Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Adisa said:
It's a cheap dig but the point being made is how the EU feel.
The UK for years have been banging on about our sovereign integrity but we've done little to understand the EU's.
The four freedoms are indivisible, when will we understand that?
Click to expand...

It's worse than that, UK's current leaders purposely ignore the fact that EU member states have the same sovereignty as the UK and what they UK wants individually doesn't necessarily match with what these member states want individually. In all of this there are two issues, the lack of respect for EU's will as a whole and the lack of respect members states individually, the strategy to divide to conquer was also a poor calculation that from the start created mistrust.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Tesco have opened a couple of discounter supermarkets in an plan to go head to head with the German lot. 8/10 products they sell are produced or reared in the UK and the branding features British flags. I expected to see this in the wake of Brexit.

https://www.jacks-uk.com/
Click to expand...
MEN did a comparison and it wasnt really any cheaper than what you can get at a tesco. Think its all in the branding for this.
 
JPRouve said:
It's worse than that, UK's current leaders purposely ignore the fact that EU member states have the same sovereignty as the UK and what they UK wants individually doesn't necessarily match with what these member states want individually. In all of this there are two issues, the lack of respect for EU's will as a whole and the lack of respect members states individually, the strategy to divide to conquer was also a poor calculation that from the start created mistrust.
Click to expand...

Whereas I wish we could reverse this awful decision, may I remind you of how we got here. The UK joined a common market in 1973 which was a good thing for trade. It was sold as that to the UK people and fears of losses of sovereignty for political, economic and legal policies were largely allayed. So the 1975 referendum overwhelmingly voted for continued membership.

The EU however, were constantly pushing for further integration and expansion of the whole project. This came to a head with Maastricht in 1992. There was bitter rivalry in the UK (largely because of what was said in 1975). But Major managed to get it through the house. This is when real fears of ever-closer integration began and the notion of a Federal Europe with its own tax laws and Army etc. looked like a real prospect.

In truth, more rapid progress in that direction has only been hampered by dissenters of which the UK was probably the biggest. (This is why that deep down many in the EU are probably glad to see the back of us)

The Eurosceptics in parliament were starting to grow a lot more vocal and becoming a real problem, especially for the Tories.

From about 2004 with the inclusion of many Eastern European countries there was a sudden surge in net migration. This coupled with the 2008 crash and subsequent austerity caused many affected people to totally lose faith in any government to solve their problems and in many cases, look for someone to blame. It was the same in 1930's Germany when the far right used the crippling austerity to turn on the Jewish people. So in the UK, European immigrants became the reason why people were suffering. So when Farage and his crowd sold them the UKip line they bought it.

Cameron, in an effort to resolve the issue once and for all tried to get some concessions and reforms from the EU. But the EU's view is that the UK had had more concessions than any other EU member. This is true. And it is ironic that when the UK was in we were always looking for opt-outs and now we are leaving we want opt-ins. Nevertheless Cameron came home with nothing so had to call the referendum.

So here we are.

Any disrespect that you mention stems from the fact that the idea was sold as one thing and then turned into something else altogether.

The reason that so many people listen to Farage is that, sadly, on several of his pet points like the lack of democracy he is actually right.

The EU is far from perfect and there are many areas which have major problems.

But I would have much rather stayed in and tried to reform it. Although Cameron didn't get much, I still think we had a lot of influence.
 
Honest John said:
Whereas I wish we could reverse this awful decision, may I remind you of how we got here. The UK joined a common market in 1973 which was a good thing for trade. It was sold as that to the UK people and fears of losses of sovereignty for political, economic and legal policies were largely allayed. So the 1975 referendum overwhelmingly voted for continued membership.
Click to expand...

This isn't actually true. It's a zombie "fact" that needs to die.
 
Honest John said:
Whereas I wish we could reverse this awful decision, may I remind you of how we got here. The UK joined a common market in 1973 which was a good thing for trade. It was sold as that to the UK people and fears of losses of sovereignty for political, economic and legal policies were largely allayed. So the 1975 referendum overwhelmingly voted for continued membership.

