Find it funny that the pro-EU supporters 5 years ago denied there is going to be a EU Army and a United States of Europe but it is becoming more and more true month by month.
More and more of zero is still zero.
Don't believe everything you read on Stormfront/Breitbart/Britain First etc.
The chap advocating a United States of Europe is from some junior party being brought in to prop up a government, the senior party in the relationship would never really let them have any influence...
A European Army, to me, would be all sovereign states involved pooling their entire military resources and surrendering all control of their armed forces to an EU nominated Commander in Chief.
A United States of Europe, likewise, would be the surrender of all sovereign power to the European Parliament and Commission, with a single head of state.
Let me know when those are even remotely close to happening. Until then, stop Googling "EU Army" or "United States of Europe", copy and pasting the first few headlines you find and don't even bother to read the details of the story beyond the sensationalist headline.
Find it funny that the pro-EU supporters 5 years ago denied there is going to be a EU Army and a United States of Europe but it is becoming more and more true month by month.
More and more of zero is still zero.
Don't believe everything you read on Stormfront/Breitbart/Britain First etc.
A European Army, to me, would be all sovereign states involved pooling their entire military resources and surrendering all control of their armed forces to an EU nominated Commander in Chief.
A United States of Europe, likewise, would be the surrender of all sovereign power to the European Parliament and Commission, with a single head of state.
Let me know when those are even remotely close to happening. Until then, stop Googling "EU Army" or "United States of Europe", copy and pasting the first few headlines you find and don't even bother to read the details of the story beyond the sensationalist headline.
Haha..trust me....I learn't that lesson very well indeed ages ago and have read before I post, it took me some time.
A European Army, to me, would be all sovereign states involved pooling their entire military resources and surrendering all control of their armed forces to an EU nominated Commander in Chief.
A United States of Europe, likewise, would be the surrender of all sovereign power to the European Parliament and Commission, with a single head of state.
Let me know when those are even remotely close to happening. Until then, stop Googling "EU Army" or "United States of Europe", copy and pasting the first few headlines you find and don't even bother to read the details of the story beyond the sensationalist headline.
How the hell can you say that. if some force stopped googling and cutting and pasting, there would only be a couple of pages on this thread. I am suprised some of you haven't got Bill Gates round for xmas dinner.
Further to my above comment it’s brexit arrogance and ignorance. Everything that’s happening is because it’s not been thought through. So many people going to vote on a subject even the most sagacious of us didn’t have enough facts
Fine to exercise a vote when given the choice and you have to respect people’s choices, but fuck me, should we have ever been given the vote in the first place without the U.K. government giving us a warts n all, full cavity, microscopic diagnosis
Suddenly a nation of people found themselves with a monumental choice that is going to impact them in a hugely profound way, and I don’t care how intelligent or knowledgeable some of us think we are, we’ve been asked to opt for something that’s beyond our comprehension (in my opinion)
This for me in a nutshell. I voted leave but I (naively perhaps) thought that OUR Government actually knew what "leave" meant. As every week passes I'm more & more convinced that on the 24th June 2016 David Cameron opened a desk drawer marked "leaving the EU" and read what it said. He & the then Cabinet had no idea what it actually meant, what the process was and what it entailed. If that could ever be proved then it was a dereliction of duty & he should be held accountable. I still want to Leave, but I find it incredulous that a Government can hold a referendum about something so monumental & no-one seems to have any idea what the process is, or should be, The EU hold all the cards & they know it. They also know that David Davis, Teresa May & all the others negotiating with them have no idea what they are doing what the end game is.
