaceful way. So nope we din't start the breakup of the eu , we are merly the first to leave So inee I make the same point. If we hadn't voted to leave, by a relatively small margin, would the EU have broken up?
|
|
|
Post by inee on Dec 23, 2016 13:33:16 GMT
As i said aghast the eu has been falling apart since the break up of the eastern bloc, so who leaves first is irrelevant, in reality even if greece left tomorrow and we hadn't had a referendum then the eu would still break up as smaller countries wouldn't feel obliged to join(look east forced to be under soviet rule, now forced to be under the rule of the west. Other major issues are the single eu army, our forces under direct control from europe, it's wrong our forces should be under our control, yest we are part of the un and nato, but as separate members not forced control, why (not aimed at you) cant people see these things then look back in a short historical time period to see where it's going only this time not so overtly obvious. So no we haven't instigated the breakup of the european police state, and besides if the european dream is as legitimate as everyone believes then it would't matter if every country not connected by physical border to another eu member state left, as the eu wold thrive under its original pretext. Whats happened is the piggy fooker said if we dont get these changes we need, we will have a referendum, this went against the eu overlords, now all of a sudden we alone are deemed responsible for something that's been happening for a long time, don't be fooled by this bollocks, The uk are just a convenient country to try (and it's working) and guilt trip into the mindset of we all caused the breakup of europe. Interestingly what we will see is the uk struggle for a few years until trading links are reopened, then we will thrive and prosper, only then will people begin to see the lie of the eu. what we need to focus on as a country is as written below, not on arguing about a supposed guilt trip people are being sucked into re the eu, but to grasp that old british mindset of if you cant make a new one then make do and mend not run to france for a new device, i've always been open in my views of the eu, and stand by them, and will say again if the EU dissolves when we leave then we didn't cause it , it merely proves the point that the Eu was and is not worth the paper it's written on Whats needed is the reinvestment into our young un's, as we have differing age groups on here, when i was at school. we did things like metal word tech drawing, woodwork etc, as manufacturing slowly moved abroad(even before in a lot of schools) these traditional skills were being replaced by skills of the future ie computing, so we effectively reprogrammed a couple of generations to stop using the real brain power we posses and rather than everyone having the ability to use their hands in a practical way ,they now focus on computer skills . By this i mean take metalwork as an example you wanted to make a say steam engine, which relied on many differing processes, you drew it out, got the materials you needed, then you and you alone had to mark measure cut solder weld cast until it was complete and if you did something stupid like got hurt through your own stupidity you were told, if you went home with a bandaged hand and said ,i left the chuck key in the chuck and switched the lathe on, then you got another rollocking, none of this why were the allowed to use a lathe we want compensation etc. We seem to have taken the realisation from people that you leave school life then gets tough you make your own way, that if you can afford it you went to uni (yes i believe uni should not be free unless you are poor and exceptionally gifted then you pay it back later), if you couldn't you went to work and made of it what you would. We need those lessons back as we need to focus on being able to look after ourselves as a country and to prosper as we go it alone as an example of the above, to try and focus my mind i build small cnc things like 3d printer, mini cnc for milling thin copper pcb's, playing with small laser engravers for leather, and the drive electronics and in some cases the interface softwares, all this is self taught, and if it doesn't go right i can nip into the shed and machine a bit to fit etc. The reason i can do this stuff and self learn a lot is not because i'm super brained, it's solely on the fact that i learned to use my hand at school to make and repair stuff in a practical way, and that appealed to me. so if people had still trained in the traditional skills alongside the new ones then our manufacturing base could have easily been reintroduced on a bigger scale than the smaller one man shops that exist today. P.s must learn not to read pc before i fully awaken
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,544
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 23, 2016 22:31:12 GMT
Its not a bad idea to play the waiting game as we all know that the EU will crash and burn in the next 18 months.The people who voted to leave will be 100% justified in their decision. Be careful what you wish for, as Lenin once said, everything is connected to everything else. If it does "crash and burn" in 18 months we will still be part of it then and even if we weren't, we would still be affected.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,544
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Dec 23, 2016 22:56:50 GMT
Couple of interesting posts, Inee. I don't have time to discuss all of what you raised and we have done the Germany bit ad nauseum so I doubt we will convince each other.
I also don't agree that the EU will collapse, at least not in the short term. That said, it is an interesting question and I can see why you think the accession 10 states is where it began. For me it could be traced further back to Maastrict but perhaps more pertinently it is the so called ruling elite, in how it was sold and how they are trying a top down imposition, rather than listening to the public. Look how the Referendum Party started which led to UKIP and the fear of some Conservative backbenchers.
