@TellyTubby has sent me to a website to consider the views of politicians in the year I was born. And I am a effing neo-pensioner. I will resist the temptation to dig out what else people - politicians and ordinary citizens - were thinking and saying in 1954....
Meanwhile @Southbank thinks I "hold democracy in contempt". Why does he think this? He thinks I "ignore" the referendum result. I do not. I simply disagree with many of my fellow citizens on their viewpoint, just as I did in the Thatcher years. And I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that citiznes deserve a vote on the terms of the agreement for leaving the EU. Such a vote would come pretty much three years after the 2016 referendum, and thus a bigger time lag than between some general elections. Isn't that right Theresa? Isn't that right @Southbank? I think it is you that holds democracy in contempt.
I know Leave voters are generally considered to be dumb, but not dumb enough not to recognise that if the EU thinks there will be a referendum on the deal then they will offer us nothing. The campaign for another vote is from people who want to overturn the referendum result, Not implement it. That is why it is undemocratic.
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
Far be it for me to put down that nice Mr Cameron, but the three bullet points you refer to, @TellyTubby, had really nothing to do with him. The opt outs over the Euro and Schengen are of long standing, while, throughout the 1990s, the UK was a leading power (at least threatening use of its veto) in preventing increased political union within the EU, preferring instead rapid expansion eastwards (leading, almost inevitably, to the sort of problems we see with Hungary and Polanf today).
Fair point. I thought he was claiming that he had got a commitment going forward.
I think it was just making clear that the UK could not be forced into a different kind of relationship while it remained in the EU - there was no likelihood of that ever changing, despite the Eurosceptic claims to the contrary.
That maybe what Cameron thought but it's clearly the ambition of Junkers and other power brokers to drive closer integration and for all to adopt the Euro. Without being offensive, it is ostrich like to deny it.
It's clearly an ambition for some (often quite important) individuals, and indeed a stated aim of the founding Treaty, but it was not something into which the UK could have been forced (because the UK would have to agree to the relevant Treaty change).
Far be it for me to put down that nice Mr Cameron, but the three bullet points you refer to, @TellyTubby, had really nothing to do with him. The opt outs over the Euro and Schengen are of long standing, while, throughout the 1990s, the UK was a leading power (at least threatening use of its veto) in preventing increased political union within the EU, preferring instead rapid expansion eastwards (leading, almost inevitably, to the sort of problems we see with Hungary and Polanf today).
Fair point. I thought he was claiming that he had got a commitment going forward.
I think it was just making clear that the UK could not be forced into a different kind of relationship while it remained in the EU - there was no likelihood of that ever changing, despite the Eurosceptic claims to the contrary.
That maybe what Cameron thought but it's clearly the ambition of Junkers and other power brokers to drive closer integration and for all to adopt the Euro. Without being offensive, it is ostrich like to deny it.
It's clearly an ambition, and indeed a stated aim of the founding Treaty, but it was not something into which the UK could have been forced (because the UK would have to agree to the relevant Treaty change).
I would distinguish between a treaty aim of closer integration (which is ambiguous but true) and the EU forcing the UK to adopt the Euro if we stay in (which is as mad as the pre-referendum claims that Turkey would soon be joining the EU).
Far be it for me to put down that nice Mr Cameron, but the three bullet points you refer to, @TellyTubby, had really nothing to do with him. The opt outs over the Euro and Schengen are of long standing, while, throughout the 1990s, the UK was a leading power (at least threatening use of its veto) in preventing increased political union within the EU, preferring instead rapid expansion eastwards (leading, almost inevitably, to the sort of problems we see with Hungary and Polanf today).
Fair point. I thought he was claiming that he had got a commitment going forward.
I think it was just making clear that the UK could not be forced into a different kind of relationship while it remained in the EU - there was no likelihood of that ever changing, despite the Eurosceptic claims to the contrary.
That maybe what Cameron thought but it's clearly the ambition of Junkers and other power brokers to drive closer integration and for all to adopt the Euro. Without being offensive, it is ostrich like to deny it.
