Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Don’t twist my words mate, you are better than that.
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Don’t twist my words mate, you are better than that.
It's really not.
Well, he made no observation or comment on the actual content of my post, so maybe.
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Sorry - what facilities, list please.
I was simply continuing the "club" analogy. Facilities = tarriff free trade agreement.
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Just off out today for a number of external appointments so only had a skim read of that.
But I would be interested to know when I ever stated that the EU did cause any of that?
I didn't say that you stated such a thing. I was following up on your New Statesman article from the Labour Leave bloke. He certainly seems to believe that the EU is the driving force behind pretty much all of that list.
I on the other hand believe (and can demonstrate) that within the EU the Brits have been pursuing that agenda with the other members, who have adopted some of them with misgivings, modifications and now downright regrets. Having foisted all this shit on them we are now offski. We really are like the garrulous and overbearing Golf Club member.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You have no interest in staying in the club that you think no longer works but you expect a special deal to allow you to continue to use its facilities?
Sorry - what facilities, list please.
I was simply continuing the "club" analogy. Facilities = tarriff free trade agreement.
Well if that’s your point, then you have really misdirected your ridiculous comment to me ... because you know full well I don’t agree with nor want the EU ‘tariff free trade agreement’.
Best if you want to discuss my post, you make an appropriate observation.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
That is not a truth. That is just patent nonsense. I don't believe in a United States of Europe. That does not mean I should have voted Leave. The only way I could have voted Leave is if someone removed half my brain cells before the vote.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
Complete and utter nonsense. Yes, the EU could operate more efficiently in some fantasy world where everything is being micromanaged by benign technocrats but you could say that about any agreement between three or more parties.
The EU isn't perfect, but the alternative - the continent beset by petty trade and migration squabbles as well as those hoping to operate across the continent having to abide by 28 different sets of rules simultaneously instead of just one - is far, far worse. As Prague has said on several occasions now, not a single country is in favour of a United States of Europe and many are vehemently opposed to such an arrangement. As for the line about Germany, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that is not the case.
Your comment is the equivalent of saying 'any Brexiter who didn't want a hard Irish border, to kick out all non-Brits or to return to a restrictive visa/Customs arrangement and the economic chaos Brexit will bring should have voted Remain'.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
That is not a truth. That is just patent nonsense. I don't believe in a United States of Europe. That does not mean I should have voted Leave. The only way I could have voted Leave is if someone removed half my brain cells before the vote.
It's a shame. I legitimately took Dippy's olive branch last month at face value then his last couple of posts have been full of utter shit and slurs regarding the EU and Remainers. I hope stonemuse's Like on this post was accidental because I had a higher opinion of stonemuse than to agree with something that is demonstrably false on every level.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
As a remainer (I don't really understand the German bank bit) but as a remainer I would pretty much accept a United States of Europe, with a 'version' of democracy, and it is a position I have repeated on these threads frequently. However my position was the losing one, so the next step is for the winning position to implement their victory whilst being open to scrutiny and question. @Dippenhall you are not particularly guilty of this, but the victors spend a lot of time accusing others of 'talking the country down', or wanting transparency and parliamentary process which we are told reveals the negotiating position, or for other inquirers being told by a UK media organ to grow up and shut his gob. Those of us on the losing side want to know how the winners will maintain stability in the future. Not only economic stability, but political stability, and personal stability, or at least make things better for us and not worse. The winners do need to explain to UK and EU citizens how they will be impacted socially, economically, legally, and what restrictions will now come in that weren't there before. For anybody to ask those questions, and then put the answers to the test is perfectly reasonable in my view and certainly not talking the country down. For example your point above about resolving the border issue once the trade arrangements are sorted does not seem like an answer that is not open to reasonable challenge. The (now wearisome) challenge is that whatever the future trade arrangements are between the UK and the EU, they will be entities further apart, and therefore having a border and operating it in terms of goods and people cant be avoided. Two different entities with a border in between. Has anybody said how that will work?
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
That is not a truth. That is just patent nonsense. I don't believe in a United States of Europe. That does not mean I should have voted Leave. The only way I could have voted Leave is if someone removed half my brain cells before the vote.
It's a shame. I legitimately took Dippy's olive branch last month at face value then his last couple of posts have been full of utter shit and slurs regarding the EU and Remainers. I hope stonemuse's Like on this post was accidental because I had a higher opinion of stonemuse than to agree with something that is demonstrably false on every level.