For me, I get the impression that the peoples of Europe want to be able to trade with each other and to visit with few restrictions. It was the politicians who stated this has to be done a set way. Had they been more accommodating and flexible then a lot if the resentment with the establishment would not have been so keenly felt. In some ways it does feel like 1848 again. Concede to conserve used to be the watchword.
Lastly, I think the EU army thing is something you are unnecessarily concerned about. Whilst we were in, we vetoed any proposals which undermined NATO, and even some that didn't just to prove a point. I still don't see any appetite for a centralised army run from Brussels apart from some quarters. What may happen, and indeed is happening, is closer cooperation. For example, joint HQs for operations, pooling of equipment or procurement such as through OCCAR. The EU is made up of many nations, not all are in NATO and some openly neutral. Also, the only other country with a serious defence setup is France and I really can't see them allowing Brussels to control their forces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 13:03:01 GMT
Well done PM May...well done. Now deliver what we want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2017 13:04:22 GMT
Couple of interesting posts, Inee. I don't have time to discuss all of what you raised and we have done the Germany bit ad nauseum so I doubt we will convince each other. I also don't agree that the EU will collapse, at least not in the short term. That said, it is an interesting question and I can see why you think the accession 10 states is where it began. For me it could be traced further back to Maastrict but perhaps more pertinently it is the so called ruling elite, in how it was sold and how they are trying a top down imposition, rather than listening to the public. Look how the Referendum Party started which led to UKIP and the fear of some Conservative backbenchers. For me, I get the impression that the peoples of Europe want to be able to trade with each other and to visit with few restrictions. It was the politicians who stated this has to be done a set way. Had they been more accommodating and flexible then a lot if the resentment with the establishment would not have been so keenly felt. In some ways it does feel like 1848 again. Concede to conserve used to be the watchword. Lastly, I think the EU army thing is something you are unnecessarily concerned about. Whilst we were in, we vetoed any proposals which undermined NATO, and even some that didn't just to prove a point. I still don't see any appetite for a centralised army run from Brussels apart from some quarters. What may happen, and indeed is happening, is closer cooperation. For example, joint HQs for operations, pooling of equipment or procurement such as through OCCAR. The EU is made up of many nations, not all are in NATO and some openly neutral. Also, the only other country with a serious defence setup is France and I really can't see them allowing Brussels to control their forces. Blimey Stuart, how old are you?
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Jan 18, 2017 13:52:56 GMT
Couple of interesting posts, Inee. I don't have time to discuss all of what you raised and we have done the Germany bit ad nauseum so I doubt we will convince each other. I also don't agree that the EU will collapse, at least not in the short term. That said, it is an interesting question and I can see why you think the accession 10 states is where it began. For me it could be traced further back to Maastrict but perhaps more pertinently it is the so called ruling elite, in how it was sold and how they are trying a top down imposition, rather than listening to the public. Look how the Referendum Party started which led to UKIP and the fear of some Conservative backbenchers. For me, I get the impression that the peoples of Europe want to be able to trade with each other and to visit with few restrictions. It was the politicians who stated this has to be done a set way. Had they been more accommodating and flexible then a lot if the resentment with the establishment would not have been so keenly felt. In some ways it does feel like 1848 again. Concede to conserve used to be the watchword. Lastly, I think the EU army thing is something you are unnecessarily concerned about. Whilst we were in, we vetoed any proposals which undermined NATO, and even some that didn't just to prove a point. I still don't see any appetite for a centralised army run from Brussels apart from some quarters. What may happen, and indeed is happening, is closer cooperation. For example, joint HQs for operations, pooling of equipment or procurement such as through OCCAR. The EU is made up of many nations, not all are in NATO and some openly neutral. Also, the only other country with a serious defence setup is France and I really can't see them allowing Brussels to control their forces. Blimey Stuart, how old are you? It`s a bit perplexing. I848, what`s that...twelve minutes to seven. But when? Yesterday? Last week? Further back than that?