It's clearly an ambition for some (often quite important) individuals, and indeed a stated aim of the founding Treaty, but it was not something into which the UK could have been forced (because the UK would have to agree to the relevant Treaty change).
Agreed - Treaty change needs unanimity.
So we always had the power to veto - and we also had the rebates and opt-outs. So pretty much in a better position than any of the 27.
When, as I believe, we go cap in hand to the EU in 5 or 10 years time asking to rejoin, we won't have those rebates or opt-outs!
Far be it for me to put down that nice Mr Cameron, but the three bullet points you refer to, @TellyTubby, had really nothing to do with him. The opt outs over the Euro and Schengen are of long standing, while, throughout the 1990s, the UK was a leading power (at least threatening use of its veto) in preventing increased political union within the EU, preferring instead rapid expansion eastwards (leading, almost inevitably, to the sort of problems we see with Hungary and Polanf today).
Fair point. I thought he was claiming that he had got a commitment going forward.
I think it was just making clear that the UK could not be forced into a different kind of relationship while it remained in the EU - there was no likelihood of that ever changing, despite the Eurosceptic claims to the contrary.
That maybe what Cameron thought but it's clearly the ambition of Junkers and other power brokers to drive closer integration and for all to adopt the Euro. Without being offensive, it is ostrich like to deny it.
It's clearly an ambition, and indeed a stated aim of the founding Treaty, but it was not something into which the UK could have been forced (because the UK would have to agree to the relevant Treaty change).
I would distinguish between a treaty aim of closer integration (which is ambiguous but true) and the EU forcing the UK to adopt the Euro if we stay in (which is as mad as the pre-referendum claims that Turkey would soon be joining the EU).
Turkey joining the EU, surely they never claimed that? That would be scaremongering, and only one side is guilty of that tactic...
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
UK so called Parliamentary democracy has many flaws. It is one of very many versions of democracy, as is a referendum. It can be solidly argued that it is not the best or most preferable variation of democracy, and democracy can be defined or described by anybody according to their taste and within reason. If there were some kind of next vote it would not be a betrayal of democracy but another marker, as most democratic exercises tend to be.
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
The decision has to be implemented.
Exactly what Putin is saying at the moment. He spent all that money and used all those cyber resources (we even had two or three Russian bots on here during the Referendum) to spread lies and fake news about the EU in the run up to the vote so he will be pretty pissed if he does not get the result he was looking for.
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
The decision has to be implemented.
Your views and the prioritisation of your version of democracy over the UK's long term future might hold more water were it not for your support of the use of executive powers by individuals such as Teresa Villiers, Gove, Ester McVey, Fox, Liz Truss, Andrea Ledsom etc.
FFS we are a reshuffle away from Rees Mogg being in sole charge of our product safety regulation...
"...Britain could slash environmental and safety regulations on imported products after it leaves the EU, a Tory MP has suggested.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards."
Would you rather our kids toys were made to Indian or EU standards?
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
The decision has to be implemented.
EEA membership = decision implemented.
Quite, as we know the leave campaign was strongly pro staying in the single market.
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
The decision has to be implemented.
No, it doesn't, it was, very clearly an advisory referendum, obviously, it cannot just be ignored but there would be nothing non-democratic about a peoples vote.
It's a major part of our constitution that no parliament can bind future parliaments, that is what we call parliamentary sovereignty.
For me we should never of been given the vote in the first place. Even the very people at top have not much idea what's going on and what will happen. But then like over 90% of us that voted the government expected a remain voted and to continue in the eu. I look back and think would I vote leave again. For me even if the leave campaign had been totally clear on all their policies can I trust them to deliver what they've put on the table. Answer can I f@ck. We might top up a bit better of 10 -15 years down the line but it's going to be one long rollercoaster ride.
