I am not wrong. I have a different opinion and just because you choose in your imitable style to put it down doesn't make it less valid.
My simple point is that post 1945 there could have been alternative scenarios that could have been better or worse than the EU in the format that has evolved over time. Your approach is that is not possible. I have never said that the EU has not done good things.
And when reading this thread (and the previous one that was closed when it got too hot) you have consistently been rude and dismissive to anyone who dare defend a different opinion to yours.
Chippy was right regarding his exchange rate but did get the timing wrong.
The headline in the FT today was about how the result of the Italian election would put it on a collision course with the EU. Something yesterday you shouted down.
You can't really bang on about others being rude and dismissive and agitated at those who have a different opinion when you're doing the exact same thing (see above post where you reel off Nazi/racist etc.)
You're clearly not reading my posts correctly which is why you're getting so upset. I've not posted what you think I posted. Ironically, just because I have a different opinion to you, you have singled me out for hostility, which is all you've shown me today.
And no, Chippy wasn't right, he got his exchange rate at an airport, which is like using a cashpoint at a service station where you pay a charge. Not exactly a true indication of the exchange rate.
My original point was this: it is simply unfeasible that the progress and prosperity that has occurred thanks to the cooperation and alignment of 28 separate sovereign states would have been possible without the countries coming together and forming a bloc, as opposed to all 28 having to rely on bilateral deals to achieve the same thing (which would have required in the region of 400 separate bilateral trade agreements and without the oversight of a regulatory body to monitor and uphold adherence to these treaties would have been more or less impossible to maintain). If you disagree and think that the latter situation could have likely come about had the EU never been formed, well you're entitled to that opinion but as I and others have pointed out it is a ludicrous position to take. And the only reason you take it is because you're anti-EU as opposed to actually taking a logical look at the facts.
Got €1.06 to the £ today. Those bloody Europeans, stealing my money. Don't they realise the Queen's head is on the money over here. Pay a bit of respect. Our money's worth much more than that Euro trash stuff.
I got 1.13 this morning...who did you buy them from your mrs.
Whoopee flipping do. It was 1.36 when this whole mess started.
Whoopppeeedooooooooo was 1.02 five years agooooooooo.
JIIMMY HILL!
Source: uktradeinfo
Think it’s unkind to pull Chippy up on this. I doubt he knows what a decimal point is or the difference it makes where you put it.
I bet he Googled the exchange rates as well instead of just knowing off the top of his head what the exchange rate was each month 5 years ago. Which is cheating and unfair because Chippy doesn't know how to use Google.
Lol I don't know how to use it...feel better today...btw I asked our secretary this morning to look through my expenses since 2007. My trip to dijon in 2009 was at .99 to the euro. 2012 trip to Cologne 1.02. These euros were bought st the money exchange at Gatwick airport.
Up yours to those that questioned it. As usual you know **** all.
I was incorrect saying 55% of the electorate in Italy voted against the EU. It is 61%.
Another brick out of that wall.
Dijon. Place names attract a capital letter. Hope you had help with your doctoral work.
Got €1.06 to the £ today. Those bloody Europeans, stealing my money. Don't they realise the Queen's head is on the money over here. Pay a bit of respect. Our money's worth much more than that Euro trash stuff.
I got 1.13 this morning...who did you buy them from your mrs.
Whoopee flipping do. It was 1.36 when this whole mess started.
Whoopppeeedooooooooo was 1.02 five years agooooooooo.
JIIMMY HILL!
Source: uktradeinfo
Think it’s unkind to pull Chippy up on this. I doubt he knows what a decimal point is or the difference it makes where you put it.
I bet he Googled the exchange rates as well instead of just knowing off the top of his head what the exchange rate was each month 5 years ago. Which is cheating and unfair because Chippy doesn't know how to use Google.
Lol I don't know how to use it...feel better today...btw I asked our secretary this morning to look through my expenses since 2007. My trip to dijon in 2009 was at .99 to the euro. 2012 trip to Cologne 1.02. These euros were bought st the money exchange at Gatwick airport.
Up yours to those that questioned it. As usual you know **** all.
I was incorrect saying 55% of the electorate in Italy voted against the EU. It is 61%.
Another brick out of that wall.
I'll bet she loved you...
Everybody loves me except some absolute cretins on here.
I am not wrong. I have a different opinion and just because you choose in your imitable style to put it down doesn't make it less valid.
My simple point is that post 1945 there could have been alternative scenarios that could have been better or worse than the EU in the format that has evolved over time. Your approach is that is not possible. I have never said that the EU has not done good things.
And when reading this thread (and the previous one that was closed when it got too hot) you have consistently been rude and dismissive to anyone who dare defend a different opinion to yours.