Further to my above comment it’s brexit arrogance and ignorance. Everything that’s happening is because it’s not been thought through. So many people going to vote on a subject even the most sagacious of us didn’t have enough facts
Fine to exercise a vote when given the choice and you have to respect people’s choices, but fuck me, should we have ever been given the vote in the first place without the U.K. government giving us a warts n all, full cavity, microscopic diagnosis
Suddenly a nation of people found themselves with a monumental choice that is going to impact them in a hugely profound way, and I don’t care how intelligent or knowledgeable some of us think we are, we’ve been asked to opt for something that’s beyond our comprehension (in my opinion)
This for me in a nutshell. I voted leave but I (naively perhaps) thought that OUR Government actually knew what "leave" meant. As every week passes I'm more & more convinced that on the 24th June 2016 David Cameron opened a desk drawer marked "leaving the EU" and read what it said. He & the then Cabinet had no idea what it actually meant, what the process was and what it entailed. If that could ever be proved then it was a dereliction of duty & he should be held accountable. I still want to Leave, but I find it incredulous that a Government can hold a referendum about something so monumental & no-one seems to have any idea what the process is, or should be, The EU hold all the cards & they know it. They also know that David Davis, Teresa May & all the others negotiating with them have no idea what they are doing what the end game is.
I am coming at this from exactly the opposite direction, but there is so much that I agree with.
A European Army, to me, would be all sovereign states involved pooling their entire military resources and surrendering all control of their armed forces to an EU nominated Commander in Chief.
A United States of Europe, likewise, would be the surrender of all sovereign power to the European Parliament and Commission, with a single head of state.
Let me know when those are even remotely close to happening. Until then, stop Googling "EU Army" or "United States of Europe", copy and pasting the first few headlines you find and don't even bother to read the details of the story beyond the sensationalist headline.
I suppose Ferdinand Foch in 1918 came close to para one. Against the nasty Hun. No way Pershing was going to let US troops come under British command.
Further to my above comment it’s brexit arrogance and ignorance. Everything that’s happening is because it’s not been thought through. So many people going to vote on a subject even the most sagacious of us didn’t have enough facts
Fine to exercise a vote when given the choice and you have to respect people’s choices, but fuck me, should we have ever been given the vote in the first place without the U.K. government giving us a warts n all, full cavity, microscopic diagnosis
Suddenly a nation of people found themselves with a monumental choice that is going to impact them in a hugely profound way, and I don’t care how intelligent or knowledgeable some of us think we are, we’ve been asked to opt for something that’s beyond our comprehension (in my opinion)
This for me in a nutshell. I voted leave but I (naively perhaps) thought that OUR Government actually knew what "leave" meant. As every week passes I'm more & more convinced that on the 24th June 2016 David Cameron opened a desk drawer marked "leaving the EU" and read what it said. He & the then Cabinet had no idea what it actually meant, what the process was and what it entailed. If that could ever be proved then it was a dereliction of duty & he should be held accountable. I still want to Leave, but I find it incredulous that a Government can hold a referendum about something so monumental & no-one seems to have any idea what the process is, or should be, The EU hold all the cards & they know it. They also know that David Davis, Teresa May & all the others negotiating with them have no idea what they are doing what the end game is.
I agree about your view on the current Government. Given that it was this week that Ministers admitted that they still did not know what kind of post Brexit relationship they would actually like to see, how can anyone believe they will have the slightest idea how manage the outworkings of this relationship? The lack of ideas makes the early rejection of Single Market and Customs Union appear at least a little premature and foolish.
The problem with David Cameron is that, like many of us, having grown up on a diet of generally Eurosceptic media for several decades, he believed that to get change to the EU you just needed to get Germany and France on board (if it was ever true, it can only have been before the UK joined). He forgot that the EU is a rules-based, legalistic, construct, where the words in the Treaties and Directives matter, because they encapsulate what the member states have agreed (and, as I constantly say, the power in the EU rests with the member states). No changes can be foisted on the members without them having a say, and even, in important questions, a veto. None of the scare stories, quoting EU officials, would have any basis in fact, because most member states would have a national vote on the proposals (in the case of Ireland, almost by definition, a referendum).
