Thought juncker afterwards was superb, if that's angry god help us. He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
Why would it be mentioned? The EU, or EC as was, had had various presidents since 1958. We weren't in a European super state then, we're not in one now, and there appears to be very little desire (outside of a few bureaucrats that have neither the ability nor influence to force the issue) for one to be created anytime in the future.
The election to replace him is next year so that's probably why he mentioned it.
Astounding that someone who is a daily contributor to this thread and a hugely vocal opponent of the EU does not even know this basic fact.
Who said I didn't, as usual you assumed it and I am not responsible for your assumption. I am astounded that you thought that..too quick to jump in again. Engage brain before opening mouth. You shouldn't assume anything as it just makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Unconvincing denial, Yoda.
You said: He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
That's just stating a fact - it's his replacement at the end of his second term for a position that has existed since 1975 in either 6 monthly rotation and since 2009 a fixed term. You clearly link it to a euro super state development as if this is something new. So a very easy assumption to make that you were unaware of the existing structure (something you voted to leave from) - more a nigh on certainty than assumption.
Picture the following, there is a family from New York. Currently they holiday on the Jersey shore each summer as it's a very short drive from NY.
However, over the years the family wonders if they could get better and cheaper holidays else where. So they decide to hold a vote, remain in the current holiday destination, or leave and holiday somewhere further afield.
The vote is won 4-3 by the leavers, so somebody asks the parents where they're going to go now.
Mummy May won't be drawn on the actual destination, simply repeating "elsewhere is elsewhere" until the family turn away in confusion.
Of the 4 how voted against NJ there seems to be a split. There's 2 who want to go to Florida, but Daddy Nigel is now denying he ever mentioned Disney World or Busch Gardens before the vote. Another for the leave voters insists that Florida is still in the US so isn't really elsewhere at all, what's the point in leaving NJ if we're going to stay in the same country? The other doesn't care where they go as for them it was just the fact they hated some of the people at the Jersey Shore.
The 3 who voted to stay in NJ are just frustrated that nobody can agree where they're actually going to go instead and wondering how they're going to pay for this trip .
Even worse, wherever they go, it's on an airline with unqualified pilots and planes with no GPS, so their chances of getting anywhere successfully are pretty slim.
Just like Brexit, this analogy had a better solution too. Before the vote was held, the possible destinations should have been selected and costed, and once one was selected, a mode of transport guaranteed to get them all there in one piece at an affordable price should have been selected.
Thought juncker afterwards was superb, if that's angry god help us. He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
Why would it be mentioned? The EU, or EC as was, had had various presidents since 1958. We weren't in a European super state then, we're not in one now, and there appears to be very little desire (outside of a few bureaucrats that have neither the ability nor influence to force the issue) for one to be created anytime in the future.
The election to replace him is next year so that's probably why he mentioned it.
Astounding that someone who is a daily contributor to this thread and a hugely vocal opponent of the EU does not even know this basic fact.
Who said I didn't, as usual you assumed it and I am not responsible for your assumption. I am astounded that you thought that..too quick to jump in again. Engage brain before opening mouth. You shouldn't assume anything as it just makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Unconvincing denial, Yoda.
You said: He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
That's just stating a fact - it's his replacement at the end of his second term for a position that has existed since 1975 in either 6 monthly rotation and since 2009 a fixed term. You clearly link it to a euro super state development as if this is something new. So a very easy assumption to make that you were unaware of the existing structure (something you voted to leave from) - more a nigh on certainty than assumption.
Thought juncker afterwards was superb, if that's angry god help us. He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
Why would it be mentioned? The EU, or EC as was, had had various presidents since 1958. We weren't in a European super state then, we're not in one now, and there appears to be very little desire (outside of a few bureaucrats that have neither the ability nor influence to force the issue) for one to be created anytime in the future.
The election to replace him is next year so that's probably why he mentioned it.
Astounding that someone who is a daily contributor to this thread and a hugely vocal opponent of the EU does not even know this basic fact.
Who said I didn't, as usual you assumed it and I am not responsible for your assumption. I am astounded that you thought that..too quick to jump in again. Engage brain before opening mouth. You shouldn't assume anything as it just makes an ASS out of U and ME.
You're not fooling anyone. You clearly had no idea a president already existed. Try harder.
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
‘My belief about his beliefs.’
And I have not criticised him for it. I applaud him for it.
From what I can read in these links some journalists report that federalists in Europe like some of the things that Juncker suggests, but that is not to say that he explicitly suggests a Federal Europe. Indeed today he did explicitly say that the EU would not be the United States of Europe, and he also suggested it (the EU) draws it's strength and creative potential exactly because it is 27 individual states with their particular perspectives learning how to collaborate. Juncker is also out of it next year anyway.
Thought juncker afterwards was superb, if that's angry god help us. He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
Why would it be mentioned? The EU, or EC as was, had had various presidents since 1958. We weren't in a European super state then, we're not in one now, and there appears to be very little desire (outside of a few bureaucrats that have neither the ability nor influence to force the issue) for one to be created anytime in the future.