Chippy was right regarding his exchange rate but did get the timing wrong.
The headline in the FT today was about how the result of the Italian election would put it on a collision course with the EU. Something yesterday you shouted down.
Thanks but did you know you are dealing with the UK know alls here dont you...
I actually think Hammond is only senior cabinet member that I have any time for. If the "deal" we end up with doesn't include full freedom for financial services then I really see no point in agreeing to it and we'd be better off leaving with no deal at all. Of course continued membership of the SM/CU would guarantee freedom of movement for financial services (and would solve the Irish border problem instantly, imagine not having to hear about that again!) but our PM took those options off the table before she even saw what else was on offer.
I am not wrong. I have a different opinion and just because you choose in your imitable style to put it down doesn't make it less valid.
My simple point is that post 1945 there could have been alternative scenarios that could have been better or worse than the EU in the format that has evolved over time. Your approach is that is not possible. I have never said that the EU has not done good things.
And when reading this thread (and the previous one that was closed when it got too hot) you have consistently been rude and dismissive to anyone who dare defend a different opinion to yours.
Chippy was right regarding his exchange rate but did get the timing wrong.
The headline in the FT today was about how the result of the Italian election would put it on a collision course with the EU. Something yesterday you shouted down.
This is an example of the frustration "regulars" on the thread have with people who dip in and out, and then complain because they got a bruising. Did you actually read the article? If so, you would understand that the "collision course" is about the likely spending plans of the next Italian govt. (which are far from certain when the govt makeup is unknown). This would bring them up against Macron's plans, which require a greater adhesion to fiscal discipline. Macron's plans however are themselves at an early stage.
It's not Brexit, is it? No Italian party advocated Italexit, no referendum. Not even a referendum on Eurozone membership which Five Star previously advocated. Some of us presented the sources that make this absolutely clear. @Chippycafc continued to dispute this, without any facts of his own. Chippy is a smart bloke, smarter than he pretends to be, and in my view he was on wind up, rather than failing to understand the basic learnings from the election. He does this quite a lot, and I think quite enjoys it when people react strongly.
Yes you are right, regulars on the thread feel strongly, that is why the thread rolls on. There are plenty of other long running threads, which I don't participate in, because they don't interest me. Boxing for example. But I wouldn't dream of going on there with some kind of ban boxing message, just to wind them up. I do think that Brexit is a bit more important to the future of the country than boxing, so i don't know why you would wonder at our "passion". I would tend to wonder about your indifference, but I respect your right to feel that way.
I am not wrong. I have a different opinion and just because you choose in your imitable style to put it down doesn't make it less valid.
My simple point is that post 1945 there could have been alternative scenarios that could have been better or worse than the EU in the format that has evolved over time. Your approach is that is not possible. I have never said that the EU has not done good things.
And when reading this thread (and the previous one that was closed when it got too hot) you have consistently been rude and dismissive to anyone who dare defend a different opinion to yours.
Chippy was right regarding his exchange rate but did get the timing wrong.
The headline in the FT today was about how the result of the Italian election would put it on a collision course with the EU. Something yesterday you shouted down.
This is an example of the frustration "regulars" on the thread have with people who dip in and out, and then complain because they got a bruising. Did you actually read the article? If so, you would understand that the "collision course" is about the likely spending plans of the next Italian govt. (which are far from certain when the govt makeup is unknown). This would bring them up against Macron's plans, which require a greater adhesion to fiscal discipline. Macron's plans however are themselves at an early stage.
It's not Brexit, is it? No Italian party advocated Italexit, no referendum. Not even a referendum on Eurozone membership which Five Star previously advocated. Some of us presented the sources that make this absolutely clear. @Chippycafc continued to dispute this, without any facts of his own. Chippy is a smart bloke, smarter than he pretends to be, and in my view he was on wind up, rather than failing to understand the basic learnings from the election. He does this quite a lot, and I think quite enjoys it when people react strongly.
Yes you are right, regulars on the thread feel strongly, that is why the thread rolls on. There are plenty of other long running threads, which I don't participate in, because they don't interest me. Boxing for example. But I wouldn't dream of going on there with some kind of ban boxing message, just to wind them up. I do think that Brexit is a bit more important to the future of the country than boxing, so i don't know why you would wonder at our "passion". I would tend to wonder about your indifference, but I respect your right to feel that way.
Good post, Richard, although I would question your prioritising Brexit over boxing ;-)
Well I remain of the view that if De Gaulle had let us in earlier as a nation we may have felt more wedded to the process. A simpler trading bloc without the Euro may have avoided some of the problems in Ireland Spain Portugal Italy and Greece. All I have said is it's possible.
