|
Post by tanksfull on Jul 6, 2016 22:08:03 GMT
I could come up with hundreds of things where UK laws (not ones initiated by the EU) have affected me and I have no doubt that you can as well. I'm not sure what your point is. Laws are put in place to help and protect the public as a whole; some will obviously cause individual people an issue. Find one which has affected people which has no reason and is pointless. More chance of finding one from UK law (again not initiated by the EU) as that is where the majority of our laws have come from. Often, in the fullness of time, that type of law is changed to something more sensible. Yes it happens but it is not unique to the EU. The written media in particular has provided us with EU poison for years to sell papers and we lap it up like sheep. There are many things wrong with the EU but most of the law would have been brought in, in the UK, even if we were not members. The thing is to instigate legislation, an Act has to passed in parliament. Most people over age of 18 get to vote for /against something if it means something to them. Like fox hunting, for instance? The point isn't whether you agree or disagree with fox hunting, the point is you get an opportunity (in theory) to have a say. And whatever decision is made, if you change mind/disagree etc, you get another opportunity (in theory) to have another say in a few years time. With EU directives and courts that can overrule our judges, this few hundred odd years of tradition has been wiped away. So the point (for me) isn't so much which one law has affected me per se in the past, it's already affected me if you read my previous post. (ie if I took the creosote directive so seriously that I wanted to vote against it, how can I?). Yes, you may be right, UK may adopt further law if not members, that is a salient point. But that would be our choice. And that's exactly what I voted for. So you and I can choose.. In your specific examples of fox hunting and creosote you are comparing apples with oranges as far as legislation is concerned and how it is enacted. Had there been no EU directive on creosote the UK would likely have banned it for the same reasons the EU did; it's an incredibly dangerous substance when used wrongly and there are plenty of cheap, safer alternatives. The law would not have been put in place by anyone you or I would have voted for in the UK. The UK Parliament and the MP's would not have had a vote on the banning of creosote; no different to the EU then? We have democratically elected MEP's the same as we do MP's but Europe takes the election of their MEP's far more seriously than we do. What has happened over a period of years (in my personal opinion of course) is that the media, particularly the written press, have made hay and sold papers by twisting the truth by blaming the EU for everything and anything. The fact is Britain in general has never really understood, or wanted to understand, the EU or Europe and we have never embraced it. We, particularly the older generation (which includes me), do not see ourselves as European. Compare our learning of other languages to other European countries; we are fourth or fifth rate. There is nothing wrong with that and I'd suggest it is often a better and more factual reason for not wanting to be in the EU than most which people come forward with. There is plenty which is wrong with the EU and there is no doubt that the EU needs to go in a slightly different direction but there is also no doubt (again in my personal opinion) that we would be far better in than out. We will never really know as it will be impossible to compare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 22:09:44 GMT
Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a proper debate about this stuff from both sides? Instead all we got was kids shouting about not wanting their future stolen, well, off you go to Greece and enjoy everything the EU has to offer, leftist liberal nonsense, where you aren't allowed to disagree or they try to shut you up by sticking a socially unacceptable label on you, and the establishment line where they all want the status quo because Brussels is their retirement home. I'm left wondering, why is it essential for the EU model to succeed for people to be able to move freely between countries? Tick that box, give the UK back border control and Remain would have won easily. The argument Bamber and you may disagree with that argument, is if you want as true a single market in the EU (and indeed the EEA) then that implies not only the liberalisation of trade among the participating member states but also necessitates the free movement of production factors: labour, capital and services. It further entails the free establishment of persons and companies in all the territory of the member states, in order to exercise their professional or business activities. Hence, in order to speak about a common market, we need to have between the constituent member states the existence of four fundamental freedoms: freedom of movement of goods, thanks to the elimination