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.
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.
Totally, the trouble with too many quitters is that they can only see "Us and them", they think 26 other countries all feel the same as each other and it's only the UK who are any different.
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Wish leavers would stop this bullshit about the public being conned in the 70's, they weren't, Heath made it clear what we were joining.
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
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.
Southbank also conveniently ignores the fact that every democratically elected UK government before the Brexit referendum supported the non-economic parts of the EU.
Any political union we entered into was given consent from the voters, on multiple occasions.
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
Wasn't my comment -just pointing out it was not from a Brexiter but the opinion of a remainer. Where was it refuted? I cannot locate the response.
On that page it is shown that the government never officially rebuked the official government backed and funded Leave campaign's position of advocating remaining in the SM and CU and that Brexit did not threaten our access to these.
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
Wasn't my comment -just pointing out it was not from a Brexiter but the opinion of a remainer. Where was it refuted? I cannot locate the response.
On that page it is shown that the government never officially rebuked the official government backed and funded Leave campaign's position of advocating remaining in the SM and CU and that Brexit did not threaten our access to these.
Well, as you can see from the strong comment above ... from a remainer ... not everyone accepts that.
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
“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?
@stonemuse Well there you go, well done for digging it (as opposed to digging me) out. This might sound like revisionism but allow me to put some context to what will seem like a surprising admission.
First of all, I didn't give it much thought, but the question, would I vote No to the U.K. joining now, needs to make some assumptions about what kind of UK would be joining. In so far as I thought about it I was thinking about a U.K. whose economic size and social cohesion was as it is now ( or rather before the referendum was called). However it is impossible to imagine that Britain would be like that now, if it had never joined the EU.
My remark was meant to concede that Europe needs to sort a lot of shit out before another strong economy country - a net contributor- would, happily join. So right now, I don't think either Norway or Switzerland would join. However I could well imagine that by 2030 both may join. I found check the results of the last Norwegian referendum on the subject, you will see a familiar story. Greater Oslo region voted strongly to Join. But Odd ( a real Norwegian first name) in Tromso and his fellow fisherman were strongly against.
Similarly with the Euro, I am struggling with how the project can work without at least a lot more fiscal harmonization. I think The UK was right to stay out, although at least partly because the house price based "economy" requires a specific control of the BoE. On the other hand the Czech Republic should just join, their little brothers in Slovakia have made a success of it, and love to remind the Czechs of that.
@Stu_of_Kunming is right to to recall a difference between @MuttleyCAFC and I. I have always been a committed European and believe in the overall project, always have done. And where I live, the evidence of the success of the project is all around me. Do you remember The European newspaper? I was the only person I knew who had it delivered daily. But their star writer, Peter Millar was and is an Addick. I only found out recently.
“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?
"The way some German politicians have lashed out at Greece when the country fell into the crisis has left deep wounds there. I was just as shocked by the banners of protesters in Athens that showed the German chancellor in a Nazi uniform. Sentiments suddenly surfaced that we thought had been finally relegated to the past. The Italian election was also excessively anti-German and thus un-European."
The second quote referred to the need to maintain confidentiality when meeting with the Greeks to discuss the future of their membership of the Euro. Had he revealed his meeting before it had been concluded there was a risk of a run on the Euro. Name a single government that doesn't lie in order to avoid a national crisis.
Out of context quotes prove nothing. And neither of the quotes have anything to do with him being a federalist anyway.
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
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.
And, as you know, the second vote didn't mention the customs union, the single market or the Irish border. Yet some people believe the think plurality it generated forms a mandate on those issues.
Not according to one of the remainers on here: "The government warned that a very likely and very very very bad consequence of a Leave vote is that the UK would end up leaving the CU and SM. The government did not need to spell out what a disaster that would be for the U.K. Economy. It was a given that anyone with half a brain cell knew this to be a fact. The Leave campaign knew this was a fact and labelled the claim that the UK would have to leave the CU and the SM as another example of Project Fear. Brexit supporters cannot now claim that actually, they voted Leave knowing that the the government claim was true when at the time they were screaming blue murder about scaremongering government propaganda."