The election to replace him is next year so that's probably why he mentioned it.
Astounding that someone who is a daily contributor to this thread and a hugely vocal opponent of the EU does not even know this basic fact.
Who said I didn't, as usual you assumed it and I am not responsible for your assumption. I am astounded that you thought that..too quick to jump in again. Engage brain before opening mouth. You shouldn't assume anything as it just makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Unconvincing denial, Yoda.
You said: He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
That's just stating a fact - it's his replacement at the end of his second term for a position that has existed since 1975 in either 6 monthly rotation and since 2009 a fixed term. You clearly link it to a euro super state development as if this is something new. So a very easy assumption to make that you were unaware of the existing structure (something you voted to leave from) - more a nigh on certainty than assumption.
I didn't need to Google anything there either!!
Great post. Chippy yet again undone by his own stupidity.
“He takes issue with those in British politics who characterise him as a "stupid, stubborn, federalist".
Juncker is far from stupid.
He is stubborn but no problem with that if can be conciliatory when required
But, personally, I believe he is a federalist.
And I should add, as I have often stated, a federal EU is the only way it can really work ... unless we have a multi-track EU ... which is my preference and would make me want to remain if handled efficiently.
Is there any particular feature about Juncker saying he is not a federalist that leads you to believe he is a federalist?
My instinct is obviously not based upon that statement ... and you know it’s not.
It’s based upon his history over the last few years and the many statements he has made regarding the future of the EU. I interpret them as federalist in nature. You may not, but I feel confident that I am leaning in the right direction.
You mention the last few years, and today Juncker specifically referenced the last few years ( I believe he specified 'four' years) as part of his denial. Are you sure you're not indulging in a bit of creative interpretation?
Well, I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions in the past on Brexit threads ... so no, I am not.
Why should you care anyway, it is my belief about his beliefs. Hardly the worst thing going on at the moment.
I think he is right to be a federalist ... that is what would make the EU work more effectively for those that want it.
I suppose I care because the bloke specifically says, with words coming out of his own mouth, that he is not a federalist, yet people say he is. What chance has anybody got?
‘My belief about his beliefs.’
And I have not criticised him for it. I applaud him for it.
From what I can read in these links some journalists report that federalists in Europe like some of the things that Juncker suggests, but that is not to say that he explicitly suggests a Federal Europe. Indeed today he did explicitly say that the EU would not be the United States of Europe, and he also suggested it (the EU) draws it's strength and creative potential exactly because it is 27 individual states with their particular perspectives learning how to collaborate. Juncker is also out of it next year anyway.
I am listening to the World Tonight on R4. They are talking about the continuing bitter divide between Brexiters and Remainers. There was some research quoted which basically said people are so entrenched that when asked if they would take in a lodger, they would only take in one who was like minded on Brexit. And then they returned to "a pub in SE London" where they were before the referendum. They ask a guy what he thinks about Remainers. I can quote him verbatim
"Greedy bastards. Rich people. I mean, who won the war? We did."
Edit : he said "it's all money to these people" Another one said "rich people"
WTF is he talking about? In what way am I greedy by being a Remainer? Do you suppose I am "richer" than any of you? Even if that were true, why did EU membership make me richer than you? And as for the frigging war!! Who's this "we"? Not him or me, obviously. Well my Dad was one of 7 kids from Plumstead and did his time in Burma with the Royal Signals in the rank of corporal. Is that enough of a contribution? WTF? WTF is this shit? Does this guy speak for you? we are leaving the EU on the back of a wave of hateful incomprehensible bile like that?
And as for that second half at the Valley...
What a weird post. Why the fuck would any of us take responsibility for those words when they are not our own?
Plus you have seen enough of our posts to know the way we think is far from those comments.
You dissociate yourself from people who think and speak like this guy then?
You also tend to distance yourself from them when I remind you who the main politicians are who led and continue to lead Brexit. We will hear from them this week, starting with Boris Johnson, who seems to be following the Katrien Meire approach (its all going to be a wonderful new Britain, all our decisions are right, and you are going to love these shiny new ways, but you must not complain, you just have to accept it)
Do you wish to tell me that that bloke in the pub (in our part of London, and not in Stoke) is a small minority of Brexit voters; and that the vast majority voted Brexit as you did, based around your belief that Britain will prosper due to better international trading prospects, and that it was nothing to do with wanting less foreigners around, and less relationship with Germany because we once were at war with them?
Trust me on this, I really would love to believe he is a small minority. I don't like to feel disgusted and alienated by my country, and that millions of my fellow countrymen hate me because I can spell and have earned enough money through honest respectable work to live what I suppose would be termed a middle -class life, probably much the same as yours if we compared, (save that I live in another country now, as you did in the past).
Let's all consider this raft of Brexiteer ministers' speeches this week. Then maybe you could follow @Imissthepeanutman 's example and name the politician who now best articulates your reasons for voting Brexit. A good route to "debating the issues" as @Southbank said last night, I'd suggest.
Unfortunately, as you know, you do not always get to choose who in on your side.