This meant he claimed he could achieve the impossible (Treaty change without proper negotiation) and, when he so obviously failed he still went ahead with a referendum campaign where he campaigned quite effectively, but only to people that were like him. This worked in his constituency elections, or trying to schmooze the media as Tory leader. But he had never really had to seek to persuade the general public outside of stage-managed events - he remained a PR man rather than a conviction politician.
The problem, post Cameron, is that the UK Government now appears more amateurish than it did before, with many senior positions seemingly occupied by individuals who cannot be effectively briefed or wilfully misunderstand the challenges they face. Time was wasted before incoming Article 50 by failing to prepare, time was wasted since by attempting to circumvent the established sequencing of the negotiations when, whether we like it or not, seeking an agreed departure and future relationship is more important to the UK than to the EU27, and time has been consistently wasted negotiating within Government and in the media amongst themselves (the very first thing that needed to be agreed was a strategy for the UK to maximise whatever benefits, if any, could be achieved - instead we still see utter chaos and paralysis in Government as it wages a low level civil war).
Frankly, if I was seeking to create a disastrous Brexit negotiation, being the pro-EU fifth columnist that I undoubtedly am, I could not have done a better job. It's almost enough to make want to vote Tory (okay, I may be telling the teensiest of lies).
Find it funny that the pro-EU supporters 5 years ago denied there is going to be a EU Army and a United States of Europe but it is becoming more and more true month by month.
More and more of zero is still zero.
Don't believe everything you read on Stormfront/Breitbart/Britain First etc.
You need to stop burying your head in the sand and realize this is becoming a reality.
Oh dear I search wot I want, I read wot I want and therefore it's true.
I'm sure it can happen, I'm sure there's reasons for it to happen, I'm not sure if demigogues like Macron, who fails within his country to pass legislation, has much support to make it happen.
In many ways I'm quite glad we're away from being influenced by the rise of populism/far right European politics. It is quite ironic now those against EU's federilisation intent are/were bankrolled by self interested billionaires like Charlie Wheeler with no interest in Free Markets but those that enrich them and their fellow plutocrats. It ain't for you.
Further to my above comment it’s brexit arrogance and ignorance. Everything that’s happening is because it’s not been thought through. So many people going to vote on a subject even the most sagacious of us didn’t have enough facts
Fine to exercise a vote when given the choice and you have to respect people’s choices, but fuck me, should we have ever been given the vote in the first place without the U.K. government giving us a warts n all, full cavity, microscopic diagnosis
Suddenly a nation of people found themselves with a monumental choice that is going to impact them in a hugely profound way, and I don’t care how intelligent or knowledgeable some of us think we are, we’ve been asked to opt for something that’s beyond our comprehension (in my opinion)
This for me in a nutshell. I voted leave but I (naively perhaps) thought that OUR Government actually knew what "leave" meant. As every week passes I'm more & more convinced that on the 24th June 2016 David Cameron opened a desk drawer marked "leaving the EU" and read what it said. He & the then Cabinet had no idea what it actually meant, what the process was and what it entailed. If that could ever be proved then it was a dereliction of duty & he should be held accountable. I still want to Leave, but I find it incredulous that a Government can hold a referendum about something so monumental & no-one seems to have any idea what the process is, or should be, The EU hold all the cards & they know it. They also know that David Davis, Teresa May & all the others negotiating with them have no idea what they are doing what the end game is.
Wait. It's David Cameron's fault for not knowing what you were voting for?
So, it looks like agreement has been achieved on the easy part of the negotiations...
The Commission are recommending that sufficient progress has been made, now it's up to the member states to decide if they agree (so, we should all hope for no intemperate comments from the DUP and it's fellow travellers in the next few days).
How can we possibly comply with these terms without the entire UK remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market?
My thoughts exactly.
Norway model on the way? If that's the case I'm delighted, but I don't trust this bunch of politicians to achieve anything meaningful so I'll still expect the worst!!
How can we possibly comply with these terms without the entire UK remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market?