My like, which I thought would have been obvious based on my quoted post, was because of the below words which referred to my post:
A lucid response @NornIrishAddick but you paint a picture that results from painting by numbers. If you have the will you can choose your own colours and change the picture.
"The simple reason being that a) it would be unacceptable to the other party (Ireland and the EU) and b) everyone else in the WTO will be entitled to the same access."It's so unacceptable it's worth risking civil unrest in Ireland.
"...anyone who believes that such an agreement will be signed, ratified and implemented by 2021 is being entirely too optimistic." What, too optimistic that the EU will prioritise a mutually beneficial arrangement?
"...also all the irritating paperwork that UK businesses currently don't have to fill out, all the regulatory hoops that they dont have to jump through and, more importantly, all the associated delays"Think what you could have argued if we were also in the Eurozone - (massive disruption managing two currencies for a single transaction, exchange rates moving the cost of raw materials by 10% overnight).
"I know of no-one who has suggested that being outside the Single Market would mean that the UK could no longer trade with the EU,"They are probably not your acquaintances, they just appear on screen in random street interviews with the public, you should pay more attention.
"The UK will not achieve the same benefits in terms of non-tariff barriers, regulatory equivalence or influence as membership of the EU, Single Market, or Customs Union, if it it relies on a Free Trade Agreement" No and neither is it paying £9bn for the privilege.
P.S - Ken Clark believes that by leaving the EU we lose the "macro economic benefits" of being in the EU. I tried to find an EU statement that clarifies these "macro economic benefits", this is from the Social Market Foundation referring to the growth in UK GDP since 1974? - These positive effects stem from the EU’s success in increasing trade and the impact of stronger competition on UK productivity. So it couldn't say it helped our productivity, only helped with "competition" on our productivity. Our trade increased more with non EU countries, so what are the real "macro economic benefits" benefits of being in the Single Market that is worth £9bn a year, must be more than "competition on our productivity", which is clearly not having much impact.
"I'm actually quite disappointed @Dippenhall with your response to the article about Peter Grant's views" Im disappointed when I read anti British rhetoric that would be condemned as Anglophobia if there was parity of standards in defining racial/ethnic discrimination. The anti UK sentiment can't disguise the fact that Ireland cannot make decisions in its own interests while it is a colony of the EU.
Supporting the EU stance, and refusing to first develop a trade relationship that obviated a border problem in Ireland is a strange way of acting independently in the interests of Ireland. Supporting the notion that the UK could come up with a border solution to a problem unable to be articulated until it was known if there was a FTA, WTO rules trade or a micro single market is hardly acting independently in the interests of Ireland.
In summary the UK votes leave, May chooses a hard Brexit and you then state that it's up to the EU to find workable solutions! And to exacerbate the situation, you believe that the UK government (including the DUP) are entitled to use N.Ireland as a political football to force the EU to deliver solutions!
One can wrap this up in tautology or simply leave Foster and Hoey to take their "diplomatic" stance but it's fairly clear to everybody watching what is going on. The irony of course is that the EU27 have not moved an inch since the process started for this is not a negotiation. It is a process where the UK government take small and large steps to where they need to get to as prescribed by the EU27. And then they can make a choice - if they make it that far!
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
That is not a truth. That is just patent nonsense. I don't believe in a United States of Europe. That does not mean I should have voted Leave. The only way I could have voted Leave is if someone removed half my brain cells before the vote.
It's a shame. I legitimately took Dippy's olive branch last month at face value then his last couple of posts have been full of utter shit and slurs regarding the EU and Remainers. I hope stonemuse's Like on this post was accidental because I had a higher opinion of stonemuse than to agree with something that is demonstrably false on every level.
My like, which I thought would have been obvious based on my quoted post, was because of the below words which referred to my post:
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
Fair does. I would point out that it is not a truth but a point of view and the idea that the EU cannot be effective without full fiscal union is patent nonsense.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
That is not a truth. That is just patent nonsense. I don't believe in a United States of Europe. That does not mean I should have voted Leave. The only way I could have voted Leave is if someone removed half my brain cells before the vote.
It's a shame. I legitimately took Dippy's olive branch last month at face value then his last couple of posts have been full of utter shit and slurs regarding the EU and Remainers. I hope stonemuse's Like on this post was accidental because I had a higher opinion of stonemuse than to agree with something that is demonstrably false on every level.