@stonemuse Well there you go, well done for digging it (as opposed to digging me) out. This might sound like revisionism but allow me to put some context to what will seem like a surprising admission.
First of all, I didn't give it much thought, but the question, would I vote No to the U.K. joining now, needs to make some assumptions about what kind of UK would be joining. In so far as I thought about it I was thinking about a U.K. whose economic size and social cohesion was as it is now ( or rather before the referendum was called). However it is impossible to imagine that Britain would be like that now, if it had never joined the EU.
My remark was meant to concede that Europe needs to sort a lot of shit out before another strong economy country - a net contributor- would, happily join. So right now, I don't think either Norway or Switzerland would join. However I could well imagine that by 2030 both may join. I found check the results of the last Norwegian referendum on the subject, you will see a familiar story. Greater Oslo region voted strongly to Join. But Odd ( a real Norwegian first name) in Tromso and his fellow fisherman were strongly against.
Similarly with the Euro, I am struggling with how the project can work without at least a lot more fiscal harmonization. I think The UK was right to stay out, although at least partly because the house price based "economy" requires a specific control of the BoE. On the other hand the Czech Republic should just join, their little brothers in Slovakia have made a success of it, and love to remind the Czechs of that.
@Stu_of_Kunming is right to to recall a difference between @MuttleyCAFC and I. I have always been a committed European and believe in the overall project, always have done. And where I live, the evidence of the success of the project is all around me. Do you remember The European newspaper? I was the only person I knew who had it delivered daily. But their star writer, Peter Millar was and is an Addick. I only found out recently.
He seems quite a character. Just purchased his book on Germany, looks interesting.
“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?
“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 guess is that @Chippycafc is referring to previous comments from Juncker wherein he stated that Europe would function better if it merged the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
The rumour is that he wants such a role but will not declare unless it is approved.
Having finally had the chance to examine Juncker’s speech in more depth, it does look like @Chippycafc was making the reference that I inferred above.
“My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union…where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign."
“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?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Finally got to read more about his speech this week. Sounds federalist to me when he talks about a single Banking Union, a single arms force (one of Verhofstadt’s key aims - a committed federalist), no opposition to being a member of the Euro.
He also said: "Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council. Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship. Having a single President would better reflect the true nature of our European Union as both a Union of States and a Union of citizens."
My guess is that @Chippycafc is referring to previous comments from Juncker wherein he stated that Europe would function better if it merged the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
The rumour is that he wants such a role but will not declare unless it is approved.
Having finally had the chance to examine Juncker’s speech in more depth, it does look like @Chippycafc was making the reference that I inferred above.
“My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union…where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign."
That's a generous interpretation of a post that clearly thought the office of a president was noteworthy as opposed to the election of it or the merging of two offices.
Also the Council has 47 members and the EU 28, how could there be one unified role to lead both?
“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?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
My guess is that @Chippycafc is referring to previous comments from Juncker wherein he stated that Europe would function better if it merged the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
The rumour is that he wants such a role but will not declare unless it is approved.
Having finally had the chance to examine Juncker’s speech in more depth, it does look like @Chippycafc was making the reference that I inferred above.
“My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union…where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign."
That's a generous interpretation of a post that clearly thought the office of a president was noteworthy as opposed to the election of it or the merging of two offices.
Also the Council has 47 members and the EU 28, how could there be one unified role to lead both?
Not for me to determine if or how it can be done - it is his ‘dream’.
“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?
Neither of these quotes have him saying he wants a federal Europe.
Let's have some consistency, this thread is stuffed with inferences drawn contrary to what has actually been said by politicians.
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
My guess is that @Chippycafc is referring to previous comments from Juncker wherein he stated that Europe would function better if it merged the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
The rumour is that he wants such a role but will not declare unless it is approved.
Having finally had the chance to examine Juncker’s speech in more depth, it does look like @Chippycafc was making the reference that I inferred above.
“My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union…where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign."
Thanks for the support, it was fun watching him make a bigger fool of himself at my expense yesterday and also his cohorts who liked it.