of all trade barriers; freedom of movement of salaried and non salaried workers, thanks to the elimination of all restrictions to their entrance and residence in other Member States; freedom of establishment of persons and companies in the territory of any Member State and of the provision of services by them in the host country; and freedom of capital movements for business or personal purposes. It appears that the keyword of the common market is freedom. Not you may argue you don't want a Single Market, but if you want a Single Market you have to accept the four freedoms as noted above (and there is a bit of cut and paste job). Thanks, but that didn't actually answer the question, what I asked was why it was essential for the model to succeed. Maybe the question is poorly formed, but I'm sure you understood what I was driving at? The answer is that it's not essential it's just pursuit of an ideology and was always going to lead to several problems as people migrated to the highest wage areas and perceived higher standards of living. That doesn't just have an adverse effect on the destination country.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 6, 2016 22:11:00 GMT
Indeed. The question I always ask is that if the Federal EU is such a good idea why is that economic model not seen anywhere else in the world? Could it be because having trading partnerships is a good idea, having sovereign democracies subjugated to a bunch of failed politicians is not. Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a proper debate about this stuff from both sides? Instead all we got was kids shouting about not wanting their future stolen, well, off you go to Greece and enjoy everything the EU has to offer, leftist liberal nonsense, where you aren't allowed to disagree or they try to shut you up by sticking a socially unacceptable label on you, and the establishment line where they all want the status quo because Brussels is their retirement home. I'm left wondering, why is it essential for the EU model to succeed for people to be able to move freely between countries? Tick that box, give the UK back border control and Remain would have won easily. Bamber, I took that comment about 'Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a proper debate about this stuff from both sides?' and then state 'Instead all we got was kids shouting about not wanting their future stolen, well, off you go to Greece and enjoy everything the EU has to offer, leftist liberal nonsense, where you aren't allowed to disagree or they try to shut you up by sticking a socially unacceptable label on you, and the establishment line where they all want the status quo because Brussels is their retirement home.' with a massive slice of irony. Pass the ball not the man. Telling people who argue the opposite that they can go off to Greece and Spain reminds me of the statements on the OF that people who disagreed with the Board could go and support Bristol City. I have not branded anyone as socially unacceptable for arguing the opposite to me. We all want the best for our country and I believe that includes most of the elite and indeed most of those nasty experts. The fact I support remain does not make me any less patriotic. I believe in the this country, I just feel it is better in the EU. However, the referendum result has happened and now we make the best of it.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 6, 2016 22:15:51 GMT
02, Can I ask a question? Its a common refrain to say in 1973 and 1975 I voted for a common market not a political union. We were lied to, I never voted for the present EU, I never voted for UK law not to be supreme and the EU to tell me what our laws should be. Even if you were not old enough to vote then, I wasn't, would you be happy with a Common market not a Union? Article 2 of that Treaty of Rome set out that objective as follows: "The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it". I believe thats the original wording. Its changed over the years, I accept through various Treaty changes, but I believe that is what was signed up to in 1973. Would you have been happy if it stayed to the above. A Common Market, no ever closer Union etc, etc? I think matealotblue agreed with you that UK law must be supreme. I am just trying to understand your statement, as I may have misunderstood it. Yea, kinda. You're so right we went into the 1973 thing on a lie (and I think that's universally acknowledged) and got the EU no one had chance to vote for. I think it was a mistake to sign Maastricht Treaty in '92. It set up a three pillar system integrating more sensitive areas of government. I embrace our place in Europe and we should all be able to trade easier, so i agree with the original noble ideas of entering an agreement, by why do we need such a huge entity EU for that? I voted with a heavy heart. I wanted it to work for everyone. Thing is it's obvious for millions (not thousands) it hasn't. If Remain had won, half the country would continue to be ignored, like they have been in previous General Elections!
