Carole Cadwallader is far from mad. She is a diligent journalist who is very close to fully exposing Aaron Banks true role in the referendum. And now she is on Mr Staines' case too, so no surprise he resorts to abuse.
Tell me @Southbank, does Mr Banks and his lovely Russian wife speak for you?
Yes of course. All my responses are dictated by people backed by Russians, Russia itself and/or the Legatum institute. There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit.
Just as all yours are dictated by international finance capital and the EU bureaucracy. There is no other explanation for wanting to abandon democracy and sovereignty.
Carole Cadwallader is far from mad. She is a diligent journalist who is very close to fully exposing Aaron Banks true role in the referendum. And now she is on Mr Staines' case too, so no surprise he resorts to abuse.
Tell me @Southbank, does Mr Banks and his lovely Russian wife speak for you?
Yes of course. All my responses are dictated by people backed by Russians, Russia itself and/or the Legatum institute. There is no other explanation for the madness of Brexit.
Just as all yours are dictated by international finance capital and the EU bureaucracy. There is no other explanation for wanting to abandon democracy and sovereignty.
That's quite a good comeback, I'll give you that. But I am curious as to which politician or public figure best articulates your own personal reasons for voting Leave.
It feels as if suddenly the brexit people have only just woken up to the Irish border issue. Clearly they haven't been reading Charlton Life for the last couple of years or so. Some people on this forum voted UKIP. and if what is reported is true a UKIPPER said the border issue can be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU. This says a couple of things, somebody somewhere now realises that the border is an actual (serious) issue, and somebody somewhere now realises that no practical solutions have been suggested so far. The republic of Ireland leaving the EU is actually a practical solution so that deserves credit, and razor wire, watchtowers, machine gun nests every 10 meters for 400Km with a shoot on site policy is actually a practical solution too. I can guess what the anti-Irish racists here on Charlton Life would prefer if those were the only two options.
It feels as if suddenly the brexit people have only just woken up to the Irish border issue. Clearly they haven't been reading Charlton Life for the last couple of years or so. Some people on this forum voted UKIP. and if what is reported is true a UKIPPER said the border issue can be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU. This says a couple of things, somebody somewhere now realises that the border is an actual (serious) issue, and somebody somewhere now realises that no practical solutions have been suggested so far. The republic of Ireland leaving the EU is actually a practical solution so that deserves credit, and razor wire, watchtowers, machine gun nests every 10 meters for 400Km with a shoot on site policy is actually a practical solution too. I can guess what the anti-Irish racists here on Charlton Life would prefer if those were the only two options.
The Irish did try to reject the EU, but they were told to keep voting until they got the right result.
It feels as if suddenly the brexit people have only just woken up to the Irish border issue. Clearly they haven't been reading Charlton Life for the last couple of years or so. Some people on this forum voted UKIP. and if what is reported is true a UKIPPER said the border issue can be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU. This says a couple of things, somebody somewhere now realises that the border is an actual (serious) issue, and somebody somewhere now realises that no practical solutions have been suggested so far. The republic of Ireland leaving the EU is actually a practical solution so that deserves credit, and razor wire, watchtowers, machine gun nests every 10 meters for 400Km with a shoot on site policy is actually a practical solution too. I can guess what the anti-Irish racists here on Charlton Life would prefer if those were the only two options.
The UK government don't want to give a border solution, or a guarantee on EU citizens rights because they appreciate we are in the weaker position for trade deals. Therefore they wish to offer favourable solutions to both those problems as part of trade deal negotiations in the hope of getting a better trade deal. You can say the same about the divorce payment too, they don't want to agree that as they'd rather use the size of any offer as part of the leverage on a trade deal.
That whole "nothing's decided until everything's decided" approach would only make sense if we hadn't already decided that membership of the single market and customs union are not he ruled out. Surely either everything's up for negotiation or it's not ?
In fairness, I think that membership of the single market has been ruled out because the EU have said we can't retain membership without guaranteeing continued free movement of EU citizens to the UK.