The EU however, were constantly pushing for further integration and expansion of the whole project. This came to a head with Maastricht in 1992. There was bitter rivalry in the UK (largely because of what was said in 1975). But Major managed to get it through the house. This is when real fears of ever-closer integration began and the notion of a Federal Europe with its own tax laws and Army etc. looked like a real prospect.

In truth, more rapid progress in that direction has only been hampered by dissenters of which the UK was probably the biggest. (This is why that deep down many in the EU are probably glad to see the back of us)

The Eurosceptics in parliament were starting to grow a lot more vocal and becoming a real problem, especially for the Tories.

From about 2004 with the inclusion of many Eastern European countries there was a sudden surge in net migration. This coupled with the 2008 crash and subsequent austerity caused many affected people to totally lose faith in any government to solve their problems and in many cases, look for someone to blame. It was the same in 1930's Germany when the far right used the crippling austerity to turn on the Jewish people. So in the UK, European immigrants became the reason why people were suffering. So when Farage and his crowd sold them the UKip line they bought it.

Cameron, in an effort to resolve the issue once and for all tried to get some concessions and reforms from the EU. But the EU's view is that the UK had had more concessions than any other EU member. This is true. And it is ironic that when the UK was in we were always looking for opt-outs and now we are leaving we want opt-ins. Nevertheless Cameron came home with nothing so had to call the referendum.

So here we are.

Any disrespect that you mention stems from the fact that the idea was sold as one thing and then turned into something else altogether.

The reason that so many people listen to Farage is that, sadly, on several of his pet points like the lack of democracy he is actually right.

The EU is far from perfect and there are many areas which have major problems.

But I would have much rather stayed in and tried to reform it. Although Cameron didn't get much, I still think we had a lot of influence.
Click to expand...
Very good objective post, albeit my conclusion was therefore, to leave.
 
@Honest John

There are several issues in your post first the EU never changed the project, you just have to read the preambule of the Rome Treaty 1957, the project has always been supposed to bring us closer and closer and closer economically and socially:
DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,
RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,
ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,
DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,
INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,
Click to expand...
Secondly the use of the term EU is bothering because once again it ignores the fact that it's the will of the member states, people talk about the EU vs UK because it's convenient to lump every other members as one, it dilutes their own sovereignty and opinions.
Thirdly the UK has never been forced to stay in the EEC and then the EU, the UK signed treaties that extended the integration, they have actively contributed to the expansion and deeper integration when it would have been fairly simple to not join the EUCU or Maastricht.
 
Honest John said:
Whereas I wish we could reverse this awful decision, may I remind you of how we got here. The UK joined a common market in 1973 which was a good thing for trade. It was sold as that to the UK people and fears of losses of sovereignty for political, economic and legal policies were largely allayed. So the 1975 referendum overwhelmingly voted for continued membership.


The reason that so many people listen to Farage is that, sadly, on several of his pet points like the lack of democracy he is actually right.
Click to expand...

This is not true at all, I was there and voted in the 1975 referendum. It is a lie the same as all the Brexit arguments. The idea behind the EEC was not just for trade, this was a benefit but was to promote peace and alliance in Europe after the disastrous start to the 20th century.

Unfortunately right wing populists , racism and xenophobia have raised their head again and idiots follow them.

The lack of democracy is more in the UK system.
 
nickm said:
This isn't actually true. It's a zombie "fact" that needs to die.
Click to expand...
There were 9 countries and zero prospect of a dozen or more Eastern bloc countries joining.

I was working in 75 and I can tell you the emphasis was entirely on trade.

Those hand-picked comments in your link make it look like the country knew what it was doing but there was a real fear of loss of sovereignty - that is why the 75 referendum was called.
 