My like, which I thought would have been obvious based on my quoted post, was because of the below words which referred to my post:
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
Fair does. I would point out that it is not a truth but a point of view and the idea that the EU cannot be effective without full fiscal union is patent nonsense.
To be fair, it is what many senior EU officials believe, as does Macron and many others.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
That is not a truth. That is just patent nonsense. I don't believe in a United States of Europe. That does not mean I should have voted Leave. The only way I could have voted Leave is if someone removed half my brain cells before the vote.
It's a shame. I legitimately took Dippy's olive branch last month at face value then his last couple of posts have been full of utter shit and slurs regarding the EU and Remainers. I hope stonemuse's Like on this post was accidental because I had a higher opinion of stonemuse than to agree with something that is demonstrably false on every level.
My like, which I thought would have been obvious based on my quoted post, was because of the below words which referred to my post:
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
Fair does. I would point out that it is not a truth but a point of view and the idea that the EU cannot be effective without full fiscal union is patent nonsense.
To be fair, it is what many senior EU officials believe, as does Macron and many others.
Do they currently think the EU is not effective then? Millions of people and businesses working, travelling and operating in harmony suggests otherwise.
@stonemuse - "but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform."
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
That is not a truth. That is just patent nonsense. I don't believe in a United States of Europe. That does not mean I should have voted Leave. The only way I could have voted Leave is if someone removed half my brain cells before the vote.
It's a shame. I legitimately took Dippy's olive branch last month at face value then his last couple of posts have been full of utter shit and slurs regarding the EU and Remainers. I hope stonemuse's Like on this post was accidental because I had a higher opinion of stonemuse than to agree with something that is demonstrably false on every level.
My like, which I thought would have been obvious based on my quoted post, was because of the below words which referred to my post:
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
Fair does. I would point out that it is not a truth but a point of view and the idea that the EU cannot be effective without full fiscal union is patent nonsense.
To be fair, it is what many senior EU officials believe, as does Macron and many others.
Do they currently think the EU is not effective then? Millions of people and businesses working, travelling and operating in harmony suggests otherwise.
My full comment is below. I can provide many more quotes from senior EU officials and European politicians that state fiscal union is the right way forward.
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
Agree with what you are saying stonemuse, without fiscal union there will never be complete efficiency. Like everything with the EU there must be a compromise which will of course result in inefficiency, but I'd argue that getting 28 countries with a history of war and populations that contain such diverse people and beliefs (including unpleasant ones) to compromise at all is the EUs strength not necessarily a weakness.
The EU works fine. It could be improved but the cost for doing so seems unpalatable to the European people so until the view of the entire continent changes further integration will simply not be possible.
You believe it can only work with full fiscal union. The evidence that it can and is working just fine without full fiscal union is overwhelming.
The EU works fine. It could be improved but the cost for doing so seems unpalatable to the European people so until the view of the entire continent changes further integration will simply not be possible.
You believe it can only work with full fiscal union. The evidence that it can and is working just fine without full fiscal union is overwhelming.
It’s not what I believe that matters! It is the opinion of senior EU officials and senior European politicians.
Read the comments I have quoted and then, when they are out, take a look at the Commission proposals that will be released next month - they all believe the EU is not working fine.
No time tonight because I cannot be bothered, but tomorrow I will post more comments from the EU that they themselves know it is not working in the current format!
Agree with what you are saying stonemuse, without fiscal union there will never be complete efficiency. Like everything with the EU there must be a compromise which will of course result in inefficiency, but I'd argue that getting 28 countries with a history of war and populations that contain such diverse people and beliefs (including unpleasant ones) to compromise at all is the EUs strength not necessarily a weakness.
Fair comment but I think the EU has to change otherwise there will be a time when the problems will become insurmountable.
And if that change is a multitrack approach, and it is properly thought out, then I will be all for it.
The EU works fine. It could be improved but the cost for doing so seems unpalatable to the European people so until the view of the entire continent changes further integration will simply not be possible.
You believe it can only work with full fiscal union. The evidence that it can and is working just fine without full fiscal union is overwhelming.
It’s not what I believe that matters! It is the opinion of senior EU officials and senior European politicians.
Read the comments I have quoted and then, when they are out, take a look at the Commission proposals that will be released next month - they all believe the EU is not working fine.
No time tonight because I cannot be bothered, but tomorrow I will post more comments from the EU that they themselves know it is not working in the current format!
Posting selected and out of context quotes is proof of nothing. Of course EU officials want to puff up and try to increase their influence- that's part and parcel of their role. Same with any government official anywhere in the world. Old news, don't bother digging up more quotes because they are utterly irrelevant.