Seems to me, reading that, that we simply end up outside the Single Market but following their rules and regs anyway to ensure there's no border. Personally we should be doing that for many practical reasons anyway but I fail to see what the point of the whole fecking exercise is in that case.
Not really the big, shouty taking back of control of our laws that was spun to Leave voters is it?
How can we possibly comply with these terms without the entire UK remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market?
Well we could do a bespoke deal that defined every single rule as in or out of scope, but that'd take years to negotiate, not just a few months. And then there's all the fun and games of arbitrating on any new rules that the EU brings in after that.
Shock horrer, the border issue will be settled on the outcome of the trade negotiations.
Except for the fact that the "sufficient progress" required on the border was a commitment to ensure that the UK Government would commit to protecting the mechanisms underpinning the Good Friday Agreement from the damage of a hard border (rather than those elements of border control that are unrelated to the GFA), in the event of no agreement, you're right.
The requirement was always only for "sufficient progress", not for a final detailed status to be agreed.
- EU citizens currently in the UK will be unaffected - the whole of the UK to abide by single market/customs union.
I.e. exactly what Vote Leave campaigned for, and what the UK should have guaranteed well over a year ago. So millions of pounds and over a year of negotiating wasted on the most obvious common sense solution.
How can we possibly comply with these terms without the entire UK remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market?
The reference to regulatory divergence only being able to happen, provided the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree to it, is a useful line - because, although a useful sop to the DUP, it seems to indicate that no such agreement can be achieved, given the peculiarities of the political processes around Stormont (when they work), and it suggests that HMG itself cannot introduce divergent regulation.
Shock horrer, the border issue will be settled on the outcome of the trade negotiations.
Except for the fact that the "sufficient progress" required on the border was a commitment to ensure that the UK Government would commit to protecting the mechanisms underpinning the Good Friday Agreement from the damage of a hard border (rather than those elements of border control that are unrelated to the GFA), in the event of no agreement, you're right.
The requirement was always only for "sufficient progress", not for a final detailed status to be agreed.
All that the sides have agreed is there will be no hard border. That was the common position from the outset. What progress?
Shock horrer, the border issue will be settled on the outcome of the trade negotiations.
Except for the fact that the "sufficient progress" required on the border was a commitment to ensure that the UK Government would commit to protecting the mechanisms underpinning the Good Friday Agreement from the damage of a hard border (rather than those elements of border control that are unrelated to the GFA), in the event of no agreement, you're right.
The requirement was always only for "sufficient progress", not for a final detailed status to be agreed.
All that the sides have agreed is there will be no hard border. That was the common position from the outset. What progress?
No, the UK stated it didn't want any hard border, but generally ignored the issue beyond that until relatively recently - the statement this morning is about binding commitments to what, and how, needs to be done to ensure that the GFA is protected, no matter what the outcome of any talks
It is clear progress from the UK Government's position that, in relation to the Irish border, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" for future trade talks. If trade talks had broken down, as could easily happen, there would be nothing beyond pious statements.
The EU position has been clear on the three elements of Phase 1; they are essentials of the hoped for exit agreement, not a future trade deal (though the border in Ireland may well be referenced).
Now, the EU27 will decide what mandate they will give the Commission regarding the framework of any future relationship (trade or otherwise), assuming that the EU Council are content that today's paper is satisfactory.
Comments
EU Army
https://euobserver.com/foreign/139854
http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-countries-agree-mega-army-2017-11
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-joint-defence-budget-french-president-nato-britain-brexit-russia-a7968346.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/19/eu-army-inevitable-says-senior-german-official/
United States of Europe
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/junker-reveals-his-vision-for-a-united-states-of-europe-k9q9p9l3w
https://euobserver.com/political/139002
You need to stop burying your head in the sand and realize this is becoming a reality.
A United States of Europe, likewise, would be the surrender of all sovereign power to the European Parliament and Commission, with a single head of state.