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 6, 2016 22:16:51 GMT
The argument Bamber and you may disagree with that argument, is if you want as true a single market in the EU (and indeed the EEA) then that implies not only the liberalisation of trade among the participating member states but also necessitates the free movement of production factors: labour, capital and services. It further entails the free establishment of persons and companies in all the territory of the member states, in order to exercise their professional or business activities. Hence, in order to speak about a common market, we need to have between the constituent member states the existence of four fundamental freedoms: freedom of movement of goods, thanks to the elimination of all trade barriers; freedom of movement of salaried and non salaried workers, thanks to the elimination of all restrictions to their entrance and residence in other Member States; freedom of establishment of persons and companies in the territory of any Member State and of the provision of services by them in the host country; and freedom of capital movements for business or personal purposes. It appears that the keyword of the common market is freedom. Not you may argue you don't want a Single Market, but if you want a Single Market you have to accept the four freedoms as noted above (and there is a bit of cut and paste job). Thanks, but that didn't actually answer the question, what I asked was why it was essential for the model to succeed. Maybe the question is poorly formed, but I'm sure you understood what I was driving at? The answer is that it's not essential it's just pursuit of an ideology and was always going to lead to several problems as people migrated to the highest wage areas and perceived higher standards of living. That doesn't just have an adverse effect on the destination country. A fundamental part of the EU project is the Internal Market, or the Single Market which Margaret Thatcher was instrumental in creating, for the Internal Market to succeed you have to have the four freedoms in my opinion. It is an Ideology to a degree to have an Internal Market. Do you disagree with that Ideology? If you do not agree that there should be an Internal/Single Market then I agree you do not have to agree to the four freedoms, and can in particular restrict the free movement of labour. The EU Project is the Internal Market in essence. I personally believe you can have that without political union thats another question. However, I would argue many in the Leave Camp, including Boris, thinks you can have the Internal Market and restrictions on the movement of labour. Respectively I disagree with Boris. Boris is the 'have his cake and eat it school of politics'
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 22:26:21 GMT
Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a proper debate about this stuff from both sides? Instead all we got was kids shouting about not wanting their future stolen, well, off you go to Greece and enjoy everything the EU has to offer, leftist liberal nonsense, where you aren't allowed to disagree or they try to shut you up by sticking a socially unacceptable label on you, and the establishment line where they all want the status quo because Brussels is their retirement home. I'm left wondering, why is it essential for the EU model to succeed for people to be able to move freely between countries? Tick that box, give the UK back border control and Remain would have won easily. Bamber, I took that comment about 'Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a proper debate about this stuff from both sides?' and then state 'Instead all we got was kids shouting about not wanting their future stolen, well, off you go to Greece and enjoy everything the EU has to offer, leftist liberal nonsense, where you aren't allowed to disagree or they try to shut you up by sticking a socially unacceptable label on you, and the establishment line where they all want the status quo because Brussels is their retirement home.' with a massive slice of irony. Pass the ball not the man. Telling people who argue the opposite that they can go off to Greece and Spain reminds me of the statements on the OF that people who disagreed with the Board could go and support Bristol City. I have not branded anyone as socially unacceptable for arguing the opposite to me. We all want the best for our country and I believe that includes most of the elite and indeed most of those nasty experts. The fact I support remain does not make me any less patriotic. I believe in the this country, I just feel it is better in the EU. However, the referendum result has happened and now we make the best of it. It wasn't aimed at you, it was in response to silliness all over the internet and given undue coverage by the media from youngsters insisting that an older, somehow privileged generation had made a decision that had simply ruined their entire lives, and they were going to their rooms and didn't want any supper and couldn't understand why their parents hated them. It was histrionic nonsense. (which of course, I know nothing about)