You have said I am anti - Eu. I am not. I would have preferred reform but Cameron was sent away with nothing and I took the view they were not interested in reform.
In terms of the FT article and Italy it is clearly the case that the Italians now also want reform. What happens if they don't get reform?
As someone who sits in the middle of the debate I find this thread has narrowed down to rude remainers and perhaps slightly eccentric leavers. I particularly quoted @Fiiish list of unnecessary remarks because they have become a staple of the debate. On the first thread Afka did pick up on @Fiiish "narky" posts.
When asked earlier in the thread by I think @Southbank if anybody had changed their voting intention I answered it fully and maybe bravely and actually if I recall received a few likes including from @PragueAddick.
So I sit in a dangerous place with a minority view and it would appear dipping my toe in from time to time is not welcome so like several before me I will desist.
In terms of @fiish my wife in particular knows him and his family reasonably well and in years gone past I have even driven him to the valley and probably away games too. So best to part as friends and perhaps have a pint in the Rifleman when the brexit dust has settled (if ever).
I started to read the Institute for Fiscal Studies report to try and establish what the per capita contribution to the EU was in the years before the referendum. It became complicated by rebates etc but if I read it correctly it was quite a low figure. The sort that might be on the side of a Blue Remain bus!!
Is it possible with the intellect on this forum to established a gross annual per capita cost of the EU for each person in the Uk?
I actually think Hammond is only senior cabinet member that I have any time for. If the "deal" we end up with doesn't include full freedom for financial services then I really see no point in agreeing to it and we'd be better off leaving with no deal at all. Of course continued membership of the SM/CU would guarantee freedom of movement for financial services (and would solve the Irish border problem instantly, imagine not having to hear about that again!) but our PM took those options off the table before she even saw what else was on offer.
The counter argument from the EU perspective is that a Free Trade Agreement with the UK that included the full access to the Single Market for financial services would, contrary to what Theresa May has suggested, not be a bespoke trade deal like that with South Korea or Canada, but rather a revolutionary change to FTAs in support of cherry picking elements of the Single Market. And the EU position, including in Ireland, where it is clear that the lack of an agreed solution between the UK and EU will be damaging (trade across the Irish Sea is much more valuable that across the land border), is that whatever is agreed, if anything, must preserve the integrity of the Single Market.
[In my opinion, the reason why the EU is pushing the UK to put flesh on the bones of how it sees the Irish border operating, is that that would, in effect, determine the outline of the future relationship between the UK and EU as a whole. If the UK cannot find a way of achieving a continuation of the border as it is now, and, short of reversing Brexit, it cannot, it needs to identify what kind of border controls that it wants and the type of workable trading relationship it would like with the EU in order to put forward a realistic proposal for the Irish/EU border.]
My understanding is that, at the moment, FTAs (and not just those entered into by the EU) do not include financial services in any way similar to the scope that the UK Government seems to want.
The mood music that I hear seems to indicate that attempting to create an agreement that would include financial services to that extent would be fiendishly difficult (the essence of any trade agreement is that both sides need to be able to have confidence in their ability to monitor the trade for compliance), and time consuming to negotiate. Even if such a deal is possible, both parties have to be persuaded that they would benefit (and there is an argument to be made that, over time, a number of EU states would benefit more from the gradual transfer of financial services out from London - for all that it is unlikely that any single financial centre will overtake London - if the UK does not achieve the kind of access that the UK says it wants).
For all that the UK states that it should be easy to agree a trading arrangement in a short time, because it is compliant with all EU rules and regulations now, the UK is also angling for divergence and (if I heard Mrs May correctly) to allow Parliament to effectively decide what market regulations would be applicable, which seems to me to be the UK seeking a deal where it decides how the EU Single Market would operate for financial services and not the EU.
It is important to reiterate that the four freedoms that underpin the EU and Single Market are not some kind of all you can eat buffet (which I prefer to pick and mix); anything that seems to indicate a desire to benefit from some of the freedoms of movement, without accepting them all (as Norway and Switzerland exemplify) is unlikely to meet with success in trade negotiations.
As far as I can make out, the UK Government position has not actually changed, except to finally recognise that there will be a cost to the UK for Brexit.
The Single Market, and free and full access to that market, provides its members with benefits, but also imposes obligations. The UK position seems to be that the UK should have all the benefits, but not be required to accept the obligations. This is not simply full access to the Single Market, but a level of preferential access that is not available to the members of the Single Market and no-one in their right mind on the EU side would ratify an agreement like that.