Honest John said:
There were 9 countries and zero prospect of a dozen or more Eastern bloc countries joining.

I was working in 75 and I can tell you the emphasis was entirely on trade.

Those hand-picked comments in your link make it look like the country knew what it was doing but there was a real fear of loss of sovereignty - that is why the 75 referendum was called.
Click to expand...

rubbish
 
A lot of talk about Tories but telling that Labour haven't put anyone on the airwaves. They are in almost as bad a position with regards to brexit.
 
Honest John said:
There was no talk of political union, European armies. Nobody mentioned the growth in power of the ECJ.
Click to expand...

Oh yes there was talk of political union, we haven't got a European army. ECJ was always going to cover EEC/EU disputes.

The Eastern European countries were part of the Soviet bloc at the time so they were not seen to be joining any time soon thereafter.

I married a french girl in 1975 and was not thinking about trade, Europe was opening up, that was in my mind then and more European countries would join over time, which they have. As a bonus they wouldn't be fighting each other.

Now because of a load of RW xenophobic con-men the UK is shutting itself off again.

If people thought otherwise they were just as ignorant then as they are now.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Oh yes there was talk of political union, we haven't got a European army. ECJ was always going to cover EEC/EU disputes.

The Eastern European countries were part of the Soviet bloc at the time so they were not seen to be joining any time soon thereafter.

I married a french girl in 1975 and was not thinking about trade, Europe was opening up, that was in my mind then and more European countries would join over time, which they have. As a bonus they wouldn't be fighting each other.

Now because of a load of RW xenophobic con-men the UK is shutting itself off again.

If people thought otherwise they were just as ignorant then as they are now.
Click to expand...

The Yes campaign definitely went on the trade angle and played down any loss of sovereignty.

As an island that went through the turmoil in the 20th century there would be a strong sense of sovereignty.

This was always going to become an issue.

Maybe as a nation we were never cut out for the full extent of EU's ambitions. Maybe EFTA would have been a better option.
 
Honest John said:
Here is the yes campaign leaflet.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...mon-market-referendum-campaign-documents.html

Where is the clear information that we were signing up for a political, social and economic super-state?
Click to expand...

Several leaflets actually point to a social, political and economic Union for example one states:

The aim of the common market are:

- To bring together the people of Europe.
- To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
- To promote growth and boost world trade.
- To help the poorer regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
- To help maintain peace and freedom.
 
Honest John said:
There were 9 countries and zero prospect of a dozen or more Eastern bloc countries joining.

I was working in 75 and I can tell you the emphasis was entirely on trade.

Those hand-picked comments in your link make it look like the country knew what it was doing but there was a real fear of loss of sovereignty - that is why the 75 referendum was called.
Click to expand...

The 9 or more Eastern Bloc countries joined because Britain pushed for it! it was seen (by us) as a way of diluting French-German power, and as a bulwark after the collapse of the soviet union.

The Government 'yes' pamphlet - which was sent to every UK household - on pages 11 & 12 - directly addresses issues of sovereignty.
You can see all the propaganda and leaflets here. A ton of the No ones go into detail about the effects on the impact on our courts, self government, federalism. The 'National referendum campaign' leaflet leads with the question that it was about the right to rule ourselves.

There's a lot of of selective remembering of the debate by the generation at the time that just is not supported by the materials circulated at the time.
 
JPRouve said:
Several leaflets actually point to a social, political and economic Union for example one states:

The aim of the common market are:

- To bring together the people of Europe.
- To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
- To promote growth and boost world trade.
- To help the poorer regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
- To help maintain peace and freedom.
Click to expand...

The language is soft here. More like an alliance. We could say exactly the same about the Commonwealth. But our relationship with them is entirely different
 
Theresa May's about to give a Brexit speech to say that she's sticking with her plan that nobody likes.
 
Honest John said:
The language is soft here. More like an alliance. We could say exactly the same about the Commonwealth. But our relationship with them is entirely different
Click to expand...