For me we should never of been given the vote in the first place. Even the very people at top have not much idea what's going on and what will happen. But then like over 90% of us that voted the government expected a remain voted and to continue in the eu. I look back and think would I vote leave again. For me even if the leave campaign had been totally clear on all their policies can I trust them to deliver what they've put on the table. Answer can I f@ck. We might top up a bit better of 10 -15 years down the line but it's going to be one long rollercoaster ride.
The leave campaign didn't have any "policies" they were not a political party, merely a pressure group, so they could make all the promises ( "suggestions", they would now have it, no doubt ) in the world and not have to stick to any of them. Something I know I for one pointed out in the discussions we had on here pre-referendum, but certain posters chose to ignore, and now claim they were banjaxed because they didn't have the right information, so the outcome isn't their fault...
"...and it will change the way some people think about you, not always for the better..."
"Rubbish!"
"...and, while I can do the tattoo for you, I can't spell, I'm terrible at design, when I colour-in, I sometimes go over the lines and I can only do one design, which is a baby elephant, farting bubbles..."
"Er, on second thoughts, maybe I should have a re-think"
"No. You've made your decision. You can't change your mind. Now, shut up, lie back, close your eyes and don't move. Tattooing on foreheads isn't easy, you know"
For me we should never of been given the vote in the first place. Even the very people at top have not much idea what's going on and what will happen. But then like over 90% of us that voted the government expected a remain voted and to continue in the eu. I look back and think would I vote leave again. For me even if the leave campaign had been totally clear on all their policies can I trust them to deliver what they've put on the table. Answer can I f@ck. We might top up a bit better of 10 -15 years down the line but it's going to be one long rollercoaster ride.
The leave campaign didn't have any "policies" they were not a political party, merely a pressure group, so they could make all the promises ( "suggestions", they would now have it, no doubt ) in the world and not have to stick to any of them. Something I know I for one pointed out in the discussions we had on here pre-referendum, but certain posters chose to ignore, and now claim they were banjaxed because they didn't have the right information, so the outcome isn't their fault...
Slightly off topic, political parties have to stick to their policies?
Far be it for me to put down that nice Mr Cameron, but the three bullet points you refer to, @TellyTubby, had really nothing to do with him. The opt outs over the Euro and Schengen are of long standing, while, throughout the 1990s, the UK was a leading power (at least threatening use of its veto) in preventing increased political union within the EU, preferring instead rapid expansion eastwards (leading, almost inevitably, to the sort of problems we see with Hungary and Polanf today).
Fair point. I thought he was claiming that he had got a commitment going forward.
I think it was just making clear that the UK could not be forced into a different kind of relationship while it remained in the EU - there was no likelihood of that ever changing, despite the Eurosceptic claims to the contrary.
That maybe what Cameron thought but it's clearly the ambition of Junkers and other power brokers to drive closer integration and for all to adopt the Euro. Without being offensive, it is ostrich like to deny it.
You keep complaining about how your comments are received on this thread. Have you not considered that, if you include me as one the culprits it is because of the intense frustration that you will not actually engage with counter arguemtns and facts, but continue to parrot your beliefs without any substantiation. In this particular case, please tell us how you can assert the words above in bold to be fact, when:
1. Juncker will be stepping down next year. Did you actually know that?
2. As I already pointed out to you yesterday, the Czech Republic is not in the eurozone, has no plans to be in it (although it is often discussed), and certainly is under no deadline to join. If 'they" cannot force a small country like CZ, bordered by three eurozone neighbours, to adopt the euro, what is the mechanism by which "they" would force eurozone membership on the UK?
Please try to understand that sometimes "abusive comments" can be generated by utter exasperation at somebody's remarks; and the writer might afterwards regret it, because the writer might think the other person is obviously an all round decent bloke whom he would be happy to share a pint with. Threads on such important matters will always generate heat, but they will at least be productive if people engage with the arguments.
For me we should never of been given the vote in the first place. Even the very people at top have not much idea what's going on and what will happen. But then like over 90% of us that voted the government expected a remain voted and to continue in the eu. I look back and think would I vote leave again. For me even if the leave campaign had been totally clear on all their policies can I trust them to deliver what they've put on the table. Answer can I f@ck. We might top up a bit better of 10 -15 years down the line but it's going to be one long rollercoaster ride.