You can only stick to your beliefs and trust that right will prevail. I believe the modern term is called "stretch collaboration" in order to offset the deficiencies of conventional collaboration.
Some people still assume that you can be elected on to the EU Commission by EU Commissioners and not be a frothing at the mouth Euro super state federalist. It's not optional you know.
I can’t speak for the country but, on this thread, I believe most ... definitely not all ... remainers and brexiters are far closer in our beliefs than we would like to admit.
In the past, remainers such as @PragueAddick and others, have admitted that if we were asked to join the EU now, they would be very reluctant to support such a move. This makes sense because we all agree that there is much to improve within the EU.
However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU.
At the risk of being a broken record, I believe such a cooperative approach would work in a multi-speed EU. The problem is that one of the main proponents of such an approach, Angela Merkel, has lost the power she had. The new ‘powerhouse’, Macron, has a very different approach. Unfortunately, this makes it doubtful that a multi-track deal can be pursued at this juncture.
However, there is still time and many negotiations to come, so who knows.
If only we could get some decent politicians to work on this. With the leaders of both main political parties fence-sitting, and the media focussing on the fools who have no idea what to do, there is no doubt that things could be better!
Thought juncker afterwards was superb, if that's angry god help us. He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
Why would it be mentioned? The EU, or EC as was, had had various presidents since 1958. We weren't in a European super state then, we're not in one now, and there appears to be very little desire (outside of a few bureaucrats that have neither the ability nor influence to force the issue) for one to be created anytime in the future.
The election to replace him is next year so that's probably why he mentioned it.
Astounding that someone who is a daily contributor to this thread and a hugely vocal opponent of the EU does not even know this basic fact.
Who said I didn't, as usual you assumed it and I am not responsible for your assumption. I am astounded that you thought that..too quick to jump in again. Engage brain before opening mouth. You shouldn't assume anything as it just makes an ASS out of U and ME.
You're not fooling anyone. You clearly had no idea a president already existed. Try harder.
Thought juncker afterwards was superb, if that's angry god help us. He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
Why would it be mentioned? The EU, or EC as was, had had various presidents since 1958. We weren't in a European super state then, we're not in one now, and there appears to be very little desire (outside of a few bureaucrats that have neither the ability nor influence to force the issue) for one to be created anytime in the future.
The election to replace him is next year so that's probably why he mentioned it.
Astounding that someone who is a daily contributor to this thread and a hugely vocal opponent of the EU does not even know this basic fact.
Who said I didn't, as usual you assumed it and I am not responsible for your assumption. I am astounded that you thought that..too quick to jump in again. Engage brain before opening mouth. You shouldn't assume anything as it just makes an ASS out of U and ME.
Unconvincing denial, Yoda.
You said: He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
That's just stating a fact - it's his replacement at the end of his second term for a position that has existed since 1975 in either 6 monthly rotation and since 2009 a fixed term. You clearly link it to a euro super state development as if this is something new. So a very easy assumption to make that you were unaware of the existing structure (something you voted to leave from) - more a nigh on certainty than assumption.
I didn't need to Google anything there either!!
Watch the lunchtime news today on catch up if you can. See if your right about our friends assumption.
The point I was making on the BBC correspondent's summary, who was in Brussels listening to his speech. Why the usual idiot twisted into his tenancy I don't know.
The point I was making on the BBC correspondent's summary, who was in Brussels listening to his speech. Why the usual idiot twisted into his tenancy I don't know.
You see Chippy this is why people post links. It helps other readers r understand what TF the poster is on about.
So finally i understand. You are bothered that Juncker is promoting the idea of the EU President being directly elected, is that right? Why is that a bad idea, compared with the current situation wher he or she is voted by the heads of national governments? Isn't it more democratic?
I can’t speak for the country but, on this thread, I believe most ... definitely not all ... remainers and brexiters are far closer in our beliefs than we would like to admit.
In the past, remainers such as @PragueAddick and others, have admitted that if we were asked to join the EU now, they would be very reluctant to support such a move. This makes sense because we all agree that there is much to improve within the EU.
However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU.
At the risk of being a broken record, I believe such a cooperative approach would work in a multi-speed EU. The problem is that one of the main proponents of such an approach, Angela Merkel, has lost the power she had. The new ‘powerhouse’, Macron, has a very different approach. Unfortunately, this makes it doubtful that a multi-track deal can be pursued at this juncture.
However, there is still time and many negotiations to come, so who knows.
If only we could get some decent politicians to work on this. With the leaders of both main political parties fence-sitting, and the media focussing on the fools who have no idea what to do, there is no doubt that things could be better!
you WOT? !!!
I think that might be a slight misrepresentation, but never mind. The main problem with the multi-speed idea at this time is that the very countries who it is assumed would be able to drop in to the "second league" with the UK, were we to stay in, are currently vehemently against it. I'm speaking about the CEE countries, who have joined the EU with the key goal of raising their citizens' standards of living to those of Western Europe. They are suspicious that if they are parked in the slow lane, then that will be an economic slow lane for them. The old UK, the one that so strongly championed their entry in the first place, was an EU member they respected and listened to, which is why they are both sad and bewildered by Brexit. Sad that they have lost a big brother ally in Brussels and bewildered that the UK has suddenly become a country where their citizens are unwanted and despised. They thought the UK was a rather more mature and trustworthy country than it has turned out to be.