Well it's a leaflet, you don't really expect something different.

Now, on the subject of political Union, it has always been part of the EEC and was a subject of tension from the beginning not because of its political nature but because countries had different opinions on the type of political links they should have, France wanted an union of sovereign states while others wanted to go down the federalist route, France(De Gaulle) initially won and that's the type of political union that we currently have.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/eu-european-union-political-union-in-out-eec
 
Honest John said:
The Yes campaign definitely went on the trade angle and played down any loss of sovereignty.

As an island that went through the turmoil in the 20th century there would be a strong sense of sovereignty.

This was always going to become an issue.

Maybe as a nation we were never cut out for the full extent of EU's ambitions. Maybe EFTA would have been a better option.
Click to expand...

The whole world went through turmoil and Europe because of RW xenophobic populists. Each country has it's own sense of identity and most of Europe suffered a hell of a lot more than the UK did. The British just think they're superior.

I live in France who happily are part of the EU. I don't live in the EU and just happen to live in France.
France is a sovereign country, has it's own identity, makes it's own laws and so on.
I love France, that's why I'm here but I don't like Holland and don't want to live there.

The UK is the only country in the EU that is governed by Brussels and Berlin. the others aren't , no wonder they want to leave. Just how ridiculous it sounds.

The best thing the UK ever did was become part of Europe and now they're going to make a mindboggling error.

They were already in EFTA as founding members in 1960, they left when they joined the EEC. I am so glad they did join the EEC.
 
nickm said:
The 9 or more Eastern Bloc countries joined because Britain pushed for it! it was seen (by us) as a way of diluting French-German power, and as a bulwark after the collapse of the soviet union.

The Government 'yes' pamphlet - which was sent to every UK household - on pages 11 & 12 - directly addresses issues of sovereignty.
You can see all the propaganda and leaflets here. A ton of the No ones go into detail about the effects on the impact on our courts, self government, federalism. The 'National referendum campaign' leaflet leads with the question that it was about the right to rule ourselves.

There's a lot of of selective remembering of the debate by the generation at the time that just is not supported by the materials circulated at the time.
Click to expand...

I think you are right but I also maintain that the public did not fully understand the full implications and mostly voted on the highly touted economic and trade benefits. Nobody envisioned a 28 nation bloc.

My personal view is that a similar amount of ignorance has been displayed with Brexit.

I struggle to find anyone who can tell me which law or laws that we have adopted from the EU has caused major adversity to their lives. Apart from the odd 'straight banana' anomaly, most are laws we would have passed in some shape or form without the EU.

Virtually nobody knew how much we pay into it each year.

Most have benefited from freedom of trade and travel.

Farmers and poorer areas have had major investments paid for by the EU.

The main issue was immigration and coupled with austerity the only thing that needed to be done to cause this, is for the question to be put.

Perfect Storm.
 
Honest John said:
The language is soft here. More like an alliance. We could say exactly the same about the Commonwealth. But our relationship with them is entirely different
Click to expand...

The EU is an economic alliance in a sense with an common court to make sure that members uphold agreed upon law. Law with no means of enforcement through a common court system holds little value, and thus weakening the economic alliance that is the EU if there was no neutral court system to handle breaking of agreed upon rules and laws. The Commonwealth and the EU are two entirely different political entities and thus they are different in nature just like alliances are never the same every time they are made in general. All alliances or political unions have their own specific goals and agreements in how to reach them. Therefore they have their own unique identity and should not be compared.
 
Last edited:
Listening to the speech it is becoming clear that it's a no deal. What a complete and utter disaster. May is utterly deluded - wanting the EU to back down. Why the heck would they? It's the UK that needs to budge and offer realistic alternatives. We are fecked.
 
I no longer hold any £ domiciled investments apart from what is in my bank account. Pity people who don't have that luxury.
 
Her tone was funny. Fake tough talk. If it wasn't so serious, I would be on the floor laughing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.