The leave campaign didn't have any "policies" they were not a political party, merely a pressure group, so they could make all the promises ( "suggestions", they would now have it, no doubt ) in the world and not have to stick to any of them. Something I know I for one pointed out in the discussions we had on here pre-referendum, but certain posters chose to ignore, and now claim they were banjaxed because they didn't have the right information, so the outcome isn't their fault...
Slightly off topic, political parties have to stick to their policies?
No, but when they don't, five years later their lies will have an impact on the next election.
But @PragueAddick I am happy to exchange views and I have already answered the highlighted text. You must have missed it, so I will give you the links and quotes again with extras. I know that I haven't specifically answered your three questions but I did respond by saying it isn't possible with no deal finalised and indeed we might never get the true potential benefits of Brexit due to the way May has handled the negotiations so badly.
BTW I complain about ALL Brexitiers being called Morons, racists, idiots, fucktards etc simply for voting differently, not a reaction to what I say specifically. If I say something stupid, then I expect to me called out but if a racist is on social media declaring their support for Brexit and kicking out all foreigners, then wtf has that got to do with me or other Brexit voters? We have racist supporters, you would be pissed if you were called a racist as a result.
Theresa May won't be our PM for ever, do you ignore what she says in the meantime? Hardly.
Buoyed by the return of solid growth and active talks on a new round of EU integration between a young French president and a powerful German chancellor on the verge of re-election, Mr Juncker delivered one of the most integrationist speeches by a commission chief since the euro’s creation.
Championing a consolidation of power that would cancel out many past compromises offered to accommodate sovereignty concerns of member states, Mr Juncker pushed for a deepening of the EU’s budgetary powers, institutions and remit in areas such as tax and foreign policy.
He called on seven member states outside the eurozone to join the EU’s common currency and the EU’s banking union project. But he ruled out the creation of a separate euro-area budget or parliament — ideas backed by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
“If we want the euro to unite our continent rather than dividing it, it needs to not be the currency of just a select group of countries. The euro is destined to be the common currency of European Union,” said Mr Juncker.
“We do not need a separate eurozone budget, we need a strong eurozone line within the existing European budget.”
Brussels will repeat offers to non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Bulgaria to join the currency bloc and reap the benefits of tighter integration rather than pursue a “multi-speed” Europe, where different groups of countries could proceed at their own pace on various initiatives.
Mr Juncker also said Romania and Bulgaria should be admitted to the Schengen area, which allows citizens to travel freely without border controls.
In some of his boldest proposals, the president said the EU must move faster in sensitive areas such as taxation and foreign policy that have been the preserve of member states.
Mr Juncker called for the system of unanimity voting among countries to be further phased out in favour of weighted majority voting, removing the veto powers of individual governments that currently hinders the EU from adopting common tax rates and complicates annual budget negotiations.
But @PragueAddick I am happy to exchange views and I have already answered the highlighted text. You must have missed it, so I will give you the links and quotes again with extras. I know that I haven't specifically answered your three questions but I did respond by saying it isn't possible with no deal finalised and indeed we might never get the true potential benefits of Brexit due to the way May has handled the negotiations so badly.
BTW I complain about ALL Brexitiers being called Morons, racists, idiots, fucktards etc simply for voting differently, not a reaction to what I say specifically. If I say something stupid, then I expect to me called out but if a racist is on social media declaring their support for Brexit and kicking out all foreigners, then wtf has that got to do with me or other Brexit voters? We have racist supporters, you would be pissed if you were called a racist as a result.
Theresa May won't be our PM for ever, do you ignore what she says in the meantime? Hardly.
Buoyed by the return of solid growth and active talks on a new round of EU integration between a young French president and a powerful German chancellor on the verge of re-election, Mr Juncker delivered one of the most integrationist speeches by a commission chief since the euro’s creation.