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jan 18, 2017 20:23:00 GMT
Couple of interesting posts, Inee. I don't have time to discuss all of what you raised and we have done the Germany bit ad nauseum so I doubt we will convince each other. I also don't agree that the EU will collapse, at least not in the short term. That said, it is an interesting question and I can see why you think the accession 10 states is where it began. For me it could be traced further back to Maastrict but perhaps more pertinently it is the so called ruling elite, in how it was sold and how they are trying a top down imposition, rather than listening to the public. Look how the Referendum Party started which led to UKIP and the fear of some Conservative backbenchers. For me, I get the impression that the peoples of Europe want to be able to trade with each other and to visit with few restrictions. It was the politicians who stated this has to be done a set way. Had they been more accommodating and flexible then a lot if the resentment with the establishment would not have been so keenly felt. In some ways it does feel like 1848 again. Concede to conserve used to be the watchword. Lastly, I think the EU army thing is something you are unnecessarily concerned about. Whilst we were in, we vetoed any proposals which undermined NATO, and even some that didn't just to prove a point. I still don't see any appetite for a centralised army run from Brussels apart from some quarters. What may happen, and indeed is happening, is closer cooperation. For example, joint HQs for operations, pooling of equipment or procurement such as through OCCAR. The EU is made up of many nations, not all are in NATO and some openly neutral. Also, the only other country with a serious defence setup is France and I really can't see them allowing Brussels to control their forces.I can see france running the eu army instead of brussels, don't forget the french played on both sides of the falklands war, on the one hand they stopped supply to the argies, on the other they left a technical team from a company(largely government owned) , in argentina to help with issues and perfected the mobile launchers etc. The french have no morals when it comes to getting their own way
|
|
|
Post by pirateman on Jan 18, 2017 22:16:54 GMT
Couple of interesting posts, Inee. I don't have time to discuss all of what you raised and we have done the Germany bit ad nauseum so I doubt we will convince each other. I also don't agree that the EU will collapse, at least not in the short term. That said, it is an interesting question and I can see why you think the accession 10 states is where it began. For me it could be traced further back to Maastrict but perhaps more pertinently it is the so called ruling elite, in how it was sold and how they are trying a top down imposition, rather than listening to the public. Look how the Referendum Party started which led to UKIP and the fear of some Conservative backbenchers. For me, I get the impression that the peoples of Europe want to be able to trade with each other and to visit with few restrictions. It was the politicians who stated this has to be done a set way. Had they been more accommodating and flexible then a lot if the resentment with the establishment would not have been so keenly felt. In some ways it does feel like 1848 again. Concede to conserve used to be the watchword. Lastly, I think the EU army thing is something you are unnecessarily concerned about. Whilst we were in, we vetoed any proposals which undermined NATO, and even some that didn't just to prove a point. I still don't see any appetite for a centralised army run from Brussels apart from some quarters. What may happen, and indeed is happening, is closer cooperation. For example, joint HQs for operations, pooling of equipment or procurement such as through OCCAR. The EU is made up of many nations, not all are in NATO and some openly neutral. Also, the only other country with a serious defence setup is France and I really can't see them allowing Brussels to control their forces. Totally agree with the bold bit. I think that is what most people in 197-whatever, I can't remember the date voted for in the last referendum. Also I don't think an EU army is ever going to happen.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,544
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 19, 2017 23:06:23 GMT
Couple of interesting posts, Inee. I don't have time to discuss all of what you raised and we have done the Germany bit ad nauseum so I doubt we will convince each other. I also don't agree that the EU will collapse, at least not in the short term. That said, it is an interesting question and I can see why you think the accession 10 states is where it began. For me it could be traced further back to Maastrict but perhaps more pertinently it is the so called ruling elite, in how it was sold and how they are trying a top down imposition, rather than listening to the public. Look how the Referendum Party started which led to UKIP and the fear of some Conservative backbenchers. For me, I get the impression that the peoples of Europe want to be able to trade with each other and to visit with few restrictions. It was the politicians who stated this has to be done a set way. Had they been more accommodating and flexible then a lot if the resentment with the establishment would not have been so keenly felt. In some ways it does feel like 1848 again. Concede to conserve used to be the watchword. Lastly, I think the EU army thing is something you are unnecessarily concerned about. Whilst we were in, we vetoed any proposals which undermined NATO, and even some that didn't just to prove a point. I still don't see any appetite for a centralised army run from Brussels apart from some quarters. What may happen, and indeed is happening, is closer cooperation. For example, joint HQs for operations, pooling of equipment or procurement such as through OCCAR. The EU is made up of many nations, not all are in NATO and some openly neutral. Also, the only other country with a serious defence setup is France and I really can't see them allowing Brussels to control their forces. Blimey Stuart, how old are you? Funny you should ask, the girls in my history class nicknamed me "Bismarck" on the grounds that I knew the topic so well (relatively speaking) their only explanation was that I must have been him in a previous life. I certainly feel old enough!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 12:11:50 GMT
So, the top judges vote 8-3 against the Government. If these eleven judges are the top experts in law, and this decision was based on law, then why the 8-3 vote? Surely they'd all agree? Does this mean the judgement is in fact just their opinions, so therefore based on personal feelings and/or political stance?