I really can't see a way through on the Ireland/NI border issue unless the EU allow ROI to negotiate directly with the UK on trade terms (which it won't).
So why has that been ruled out ? Surely if the best deal on leaving the EU means accepting freedom of movement in exchange for full access to the single market that's what we should do ?
Because many leavers want an end to freedom of movement (like me).
Yes, UK needs immigration. I think we all accept that, but there is a difference between controlled immigration and free unrestricted movement of hundreds of thousand / millions without any controls in place.
It feels as if suddenly the brexit people have only just woken up to the Irish border issue. Clearly they haven't been reading Charlton Life for the last couple of years or so. Some people on this forum voted UKIP. and if what is reported is true a UKIPPER said the border issue can be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU. This says a couple of things, somebody somewhere now realises that the border is an actual (serious) issue, and somebody somewhere now realises that no practical solutions have been suggested so far. The republic of Ireland leaving the EU is actually a practical solution so that deserves credit, and razor wire, watchtowers, machine gun nests every 10 meters for 400Km with a shoot on site policy is actually a practical solution too. I can guess what the anti-Irish racists here on Charlton Life would prefer if those were the only two options.
The anti-Irish racists ?!?
I must be reading a different forum to you Seth.
I don't mean you Stonemuse, but certainly one lifer was banned for their anti-Irish posts, and there is another one who regularly posts who despises the Irish and frequently tells us so.
The UK government don't want to give a border solution, or a guarantee on EU citizens rights because they appreciate we are in the weaker position for trade deals. Therefore they wish to offer favourable solutions to both those problems as part of trade deal negotiations in the hope of getting a better trade deal. You can say the same about the divorce payment too, they don't want to agree that as they'd rather use the size of any offer as part of the leverage on a trade deal.
That whole "nothing's decided until everything's decided" approach would only make sense if we hadn't already decided that membership of the single market and customs union are not he ruled out. Surely either everything's up for negotiation or it's not ?
In fairness, I think that membership of the single market has been ruled out because the EU have said we can't retain membership without guaranteeing continued free movement of EU citizens to the UK.
I really can't see a way through on the Ireland/NI border issue unless the EU allow ROI to negotiate directly with the UK on trade terms (which it won't).
So why has that been ruled out ? Surely if the best deal on leaving the EU means accepting freedom of movement in exchange for full access to the single market that's what we should do ?
Because many leavers want an end to freedom of movement (like me).
Yes, UK needs immigration. I think we all accept that, but there is a difference between controlled immigration and free unrestricted movement of hundreds of thousand / millions without any controls in place.
From the article:
"And then the Indian PM — one of the most powerful people in the world — humbly said that the free movement of our people is very important to us." He added: "Trade deals are very difficult. India has only nine bilateral trade deals. Not one with a western country. Liam Fox thinks he can strike lots of trade deals. What deal is he going to do with India?"
The UK government don't want to give a border solution, or a guarantee on EU citizens rights because they appreciate we are in the weaker position for trade deals. Therefore they wish to offer favourable solutions to both those problems as part of trade deal negotiations in the hope of getting a better trade deal. You can say the same about the divorce payment too, they don't want to agree that as they'd rather use the size of any offer as part of the leverage on a trade deal.
That whole "nothing's decided until everything's decided" approach would only make sense if we hadn't already decided that membership of the single market and customs union are not he ruled out. Surely either everything's up for negotiation or it's not ?
In fairness, I think that membership of the single market has been ruled out because the EU have said we can't retain membership without guaranteeing continued free movement of EU citizens to the UK.
I really can't see a way through on the Ireland/NI border issue unless the EU allow ROI to negotiate directly with the UK on trade terms (which it won't).
So why has that been ruled out ? Surely if the best deal on leaving the EU means accepting freedom of movement in exchange for full access to the single market that's what we should do ?
Because many leavers want an end to freedom of movement (like me).