But anyway, you voted against making the effort to participate in such a dialogue, so it's a bit late to return to this now, isn't it?. Rather like its a bit late for Johnson to tell the likes of @blackpool72 to stop sneering "you lost, get over it", after 20 months of him saying nothing else.
I can’t speak for the country but, on this thread, I believe most ... definitely not all ... remainers and brexiters are far closer in our beliefs than we would like to admit.
In the past, remainers such as @PragueAddick and others, have admitted that if we were asked to join the EU now, they would be very reluctant to support such a move. This makes sense because we all agree that there is much to improve within the EU.
However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU.
At the risk of being a broken record, I believe such a cooperative approach would work in a multi-speed EU. The problem is that one of the main proponents of such an approach, Angela Merkel, has lost the power she had. The new ‘powerhouse’, Macron, has a very different approach. Unfortunately, this makes it doubtful that a multi-track deal can be pursued at this juncture.
However, there is still time and many negotiations to come, so who knows.
If only we could get some decent politicians to work on this. With the leaders of both main political parties fence-sitting, and the media focussing on the fools who have no idea what to do, there is no doubt that things could be better!
you WOT? !!!
I think that might be a slight misrepresentation, but never mind. The main problem with the multi-speed idea at this time is that the very countries who it is assumed would be able to drop in to the "second league" with the UK, were we to stay in, are currently vehemently against it. I'm speaking about the CEE countries, who have joined the EU with the key goal of raising their citizens' standards of living to those of Western Europe. They are suspicious that if they are parked in the slow lane, then that will be an economic slow lane for them. The old UK, the one that so strongly championed their entry in the first place, was an EU member they respected and listened to, which is why they are both sad and bewildered by Brexit. Sad that they have lost a big brother ally in Brussels and bewildered that the UK has suddenly become a country where their citizens are unwanted and despised. They thought the UK was a rather more mature and trustworthy country than it has turned out to be.
But anyway, you voted against making the effort to participate in such a dialogue, so it's a bit late to return to this now, isn't it?. Rather like its a bit late for Johnson to tell the likes of @blackpool72 to stop sneering "you lost, get over it", after 20 months of him saying nothing else.
Two points ... if I remember incorrectly, I apologise but I do remember you saying that. Takes far too long to search on here so can’t be bothered. I do know it surprised me at the time.
Secondly, you are misreading my comments. I said I do not believe we can have a dialogue in the current EU structure. But it could work in a multitrack Europe ... if you ever read Nick Clegg’s book, he explains the process far better than I do.
I can’t speak for the country but, on this thread, I believe most ... definitely not all ... remainers and brexiters are far closer in our beliefs than we would like to admit.
In the past, remainers such as @PragueAddick and others, have admitted that if we were asked to join the EU now, they would be very reluctant to support such a move. This makes sense because we all agree that there is much to improve within the EU.
However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU.
At the risk of being a broken record, I believe such a cooperative approach would work in a multi-speed EU. The problem is that one of the main proponents of such an approach, Angela Merkel, has lost the power she had. The new ‘powerhouse’, Macron, has a very different approach. Unfortunately, this makes it doubtful that a multi-track deal can be pursued at this juncture.
However, there is still time and many negotiations to come, so who knows.
If only we could get some decent politicians to work on this. With the leaders of both main political parties fence-sitting, and the media focussing on the fools who have no idea what to do, there is no doubt that things could be better!
you WOT? !!!
I think that might be a slight misrepresentation, but never mind. The main problem with the multi-speed idea at this time is that the very countries who it is assumed would be able to drop in to the "second league" with the UK, were we to stay in, are currently vehemently against it. I'm speaking about the CEE countries, who have joined the EU with the key goal of raising their citizens' standards of living to those of Western Europe. They are suspicious that if they are parked in the slow lane, then that will be an economic slow lane for them. The old UK, the one that so strongly championed their entry in the first place, was an EU member they respected and listened to, which is why they are both sad and bewildered by Brexit. Sad that they have lost a big brother ally in Brussels and bewildered that the UK has suddenly become a country where their citizens are unwanted and despised. They thought the UK was a rather more mature and trustworthy country than it has turned out to be.
But anyway, you voted against making the effort to participate in such a dialogue, so it's a bit late to return to this now, isn't it?. Rather like its a bit late for Johnson to tell the likes of @blackpool72 to stop sneering "you lost, get over it", after 20 months of him saying nothing else.
Two points ... if I remember incorrectly, I apologise but I do remember you saying that. Takes far too long to search on here so can’t be bothered. I do know it surprised me at the time.
Secondly, you are misreading my comments. I said I do not believe we can have a dialogue in the current EU structure. But it could work in a multitrack Europe ... if you ever read Nick Clegg’s book, he explains the process far better than I do.