Sometimes people forget the vote happened and brexit won. Whether or not anybody changes their opinion doesn't change the result. It is what the brexit victors are now going to actually do. Like create a practical solution to the Irish border that squares with their declaration that they have 'taken back control'. In my view it is the responsibility of every brexit voter on this thread to suggest a workable solution to the problems they created by voting brexit. However what is continually clear to me, is that for the most part brexit voters want to wash their hands of responsibility, especially with regard to the hard land border in Ireland they deliberately voted for. It is not down to remainers, it is not down to the Irish government, it is not down to the EU, it is down entirely to the UK brexiters (most in denial). Some people say the border issue will be solved by a proper UK/EU trade deal, which brexiters voted to tear up, but now want to sellotape back together again. It is not difficult for me to assume that very many brexit voters are stupid, and very many are simply common or garden racists. This also goes for alt left brexiters who say their vote was to enable the noble working class to resist austerity, ironic that those left wing voters cuddle up to Boris because of their actions. Posturing and posing. I said at the start of this brexit won. We all have to suffer. However the hypocrisy demonstrated by brexit voters who now want to hide away in their scragholes is unforgivable as far as I am concerned, and up front and centre and in your face I know I shall hate and despise brexit voters until the day I die, even being aware that such hatred will do me personal damage.
Apropos of nothing, I realise that I have fallen down quite badly in my role of Irish Times articles pusher over the last week or so...
It is worth pointing out that a significant number of the articles do acknowledge the peril that Brexit poses Ireland (it is likely that there will be damage to the Irish economy and society) as well as expressing a degree of bewilderment about the UK's desired outcomes.
But the Irish Government's position remains the same, post-Brexit it would like to have the closest possible trading relationship between the UK and EU (it does appear, however, to be preparing for other eventualities).
The difficulty for Ireland is that being consistent means that it is less likely that any deal will be agreed - because international trade agreements require more than the nod and wink that seems to be the UK's Option A for the Irish border.
I think the pro Brexit Tory and Labour parties should stop letting their MPs go on the Daily Politics show with Andrew Neil. It is embarrassing how easily he cuts through their meaningless and dishonest crap, treating the UK people like idiots, and makes those MPs look complete fools.
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
Well I remain of the view that if De Gaulle had let us in earlier as a nation we may have felt more wedded to the process. A simpler trading bloc without the Euro may have avoided some of the problems in Ireland Spain Portugal Italy and Greece. All I have said is it's possible.
You have said I am anti - Eu. I am not. I would have preferred reform but Cameron was sent away with nothing and I took the view they were not interested in reform.
In terms of the FT article and Italy it is clearly the case that the Italians now also want reform. What happens if they don't get reform?
As someone who sits in the middle of the debate I find this thread has narrowed down to rude remainers and perhaps slightly eccentric leavers. I particularly quoted @Fiiish list of unnecessary remarks because they have become a staple of the debate. On the first thread Afka did pick up on @Fiiish "narky" posts.
When asked earlier in the thread by I think @Southbank if anybody had changed their voting intention I answered it fully and maybe bravely and actually if I recall received a few likes including from @PragueAddick.
So I sit in a dangerous place with a minority view and it would appear dipping my toe in from time to time is not welcome so like several before me I will desist.
In terms of @fiish my wife in particular knows him and his family reasonably well and in years gone past I have even driven him to the valley and probably away games too. So best to part as friends and perhaps have a pint in the Rifleman when the brexit dust has settled (if ever).
Thought this extract from the material supplied by our CL Irish correspondent chimed with my derided suggestion that a fudge would be found.
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK. A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement. Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt. Armed conflict While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
On your last point, there was an interview linked here to the chief police person of Northern Ireland who warned about the post brexit danger of an increase in violence. This concept of a 'fudge' is interesting in itself. I know that you have suggested from way back that somehow it will sort itself out, a bit of slippage yeah, some low level dodging of the rules, a considerable amount of make do and mend, and then live happily ever after. On the other hand a 'fudge' can become a sticky mess when heat is applied, things get stuck fast, and inertia is ushered in. The EU is necessarily a rules and systems based organisation, and may be much less sanguine about fudging than the UK. It may even be seen in many areas (like the WTO for example) that what emerges is less fudge, more cherry picking, and more cake and eatery. Whatever business and trade stuff emerges, there is also the conflict between the brexit impetus to control immigration, and the very geography of the border allowing free movement of people. I don't agree that a fudged border would be anything other than a hard border, which May says won't happen. In addition a 'fudge' in that particular place, when seen as principally constructed by the DUP because of their stranglehold over the Tories, would be an open door for the men of violence to push at. I have not mentioned the constraints of the Good Friday Agreement, but I have my doubts that an international treaty can easily be trumped by a fudge, however reasonable any fudge is said to be.