Let me know when those are even remotely close to happening. Until then, stop Googling "EU Army" or "United States of Europe", copy and pasting the first few headlines you find and don't even bother to read the details of the story beyond the sensationalist headline.
The problem with David Cameron is that, like many of us, having grown up on a diet of generally Eurosceptic media for several decades, he believed that to get change to the EU you just needed to get Germany and France on board (if it was ever true, it can only have been before the UK joined). He forgot that the EU is a rules-based, legalistic, construct, where the words in the Treaties and Directives matter, because they encapsulate what the member states have agreed (and, as I constantly say, the power in the EU rests with the member states). No changes can be foisted on the members without them having a say, and even, in important questions, a veto. None of the scare stories, quoting EU officials, would have any basis in fact, because most member states would have a national vote on the proposals (in the case of Ireland, almost by definition, a referendum).
This meant he claimed he could achieve the impossible (Treaty change without proper negotiation) and, when he so obviously failed he still went ahead with a referendum campaign where he campaigned quite effectively, but only to people that were like him. This worked in his constituency elections, or trying to schmooze the media as Tory leader. But he had never really had to seek to persuade the general public outside of stage-managed events - he remained a PR man rather than a conviction politician.
The problem, post Cameron, is that the UK Government now appears more amateurish than it did before, with many senior positions seemingly occupied by individuals who cannot be effectively briefed or wilfully misunderstand the challenges they face. Time was wasted before incoming Article 50 by failing to prepare, time was wasted since by attempting to circumvent the established sequencing of the negotiations when, whether we like it or not, seeking an agreed departure and future relationship is more important to the UK than to the EU27, and time has been consistently wasted negotiating within Government and in the media amongst themselves (the very first thing that needed to be agreed was a strategy for the UK to maximise whatever benefits, if any, could be achieved - instead we still see utter chaos and paralysis in Government as it wages a low level civil war).
Frankly, if I was seeking to create a disastrous Brexit negotiation, being the pro-EU fifth columnist that I undoubtedly am, I could not have done a better job. It's almost enough to make want to vote Tory (okay, I may be telling the teensiest of lies).
I'm sure it can happen, I'm sure there's reasons for it to happen, I'm not sure if demigogues like Macron, who fails within his country to pass legislation, has much support to make it happen.
In many ways I'm quite glad we're away from being influenced by the rise of populism/far right European politics. It is quite ironic now those against EU's federilisation intent are/were bankrolled by self interested billionaires like Charlie Wheeler with no interest in Free Markets but those that enrich them and their fellow plutocrats. It ain't for you.
The Commission are recommending that sufficient progress has been made, now it's up to the member states to decide if they agree (so, we should all hope for no intemperate comments from the DUP and it's fellow travellers in the next few days).
Where's that "It's Happening!" gif?
Norway model on the way? If that's the case I'm delighted, but I don't trust this bunch of politicians to achieve anything meaningful so I'll still expect the worst!!
Not really the big, shouty taking back of control of our laws that was spun to Leave voters is it?
The requirement was always only for "sufficient progress", not for a final detailed status to be agreed.
- EU citizens currently in the UK will be unaffected
- the whole of the UK to abide by single market/customs union.
I.e. exactly what Vote Leave campaigned for, and what the UK should have guaranteed well over a year ago. So millions of pounds and over a year of negotiating wasted on the most obvious common sense solution.
It is clear progress from the UK Government's position that, in relation to the Irish border, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" for future trade talks. If trade talks had broken down, as could easily happen, there would be nothing beyond pious statements.
The EU position has been clear on the three elements of Phase 1; they are essentials of the hoped for exit agreement, not a future trade deal (though the border in Ireland may well be referenced).
Now, the EU27 will decide what mandate they will give the Commission regarding the framework of any future relationship (trade or otherwise), assuming that the EU Council are content that today's paper is satisfactory.
Considering we have now reached an agreement that the EU has always been putting forward and that the UK voted for as per the referendum campaigning.