Fair enough, but we didn't have a referendum on whether or not we should end freedom of movement; we had a referendum on whether we should leave the EU. The two are not mutually exclusive even if they are in your mind.
Leaving the EU means an end to the 4 freedoms that are enshrined in the EU constitution.
Services People Goods Capital
Can we keep Services, Goods, Capital and remain in the EU in any way ?
The UK government don't want to give a border solution, or a guarantee on EU citizens rights because they appreciate we are in the weaker position for trade deals. Therefore they wish to offer favourable solutions to both those problems as part of trade deal negotiations in the hope of getting a better trade deal. You can say the same about the divorce payment too, they don't want to agree that as they'd rather use the size of any offer as part of the leverage on a trade deal.
That whole "nothing's decided until everything's decided" approach would only make sense if we hadn't already decided that membership of the single market and customs union are not he ruled out. Surely either everything's up for negotiation or it's not ?
In fairness, I think that membership of the single market has been ruled out because the EU have said we can't retain membership without guaranteeing continued free movement of EU citizens to the UK.
I really can't see a way through on the Ireland/NI border issue unless the EU allow ROI to negotiate directly with the UK on trade terms (which it won't).
So why has that been ruled out ? Surely if the best deal on leaving the EU means accepting freedom of movement in exchange for full access to the single market that's what we should do ?
Because many leavers want an end to freedom of movement (like me).
Yes, UK needs immigration. I think we all accept that, but there is a difference between controlled immigration and free unrestricted movement of hundreds of thousand / millions without any controls in place.
From the article:
"And then the Indian PM — one of the most powerful people in the world — humbly said that the free movement of our people is very important to us." He added: "Trade deals are very difficult. India has only nine bilateral trade deals. Not one with a western country. Liam Fox thinks he can strike lots of trade deals. What deal is he going to do with India?"
I don't know - but I would be surprised if he gave free immigration status to a population of 1 Billion in return for a trade deal.
The UK government don't want to give a border solution, or a guarantee on EU citizens rights because they appreciate we are in the weaker position for trade deals. Therefore they wish to offer favourable solutions to both those problems as part of trade deal negotiations in the hope of getting a better trade deal. You can say the same about the divorce payment too, they don't want to agree that as they'd rather use the size of any offer as part of the leverage on a trade deal.
That whole "nothing's decided until everything's decided" approach would only make sense if we hadn't already decided that membership of the single market and customs union are not he ruled out. Surely either everything's up for negotiation or it's not ?
In fairness, I think that membership of the single market has been ruled out because the EU have said we can't retain membership without guaranteeing continued free movement of EU citizens to the UK.
I really can't see a way through on the Ireland/NI border issue unless the EU allow ROI to negotiate directly with the UK on trade terms (which it won't).
So why has that been ruled out ? Surely if the best deal on leaving the EU means accepting freedom of movement in exchange for full access to the single market that's what we should do ?
Because many leavers want an end to freedom of movement (like me).
Fair enough, but we didn't have a referendum on whether or not we should end freedom of movement; we had a referendum on whether we should leave the EU. The two are not mutually exclusive even if they are in your mind.
Leaving the EU means an end to the 4 freedoms that are enshrined in the EU constitution.
Services People Goods Capital
Can we keep Services, Goods, Capital and remain in the EU in any way ?
That isn't true - Norway are not an EU a member it still have access to all four freedoms.
No leader is indispensable, but it does feel like the future of Europe stands or falls with Angela Merkel. She’s been the godmother of the European Union for almost 15 years, and other leaders have learnt to accept one unspoken rule: Merkel is the adjudicator. Her aura of supreme power infuriated Nicolas Sarkozy, who wanted it for himself. Greece’s leftist leader, Alexis Tsipras, fumed that Merkel wanted to make his country a vassal state, ruled by Berlin and the gnomes of Frankfurt. But now she’s at risk of losing her power, and even her enemies fear that her absence will pull Europe in different and conflicting directions.