Championing a consolidation of power that would cancel out many past compromises offered to accommodate sovereignty concerns of member states, Mr Juncker pushed for a deepening of the EU’s budgetary powers, institutions and remit in areas such as tax and foreign policy.
He called on seven member states outside the eurozone to join the EU’s common currency and the EU’s banking union project. But he ruled out the creation of a separate euro-area budget or parliament — ideas backed by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
“If we want the euro to unite our continent rather than dividing it, it needs to not be the currency of just a select group of countries. The euro is destined to be the common currency of European Union,” said Mr Juncker.
“We do not need a separate eurozone budget, we need a strong eurozone line within the existing European budget.”
Brussels will repeat offers to non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Bulgaria to join the currency bloc and reap the benefits of tighter integration rather than pursue a “multi-speed” Europe, where different groups of countries could proceed at their own pace on various initiatives.
Mr Juncker also said Romania and Bulgaria should be admitted to the Schengen area, which allows citizens to travel freely without border controls.
In some of his boldest proposals, the president said the EU must move faster in sensitive areas such as taxation and foreign policy that have been the preserve of member states.
Mr Juncker called for the system of unanimity voting among countries to be further phased out in favour of weighted majority voting, removing the veto powers of individual governments that currently hinders the EU from adopting common tax rates and complicates annual budget negotiations.
And all that is his opinion, and would have to be agreed by all member states. As has been mentioned several times and continually ignored. Juncker can call for his bollocks to be dipped in chocolate and have Kelly Brook in string bikini lick it off. It does not mean it's going to happen.
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
The decision has to be implemented.
Exactly what Putin is saying at the moment. He spent all that money and used all those cyber resources (we even had two or three Russian bots on here during the Referendum) to spread lies and fake news about the EU in the run up to the vote so he will be pretty pissed if he does not get the result he was looking for.
Keep the silver helmet on tight and you will be safe
But @PragueAddick I am happy to exchange views and I have already answered the highlighted text. You must have missed it, so I will give you the links and quotes again with extras. I know that I haven't specifically answered your three questions but I did respond by saying it isn't possible with no deal finalised and indeed we might never get the true potential benefits of Brexit due to the way May has handled the negotiations so badly.
BTW I complain about ALL Brexitiers being called Morons, racists, idiots, fucktards etc simply for voting differently, not a reaction to what I say specifically. If I say something stupid, then I expect to me called out but if a racist is on social media declaring their support for Brexit and kicking out all foreigners, then wtf has that got to do with me or other Brexit voters? We have racist supporters, you would be pissed if you were called a racist as a result.
Theresa May won't be our PM for ever, do you ignore what she says in the meantime? Hardly.
Buoyed by the return of solid growth and active talks on a new round of EU integration between a young French president and a powerful German chancellor on the verge of re-election, Mr Juncker delivered one of the most integrationist speeches by a commission chief since the euro’s creation.
Championing a consolidation of power that would cancel out many past compromises offered to accommodate sovereignty concerns of member states, Mr Juncker pushed for a deepening of the EU’s budgetary powers, institutions and remit in areas such as tax and foreign policy.
He called on seven member states outside the eurozone to join the EU’s common currency and the EU’s banking union project. But he ruled out the creation of a separate euro-area budget or parliament — ideas backed by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
“If we want the euro to unite our continent rather than dividing it, it needs to not be the currency of just a select group of countries. The euro is destined to be the common currency of European Union,” said Mr Juncker.
“We do not need a separate eurozone budget, we need a strong eurozone line within the existing European budget.”
Brussels will repeat offers to non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Bulgaria to join the currency bloc and reap the benefits of tighter integration rather than pursue a “multi-speed” Europe, where different groups of countries could proceed at their own pace on various initiatives.
Mr Juncker also said Romania and Bulgaria should be admitted to the Schengen area, which allows citizens to travel freely without border controls.
In some of his boldest proposals, the president said the EU must move faster in sensitive areas such as taxation and foreign policy that have been the preserve of member states.