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jul 6, 2016 22:27:27 GMT
I could come up with hundreds of things where UK laws (not ones initiated by the EU) have affected me and I have no doubt that you can as well. I'm not sure what your point is. Laws are put in place to help and protect the public as a whole; some will obviously cause individual people an issue. Find one which has affected people which has no reason and is pointless. More chance of finding one from UK law (again not initiated by the EU) as that is where the majority of our laws have come from. Often, in the fullness of time, that type of law is changed to something more sensible. Yes it happens but it is not unique to the EU. The written media in particular has provided us with EU poison for years to sell papers and we lap it up like sheep. There are many things wrong with the EU but most of the law would have been brought in, in the UK, even if we were not members. I give up! Not sure what my point is? Holy crap Batman! I was asked a question directly what EU law had affected me adversely...just one. Go back and read it for yourself. I answered that question directly and openly as I said above. I didn't have any point. Just answering a question. This is getting silly now. So having given a direct answer to a direct question you want me to answer another question now about finding one that has no reason and is pointless. What is this ....Questiontime or something?? Maybe you could list all the options I need to answer before I take the trouble to answer them!!!!!!! I didn't see Oldie's comment quite as black and white as you did. Why specifically pick on EU law? My point is that UK law (irrespective of EU law) also puts into place law which adversely affects individuals but there is usually a reason for it. It occasionally also puts into place law which is perhaps considered by some as pointless. On that specific point EU driven law is no different from UK driven law. Some will be adversely affected for what is seen as the common good.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 6, 2016 22:29:20 GMT
02, Can I ask a question? Its a common refrain to say in 1973 and 1975 I voted for a common market not a political union. We were lied to, I never voted for the present EU, I never voted for UK law not to be supreme and the EU to tell me what our laws should be. Even if you were not old enough to vote then, I wasn't, would you be happy with a Common market not a Union? Article 2 of that Treaty of Rome set out that objective as follows: "The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it". I believe thats the original wording. Its changed over the years, I accept through various Treaty changes, but I believe that is what was signed up to in 1973. Would you have been happy if it stayed to the above. A Common Market, no ever closer Union etc, etc? I think matealotblue agreed with you that UK law must be supreme. I am just trying to understand your statement, as I may have misunderstood it. Ultimately if you have even a humble Common Market you have to pool sovereignty and indeed allow EU law to be supreme in trading matters at least and that includes product labelling, some forms of taxation (VAT levels), some forms of laws affecting workers etc. Harmonisation has to happen otherwise a Common Market can not truly work and harmonisation means common laws to a degree and then we have to agree them and something has to arbitrate those laws (the CJEU). We joined up to that in 1973, we voted on it in 1975, so we did to a degree agree that EU law would be supreme in many matters which effect trade, businesses and workers. Otherwise the Common Market will be distorted. I I accept a number of arguments, the EU has impinged on some areas they do not have to, however I still would argument it would be better to argue in the house, than storm out the door. Also if you do not agree with the Single Market fine, you don't have to have harmonisation. However, if we do land up in the EEA we will have to agree to most of the EUs laws, Norway I believe agree to 70 percent but have no say in them. Even if we are out the EEA the EU will still always be our largest trading partner so we will probably have to have a large amount of harmonisation. Anyway thats my argument, you may disagree. Yea, kinda. You're so right we went into the 1973 thing on a lie (and I think that's universally acknowledged) and got the EU no one had chance to vote for. I think it was a mistake to sign Maastricht Treaty in '92. It set up a three pillar system integrating more sensitive areas of government. I embrace our place in Europe and we should all be able to trade easier, so i agree with the original noble ideas of entering an agreement, by why do we need such a huge entity EU for that? I voted with a heavy heart. I wanted it to work for everyone. Thing is it's obvious for millions (not thousands) it hasn't. If Remain had won, half the country would continue to be ignored, like they have been in previous General Elections!