‘No Experiments!’ was the campaign slogan of Konrad Adenauer, Germany’s post-war leader, and that’s how many feel about Europe now. Merkel’s political persona has always been closer to Adenauer than Helmut Kohl, and that’s why she knows that Europe may break apart if integrationist policies go too far. Merkel hasn’t been warming to ideas about a fiscal union and shared responsibilities for public debt. She knows that the quest for national identity around Europe is real: she learnt the hard way that it is a doomed project to force countries to accept refugees. Her idea of Europe may lack vision, but it is rich on realism. If she falls, there’s no one else there with her standing and sense of pragmatism.
The Brexit vote was representative of one of the big political undercurrents in European politics, a force that was moderated by Merkel. Without her, or anyone else with a unifying idea about the EU, the cracks in its thin ice will turn into dangerous splits.
It feels as if suddenly the brexit people have only just woken up to the Irish border issue. Clearly they haven't been reading Charlton Life for the last couple of years or so. Some people on this forum voted UKIP. and if what is reported is true a UKIPPER said the border issue can be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU. This says a couple of things, somebody somewhere now realises that the border is an actual (serious) issue, and somebody somewhere now realises that no practical solutions have been suggested so far. The republic of Ireland leaving the EU is actually a practical solution so that deserves credit, and razor wire, watchtowers, machine gun nests every 10 meters for 400Km with a shoot on site policy is actually a practical solution too. I can guess what the anti-Irish racists here on Charlton Life would prefer if those were the only two options.
The Irish did try to reject the EU, but they were told to keep voting until they got the right result.
Absolutely untrue; there has not been an occasion when the Irish had any interest, beyond the utter fruitcakes and loons, in leaving the EU.
Ireland has, among other things, neutrality enshrined in its Constitution.
On a couple of occasions the electorate, concerned (rightly or wrongly) that a new EU Treaty would undermine the Constitution in some way, rejected them in a referendum. Following either a) clarification or b) a specific clause being inserted into the Treaty, by the EU, to address and allay these concerns, the referenda were then passed.
There was no arm twisting by the EU. If the concerns had not been addressed, the Treaties would have fallen.
It does actually say quite a lot that is good about the democracy of the EU that a country like Ireland can have that kind of impact.
It feels as if suddenly the brexit people have only just woken up to the Irish border issue. Clearly they haven't been reading Charlton Life for the last couple of years or so. Some people on this forum voted UKIP. and if what is reported is true a UKIPPER said the border issue can be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU. This says a couple of things, somebody somewhere now realises that the border is an actual (serious) issue, and somebody somewhere now realises that no practical solutions have been suggested so far. The republic of Ireland leaving the EU is actually a practical solution so that deserves credit, and razor wire, watchtowers, machine gun nests every 10 meters for 400Km with a shoot on site policy is actually a practical solution too. I can guess what the anti-Irish racists here on Charlton Life would prefer if those were the only two options.
The anti-Irish racists ?!?
I must be reading a different forum to you Seth.
Was aimed at me mate cos i had the audacity to hate my irish grandfather who was a drunken filthy bastard who beat my mother, grandmother and turned an oak dining table over his own pregnant daughter.. Apparently i hate all of ireland despite for 25 years i had to look under my car and my wifes car. I hated one person and the cowardly scum who plant bombs under people's cars... Still some people can never stop exagerating.
I’ll bang Seth’s drum here. I havn't heard one single credible suggestion over the border issue. On Peston the conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi is saying that a border decision can’t be decided until a trade deal is agreed because what type of border will ultimately depend on that trade deal. A logic of sorts until you accept the fact that our negotiating partners do not accept this. It is May and Davis saying that there needs to be flexibility. If indeed they do really want to move the negotiations on when the two parties meet in two weeks I suggest that this critical issue is a decent starting point.
