Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .

You think the is EU wrong to restrict the import of contaminated oranges?
Re Gambia I was referring to one of your earlier posts, one of those "third world" countries that have a higher GDP than the West.
As you find Europe so distasteful I wondered if you had considered an African country?
 
You think the is EU wrong to restrict the import of contaminated oranges?
Re Gambia I was referring to one of your earlier posts, one of those "third world" countries that have a higher GDP than the West.
As you find Europe so distasteful I wondered if you had considered an African country?
I have lived in Sierra Leone for 4 years. Love Africa
 
They want the UK type of sovreignty ie the one were England drags the rest whether they like it or not

To be honest, I don't think that they want anything. Most of the people I have seen talk about sovereignty don't know what it means and how you evaluate it, they just repeat the words of people like Le Pen or Farage because in theory a lack of sovereignty(or Democracy) is a pretty good argument.
 
So regional parliaments get a veto on the EU's most important decision in years. For those posters who want to see the EU stand on its own two feet without reliance on the US, this micro level veto system for the likes of the poorer part of Belgium is not exactly compatible with great power politics, is it?
 
So regional parliaments get a veto on the EU's most important decision in years. For those posters who want to see the EU stand on its own two feet without reliance on the US, this micro level veto system for the likes of the poorer part of Belgium is not exactly compatible with great power politics, is it?

Well this is why getting a trade deal with eu is pain in the hole. i quite like the fact wallonnia were able to block a deal until schultz forced them .......err.... i mean talked them round
 
By the same token it makes claims that the EU is a tyrannical superstate looking to subsume national sovereignty look kinda ridiculous, doesn't it.
 
By the same token it makes claims that the EU is a tyrannical superstate looking to subsume national sovereignty look kinda ridiculous, doesn't it.

Absolutely. The problem is that the EU is a mass of contradictions. On the one hand promoting regionalism, on the other trying to operate a common currency and open borders...
 
I'm astonished that anybody would be surprised by that. It was always straight forward that it would be the case... It's how the EU works...

So regional parliaments get a veto on the EU's most important decision in years. For those posters who want to see the EU stand on its own two feet without reliance on the US, this micro level veto system for the likes of the poorer part of Belgium is not exactly compatible with great power politics, is it?
One of the EU main aims is to end "great power politics" in Europe. To me it is a great strength that we have to find compromises everyone can agree with, and there's no way around it.
 
I'm astonished that anybody would be surprised by that. It was always straight forward that it would be the case... It's how the EU works...


One of the EU main aims is to end "great power politics" in Europe. To me it is a great strength that we have to find compromises everyone can agree with, and there's no way around it.

That's great but there is a country just to the East that still plays under the old rules, interpreted the EU's role in Ukraine as precisely a great power play (as per Huntington) and is particularly skilled at divide and rule.

Personally I don't mind the idea of finding agreement among equals but I struggle to see why that should involve agreement/vetos at sub-national level. It is open to abuse and exploitation (see 18th century Poland).
 
That's great but there is a country just to the East that still plays under the old rules, interpreted the EU's role in Ukraine as precisely a great power play (as per Huntington) and is particularly skilled at divide and rule.

Personally I don't mind the idea of finding agreement among equals but I struggle to see why that should involve agreement/vetos at sub-national level. It is open to abuse and exploitation (see 18th century Poland).

While I agree that it isn't ideal to have to agree on sub-national level there is no way around it if that is part of the respective country's constitution. Concerning Ukraine I don't agree with the assessment that Putin interpreted the EU's role as a power play, but that is besides the point. You're absolutely correct that the process severely limits the EU's ability to confront some challenges on an international stage, but I think that's a price worth paying for democracy.
 
So regional parliaments get a veto on the EU's most important decision in years. For those posters who want to see the EU stand on its own two feet without reliance on the US, this micro level veto system for the likes of the poorer part of Belgium is not exactly compatible with great power politics, is it?

What decision exactly? The UK is leaving and the EU has nothing to do with that. And lets face it the UK is so deep in the US pocket that they might make her a state for all we know.If the EU really wants to stand on its own two feet then their first move is to reduce the UK's influence in Europe to an irrelevant level.

There's a reason why the US government wanted the UK within the EU so much. It gave it a voice and a veto
 
Last edited:
They should give every person a veto

Why are you worried? Wasn't the UK supposed to rule the waves after leaving the shackles of the EU? Surely they aren't banking everything on a deal with the closest and richest continent to them aren't they? If that's the case then maybe they were better off remaining a member of that Union
 
Last edited:
That's great but there is a country just to the East that still plays under the old rules, interpreted the EU's role in Ukraine as precisely a great power play (as per Huntington) and is particularly skilled at divide and rule.

Personally I don't mind the idea of finding agreement among equals but I struggle to see why that should involve agreement/vetos at sub-national level. It is open to abuse and exploitation (see 18th century Poland).

That's the thing its not a deal among equals. The UK wants a deal with the EU. The EU, well, not that much
 
Why are you worried? Wasn't the UK supposed to rule the waves after leaving the shackles of the EU. Surely it doesn't need a deal with this corrupt and tyrannical institution would they?
I could not be less worried. I'm happy for the eu to veto everything and anything it asks for. Let them and their stagnant countries rot alone.
 
I could not be less worried. I'm happy for the eu to veto everything and anything it asks for. Let them and their stagnant countries rot alone.

And lets the UK live cut off from Europe. I am sure the US will give the UK unrestricted access to their market as Europe did. I bet they can't wait to give a boost to New York's financial rival city in Europe
 
And lets the UK live cut off from Europe. I am sure the US will give the UK unrestricted access to their market as Europe did. I bet they can't wait to give a boost to New York's financial rival city in Europe
Any things better than the eu imo
 
So regional parliaments get a veto on the EU's most important decision in years. For those posters who want to see the EU stand on its own two feet without reliance on the US, this micro level veto system for the likes of the poorer part of Belgium is not exactly compatible with great power politics, is it?

Well the EU isn't a country, so yes France will decide alone and all the countries will do the same. For all countries the EU is under foreign policy, something that people tend to forgot.
 
Stanley's thinking seems very prevalent in a lot of Brexiters (well the ones that actually live in the UK that is). They not only want the UK to leave but wish the EU collapses which proves how vindictive the position is.

It basically goes something along the lines of 'let them rot because they disagree with me'. This is evident in May's approach and the atmosphere post Brexit where anyone even perceived to be against this economic suicide known as hard Brexit is deemed an 'enemy of the people' or at least of the 'decent' ones who won Farage the referendum.
 
Stanley's thinking seems very prevalent in a lot of Brexiters (well the ones that actually live in the UK that is). They not only want the UK to leave but wish the EU collapses which proves how vindictive the position is.

It basically goes something along the lines of 'let them rot because they disagree with me'. This is evident in May's approach and the atmosphere post Brexit where anyone even perceived to be against this economic suicide known as hard Brexit is deemed an 'enemy of the people' or at least of the 'decent' ones who won Farage the referendum.
You are quite wrong but consistent in your need to pigeon hole everybody
 
You are quite wrong but consistent in your need to pigeon hole everybody

I am quite used to people being defensive when I've hit the mark. It would take a solid argument to convince me otherwise and you do not seem able or willing to do so.