I too, could be wrong, but I think you have Prague mixed up with Muttley
Picture the following, there is a family from New York. Currently they holiday on the Jersey shore each summer as it's a very short drive from NY.
However, over the years the family wonders if they could get better and cheaper holidays else where. So they decide to hold a vote, remain in the current holiday destination, or leave and holiday somewhere further afield.
The vote is won 4-3 by the leavers, so somebody asks the parents where they're going to go now.
Mummy May won't be drawn on the actual destination, simply repeating "elsewhere is elsewhere" until the family turn away in confusion.
Of the 4 how voted against NJ there seems to be a split. There's 2 who want to go to Florida, but Daddy Nigel is now denying he ever mentioned Disney World or Busch Gardens before the vote. Another for the leave voters insists that Florida is still in the US so isn't really elsewhere at all, what's the point in leaving NJ if we're going to stay in the same country? The other doesn't care where they go as for them it was just the fact they hated some of the people at the Jersey Shore.
The 3 who voted to stay in NJ are just frustrated that nobody can agree where they're actually going to go instead and wondering how they're going to pay for this trip .
Even worse, wherever they go, it's on an airline with unqualified pilots and planes with no GPS, so their chances of getting anywhere successfully are pretty slim.
Just like Brexit, this analogy had a better solution too. Before the vote was held, the possible destinations should have been selected and costed, and once one was selected, a mode of transport guaranteed to get them all there in one piece at an affordable price should have been selected.
Could you get yourself over to the takeover thread? It needs a house buying analogy.
Picture the following, there is a family from New York. Currently they holiday on the Jersey shore each summer as it's a very short drive from NY.
However, over the years the family wonders if they could get better and cheaper holidays else where. So they decide to hold a vote, remain in the current holiday destination, or leave and holiday somewhere further afield.
The vote is won 4-3 by the leavers, so somebody asks the parents where they're going to go now.
Mummy May won't be drawn on the actual destination, simply repeating "elsewhere is elsewhere" until the family turn away in confusion.
Of the 4 how voted against NJ there seems to be a split. There's 2 who want to go to Florida, but Daddy Nigel is now denying he ever mentioned Disney World or Busch Gardens before the vote. Another for the leave voters insists that Florida is still in the US so isn't really elsewhere at all, what's the point in leaving NJ if we're going to stay in the same country? The other doesn't care where they go as for them it was just the fact they hated some of the people at the Jersey Shore.
The 3 who voted to stay in NJ are just frustrated that nobody can agree where they're actually going to go instead and wondering how they're going to pay for this trip .
Even worse, wherever they go, it's on an airline with unqualified pilots and planes with no GPS, so their chances of getting anywhere successfully are pretty slim.
Just like Brexit, this analogy had a better solution too. Before the vote was held, the possible destinations should have been selected and costed, and once one was selected, a mode of transport guaranteed to get them all there in one piece at an affordable price should have been selected.
I too have a decent analogy. The people of a country are not given a vote on whether they want to join a political union with other countries. Their country joins anyway.
Then they are given a vote and they vote against it.
Picture the following, there is a family from New York. Currently they holiday on the Jersey shore each summer as it's a very short drive from NY.
However, over the years the family wonders if they could get better and cheaper holidays else where. So they decide to hold a vote, remain in the current holiday destination, or leave and holiday somewhere further afield.
The vote is won 4-3 by the leavers, so somebody asks the parents where they're going to go now.
Mummy May won't be drawn on the actual destination, simply repeating "elsewhere is elsewhere" until the family turn away in confusion.
Of the 4 how voted against NJ there seems to be a split. There's 2 who want to go to Florida, but Daddy Nigel is now denying he ever mentioned Disney World or Busch Gardens before the vote. Another for the leave voters insists that Florida is still in the US so isn't really elsewhere at all, what's the point in leaving NJ if we're going to stay in the same country? The other doesn't care where they go as for them it was just the fact they hated some of the people at the Jersey Shore.
The 3 who voted to stay in NJ are just frustrated that nobody can agree where they're actually going to go instead and wondering how they're going to pay for this trip .
Even worse, wherever they go, it's on an airline with unqualified pilots and planes with no GPS, so their chances of getting anywhere successfully are pretty slim.
Just like Brexit, this analogy had a better solution too. Before the vote was held, the possible destinations should have been selected and costed, and once one was selected, a mode of transport guaranteed to get them all there in one piece at an affordable price should have been selected.
I too have a decent analogy. The people of a country are not given a vote on whether they want to join a political union with other countries. Their country joins anyway.
Then they are given a vote and they vote against it.
Sorry it is not as complicated as yours.
Firstly, that's not an anology, and secondly, we're not given a vote on anything directly, I didn't vote for loads of 3 lane dual carriageways to drop their speed limit to 50mph, or extensions to copyright terms. We live in a parliamentary democracy, we don't get to vote directly on anything.
In fact twice we have been given referendums on EU memberships. Both times the questions was far to simple to encompass the scale and complexity of the relationship we have with the EC/EU. First time it was 65%+ in favour of staying a member, second time it was 52% in favour of leaving. If we don't leave in the next 18 months we'll probably get a third and if polls are to be believed then remain will win and take a 2-1 lead.