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,544
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 24, 2017 23:00:19 GMT
It's the interpretation of legislation that they needed to look into and as human beings their interpretation can be different. They needed to look at the wording of a number of different laws and treaties, Prerogative powers that changed over time, law of precedence, etc. It's not surprising it wasn't unanimous. To suggest they were factoring in a political view, deliberately or subconciously is a bit unfair. I've had to interpret case law as part of my professional qualifications and there is little room for politics, this being very low level and with only the scrutiny of the examiner, not the world's press.
That said, the case itself was clearly brought to court for political purposes.
I understand the frustration and concern this is a backdoor attempt to delay and even block leaving, but I remain convinced that despite the ruling, legislation will be passed quickly and with little amendment that authorises the PM to trigger Article 50 as planned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 7:44:16 GMT
It's the interpretation of legislation that they needed to look into and as human beings their interpretation can be different. They needed to look at the wording of a number of different laws and treaties, Prerogative powers that changed over time, law of precedence, etc. It's not surprising it wasn't unanimous. To suggest they were factoring in a political view, deliberately or subconciously is a bit unfair. I've had to interpret case law as part of my professional qualifications and there is little room for politics, this being very low level and with only the scrutiny of the examiner, not the world's press. That said, the case itself was clearly brought to court for political purposes. I understand the frustration and concern this is a backdoor attempt to delay and even block leaving, but I remain convinced that despite the ruling, legislation will be passed quickly and with little amendment that authorises the PM to trigger Article 50 as planned. I've no doubt that a new law is being processed to get around this, and the only effect will be a slight delay. but the whole saga leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jan 25, 2017 11:22:43 GMT
It's the interpretation of legislation that they needed to look into and as human beings their interpretation can be different. They needed to look at the wording of a number of different laws and treaties, Prerogative powers that changed over time, law of precedence, etc. It's not surprising it wasn't unanimous. To suggest they were factoring in a political view, deliberately or subconciously is a bit unfair. I've had to interpret case law as part of my professional qualifications and there is little room for politics, this being very low level and with only the scrutiny of the examiner, not the world's press. That said, the case itself was clearly brought to court for political purposes. I understand the frustration and concern this is a backdoor attempt to delay and even block leaving, but I remain convinced that despite the ruling, legislation will be passed quickly and with little amendment that authorises the PM to trigger Article 50 as planned. I've no doubt that a new law is being processed to get around this, and the only effect will be a slight delay. but the whole saga leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's a complete and utter mess. All because the Tories were split and Cameron decided to end the divide with a referendum. And lost. The useless load of muppets.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Mar 29, 2017 19:12:36 GMT
So that's it. The letter has has been delivered, Article 50 is now live and the phoney war is over. Interesting times ahead.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,544
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 29, 2017 21:58:09 GMT
Agreed, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Personally I think we'll end up paying 'some' premium to have 'some' access to the single market in return to 'some' freedom of movement and be covered by 'some' EU legislation. Essentially a watered down version of what we already have.
It won't be as bad as the remain campaign predicted but neither will it be as good as the leave campaign promised. Hopefully we will make it work for everyone's benefit.
One of my biggest concerns of leaving is the PR coup for the SNP and another referendum. Whilst that is likely, I am pleasantly surprised there has been no noticable shift in opinion and we may not see the breakup of the UK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 6:41:51 GMT
Will this be the same 'premium' that is paid by China, the USA, South Korea etc etc for access to this fabled single market? Do those countries have to accept 'some freedom of movement' to get access?
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Mar 30, 2017 7:02:13 GMT
Blimey Stuart, how old are you? Funny you should ask, the girls in my history class nicknamed me "Bismarck" on the grounds that I knew the topic so well (relatively speaking) their only explanation was that I must have been him in a previous life. I certainly feel old enough! Are you sure the girls didn`t nickname you "Bismarck", because you went down so easily?
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Mar 30, 2017 7:10:06 GMT
Six pages, Article 50 ran to. Wtf? I would have handed over something far more concise to Mr Tusk. " Ta ra then, we`re off. See you when the Germans next invade."
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,544
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 30, 2017 18:38:23 GMT
Will this be the same 'premium' that is paid by China, the USA, South Korea etc etc for access to this fabled single market? Do those countries have to accept 'some freedom of movement' to get access? If it was left to economists, business leaders and traders then I suspect it would be fairly quick and painless. It's in all of our interests for this to work. sadly, politicians are involved and regardless of what is right, they will need to be seen to have made and gained concessions. TM has a party and a nation to keep together while the EU can't be seen to allow us to have the same benefits as before. Something will have to give if only for PR reasons.
|
|