Mr Juncker called for the system of unanimity voting among countries to be further phased out in favour of weighted majority voting, removing the veto powers of individual governments that currently hinders the EU from adopting common tax rates and complicates annual budget negotiations.
And all that is his opinion, and would have to be agreed by all member states. As has been mentioned several times and continually ignored. Juncker can call for his bollocks to be dipped in chocolate and have Kelly Brook in string bikini lick it off. It does not mean it's going to happen.
Ah mate, what do we know, we only live in the EU.
@TellyTubby Algarve's peerless depiction of the limits of Juncker's powers, notwithstanding, I will pull out just one sentence from the Juncker speech you quote. I highlight one crucial word in bold. It should require no further embellishment from me, in order to re-inforce the point I made above re CZ and the euro...
Brussels will repeat offersto non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Bulgaria to join the currency bloc and reap the benefits of tighter integration rather than pursue a “multi-speed” Europe, where different groups of countries could proceed at their own pace on various initiatives.
But @PragueAddick I am happy to exchange views and I have already answered the highlighted text. You must have missed it, so I will give you the links and quotes again with extras. I know that I haven't specifically answered your three questions but I did respond by saying it isn't possible with no deal finalised and indeed we might never get the true potential benefits of Brexit due to the way May has handled the negotiations so badly.
BTW I complain about ALL Brexitiers being called Morons, racists, idiots, fucktards etc simply for voting differently, not a reaction to what I say specifically. If I say something stupid, then I expect to me called out but if a racist is on social media declaring their support for Brexit and kicking out all foreigners, then wtf has that got to do with me or other Brexit voters? We have racist supporters, you would be pissed if you were called a racist as a result.
Theresa May won't be our PM for ever, do you ignore what she says in the meantime? Hardly.
Buoyed by the return of solid growth and active talks on a new round of EU integration between a young French president and a powerful German chancellor on the verge of re-election, Mr Juncker delivered one of the most integrationist speeches by a commission chief since the euro’s creation.
Championing a consolidation of power that would cancel out many past compromises offered to accommodate sovereignty concerns of member states, Mr Juncker pushed for a deepening of the EU’s budgetary powers, institutions and remit in areas such as tax and foreign policy.
He called on seven member states outside the eurozone to join the EU’s common currency and the EU’s banking union project. But he ruled out the creation of a separate euro-area budget or parliament — ideas backed by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
“If we want the euro to unite our continent rather than dividing it, it needs to not be the currency of just a select group of countries. The euro is destined to be the common currency of European Union,” said Mr Juncker.
“We do not need a separate eurozone budget, we need a strong eurozone line within the existing European budget.”
Brussels will repeat offers to non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Bulgaria to join the currency bloc and reap the benefits of tighter integration rather than pursue a “multi-speed” Europe, where different groups of countries could proceed at their own pace on various initiatives.
Mr Juncker also said Romania and Bulgaria should be admitted to the Schengen area, which allows citizens to travel freely without border controls.
In some of his boldest proposals, the president said the EU must move faster in sensitive areas such as taxation and foreign policy that have been the preserve of member states.
Mr Juncker called for the system of unanimity voting among countries to be further phased out in favour of weighted majority voting, removing the veto powers of individual governments that currently hinders the EU from adopting common tax rates and complicates annual budget negotiations.
And all that is his opinion, and would have to be agreed by all member states. As has been mentioned several times and continually ignored. Juncker can call for his bollocks to be dipped in chocolate and have Kelly Brook in string bikini lick it off. It does not mean it's going to happen.
I think your response just shows once again that you still do not understand why the majority of people in the UK voted for Brexit. It turns out that 'ordinary people' care more about politics than you and others think. And thank God that most people can see beyond bread and butter issues or our democratic way of life would really be screwed.
And your response shows the remarkable conceit that you believe you understand the Brexit vote. You think they all voted for the same reason, which is your fundamental error. In your case you think that reason was "sovereignty" and "taking back control". Never mind that when many Brexiters are asked, in front of a camera or microphone, what 'taking back control" actually means, they gulp like goldfish on crack. That was exactly how my Mum reacted when she came out with something like 'taking back control' as her reason for voting Brexit, and breaking my heart in the process. And of course when I ask you what it means, in practical terms you revert to high minded sounding cliches, without any reference to your own day to day life.