The quotes you have posted are not proof that EU officials think the EU isn't working. What they are saying is that it could be working better. Are they saying the EU is worse than returning to 28 countries squabbling and a return to hard borders? Of course not, don't be so dense.
The EU works fine. It could be improved but the cost for doing so seems unpalatable to the European people so until the view of the entire continent changes further integration will simply not be possible.
You believe it can only work with full fiscal union. The evidence that it can and is working just fine without full fiscal union is overwhelming.
It’s not what I believe that matters! It is the opinion of senior EU officials and senior European politicians.
Read the comments I have quoted and then, when they are out, take a look at the Commission proposals that will be released next month - they all believe the EU is not working fine.
No time tonight because I cannot be bothered, but tomorrow I will post more comments from the EU that they themselves know it is not working in the current format!
Posting selected and out of context quotes is proof of nothing. Of course EU officials want to puff up and try to increase their influence- that's part and parcel of their role. Same with any government official anywhere in the world. Old news, don't bother digging up more quotes because they are utterly irrelevant.
The quotes you have posted are not proof that EU officials think the EU isn't working. What they are saying is that it could be working better. Are they saying the EU is worse than returning to 28 countries squabbling and a return to hard borders? Of course not, don't be so dense.
If you want to be insulting, as others have done, you can forget having any debate with me. Dense!!! Ffs
No, they are not saying it is worse. I tell you what, I am stopping here for tonight. I get pissed off that any type of rational debate gets hijacjked on here.
Then they aren't saying the EU isn't working then, are they? This utterly incomprehensible position Brexiters seem to have that if the EU isn't 100% perfect/efficient then it isn't working or we should scrap the whole thing and start from scratch is complete idiocy. Even actual countries the size of the EU don't even work this well.
He is right, we should not pay them to get a crap deal, which is what will happen.
I’m not sure how many more times it needs to be said. The money that the U.K. is going to pay the EU is money that is owed. It is for commitments that the UK cannot renege on without becoming an international financial outcast. We are not paying for a deal.
Just to add to @Fiiish and @Red_in_SE8 lucid and robust responses to all this "ever closer union" scaremongering.
Leavers tend to be the types who look backwards, with fondness, to a mythical golden age. Progressive Europeans look forward, because they know that actually the golden age was a myth. The EU will develop. How it will develop will be decided by its members, after intense debate, and it will happen step by step on different fronts. For example, there is a great deal of merit in having a Europe-wide standard rate for corporation tax. Why? Google it :-) or Facebook it, or Amazon it. That will in turn strengthen the viability of the Euro itself, although I accept that there are huge dilemmas that will remain around it. @Dippenhall will know the merit of having pan-European State Aid rules since they represent the best chance of us getting all that money back from West Ham for the Olympic Stadium. Many ordinary citizens are enjoying the benefits of aspects of the Single Market, often in ways they don't even know exist, as @Chizz posted yesterday.
The point is that the EU has developed incrementally, some steps have been better than others, and it will continue to do that. I am not going to wake up and find I am ruled over by some little green men in Brussels, and like everyone else I am far more concerned by the dodgy character who is ruling over me in the Czech Republic, because he is the one who will continue to influence most aspects of my daily life.
I could imagine that in 30 years there will be much closer fiscal union than there is today, but it will be a gradual process, and very likely not involve all current members to the same extent. As I keep saying it will not happen in a way which means that the Dutch are "ruled" by the next generations of Merkel. It simply isn't going to happen. Despite what @Dippenhall has read from Varoufakis about Schauble, the Germans don't want it any more than the Dutch do.
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
Yes, all those orange robot arms will be looking for another job.
The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy accounting for more than £77.5 billion turnover and £18.9 billion value added.
With some 169,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and in excess of 814,000 across the wider automotive industry, it accounts for 12.0% of total UK export of goods and invests £4 billion each year in automotive R&D.
More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers.
Just to let you know... Honda are investing millions in their production and develomenrt facility in swindon..that includes millions on their security there... We have lost 4 C&I Techs in the last 3 months all left and gone there. I acknowledge they were all mates and apprentices together and we did not want to lose them., but most of these guys are married and with big mortgages. They highly likely to join an organisation that is likely to clear off.
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
Yes, all those orange robot arms will be looking for another job.
The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy accounting for more than £77.5 billion turnover and £18.9 billion value added.