“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 guess is that @Chippycafc is referring to previous comments from Juncker wherein he stated that Europe would function better if it merged the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council.
The rumour is that he wants such a role but will not declare unless it is approved.
Having finally had the chance to examine Juncker’s speech in more depth, it does look like @Chippycafc was making the reference that I inferred above.
“My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union…where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign."
Thanks for the support, it was fun watching him make a bigger fool of himself at my expense yesterday and also his cohorts who liked it.
Was it almost as fun as studying for a fictional doctorate whilst spending several hours obsessively clicking a little smiley face under posts just because they prove you wrong?
Comments
forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/79238/the-influence-of-the-eu-on-britain/p174
https://infacts.org/mythbusts/voters-werent-conned-1975-referendum/
Any political union we entered into was given consent from the voters, on multiple occasions.
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1348440
and this
http://www.azquotes.com/quote/692016
First of all, I didn't give it much thought, but the question, would I vote No to the U.K. joining now, needs to make some assumptions about what kind of UK would be joining. In so far as I thought about it I was thinking about a U.K. whose economic size and social cohesion was as it is now ( or rather before the referendum was called). However it is impossible to imagine that Britain would be like that now, if it had never joined the EU.
My remark was meant to concede that Europe needs to sort a lot of shit out before another strong economy country - a net contributor- would, happily join. So right now, I don't think either Norway or Switzerland would join. However I could well imagine that by 2030 both may join. I found check the results of the last Norwegian referendum on the subject, you will see a familiar story. Greater Oslo region voted strongly to Join. But Odd ( a real Norwegian first name) in Tromso and his fellow fisherman were strongly against.
Similarly with the Euro, I am struggling with how the project can work without at least a lot more fiscal harmonization. I think The UK was right to stay out, although at least partly because the house price based "economy" requires a specific control of the BoE. On the other hand the Czech Republic should just join, their little brothers in Slovakia have made a success of it, and love to remind the Czechs of that.
@Stu_of_Kunming is right to to recall a difference between @MuttleyCAFC and I. I have always been a committed European and believe in the overall project, always have done. And where I live, the evidence of the success of the project is all around me. Do you remember The European newspaper? I was the only person I knew who had it delivered daily. But their star writer, Peter Millar was and is an Addick. I only found out recently.
"The way some German politicians have lashed out at Greece when the country fell into the crisis has left deep wounds there. I was just as shocked by the banners of protesters in Athens that showed the German chancellor in a Nazi uniform. Sentiments suddenly surfaced that we thought had been finally relegated to the past. The Italian election was also excessively anti-German and thus un-European."
The second quote referred to the need to maintain confidentiality when meeting with the Greeks to discuss the future of their membership of the Euro. Had he revealed his meeting before it had been concluded there was a risk of a run on the Euro. Name a single government that doesn't lie in order to avoid a national crisis.
Out of context quotes prove nothing. And neither of the quotes have anything to do with him being a federalist anyway.
Both Cameron and Osborne warned that vote leave would mean leaving the single market.
And many senior members of the Leave campaign were adamant that vote leave did not mean leaving the single market.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Open_Britain/status/799198320623321088/video/1
arcadiabooks.co.uk/author/peter-millar
‘What manner of man is he?’
‘There's no more faith in thee than in a stewed
prune; nor no more truth in thee ...’
Vote Mogg Brexit means Brexit GSTQ Remoaner Remoaner etc.
“My hope is that on 30 March 2019, Europeans will wake up to a Union…where a single President leads the work of the Commission and the European Council, having been elected after a democratic Europe-wide election campaign."
He also said: "Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council. Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship. Having a single President would better reflect the true nature of our European Union as both a Union of States and a Union of citizens."
Also the Council has 47 members and the EU 28, how could there be one unified role to lead both?
Do you want to go back and retract any inferences you have drawn from the musings of UK politicians, like when they say they don't want a hard Irish border. Or is it only EU politicians whose statements cannot be scrutinised for inconsistencies which undermine their integrity.
Is this a new political campaign or some form of flu?