Picture the following, there is a family from New York. Currently they holiday on the Jersey shore each summer as it's a very short drive from NY.
However, over the years the family wonders if they could get better and cheaper holidays else where. So they decide to hold a vote, remain in the current holiday destination, or leave and holiday somewhere further afield.
The vote is won 4-3 by the leavers, so somebody asks the parents where they're going to go now.
Mummy May won't be drawn on the actual destination, simply repeating "elsewhere is elsewhere" until the family turn away in confusion.
Of the 4 how voted against NJ there seems to be a split. There's 2 who want to go to Florida, but Daddy Nigel is now denying he ever mentioned Disney World or Busch Gardens before the vote. Another for the leave voters insists that Florida is still in the US so isn't really elsewhere at all, what's the point in leaving NJ if we're going to stay in the same country? The other doesn't care where they go as for them it was just the fact they hated some of the people at the Jersey Shore.
The 3 who voted to stay in NJ are just frustrated that nobody can agree where they're actually going to go instead and wondering how they're going to pay for this trip .
Even worse, wherever they go, it's on an airline with unqualified pilots and planes with no GPS, so their chances of getting anywhere successfully are pretty slim.
Just like Brexit, this analogy had a better solution too. Before the vote was held, the possible destinations should have been selected and costed, and once one was selected, a mode of transport guaranteed to get them all there in one piece at an affordable price should have been selected.
I too have a decent analogy. The people of a country are not given a vote on whether they want to join a political union with other countries. Their country joins anyway.
Then they are given a vote and they vote against it.
Sorry it is not as complicated as yours.
Firstly, that's not an anology, and secondly, we're not given a vote on anything directly, I didn't vote for loads of 3 lane dual carriageways to drop their speed limit to 50mph, or extensions to copyright terms. We live in a parliamentary democracy, we don't get to vote directly on anything.
In fact twice we have been given referendums on EU memberships. Both times the questions was far to simple to encompass the scale and complexity of the relationship we have with the EC/EU. First time it was 65%+ in favour of staying a member, second time it was 52% in favour of leaving. If we don't leave in the next 18 months we'll probably get a third and if polls are to be believed then remain will win and take a 2-1 lead.
As you know, the first vote had nothing to do with a political union.
I can’t speak for the country but, on this thread, I believe most ... definitely not all ... remainers and brexiters are far closer in our beliefs than we would like to admit.
In the past, remainers such as @PragueAddick and others, have admitted that if we were asked to join the EU now, they would be very reluctant to support such a move. This makes sense because we all agree that there is much to improve within the EU.
However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU.
At the risk of being a broken record, I believe such a cooperative approach would work in a multi-speed EU. The problem is that one of the main proponents of such an approach, Angela Merkel, has lost the power she had. The new ‘powerhouse’, Macron, has a very different approach. Unfortunately, this makes it doubtful that a multi-track deal can be pursued at this juncture.
However, there is still time and many negotiations to come, so who knows.
If only we could get some decent politicians to work on this. With the leaders of both main political parties fence-sitting, and the media focussing on the fools who have no idea what to do, there is no doubt that things could be better!
you WOT? !!!
I think that might be a slight misrepresentation, but never mind. The main problem with the multi-speed idea at this time is that the very countries who it is assumed would be able to drop in to the "second league" with the UK, were we to stay in, are currently vehemently against it. I'm speaking about the CEE countries, who have joined the EU with the key goal of raising their citizens' standards of living to those of Western Europe. They are suspicious that if they are parked in the slow lane, then that will be an economic slow lane for them. The old UK, the one that so strongly championed their entry in the first place, was an EU member they respected and listened to, which is why they are both sad and bewildered by Brexit. Sad that they have lost a big brother ally in Brussels and bewildered that the UK has suddenly become a country where their citizens are unwanted and despised. They thought the UK was a rather more mature and trustworthy country than it has turned out to be.
But anyway, you voted against making the effort to participate in such a dialogue, so it's a bit late to return to this now, isn't it?. Rather like its a bit late for Johnson to tell the likes of @blackpool72 to stop sneering "you lost, get over it", after 20 months of him saying nothing else.
Two points ... if I remember incorrectly, I apologise but I do remember you saying that. Takes far too long to search on here so can’t be bothered. I do know it surprised me at the time.
Secondly, you are misreading my comments. I said I do not believe we can have a dialogue in the current EU structure. But it could work in a multitrack Europe ... if you ever read Nick Clegg’s book, he explains the process far better than I do.
My comment to @PragueAddick was: "In the past, remainers such as @PragueAddick and others, have admitted that if we were asked to join the EU now, they would be very reluctant to support such a move."
I may be getting older but I knew I remembered something - fortunately it just took a little time to search.