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 6, 2016 22:30:34 GMT
The thing is to instigate legislation, an Act has to passed in parliament. Most people over age of 18 get to vote for /against something if it means something to them. Like fox hunting, for instance? The point isn't whether you agree or disagree with fox hunting, the point is you get an opportunity (in theory) to have a say. And whatever decision is made, if you change mind/disagree etc, you get another opportunity (in theory) to have another say in a few years time. With EU directives and courts that can overrule our judges, this few hundred odd years of tradition has been wiped away. So the point (for me) isn't so much which one law has affected me per se in the past, it's already affected me if you read my previous post. (ie if I took the creosote directive so seriously that I wanted to vote against it, how can I?). Yes, you may be right, UK may adopt further law if not members, that is a salient point. But that would be our choice. And that's exactly what I voted for. So you and I can choose.. In your specific examples of fox hunting and creosote you are comparing apples with oranges as far as legislation is concerned and how it is enacted. Had there been no EU directive on creosote the UK would likely have banned it for the same reasons the EU did; it's an incredibly dangerous substance when used wrongly and there are plenty of cheap, safer alternatives. The law would not have been put in place by anyone you or I would have voted for in the UK. The UK Parliament and the MP's would not have had a vote on the banning of creosote; no different to the EU then? We have democratically elected MEP's the same as we do MP's but Europe takes the election of their MEP's far more seriously than we do. What has happened over a period of years (in my personal opinion of course) is that the media, particularly the written press, have made hay and sold papers by twisting the truth by blaming the EU for everything and anything. The fact is Britain in general has never really understood, or wanted to understand, the EU or Europe and we have never embraced it. We, particularly the older generation (which includes me), do not see ourselves as European. Compare our learning of other languages to other European countries; we are fourth or fifth rate. There is nothing wrong with that and I'd suggest it is often a better and more factual reason for not wanting to be in the EU than most which people come forward with. There is plenty which is wrong with the EU and there is no doubt that the EU needs to go in a slightly different direction but there is also no doubt (again in my personal opinion) that we would be far better in than out. We will never really know as it will be impossible to compare. If UK has never understood or wanted to understand eu and never fully embraced it, surely we are better out?(!) I take your point about apples and oranges, but I'm sure you understand the point I'm making. If the EU had notions of moving in a different direction as your personal view dictates, maybe more would buy into that. The thing is, I don't think it has any intentions of changing its stance as it plainly doesn't listen.. That's why I think it's best we leave. Unfortunately..
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 6, 2016 22:35:10 GMT
Bamber, I took that comment about 'Wouldn't it have been nice to have had a proper debate about this stuff from both sides?' and then state 'Instead all we got was kids shouting about not wanting their future stolen, well, off you go to Greece and enjoy everything the EU has to offer, leftist liberal nonsense, where you aren't allowed to disagree or they try to shut you up by sticking a socially unacceptable label on you, and the establishment line where they all want the status quo because Brussels is their retirement home.' with a massive slice of irony. Pass the ball not the man. Telling people who argue the opposite that they can go off to Greece and Spain reminds me of the statements on the OF that people who disagreed with the Board could go and support Bristol City. I have not branded anyone as socially unacceptable for arguing the opposite to me. We all want the best for our country and I believe that includes most of the elite and indeed most of those nasty experts. The fact I support remain does not make me any less patriotic. I believe in the this country, I just feel it is better in the EU. However, the referendum result has happened and now we make the best of it. It wasn't aimed at you, it was in response to silliness all over the internet and given undue coverage by the media from youngsters insisting that an older, somehow privileged generation had made a decision that had simply ruined their entire lives, and they were going to their rooms and didn't want any supper and couldn't understand why their parents hated them. It was histrionic nonsense. (which of course, I know nothing about) I agree Bamber. However, I am in the Remain Camp, so am part of that group. Many in the Remain Camp have made the comment the Brexiteers are uneducated Northern Racists, wrong and unfair ( I live in the North, but in Manchester, which voted 60 40 Remain so we are intelligent (thats a joke!). Many Brexiteers have argued many in the Remain Camp are part of the liberal London bubble, over educated and part of the elite, again wrong and unfair. We just have different views. However, it really got my goat when Farage described the vote to Leave as a victory for the 'decent people' as it implied the 48 percent were not decent. However, he is a man who thrives on division, an effective (not impressive) politician I accept, but someone who thrives on division.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 22:37:53 GMT