The truth has now gradually emerged that people voted Brexit for a mish-mash of reasons (as can be seen on CL) and that it wasn't even down to demographics/income/education. A much better correlation was with other outlooks on life, such as views on capital punishment, and other aspects of the order vs tolerance spectrum. That explains the completely divergent views of my brother and my sister who would fall into exactly the same demographic in terms of age, education level (grammar school but not beyond), and earnings (barely scraping average, especially given that they live in London).
You have stated your reasons, at least in general cliche filled terms why you voted Leave. You kid yourself mightily if you think you represent the voice of Brexit. I am afraid there are many different voices of the Brexit vote, some of them reasoned and focused on free trade, like e.g. Dippenhall, and others ranging from the ugly to the downright sinister.
Interesting that you raise the issue of day to day life. Day to day life in the UK is pretty much the same in the UK as before the Brexit vote. Wages have stayed the same, more people are in work, the NHS and the railways are in crisis. I expect after we leave it will be pretty much the same as well because the same people will probably be running things in the same way. But if we do not leave then me and many millions of others will feel cheated of our democratic rights. There will be even more cynicism about politics and even less democratic pressure for change.
You call this 'high minded' yet you live in a country that was cheated of democracy for decades. Did the Czechs think it was 'high minded' to want to govern through a democratic vote?
You surely know that since the creation of parliamentary democracy in Britain no parliamentary or referendum election has been ignored or over-ruled. We are very, very fortunate in that respect and there are very few countries in the world where that is true. Yet you and others wish to ignore the result of this referendum and create a precedent for ignoring election results when they do not suit you. I find it quite shocking that you hold democracy in such contempt.
Election and referendum are two different things, especially in this case, as according to you the decision has to be irreversible.
The decision has to be implemented.
Exactly what Putin is saying at the moment. He spent all that money and used all those cyber resources (we even had two or three Russian bots on here during the Referendum) to spread lies and fake news about the EU in the run up to the vote so he will be pretty pissed if he does not get the result he was looking for.
Keep the silver helmet on tight and you will be safe
Comments
So we always had the power to veto - and we also had the rebates and opt-outs. So pretty much in a better position than any of the 27.
When, as I believe, we go cap in hand to the EU in 5 or 10 years time asking to rejoin, we won't have those rebates or opt-outs!
If there were some kind of next vote it would not be a betrayal of democracy but another marker, as most democratic exercises tend to be.
FFS we are a reshuffle away from Rees Mogg being in sole charge of our product safety regulation...
https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-safety-standards-workers-rights-jacob-rees-mogg-a7459336.html
"...Britain could slash environmental and safety regulations on imported products after it leaves the EU, a Tory MP has suggested.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said regulations that were “good enough for India” could be good enough for the UK – arguing that the UK could go “a very long way” to rolling back high EU standards."
Would you rather our kids toys were made to Indian or EU standards?
It's a major part of our constitution that no parliament can bind future parliaments, that is what we call parliamentary sovereignty.
Even the very people at top have not much idea what's going on and what will happen.
But then like over 90% of us that voted the government expected a remain voted and to continue in the eu.
I look back and think would I vote leave again.
For me even if the leave campaign had been totally clear on all their policies can I trust them to deliver what they've put on the table.
Answer can I f@ck.
We might top up a bit better of 10 -15 years down the line but it's going to be one long rollercoaster ride.
"OK. By the way, it will hurt..."
"My friend had one and it didn't hurt him"
"...and it will be permanent..."
"I heard you can get then removed"
"...and it will change the way some people think about you, not always for the better..."
"Rubbish!"
"...and, while I can do the tattoo for you, I can't spell, I'm terrible at design, when I colour-in, I sometimes go over the lines and I can only do one design, which is a baby elephant, farting bubbles..."