There can be no practical solution to the border issue outside of a new trade agreement, surely that is blindingly obvious to even the most ardent remainer. Or to put it another way, do you think the final border arrangement between the UK and France can be decided now as well? The EU is encouraging the Irish to put pressure on the UK to effectively overturn the referendum result. It is incredibly irresponsible to raise the stakes in this way and to use the Irish as a pawn in the bigger game.
Re your last para. Had you listened to R4 Today Programme this morning you you would not have written the last 2 sentences, which is arrant hate filled nonsense. The Irish are driving this, not what you call "the EU".
So the EU is not behind this at all? A little naive again I think ,Prague. You really are letting your prejudices get in the way. And what about my first point? Hiow could it be sorted outside of a trade deal?
01.53- 01.58, Laura Kuenssberg and especially Katya Adler. Listen carefully. Katya Adler is neither naive nor is she "pro-EU" in this argument although as a consummate professional she rarely reveals that.
I think others have admirably answered your first question, you are behind with your responses, and anyway I wasted enough time digging out that clip in the probably vain hope that you might learn something from it.
So, Guy Verhofstadt, Chief European Parliament Brexit negotiator quoted in today's Standard ' For us,dividing up Ireland is not an option at all.' Let us be generous and assume he is too stupid to know the potential impact of what he is saying and it is not a conscious attempt to stir up trouble. However, it is not the Irish tail wagging the EU dog.
Unfortunately, what is hailed as the “return” of Europe is merely the temporary survival of the European Union. None of the old crises have been resolved, and a new one – the heightened tensions in Catalonia – has just been added. The EU and the British Remainers seriously underestimate Britain’s resilience and ability to retaliate against European “punishment” if the country were so minded, but since Brexit will happen one way or the other even the best-case scenario on this front is bad for Brussels and the national capitals.
Whatever harm the EU inflicts on Britain, or it inflicts on itself through the UK’s departure, the remaining member states will also pay a hefty price.
As with the euro, the fundamental flaw in the system remains unaddressed. The EU is trying to run a common travel area and a common foreign policy without a common state. The EU is unable to close the border effectively, because that is the task of the member states; it lacks the ability to ensure that refugees who are admitted are distributed fairly; and it does not have the capacity to intervene in the Middle East to prevent the flow of refugees. It attempts to achieve federal aims with confederal instruments, and that cannot be done.
The EU thus has the worst of both worlds. It has pulled off the feat of being too intrusive to be compatible with UK sovereignty, yet it has not sufficiently transcended the sovereignty of the remaining member states to make the common institutions workable. It is losing healthy limbs – both the British and the Catalans would feature highly on the “save list” in any European ark – while stubbornly retaining its sickest ones, dragging Greece along behind it like a shrivelled leg it would like to amputate.
Nobody is more conscious of all these travails than the leaders of the Franco-German axis. In Berlin, the defence ministry has started to make its first contingency plans for a possible disintegration of the EU, leaked this month – a wise precaution, and one that does not suggest that the union is out of the woods.
There is still plenty worth saving in the EU but there is little time to lose. The crises are becoming more intense and the intervals between them shorter; the contractions are getting closer and unless something is done fast they presage not life but death. Emmanuel Macron should start his European surgery without delay and not wait for the success of the operation in France. The chances of success may be no more than even, but without the attempt failure is certain.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
Is Gerard Batten seriously bringing the common travel area into the discussion ? It shows a breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding of the relationship between the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I doubt the moron even fully understands what it is. Getting or even threatening getting the Common Travel Area and special status of ROI nationals enshrined in UK law changed would be just as, if not more stupid than Brexit itself. Can you just begin to imagine the consequences. To use the words of The Sun editorial he should shut his gob. I would though expect nothing less of a UKIP MEP.
Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andalucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.
Is Gerard Batten seriously bringing the common travel area into the discussion ? It shows a breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding of the relationship between the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I doubt the moron even fully understands what it is. Getting or even threatening getting the Common Travel Area and special status of ROI nationals enshrined in UK law changed would be just as, if not more stupid than Brexit itself. Can you just begin to imagine the consequences. To use the words of The Sun editorial he should shut his gob. I would though expect nothing less of a UKIP MEP.