Does anyone remember Ukip? They were a "populist", single-issue, class-based political party founded as the anti-federalist league around 1991; and destroyed by racism, in-fighting, incompetence, leadership indecision, racism, lies, misogyny and racism around 2018.
Their membership has slumped to 24,000 (at least that's what they claim), which ranks the a long way behind the Greens in sixth-place. This makes them either the smallest national political party in the country; or the largest political party not to have an elected MP, depending on whether you're a glass a quarter full or three-quarters empty sort of person. They may make it down to seventh place if their penultimate leader (as of today's date) is able to drive membership of his ironically-titled OneNation Party sufficiently. ("Ironic" as he's British, his wife is Russian and his former wife is Danish).
But Ukip's long-awaited and much-heralded denouement is about to play out. They are reported to have a £100,000 "funding gap", which they are looking to meet by "begging" their branches for funds. And their debts aren't limited to this "gap". They owe two-thirds of a million in costs and damages after one party member's lies were called out and challenged in court. (This also calls into question political parties' members' liabilities. As a member of a political party are you jointly liable for the party's debts? If so... uh-oh!)
Their support is dwindling, embarrassingly. They are in significant debt. They have no MPs. One of their former leaders is planning to launch a rival party. Another one has denied he's doing so (but is so untrustworthy that one can assume that, because he's said this, he has already put plans in place). They're in almost as big a mess as the Brexit negotiations.
Does anyone think they'll survive? And does anyone think they should?
Does anyone remember Ukip? They were a "populist", single-issue, class-based political party founded as the anti-federalist league around 1991; and destroyed by racism, in-fighting, incompetence, leadership indecision, racism, lies, misogyny and racism around 2018.
Their membership has slumped to 24,000 (at least that's what they claim), which ranks the a long way behind the Greens in sixth-place. This makes them either the smallest national political party in the country; or the largest political party not to have an elected MP, depending on whether you're a glass a quarter full or three-quarters empty sort of person. They may make it down to seventh place if their penultimate leader (as of today's date) is able to drive membership of his ironically-titled OneNation Party sufficiently. ("Ironic" as he's British, his wife is Russian and his former wife is Danish).
But Ukip's long-awaited and much-heralded denouement is about to play out. They are reported to have a £100,000 "funding gap", which they are looking to meet by "begging" their branches for funds. And their debts aren't limited to this "gap". They owe two-thirds of a million in costs and damages after one party member's lies were called out and challenged in court. (This also calls into question political parties' members' liabilities. As a member of a political party are you jointly liable for the party's debts? If so... uh-oh!)
Their support is dwindling, embarrassingly. They are in significant debt. They have no MPs. One of their former leaders is planning to launch a rival party. Another one has denied he's doing so (but is so untrustworthy that one can assume that, because he's said this, he has already put plans in place). They're in almost as big a mess as the Brexit negotiations.
Does anyone think they'll survive? And does anyone think they will?
It's worked pretty well for the best part of 30 years. Certainly works better than if the EU had never existed at all.
How do you know that?
Most of the above (which are all good things) would simply not have been possible without the EU. And from a personal perspective a lot of good friends who came here thanks to the ease of work and travel in the EU probably would never have come here if their rights were not guaranteed.
One thing Brexiters can never claim is that Europe would be better had the EU never existed. It is pretty indisputable it has been a catalyst for progress and prosperity across the continent.
Well I am going to claim that it is possible Europe would be better had the EU never existed. Many of the things quoted above would probably have happened in some form anyway. And of course this all came at a considerable cost in terms of Eu budgets and administration. It's also possible that with a close future relationship with the EU many of these things can continue.
For the past I think it's what that great American politician Donald Rumsfeld would have called an unknown unknown
Fucking Bingo. Everything a Brexit argument could wish for. Ignore evidence in front of you with a trite argument. All those countries in the eu have thrived over the last thirty years. Do you remember just what it was like here in the seventies? It’s all a coincidence of course that this massive uplift in living standards was during the eu years.
India and China have enjoyed a massiver uplift ;-)
On another note, just trying to get a straight answer as to how the EU has negatively effected a fellow UK immigrant (four tries so far, still no answer). He's quoted the Express at me as a source of information...
It's worked pretty well for the best part of 30 years. Certainly works better than if the EU had never existed at all.
How do you know that?
Most of the above (which are all good things) would simply not have been possible without the EU. And from a personal perspective a lot of good friends who came here thanks to the ease of work and travel in the EU probably would never have come here if their rights were not guaranteed.