Thanks, but that didn't actually answer the question, what I asked was why it was essential for the model to succeed. Maybe the question is poorly formed, but I'm sure you understood what I was driving at? The answer is that it's not essential it's just pursuit of an ideology and was always going to lead to several problems as people migrated to the highest wage areas and perceived higher standards of living. That doesn't just have an adverse effect on the destination country. A fundamental part of the EU project is the Internal Market, or the Single Market which Margaret Thatcher was instrumental in creating, for the Internal Market to succeed you have to have the four freedoms in my opinion. It is an Ideology to a degree to have an Internal Market. Do you disagree with that Ideology? If you do not agree that there should be an Internal/Single Market then I agree you do not have to agree to the four freedoms, and can in particular restrict the free movement of labour. The EU Project is the Internal Market in essence. I personally believe you can have that without political union thats another question. However, I would argue many in the Leave Camp, including Boris, thinks you can have the Internal Market and restrictions on the movement of labour. Respectively I disagree with Boris. Boris is the 'have his cake and eat it school of politics' In which case, I'm with Boris, and Brussels is going to have to join us if they want they project to continue, because either France or Holland are next to vote to leave.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jul 6, 2016 22:41:14 GMT
But the trouble (in my opinion) with this freedom of movement of labour is that it is seen ideologically by our EU lords and masters as being completely unfettered and untouchable. Which can lead, for example, as has been tragically shown in the recent past, where health professionals are allowed in and language barriers and different levels of qualifications provide tragic outcomes. In ASEAN countries, for example, which is trying to mirror the EU single market model they only provide freedom of movement of labour for certain professions and even then these "movers" have to take a licence test in the language of the country to which they are moving. A sensible degree of governance to maintain standards. They also do not have any appetite, it seems, for this Federalist malarkey, which goes back to the simple point of "In Europe, not governed by Europe". That is my fundamental sticking point about the EU - happy to work with them, happy to have the freedoms and yes, happy to have some degree of legislation but why, oh why, does it mean we have to have this oppressive federalist union foisted on us? There is a degree of sense in working closely with your neighbouring countries, there is a line stepped over to go beyond and foist a Federal Union on millions of people across a continent of so many different countries with different economies. It is a recipe for disaster in my view and if pushed to the ultimate limit will provide for more unrest rather than less.
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on Jul 6, 2016 22:41:37 GMT
In your specific examples of fox hunting and creosote you are comparing apples with oranges as far as legislation is concerned and how it is enacted. Had there been no EU directive on creosote the UK would likely have banned it for the same reasons the EU did; it's an incredibly dangerous substance when used wrongly and there are plenty of cheap, safer alternatives. The law would not have been put in place by anyone you or I would have voted for in the UK. The UK Parliament and the MP's would not have had a vote on the banning of creosote; no different to the EU then? We have democratically elected MEP's the same as we do MP's but Europe takes the election of their MEP's far more seriously than we do. What has happened over a period of years (in my personal opinion of course) is that the media, particularly the written press, have made hay and sold papers by twisting the truth by blaming the EU for everything and anything. The fact is Britain in general has never really understood, or wanted to understand, the EU or Europe and we have never embraced it. We, particularly the older generation (which includes me), do not see ourselves as European. Compare our learning of other languages to other European countries; we are fourth or fifth rate. There is nothing wrong with that and I'd suggest it is often a better and more factual reason for not wanting to be in the EU than most which people come forward with. There is plenty which is wrong with the EU and there is no doubt that the EU needs to go in a slightly different direction but there is also no doubt (again in my personal opinion) that we would be far better in than out. We will never really know as it will be impossible to compare. If UK has never understood or wanted to understand eu and never fully embraced it, surely we are better out?(!) I take your point about apples and oranges, but I'm sure you understand the point I'm making. If the EU had notions of moving in a different direction as your personal view dictates, maybe more would buy into that. The thing is, I don't think it has any intentions of changing its stance as it plainly doesn't listen.. That's why I think it's best we leave. Unfortunately.. That may be so but, I feel, much of our thoughts were conducted by the press having constant snipes at an easy target with factually incorrect information which nobody ever put right, or wanted to put right. I understand the point but even without the EU most, if not all, of that law would have been put in place in any event and it would not have been put there by a democratically elected body. I think now we have "left" they might. So we may well have done an exceedingly good job for the remainder...
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 6, 2016 22:44:02 GMT
Hehe, maybe we could create an Internal Market with France and Holland then. However, Holland has many legal conventions with Belgium and Luxembourg, the Benelux states as a whole, so it would be hard to unpick. Anyway Belgium might fracture into Flanders and Wallonia (spl?). Breakup everywhere, maybe we could go back to the trading City states of the Middle Ages. Bristol as a City State?
Ah well I am off. I tried to refrain from entering this debate again, but saw it started into life again.