Yes it is stipid-just as Verhofstadt's attempt to abolish Northern Ireland is. Raising the stakes on Ireland to attempt to defeat the referendum result is reckless and dangerous.
Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andaucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.
Most people in the UK forget Gibraltar exists (apart for when it's time for some good old fashioned Falklands style jingoism) let alone have considered what the impact of Brexit might be on the rock.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration. In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.
''The Irish did try to reject the EU, but they were told to keep voting until they got the right result.''
I am sure that actually happened a few years ago. Also think this is the hope some cowardly Remainers are clinging onto!
No, they rejected the Treaty of Nice which was (a pretty crappy) treaty for changes in the EU constitution. Some changes were made and a second referendum delivered a 60/40 majority in favour of the treaty. There was never any proposal for ROI to leave the EU.
Has there been any progress on the status of Gibraltar yet? I haven't seen much mention of it all and it is in the best interest of both Spain and the UK to have some clarity. I know Spain are keen to get their hands on it, but they also recognise the importance it has for employment with a huge number of Andaucians travelling over the border for work.
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.
Most people in the UK forget Gibraltar exists (apart for when it's time for some good old fashioned Falklands style jingoism) let alone have considered what the impact of Brexit might be on the rock.
A hard Brexit would have a huge impact on Gibraltar's economy - most of which currently relies on gambling duty and financial services, both of which require access to the single market.
Is Gerard Batten seriously bringing the common travel area into the discussion ? It shows a breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding of the relationship between the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I doubt the moron even fully understands what it is. Getting or even threatening getting the Common Travel Area and special status of ROI nationals enshrined in UK law changed would be just as, if not more stupid than Brexit itself. Can you just begin to imagine the consequences. To use the words of The Sun editorial he should shut his gob. I would though expect nothing less of a UKIP MEP.
Yes it is stipid-just as Verhofstadt's attempt to abolish Northern Ireland is. Raising the stakes on Ireland to attempt to defeat the referendum result is reckless and dangerous.
The referendum result is what it is and ought to prevail, but it is for the winners to make it so, and so far they haven't managed it hardly at all. Only last summer the leading brexiters were pleading with the rest of the EU to show some 'flexibility' and 'creativity'. Flexible in regard to what suggestion put forward? Creative in regard to which suggested brexit ideas?
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration. In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.
Well, the only greater conglomerations there have been in Europe prior to the EU were the pre 20th century Empires, none of which were democratic, followed by a Nazi controlled Europe and then a Stalinist controlled East Europe. So I am afraid your rgument does not work historically. In so far as parliamentary democracy has existed in Europe it has been within the nation state (the EU is not one).
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
I have bolded the bit that I believe needs some proof. It is open to challenge isn't it? Wasn't it German nationalism that led to fascism? There have been plenty of nation states that have been oppressive dictatorships and awful regimes, and a nation state is also probably easier to gain control of and to sour than one that is part of a greater conglomeration. In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.
Challenge it as much as you like. I didn’t write it but found the entire article very interesting.
Well (Trump aside) we also have the United States of America...that seems to have 'worked' historically. The original piece did not say 'parliamentary' democracy, but that the nation state is the fundamental unit of democracy. Zimbabwe is a nation state, but up until now does not seem to have been a fundamental unit of democracy. The UK is a conglomeration of states isn't it, and existed as such prior to the creation of the EU during the 20th century, although I agree there is also a debate to be had as to whether the UK is actually democratic, or which nuanced version of democracy it is.
Comments
Just as all yours are dictated by international finance capital and the EU bureaucracy. There is no other explanation for wanting to abandon democracy and sovereignty.
Clearly they haven't been reading Charlton Life for the last couple of years or so.
Some people on this forum voted UKIP. and if what is reported is true a UKIPPER said the border issue can be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU.