"Er, on second thoughts, maybe I should have a re-think"
"No. You've made your decision. You can't change your mind. Now, shut up, lie back, close your eyes and don't move. Tattooing on foreheads isn't easy, you know"
1. Juncker will be stepping down next year. Did you actually know that?
2. As I already pointed out to you yesterday, the Czech Republic is not in the eurozone, has no plans to be in it (although it is often discussed), and certainly is under no deadline to join. If 'they" cannot force a small country like CZ, bordered by three eurozone neighbours, to adopt the euro, what is the mechanism by which "they" would force eurozone membership on the UK?
Please try to understand that sometimes "abusive comments" can be generated by utter exasperation at somebody's remarks; and the writer might afterwards regret it, because the writer might think the other person is obviously an all round decent bloke whom he would be happy to share a pint with. Threads on such important matters will always generate heat, but they will at least be productive if people engage with the arguments.
And they usually stick by most of them...
BTW I complain about ALL Brexitiers being called Morons, racists, idiots, fucktards etc simply for voting differently, not a reaction to what I say specifically. If I say something stupid, then I expect to me called out but if a racist is on social media declaring their support for Brexit and kicking out all foreigners, then wtf has that got to do with me or other Brexit voters? We have racist supporters, you would be pissed if you were called a racist as a result.
Theresa May won't be our PM for ever, do you ignore what she says in the meantime? Hardly.
https://www.ft.com/content/f1d5ec78-9851-11e7-a652-cde3f882dd7b
Buoyed by the return of solid growth and active talks on a new round of EU integration between a young French president and a powerful German chancellor on the verge of re-election, Mr Juncker delivered one of the most integrationist speeches by a commission chief since the euro’s creation.
Championing a consolidation of power that would cancel out many past compromises offered to accommodate sovereignty concerns of member states, Mr Juncker pushed for a deepening of the EU’s budgetary powers, institutions and remit in areas such as tax and foreign policy.
He called on seven member states outside the eurozone to join the EU’s common currency and the EU’s banking union project. But he ruled out the creation of a separate euro-area budget or parliament — ideas backed by France’s president Emmanuel Macron.
“If we want the euro to unite our continent rather than dividing it, it needs to not be the currency of just a select group of countries. The euro is destined to be the common currency of European Union,” said Mr Juncker.
“We do not need a separate eurozone budget, we need a strong eurozone line within the existing European budget.”
Brussels will repeat offers to non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Bulgaria to join the currency bloc and reap the benefits of tighter integration rather than pursue a “multi-speed” Europe, where different groups of countries could proceed at their own pace on various initiatives.
Mr Juncker also said Romania and Bulgaria should be admitted to the Schengen area, which allows citizens to travel freely without border controls.
In some of his boldest proposals, the president said the EU must move faster in sensitive areas such as taxation and foreign policy that have been the preserve of member states.
Mr Juncker called for the system of unanimity voting among countries to be further phased out in favour of weighted majority voting, removing the veto powers of individual governments that currently hinders the EU from adopting common tax rates and complicates annual budget negotiations.
It appears that Merkel and Macron is on board with this policy.
https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-bridge-differences-on-eu-reform-france-germany/
Why would a trading block need an army? My answer would be that it doesn't.
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macrons-eu-defense-army-coalition-of-the-willing-military-cooperation/
@TellyTubby Algarve's peerless depiction of the limits of Juncker's powers, notwithstanding, I will pull out just one sentence from the Juncker speech you quote. I highlight one crucial word in bold. It should require no further embellishment from me, in order to re-inforce the point I made above re CZ and the euro...
Brussels will repeat offers to non-euro countries such as Poland, Sweden and Bulgaria to join the currency bloc and reap the benefits of tighter integration rather than pursue a “multi-speed” Europe, where different groups of countries could proceed at their own pace on various initiatives.
Denmark had to have two goes at the Maastricht Treaty in the space of 12 months.
Can't I even try to introduce a little levity without being asked provide documentary evidence?!
So you don’t think Putin was meddling ?
So where are we now?