Anyway UTG!
|
|
|
Post by markczgas on Jul 6, 2016 22:46:54 GMT
Well, when you are incapable of debating the point, personal insults are a last resort. I guess But you constantly get proven wrong on points and never acknowledge it! Come on, break the habit of a lifetime and accept that EU membership was bad for a lot of people on a personal level, was bad for the country as it tied us to a market with smaller growth than everywhere else in the world and was bad for the environment as corruption (ignored by Brussels, you have to wonder why) allowed companies to sell their carbon permits and then relocate outside of areas controlled by the permits. was it bad for you on a personal level ? I know people from all walks of life - was brought up working class , but later did ok - now mix i suppose with people you call middle class, mix with Brits and other Europeans and none of them have EVER EVER said The EU has f**ked me up the ass !! People have read the s**t pumped out by The Daily Mail, The Sun etc for WAY TOO LONG and have been brainwashed !!! A sad day for our country - looking inwards again - 70 + years of peace in Europe after 2 horrific wars was not just a stroke of luck !
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jul 6, 2016 22:51:05 GMT
But you constantly get proven wrong on points and never acknowledge it! Come on, break the habit of a lifetime and accept that EU membership was bad for a lot of people on a personal level, was bad for the country as it tied us to a market with smaller growth than everywhere else in the world and was bad for the environment as corruption (ignored by Brussels, you have to wonder why) allowed companies to sell their carbon permits and then relocate outside of areas controlled by the permits. was it bad for you on a personal level ? I know people from all walks of life - was brought up working class , but later did ok - now mix i suppose with people you call middle class, mix with Brits and other Europeans and none of them have EVER EVER said The EU has fed me up the ass !! People have read the s*** pumped out by The Daily Mail, The Sun etc for WAY TOO LONG and have been brainwashed !!! A sad day for our country - looking inwards again - 70 + years of peace in Europe after 2 horrific wars was not just a stroke of luck ! Not sure the people of the FYR will wholeheartedly agree with that last statement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 22:52:02 GMT
It wasn't aimed at you, it was in response to silliness all over the internet and given undue coverage by the media from youngsters insisting that an older, somehow privileged generation had made a decision that had simply ruined their entire lives, and they were going to their rooms and didn't want any supper and couldn't understand why their parents hated them. It was histrionic nonsense. (which of course, I know nothing about) I agree Bamber. However, I am in the Remain Camp, so am part of that group. Many in the Remain Camp have made the comment the Brexiteers are uneducated Northern Racists, wrong and unfair ( I live in the North, but in Manchester, which voted 60 40 Remain so we are intelligent (thats a joke!). Many Brexiteers have argued many in the Remain Camp are part of the liberal London bubble, over educated and part of the elite, again wrong and unfair. We just have different views. However, it really got my goat when Farage described the vote to Leave as a victory for the 'decent people' as it implied the 48 percent were not decent. However, he is a man who thrives on division, an effective (not impressive) politician I accept, but someone who thrives on division. Unfortunately, the media in this country is catching up with Fox, it's almost as much about entertainment and rabble-rousing as news. I take it you've seen Hannan being shown footage of a barely intelligible ranting racist bigot (sorry, but judging by his accent I think he was from a northern town) shouting about how much he hates people because of the colour of their skin and that's why he voted out, Hannan is then asked to defend this vile idiot because he represents everything that the 'Out' campaign was all about? Farage was a bit clumsy with the 'decent people' thing, but if you want to have a go at him, the 'without a bullet being fired' quote was a disgrace but seemed to go by almost unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jul 6, 2016 22:53:15 GMT
Hehe, maybe we could create an Internal Market with France and Holland then. However, Holland has many legal conventions with Belgium and Luxembourg, the Benelux states as a whole, so it would be hard to unpick. Anyway Belgium might fracture into Flanders and Wallonia (spl?). Breakup everywhere, maybe we could go back to the trading City states of the Middle Ages. Bristol as a City State? Ah well I am off. I tried to refrain from entering this debate again, but saw it started into life again. Anyway UTG! Not possible. Can only see Bristol as Rovers state tbh.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 6, 2016 22:55:08 GMT