"I ought then to concede that I think the Euro is indeed a flawed project and if the referendum had been on joining, now, I would vote no. However I do think the EU will address the issues. For example, while @Stonemuse, a Brexiter, goes over the top saying that there should be full fiscal union now, while knowing perfectly well that it isn't possible any time soon, I do think some gradual movement in that direction will happen. For example a single corporation tax rate. That could limit the room for the big mainly American companies to play their tax avoidance games which we have discussed here. National tax offices working together could then work out formulas for taxing those guys as they should be, at the point of service delivery I would suggest. this would lead to a useful boost in tax take for all the EU countries, including those outSide the Eurozone, but not the U.K."
Not digging you out @PragueAddick but it is worth setting the record straight in that my recollection was correct. All I was doing in my post was pointing out that remainers and brexiters are far closer in our beliefs than we would like to admit.
If political union was ever really on the cards, most countries would be out straightaway. The political union idea only seems to ever come up when every other argument for leaving the EU has been shown to be invalid. Those of us who live or who have lived in other EU countries know that it is not about political union: each country is just as proud of its own identity and sovereignty as the UK.
Picture the following, there is a family from New York. Currently they holiday on the Jersey shore each summer as it's a very short drive from NY.
However, over the years the family wonders if they could get better and cheaper holidays else where. So they decide to hold a vote, remain in the current holiday destination, or leave and holiday somewhere further afield.
The vote is won 4-3 by the leavers, so somebody asks the parents where they're going to go now.
Mummy May won't be drawn on the actual destination, simply repeating "elsewhere is elsewhere" until the family turn away in confusion.
Of the 4 how voted against NJ there seems to be a split. There's 2 who want to go to Florida, but Daddy Nigel is now denying he ever mentioned Disney World or Busch Gardens before the vote. Another for the leave voters insists that Florida is still in the US so isn't really elsewhere at all, what's the point in leaving NJ if we're going to stay in the same country? The other doesn't care where they go as for them it was just the fact they hated some of the people at the Jersey Shore.
The 3 who voted to stay in NJ are just frustrated that nobody can agree where they're actually going to go instead and wondering how they're going to pay for this trip .
Even worse, wherever they go, it's on an airline with unqualified pilots and planes with no GPS, so their chances of getting anywhere successfully are pretty slim.
Just like Brexit, this analogy had a better solution too. Before the vote was held, the possible destinations should have been selected and costed, and once one was selected, a mode of transport guaranteed to get them all there in one piece at an affordable price should have been selected.
I too have a decent analogy. The people of a country are not given a vote on whether they want to join a political union with other countries. Their country joins anyway.
Then they are given a vote and they vote against it.
Sorry it is not as complicated as yours.
Firstly, that's not an anology, and secondly, we're not given a vote on anything directly, I didn't vote for loads of 3 lane dual carriageways to drop their speed limit to 50mph, or extensions to copyright terms. We live in a parliamentary democracy, we don't get to vote directly on anything.
In fact twice we have been given referendums on EU memberships. Both times the questions was far to simple to encompass the scale and complexity of the relationship we have with the EC/EU. First time it was 65%+ in favour of staying a member, second time it was 52% in favour of leaving. If we don't leave in the next 18 months we'll probably get a third and if polls are to be believed then remain will win and take a 2-1 lead.
As you know, the first vote had nothing to do with a political union.
Actually it did, and I've commented on this before. Closer political union has been an aim of the EC/EU since it's inception in the 50s. Like our recent referendum, the one in the 70s was a simple leave/stay question, not qualified in any way. For some reason, leavers have decided they want to mis-remember/mis-represent the 70s referendum as being solely about trade, and indeed, whoever campaigned for remain back then may have insinuated that to gain votes, but it was never in the wording of the question voted on.
The most ironic thing is, the mess babyboomer leavers are making of this, by the time we go back in, probably in 10-15 years time, their pensions will be paid in Euro, ho ho ho
Comments
You said:
He says there is no plans for a euro super state, yet announces they are going to elect a president, something the bbc reporter picked up on. Surprised no one else here has mentioned it.
That's just stating a fact - it's his replacement at the end of his second term for a position that has existed since 1975 in either 6 monthly rotation and since 2009 a fixed term. You clearly link it to a euro super state development as if this is something new. So a very easy assumption to make that you were unaware of the existing structure (something you voted to leave from) - more a nigh on certainty than assumption.
I didn't need to Google anything there either!!
Picture the following, there is a family from New York. Currently they holiday on the Jersey shore each summer as it's a very short drive from NY.
However, over the years the family wonders if they could get better and cheaper holidays else where. So they decide to hold a vote, remain in the current holiday destination, or leave and holiday somewhere further afield.
The vote is won 4-3 by the leavers, so somebody asks the parents where they're going to go now.
Mummy May won't be drawn on the actual destination, simply repeating "elsewhere is elsewhere" until the family turn away in confusion.
Of the 4 how voted against NJ there seems to be a split. There's 2 who want to go to Florida, but Daddy Nigel is now denying he ever mentioned Disney World or Busch Gardens before the vote. Another for the leave voters insists that Florida is still in the US so isn't really elsewhere at all, what's the point in leaving NJ if we're going to stay in the same country? The other doesn't care where they go as for them it was just the fact they hated some of the people at the Jersey Shore.