One thing Brexiters can never claim is that Europe would be better had the EU never existed. It is pretty indisputable it has been a catalyst for progress and prosperity across the continent.
Well I am going to claim that it is possible Europe would be better had the EU never existed. Many of the things quoted above would probably have happened in some form anyway. And of course this all came at a considerable cost in terms of Eu budgets and administration. It's also possible that with a close future relationship with the EU many of these things can continue.
For the past I think it's what that great American politician Donald Rumsfeld would have called an unknown unknown
Fucking Bingo. Everything a Brexit argument could wish for. Ignore evidence in front of you with a trite argument. All those countries in the eu have thrived over the last thirty years. Do you remember just what it was like here in the seventies? It’s all a coincidence of course that this massive uplift in living standards was during the eu years.
India and China have enjoyed a massiver uplift ;-)
Certainly helps when you can employ people for fcuk all an hour
Comments
You're clearly not reading my posts correctly which is why you're getting so upset. I've not posted what you think I posted. Ironically, just because I have a different opinion to you, you have singled me out for hostility, which is all you've shown me today.
And no, Chippy wasn't right, he got his exchange rate at an airport, which is like using a cashpoint at a service station where you pay a charge. Not exactly a true indication of the exchange rate.
My original point was this: it is simply unfeasible that the progress and prosperity that has occurred thanks to the cooperation and alignment of 28 separate sovereign states would have been possible without the countries coming together and forming a bloc, as opposed to all 28 having to rely on bilateral deals to achieve the same thing (which would have required in the region of 400 separate bilateral trade agreements and without the oversight of a regulatory body to monitor and uphold adherence to these treaties would have been more or less impossible to maintain). If you disagree and think that the latter situation could have likely come about had the EU never been formed, well you're entitled to that opinion but as I and others have pointed out it is a ludicrous position to take. And the only reason you take it is because you're anti-EU as opposed to actually taking a logical look at the facts.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-gm-southkorea/german-automakers-gain-ground-in-south-korea-outselling-gm-for-first-time-idUKKCN1GJ0E1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43300202
It's not Brexit, is it? No Italian party advocated Italexit, no referendum. Not even a referendum on Eurozone membership which Five Star previously advocated. Some of us presented the sources that make this absolutely clear. @Chippycafc continued to dispute this, without any facts of his own. Chippy is a smart bloke, smarter than he pretends to be, and in my view he was on wind up, rather than failing to understand the basic learnings from the election. He does this quite a lot, and I think quite enjoys it when people react strongly.
Yes you are right, regulars on the thread feel strongly, that is why the thread rolls on. There are plenty of other long running threads, which I don't participate in, because they don't interest me. Boxing for example. But I wouldn't dream of going on there with some kind of ban boxing message, just to wind them up. I do think that Brexit is a bit more important to the future of the country than boxing, so i don't know why you would wonder at our "passion". I would tend to wonder about your indifference, but I respect your right to feel that way.
You have said I am anti - Eu. I am not. I would have preferred reform but Cameron was sent away with nothing and I took the view they were not interested in reform.
In terms of the FT article and Italy it is clearly the case that the Italians now also want reform. What happens if they don't get reform?
As someone who sits in the middle of the debate I find this thread has narrowed down to rude remainers and perhaps slightly eccentric leavers. I particularly quoted @Fiiish list of unnecessary remarks because they have become a staple of the debate. On the first thread Afka did pick up on @Fiiish "narky" posts.
When asked earlier in the thread by I think @Southbank if anybody had changed their voting intention I answered it fully and maybe bravely and actually if I recall received a few likes including from @PragueAddick.
So I sit in a dangerous place with a minority view and it would appear dipping my toe in from time to time is not welcome so like several before me I will desist.
In terms of @fiish my wife in particular knows him and his family reasonably well and in years gone past I have even driven him to the valley and probably away games too. So best to part as friends and perhaps have a pint in the Rifleman when the brexit dust has settled (if ever).
I started to read the Institute for Fiscal Studies report to try and establish what the per capita contribution to the EU was in the years before the referendum. It became complicated by rebates etc but if I read it correctly it was quite a low figure. The sort that might be on the side of a Blue Remain bus!!
Is it possible with the intellect on this forum to established a gross annual per capita cost of the EU for each person in the Uk?
[In my opinion, the reason why the EU is pushing the UK to put flesh on the bones of how it sees the Irish border operating, is that that would, in effect, determine the outline of the future relationship between the UK and EU as a whole. If the UK cannot find a way of achieving a continuation of the border as it is now, and, short of reversing Brexit, it cannot, it needs to identify what kind of border controls that it wants and the type of workable trading relationship it would like with the EU in order to put forward a realistic proposal for the Irish/EU border.]