But the trouble (in my opinion) with this freedom of movement of labour is that it is seen ideologically by our EU lords and masters as being completely unfettered and untouchable. Which can lead, for example, as has been tragically shown in the recent past, where health professionals are allowed in and language barriers and different levels of qualifications provide tragic outcomes. In ASEAN countries, for example, which is trying to mirror the EU single market model they only provide freedom of movement of labour for certain professions and even then these "movers" have to take a licence test in the language of the country to which they are moving. A sensible degree of governance to maintain standards. They also do not have any appetite, it seems, for this Federalist malarkey, which goes back to the simple point of "In Europe, not governed by Europe". That is my fundamental sticking point about the EU - happy to work with them, happy to have the freedoms and yes, happy to have some degree of legislation but why, oh why, does it mean we have to have this oppressive federalist union foisted on us? There is a degree of sense in working closely with your neighbouring countries, there is a line stepped over to go beyond and foist a Federal Union on millions of people across a continent of so many different countries with different economies. It is a recipe for disaster in my view and if pushed to the ultimate limit will provide for more unrest rather than less. Accept your points. I think my worry is the leaders of the Leave campaign simply did not have a plan of what to do post BREXIT. BREXIT is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. The worry is none seem to know what the end is (Boris and I believe Andrea Leadsom supported Leave purely for personal political reasons), I do think Gove may know what he wants the end to be, but that will not be very attractive to many who voted Leave, it will be an ultra right wing economic outlook. However, before you even start negotiating on what trading relationship we want with the EU, we have to decide what economic structure we want at home. Unfortunately I think we have been told to get in the car, got in the car, but have no idea where we are going. Maybe I am too cautious but I preferred to say in my warm bus stop. Anyway it may be an exciting ride, but potentially a dangerous one. We live in interesting times. Unfortunately we have no Atlee or Thatcher at the wheel who has a map in their head, we just have a lot of political pygmies (on both sides).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 23:14:02 GMT
But the trouble (in my opinion) with this freedom of movement of labour is that it is seen ideologically by our EU lords and masters as being completely unfettered and untouchable. Which can lead, for example, as has been tragically shown in the recent past, where health professionals are allowed in and language barriers and different levels of qualifications provide tragic outcomes. In ASEAN countries, for example, which is trying to mirror the EU single market model they only provide freedom of movement of labour for certain professions and even then these "movers" have to take a licence test in the language of the country to which they are moving. A sensible degree of governance to maintain standards. They also do not have any appetite, it seems, for this Federalist malarkey, which goes back to the simple point of "In Europe, not governed by Europe". That is my fundamental sticking point about the EU - happy to work with them, happy to have the freedoms and yes, happy to have some degree of legislation but why, oh why, does it mean we have to have this oppressive federalist union foisted on us? There is a degree of sense in working closely with your neighbouring countries, there is a line stepped over to go beyond and foist a Federal Union on millions of people across a continent of so many different countries with different economies. It is a recipe for disaster in my view and if pushed to the ultimate limit will provide for more unrest rather than less. Accept your points. I think my worry is the leaders of the Leave campaign simply did not have a plan of what to do post BREXIT. BREXIT is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. The worry is none seem to know what the end is (Boris and I believe Andrea Leadsom supported Leave purely for personal political reasons), I do think Gove may know what he wants the end to be, but that will not be very attractive to many who voted Leave, it will be an ultra right wing economic outlook. However, before you even start negotiating on what trading relationship we want with the EU, we have to decide what economic structure we want at home. Unfortunately I think we have been told to get in the car, got in the car, but have no idea where we are going. Maybe I am too cautious but I preferred to say in my warm bus stop. Anyway it may be an exciting ride, but potentially a dangerous one. We live in interesting times. Unfortunately we have no Atlee or Thatcher at the wheel who has a map in their head, we just have a lot of political pygmies (on both sides). The problem with your view of remain is that it assumes that Brussels was just going to trundle along as before. I'm not quite sure that's what they had in mind.
|
|