With some 169,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and in excess of 814,000 across the wider automotive industry, it accounts for 12.0% of total UK export of goods and invests £4 billion each year in automotive R&D.
More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers.
Just to let you know... Honda are investing millions in their production and develomenrt facility in swindon..that includes millions on their security there... We have lost 4 C&I Techs in the last 3 months all left and gone there. I acknowledge they were all mates and apprentices together and we did not want to lose them., but most of these guys are married and with big mortgages. They highly likely to join an organisation that is likely to clear off.
They will likely write that investment off (chicken feed to Honda) and shift production to the EU if they can’t sell their Civics into Europe tariff free. Either that or they will keep R&D here with a small, highly skilled and highly paid workforce and just shift the production to the EU where most of the jobs will go.
I hope I’m wrong and tariff free full access to the single market will be maintained.
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
Yes, all those orange robot arms will be looking for another job.
The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy accounting for more than £77.5 billion turnover and £18.9 billion value added.
With some 169,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and in excess of 814,000 across the wider automotive industry, it accounts for 12.0% of total UK export of goods and invests £4 billion each year in automotive R&D.
More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers.
Just to let you know... Honda are investing millions in their production and develomenrt facility in swindon..that includes millions on their security there... We have lost 4 C&I Techs in the last 3 months all left and gone there. I acknowledge they were all mates and apprentices together and we did not want to lose them., but most of these guys are married and with big mortgages. They highly likely to join an organisation that is likely to clear off.
They will likely write that investment off (chicken feed to Honda) and shift production to the EU if they can’t sell their Civics into Europe tariff free. Either that or they will keep R&D here with a small, highly skilled and highly paid workforce and just shift the production to the EU where most of the jobs will go.
I hope I’m wrong and tariff free full access to the single market will be maintained.
Sorry i live 30 miles from Swindon and know people who work there and am linked to their locall news as inbetween regions There has never been one local story about them moving. Billions invested chicken feed...
I wonder how many jobs that would cost. Honda said similar recently as well.
Never mind though, at least we'll have blue passports in a couple of years.
Yes, all those orange robot arms will be looking for another job.
The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy accounting for more than £77.5 billion turnover and £18.9 billion value added.
With some 169,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and in excess of 814,000 across the wider automotive industry, it accounts for 12.0% of total UK export of goods and invests £4 billion each year in automotive R&D.
More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers.
Just to let you know... Honda are investing millions in their production and develomenrt facility in swindon..that includes millions on their security there... We have lost 4 C&I Techs in the last 3 months all left and gone there. I acknowledge they were all mates and apprentices together and we did not want to lose them., but most of these guys are married and with big mortgages. They highly likely to join an organisation that is likely to clear off.
They will likely write that investment off (chicken feed to Honda) and shift production to the EU if they can’t sell their Civics into Europe tariff free. Either that or they will keep R&D here with a small, highly skilled and highly paid workforce and just shift the production to the EU where most of the jobs will go.
I hope I’m wrong and tariff free full access to the single market will be maintained.
Sorry i live 30 miles from Swindon and know people who work there and am linked to their locall news as inbetween regions There has never been one local story about them moving. Billions invested chicken feed...
It’s billions now is it - you said millions.
Sorry, didn’t realise you were living so close and had the inside track on Honda’s corporate decisions.
I said ‘likely’ but hope I’m wrong. You know as much as I do, which is about as much as most people living 3,000 miles from Swindon know.
Comments
Best if you want to discuss my post, you make an appropriate observation.
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
I do not understand why Remainers do not just come out and say they believe in a united states of Europe ruled by an EU version of parliamentary democracy with Germany in control of its central bank. If they don't believe in it they should have voted leave.
The EU isn't perfect, but the alternative - the continent beset by petty trade and migration squabbles as well as those hoping to operate across the continent having to abide by 28 different sets of rules simultaneously instead of just one - is far, far worse. As Prague has said on several occasions now, not a single country is in favour of a United States of Europe and many are vehemently opposed to such an arrangement. As for the line about Germany, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that is not the case.
Your comment is the equivalent of saying 'any Brexiter who didn't want a hard Irish border, to kick out all non-Brits or to return to a restrictive visa/Customs arrangement and the economic chaos Brexit will bring should have voted Remain'.
However my position was the losing one, so the next step is for the winning position to implement their victory whilst being open to scrutiny and question.