The 3 who voted to stay in NJ are just frustrated that nobody can agree where they're actually going to go instead and wondering how they're going to pay for this trip .
Even worse, wherever they go, it's on an airline with unqualified pilots and planes with no GPS, so their chances of getting anywhere successfully are pretty slim.
Just like Brexit, this analogy had a better solution too. Before the vote was held, the possible destinations should have been selected and costed, and once one was selected, a mode of transport guaranteed to get them all there in one piece at an affordable price should have been selected.
Indeed today he did explicitly say that the EU would not be the United States of Europe, and he also suggested it (the EU) draws it's strength and creative potential exactly because it is 27 individual states with their particular perspectives learning how to collaborate.
Juncker is also out of it next year anyway.
You can only stick to your beliefs and trust that right will prevail. I believe the modern term is called "stretch collaboration" in order to offset the deficiencies of conventional collaboration.
In the past, remainers such as @PragueAddick and others, have admitted that if we were asked to join the EU now, they would be very reluctant to support such a move. This makes sense because we all agree that there is much to improve within the EU.
However, as we are in already, the argument from the remainers is that we are better off fighting for improvement from the inside rather than undoing 40 years of work. I can understand this viewpoint ... the difference is that I do not believe that we can implement such change to any great extent due to the intransigence and bureaucracy of the EU.
At the risk of being a broken record, I believe such a cooperative approach would work in a multi-speed EU. The problem is that one of the main proponents of such an approach, Angela Merkel, has lost the power she had. The new ‘powerhouse’, Macron, has a very different approach. Unfortunately, this makes it doubtful that a multi-track deal can be pursued at this juncture.
However, there is still time and many negotiations to come, so who knows.
If only we could get some decent politicians to work on this. With the leaders of both main political parties fence-sitting, and the media focussing on the fools who have no idea what to do, there is no doubt that things could be better!
It's like thinking I'm going to be voting for my MP in the next 5 year is worth posting about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43058087
The point I was making on the BBC correspondent's summary, who was in Brussels listening to his speech. Why the usual idiot twisted into his tenancy I don't know.
So finally i understand. You are bothered that Juncker is promoting the idea of the EU President being directly elected, is that right? Why is that a bad idea, compared with the current situation wher he or she is voted by the heads of national governments? Isn't it more democratic?
I think that might be a slight misrepresentation, but never mind. The main problem with the multi-speed idea at this time is that the very countries who it is assumed would be able to drop in to the "second league" with the UK, were we to stay in, are currently vehemently against it. I'm speaking about the CEE countries, who have joined the EU with the key goal of raising their citizens' standards of living to those of Western Europe. They are suspicious that if they are parked in the slow lane, then that will be an economic slow lane for them. The old UK, the one that so strongly championed their entry in the first place, was an EU member they respected and listened to, which is why they are both sad and bewildered by Brexit. Sad that they have lost a big brother ally in Brussels and bewildered that the UK has suddenly become a country where their citizens are unwanted and despised. They thought the UK was a rather more mature and trustworthy country than it has turned out to be.
But anyway, you voted against making the effort to participate in such a dialogue, so it's a bit late to return to this now, isn't it?. Rather like its a bit late for Johnson to tell the likes of @blackpool72 to stop sneering "you lost, get over it", after 20 months of him saying nothing else.
Secondly, you are misreading my comments. I said I do not believe we can have a dialogue in the current EU structure. But it could work in a multitrack Europe ... if you ever read Nick Clegg’s book, he explains the process far better than I do.
Then they are given a vote and they vote against it.
Sorry it is not as complicated as yours.
In fact twice we have been given referendums on EU memberships. Both times the questions was far to simple to encompass the scale and complexity of the relationship we have with the EC/EU. First time it was 65%+ in favour of staying a member, second time it was 52% in favour of leaving. If we don't leave in the next 18 months we'll probably get a third and if polls are to be believed then remain will win and take a 2-1 lead.
I may be getting older but I knew I remembered something - fortunately it just took a little time to search.
forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/77263/article-50/p113
"I ought then to concede that I think the Euro is indeed a flawed project and if the referendum had been on joining, now, I would vote no. However I do think the EU will address the issues. For example, while @Stonemuse, a Brexiter, goes over the top saying that there should be full fiscal union now, while knowing perfectly well that it isn't possible any time soon, I do think some gradual movement in that direction will happen. For example a single corporation tax rate. That could limit the room for the big mainly American companies to play their tax avoidance games which we have discussed here. National tax offices working together could then work out formulas for taxing those guys as they should be, at the point of service delivery I would suggest. this would lead to a useful boost in tax take for all the EU countries, including those outSide the Eurozone, but not the U.K."
Not digging you out @PragueAddick but it is worth setting the record straight in that my recollection was correct. All I was doing in my post was pointing out that remainers and brexiters are far closer in our beliefs than we would like to admit.
https://fullfact.org/europe/ask-full-fact-eu-then-and-now/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA_JTUBRD4ARIsAL7_VeXUPl3VoOdbdliFdlaWREsxT9PU_OYP9jyn2SPcXyh_lXCrbf4wAJcaAjLGEALw_wcB