My understanding is that, at the moment, FTAs (and not just those entered into by the EU) do not include financial services in any way similar to the scope that the UK Government seems to want.
The mood music that I hear seems to indicate that attempting to create an agreement that would include financial services to that extent would be fiendishly difficult (the essence of any trade agreement is that both sides need to be able to have confidence in their ability to monitor the trade for compliance), and time consuming to negotiate. Even if such a deal is possible, both parties have to be persuaded that they would benefit (and there is an argument to be made that, over time, a number of EU states would benefit more from the gradual transfer of financial services out from London - for all that it is unlikely that any single financial centre will overtake London - if the UK does not achieve the kind of access that the UK says it wants).
For all that the UK states that it should be easy to agree a trading arrangement in a short time, because it is compliant with all EU rules and regulations now, the UK is also angling for divergence and (if I heard Mrs May correctly) to allow Parliament to effectively decide what market regulations would be applicable, which seems to me to be the UK seeking a deal where it decides how the EU Single Market would operate for financial services and not the EU.
It is important to reiterate that the four freedoms that underpin the EU and Single Market are not some kind of all you can eat buffet (which I prefer to pick and mix); anything that seems to indicate a desire to benefit from some of the freedoms of movement, without accepting them all (as Norway and Switzerland exemplify) is unlikely to meet with success in trade negotiations.
As far as I can make out, the UK Government position has not actually changed, except to finally recognise that there will be a cost to the UK for Brexit.
The Single Market, and free and full access to that market, provides its members with benefits, but also imposes obligations. The UK position seems to be that the UK should have all the benefits, but not be required to accept the obligations. This is not simply full access to the Single Market, but a level of preferential access that is not available to the members of the Single Market and no-one in their right mind on the EU side would ratify an agreement like that.
Whether or not anybody changes their opinion doesn't change the result.
It is what the brexit victors are now going to actually do.
Like create a practical solution to the Irish border that squares with their declaration that they have 'taken back control'.
In my view it is the responsibility of every brexit voter on this thread to suggest a workable solution to the problems they created by voting brexit.
However what is continually clear to me, is that for the most part brexit voters want to wash their hands of responsibility, especially with regard to the hard land border in Ireland they deliberately voted for.
It is not down to remainers, it is not down to the Irish government, it is not down to the EU, it is down entirely to the UK brexiters (most in denial).
Some people say the border issue will be solved by a proper UK/EU trade deal, which brexiters voted to tear up, but now want to sellotape back together again.
It is not difficult for me to assume that very many brexit voters are stupid, and very many are simply common or garden racists. This also goes for alt left brexiters who say their vote was to enable the noble working class to resist austerity, ironic that those left wing voters cuddle up to Boris because of their actions. Posturing and posing.
I said at the start of this brexit won. We all have to suffer. However the hypocrisy demonstrated by brexit voters who now want to hide away in their scragholes is unforgivable as far as I am concerned, and up front and centre and in your face I know I shall hate and despise brexit voters until the day I die, even being aware that such hatred will do me personal damage.
quotes
''It is not difficult for me to assume that very many brexit voters are stupid,
and very many are simply common or garden racists.''
It that the best you can do pal!
Take it you have a Master Degree in Economics
and your smarter than the average Charlton supporter!
It is worth pointing out that a significant number of the articles do acknowledge the peril that Brexit poses Ireland (it is likely that there will be damage to the Irish economy and society) as well as expressing a degree of bewilderment about the UK's desired outcomes.
But the Irish Government's position remains the same, post-Brexit it would like to have the closest possible trading relationship between the UK and EU (it does appear, however, to be preparing for other eventualities).
The difficulty for Ireland is that being consistent means that it is less likely that any deal will be agreed - because international trade agreements require more than the nod and wink that seems to be the UK's Option A for the Irish border.
Enjoy, or not:
https://irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/eu-plan-lacks-detail-on-where-customs-checks-would-take-place-1.3410599
https://irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-is-so-toxic-that-some-ban-it-as-a-topic-of-conversation-1.3412162
https://irishtimes.com/opinion/paul-gillespie-ireland-must-look-beyond-current-crisis-to-brexit-endgame-1.3413005
https://irishtimes.com/opinion/denis-staunton-britain-inches-towards-reality-of-brexit-1.3413377
https://irishtimes.com/opinion/cliff-taylor-ireland-faces-year-of-living-dangerously-over-brexit-1.3412959
https://irishtimes.com/business/economy/brexit-basket-case-the-british-have-forgotten-how-to-deal-with-facts-1.3414469
https://irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-young-people-worried-brexit-will-limit-their-opportunities-1.3414652
https://irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-varadkar-rejects-may-s-suggestion-of-us-canada-style-border-1.3415943
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/determination-and-will-can-help-avoid-hard-border-says-ni-secretary-1.3416046
https://irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-europe-ports-link-could-be-funded-in-super-hard-brexit-1.3417340
https://irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-impasse-ireland-has-boxed-itself-in-on-border-issue-1.3416937
What has the average Charlton supporter got to do with this?