@Dippenhall you are not particularly guilty of this, but the victors spend a lot of time accusing others of 'talking the country down', or wanting transparency and parliamentary process which we are told reveals the negotiating position, or for other inquirers being told by a UK media organ to grow up and shut his gob.
Those of us on the losing side want to know how the winners will maintain stability in the future. Not only economic stability, but political stability, and personal stability, or at least make things better for us and not worse. The winners do need to explain to UK and EU citizens how they will be impacted socially, economically, legally, and what restrictions will now come in that weren't there before. For anybody to ask those questions, and then put the answers to the test is perfectly reasonable in my view and certainly not talking the country down.
For example your point above about resolving the border issue once the trade arrangements are sorted does not seem like an answer that is not open to reasonable challenge. The (now wearisome) challenge is that whatever the future trade arrangements are between the UK and the EU, they will be entities further apart, and therefore having a border and operating it in terms of goods and people cant be avoided. Two different entities with a border in between.
Has anybody said how that will work?
This is the truth that no Remainers dare speak.
One can wrap this up in tautology or simply leave Foster and Hoey to take their "diplomatic" stance but it's fairly clear to everybody watching what is going on. The irony of course is that the EU27 have not moved an inch since the process started for this is not a negotiation. It is a process where the UK government take small and large steps to where they need to get to as prescribed by the EU27. And then they can make a choice - if they make it that far!
At the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no interest in staying in a club that no longer works as it should ... as admitted by the EU, Merkel, Macron etc etc.
Macron’s most recent announcement is that a “profound transformation” of the EU with deeper political integration is required. And he is right ... but that is not what I wish to be part of.
In early December, the commission will publish proposals for a eurozone finance minister and other reforms. That just means more integration not a ‘multi-speed’ Europe.
I don’t want to bore you saying the same stuff again and again, but I believe the EU can only work as it should with full fiscal union. But that will never be accepted by most Europeans. So the EU cannot be the effective entity to which it wishes to transform.
You believe it can only work with full fiscal union. The evidence that it can and is working just fine without full fiscal union is overwhelming.
Read the comments I have quoted and then, when they are out, take a look at the Commission proposals that will be released next month - they all believe the EU is not working fine.
No time tonight because I cannot be bothered, but tomorrow I will post more comments from the EU that they themselves know it is not working in the current format!
And if that change is a multitrack approach, and it is properly thought out, then I will be all for it.
The quotes you have posted are not proof that EU officials think the EU isn't working. What they are saying is that it could be working better. Are they saying the EU is worse than returning to 28 countries squabbling and a return to hard borders? Of course not, don't be so dense.
No, they are not saying it is worse. I tell you what, I am stopping here for tonight. I get pissed off that any type of rational debate gets hijacjked on here.
Not sure I see the point of it.
Leavers tend to be the types who look backwards, with fondness, to a mythical golden age. Progressive Europeans look forward, because they know that actually the golden age was a myth. The EU will develop. How it will develop will be decided by its members, after intense debate, and it will happen step by step on different fronts. For example, there is a great deal of merit in having a Europe-wide standard rate for corporation tax. Why? Google it :-) or Facebook it, or Amazon it. That will in turn strengthen the viability of the Euro itself, although I accept that there are huge dilemmas that will remain around it. @Dippenhall will know the merit of having pan-European State Aid rules since they represent the best chance of us getting all that money back from West Ham for the Olympic Stadium. Many ordinary citizens are enjoying the benefits of aspects of the Single Market, often in ways they don't even know exist, as @Chizz posted yesterday.
The point is that the EU has developed incrementally, some steps have been better than others, and it will continue to do that. I am not going to wake up and find I am ruled over by some little green men in Brussels, and like everyone else I am far more concerned by the dodgy character who is ruling over me in the Czech Republic, because he is the one who will continue to influence most aspects of my daily life.
I could imagine that in 30 years there will be much closer fiscal union than there is today, but it will be a gradual process, and very likely not involve all current members to the same extent. As I keep saying it will not happen in a way which means that the Dutch are "ruled" by the next generations of Merkel. It simply isn't going to happen. Despite what @Dippenhall has read from Varoufakis about Schauble, the Germans don't want it any more than the Dutch do.
I hope I’m wrong and tariff free full access to the single market will be maintained.
Sorry, didn’t realise you were living so close and had the inside track on Honda’s corporate decisions.
I said ‘likely’ but hope I’m wrong. You know as much as I do, which is about as much as most people living 3,000 miles from Swindon know.