This says a couple of things, somebody somewhere now realises that the border is an actual (serious) issue, and somebody somewhere now realises that no practical solutions have been suggested so far.
The republic of Ireland leaving the EU is actually a practical solution so that deserves credit, and razor wire, watchtowers, machine gun nests every 10 meters for 400Km with a shoot on site policy is actually a practical solution too.
I can guess what the anti-Irish racists here on Charlton Life would prefer if those were the only two options.
I must be reading a different forum to you Seth.
"And then the Indian PM — one of the most powerful people in the world — humbly said that the free movement of our people is very important to us."
He added: "Trade deals are very difficult. India has only nine bilateral trade deals. Not one with a western country. Liam Fox thinks he can strike lots of trade deals. What deal is he going to do with India?"
Services
People
Goods
Capital
Can we keep Services, Goods, Capital and remain in the EU in any way ?
https://spectator.co.uk/2017/11/without-merkel-in-charge-europe-could-fall-apart/
No leader is indispensable, but it does feel like the future of Europe stands or falls with Angela Merkel. She’s been the godmother of the European Union for almost 15 years, and other leaders have learnt to accept one unspoken rule: Merkel is the adjudicator. Her aura of supreme power infuriated Nicolas Sarkozy, who wanted it for himself. Greece’s leftist leader, Alexis Tsipras, fumed that Merkel wanted to make his country a vassal state, ruled by Berlin and the gnomes of Frankfurt. But now she’s at risk of losing her power, and even her enemies fear that her absence will pull Europe in different and conflicting directions.
‘No Experiments!’ was the campaign slogan of Konrad Adenauer, Germany’s post-war leader, and that’s how many feel about Europe now. Merkel’s political persona has always been closer to Adenauer than Helmut Kohl, and that’s why she knows that Europe may break apart if integrationist policies go too far. Merkel hasn’t been warming to ideas about a fiscal union and shared responsibilities for public debt. She knows that the quest for national identity around Europe is real: she learnt the hard way that it is a doomed project to force countries to accept refugees. Her idea of Europe may lack vision, but it is rich on realism. If she falls, there’s no one else there with her standing and sense of pragmatism.
The Brexit vote was representative of one of the big political undercurrents in European politics, a force that was moderated by Merkel. Without her, or anyone else with a unifying idea about the EU, the cracks in its thin ice will turn into dangerous splits.
Ireland has, among other things, neutrality enshrined in its Constitution.
On a couple of occasions the electorate, concerned (rightly or wrongly) that a new EU Treaty would undermine the Constitution in some way, rejected them in a referendum. Following either a) clarification or b) a specific clause being inserted into the Treaty, by the EU, to address and allay these concerns, the referenda were then passed.
There was no arm twisting by the EU. If the concerns had not been addressed, the Treaties would have fallen.
It does actually say quite a lot that is good about the democracy of the EU that a country like Ireland can have that kind of impact.
Let us be generous and assume he is too stupid to know the potential impact of what he is saying and it is not a conscious attempt to stir up trouble.
However, it is not the Irish tail wagging the EU dog.
https://newstatesman.com/world/europe/2017/11/europe-s-hidden-fractures
Unfortunately, what is hailed as the “return” of Europe is merely the temporary survival of the European Union. None of the old crises have been resolved, and a new one – the heightened tensions in Catalonia – has just been added. The EU and the British Remainers seriously underestimate Britain’s resilience and ability to retaliate against European “punishment” if the country were so minded, but since Brexit will happen one way or the other even the best-case scenario on this front is bad for Brussels and the national capitals.
Whatever harm the EU inflicts on Britain, or it inflicts on itself through the UK’s departure, the remaining member states will also pay a hefty price.
As with the euro, the fundamental flaw in the system remains unaddressed. The EU is trying to run a common travel area and a common foreign policy without a common state. The EU is unable to close the border effectively, because that is the task of the member states; it lacks the ability to ensure that refugees who are admitted are distributed fairly; and it does not have the capacity to intervene in the Middle East to prevent the flow of refugees. It attempts to achieve federal aims with confederal instruments, and that cannot be done.