"From the Irish point of view it is important to look beyond and over this political crisis towards the wider endgame of the talks and where it will leave Ireland in a EU without the UK.
A softer Brexit outcome preserving the customs union to keep the Irish border open is very much in the Irish interest but would require a willingness on the EU side to match British demands for some bespoke aspects in an agreement.
Preparing a deal acceptable to both sides would need imaginative involvement by the Irish and British governments in bilateral talks to bring it to Brussels. That is a highly sensitive matter at this stage of the negotiations, but it should be discussed in anticipation of the British political crisis being resolved.
Greater goodwill
If it is resolved soon and more clarity emerges than was apparent in yesterday’s May speech, would there be greater goodwill around the EU to seek a softer outcome that would suit Ireland? Arguably the answer is yes."
And this was also an interesting observation contradicting what has been the mainstay of many posters theme of a pending outbreak of hostilities.
"On the other hand, it is true that free trade and the nature of the Border were not actually part of the Belfast Agreement. Joint EU membership was assumed in the negotiations in 1998 and made life in Border communities and the operation of cross-Border bodies easier. But customs barriers between North and South were not among the many issues and injustices that caused the Northern Ireland conflict to erupt.
Armed conflict
While customs posts may attract paramilitary activity, they are not likely, of themselves, to cause significant armed conflict to re-emerge. Indeed, the crushing of the more moderate parties and the inability of the DUP and Sinn Féin to get along is a much more significant threat to the peace process than customs and trading arrangements. A hard border would disrupt economic life in Northern Ireland greatly but would be less disruptive than a customs border in the Irish Sea."
This concept of a 'fudge' is interesting in itself. I know that you have suggested from way back that somehow it will sort itself out, a bit of slippage yeah, some low level dodging of the rules, a considerable amount of make do and mend, and then live happily ever after. On the other hand a 'fudge' can become a sticky mess when heat is applied, things get stuck fast, and inertia is ushered in.
The EU is necessarily a rules and systems based organisation, and may be much less sanguine about fudging than the UK. It may even be seen in many areas (like the WTO for example) that what emerges is less fudge, more cherry picking, and more cake and eatery.
Whatever business and trade stuff emerges, there is also the conflict between the brexit impetus to control immigration, and the very geography of the border allowing free movement of people.
I don't agree that a fudged border would be anything other than a hard border, which May says won't happen. In addition a 'fudge' in that particular place, when seen as principally constructed by the DUP because of their stranglehold over the Tories, would be an open door for the men of violence to push at.
I have not mentioned the constraints of the Good Friday Agreement, but I have my doubts that an international treaty can easily be trumped by a fudge, however reasonable any fudge is said to be.
Their membership has slumped to 24,000 (at least that's what they claim), which ranks the a long way behind the Greens in sixth-place. This makes them either the smallest national political party in the country; or the largest political party not to have an elected MP, depending on whether you're a glass a quarter full or three-quarters empty sort of person. They may make it down to seventh place if their penultimate leader (as of today's date) is able to drive membership of his ironically-titled OneNation Party sufficiently. ("Ironic" as he's British, his wife is Russian and his former wife is Danish).
But Ukip's long-awaited and much-heralded denouement is about to play out. They are reported to have a £100,000 "funding gap", which they are looking to meet by "begging" their branches for funds. And their debts aren't limited to this "gap". They owe two-thirds of a million in costs and damages after one party member's lies were called out and challenged in court. (This also calls into question political parties' members' liabilities. As a member of a political party are you jointly liable for the party's debts? If so... uh-oh!)
Their support is dwindling, embarrassingly. They are in significant debt. They have no MPs. One of their former leaders is planning to launch a rival party. Another one has denied he's doing so (but is so untrustworthy that one can assume that, because he's said this, he has already put plans in place). They're in almost as big a mess as the Brexit negotiations.
Does anyone think they'll survive? And does anyone think they should?
Ting Tong.
No they don't.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/The_EU_in_the_world_-_international_trade
On another note, just trying to get a straight answer as to how the EU has negatively effected a fellow UK immigrant (four tries so far, still no answer). He's quoted the Express at me as a source of information...
Fill your boots.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/06/the-unspeakable-truth.html