The EU thus has the worst of both worlds. It has pulled off the feat of being too intrusive to be compatible with UK sovereignty, yet it has not sufficiently transcended the sovereignty of the remaining member states to make the common institutions workable. It is losing healthy limbs – both the British and the Catalans would feature highly on the “save list” in any European ark – while stubbornly retaining its sickest ones, dragging Greece along behind it like a shrivelled leg it would like to amputate.
Nobody is more conscious of all these travails than the leaders of the Franco-German axis. In Berlin, the defence ministry has started to make its first contingency plans for a possible disintegration of the EU, leaked this month – a wise precaution, and one that does not suggest that the union is out of the woods.
There is still plenty worth saving in the EU but there is little time to lose. The crises are becoming more intense and the intervals between them shorter; the contractions are getting closer and unless something is done fast they presage not life but death. Emmanuel Macron should start his European surgery without delay and not wait for the success of the operation in France. The chances of success may be no more than even, but without the attempt failure is certain.
Globalisation has created oligarchies of financiers, investors and high-skilled professionals that dominate national politics. The EU expands their opportunities and its rules work in their interests. The power they have wielded has been at the expense of the country as a whole. Brexit was a vote against their interests. It was a vote for the nation state, which remains the fundamental unit of democracy, and the best means of managing globalisation in the interests of citizens. And it was a vote born of two concerns. First, a long disquiet at the Napoleonic nature of the EU and its imperial ambitions for “ever closer union”. And second, a distrust that the British governing class would defend the UK’s national integrity inside the EU, or that it would be capable of constructing a more democratic model.
Britain has often been an uncooperative member of the bloc – better to be a co-operative partner. Outside the EU we can sustain a close relationship with our Continental neighbours, and agree a reciprocal trading arrangement. Our commitment to Europe’s defence and our valuing of its culture and science would be undiminished.
The Conservative government has no strategic view of the country’s future. It appears incapable of defending the national interest in the Brexit negotiations, and it has made Britain look weak and incompetent.
In opposition, Labour’s deep rifts are held in abeyance. The party should be 20 points ahead of this hopeless government but the hard left in control mirrors the hard right of the Conservative Party. It is not trustworthy and it is not credible, and the public know it. Neither of the two main party leaderships is fit to govern the country.
Brexit can restore Britain to its major nation status, or it can fulfil the predictions of the declinists and lead us to irrelevance. Nothing is decided. The majority of people do not share the turmoil of the political classes over Brexit. We need national leadership, political resolve, and a strategy for a better country. These are in short supply. The EU cannot provide them for us – only we can do that.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/why-left-should-support-brexit%3famp
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7661/CBP-7661.pdf
I am sure that actually happened a few years ago.
Also think this is the hope some cowardly Remainers are clinging onto!
Its tax status and concerns over cigarette smuggling have been the main points of contention rather than any jingoistic reasons, so ultimately it will be practicality that dictates what happens, but it does seem there has been little discussion of the issue.
Rarely contribute to this any more for reasons already stated but still enjoy reading the thread and it provides a lot of insight for us living abroad but still involved with what is happening in the UK. Thanks folks.
In short the nation state is not the fundamental unit of democracy, and the writer of this piece sneaks it in with nothing to justify it.
Flexible in regard to what suggestion put forward?
Creative in regard to which suggested brexit ideas?
In so far as parliamentary democracy has existed in Europe it has been within the nation state (the EU is not one).
The original piece did not say 'parliamentary' democracy, but that the nation state is the fundamental unit of democracy.
Zimbabwe is a nation state, but up until now does not seem to have been a fundamental unit of democracy.
The UK is a conglomeration of states isn't it, and existed as such prior to the creation of the EU during the 20th century, although I agree there is also a debate to be had as to whether the UK is actually democratic, or which nuanced version of democracy it is.