|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 9, 2021 11:44:30 GMT
Your first paragraph is correct. I voted for Brexit for sovereignty which has been achieved. Yes it will take an unspecified time to unpick decades of EU membership. Hold long will depend on how long people fight against it. It sounds like we are going to have to pay the EU more for the divorce according to today's news. That is largely because we didn't get on and leave in 2016 and spent years arguing between ourselves, giving encouragement to the EU that the UK could be forced to follow all future EU legislation. One senior EU negotiator thought the UK would capitulate and not leave. I apologise if you are not sceptical about the UK trade deals, which I am not celebrating but simply highlighting what remainers said would take years to achieve. I do hold a very negative attitude to the EU CAP dumping excess food production in the third world and calling it "trade", EU raping the seas with over fishing, EU Euro, EU Commission committed to ever closer union, EU Parliament moving back and forth, EU military force, EU common foreign policy, EU unemployment, where east European newly qualified medical students move the the West to stack supermarket shelves, where high unemployment force people in southern and eastern Europe to leave home to find work, EU moves to fiscal union with the pandemic recovery fund, EU moving to majority voting to overrule individual countries, etc. In the 1970's I heard the warnings from Benn and Shaw about European unity, but believed the arguments in favour of economic benefits and ensuring peace were stronger. I voted remain. During the subsequent 4 decades my views changed to doubt, shrugging acceptance* following Thatcher negotiating the rebate, scepticism, annoyance with the duplicity, and finally opposition. * many Europeans I've met (mainly Scandanavians) are fully aware of the defects of the EU, but feel helpless and shrug their shoulders and feel they are trapped. Many Europeans I know are very happy with the EU (mainly Germans, French, Benelux nations, Austrians) it has brought them a comfortable lifestyle and huge positive trade balances. Who are these people 'fighting against it?' Outside of Scotland (where its a part of a wider independence agenda) there is no remain or rejoin movement. So stop blaming other people. It's done - just badly. We have a leave government with an 80 seat majority and an opposition that daren't mention Brexit. It's completely on the govt/leavers to deliver. But it's got to deliver for everyone and it patently isn't - so what do you want fishermen, musicians, hauliers, the Northern Irish, exporters and the rest to do? - just shut up and put up. Not point out flaws and inconsistencies? Stay silent while damage is being done to economic sectors? They're worse off than they were pre- referendum and their livlihoods are going down the pan now - they're not interested in some sunlit uplands 20 years in the future when the world will be a different place anyway. Oh - and you're not highlighting anything that remainers said would take years to achieve because something that is worse than what we already had is NOT an achievement. There is a rejoin movement seeking to undermine the will of the British people: www.europeanmovement.co.uk/new_chair_of_european_movementLiz Truss is doing a great job delivering. Someone who was against Brexit has achieved a lot in a few years. The economy is booming. I'll agree with you when the £ value and stock market decline. There were always going to be some losers from Brexit, especially with EU import rules. But there is a far bigger, faster growing world market to exploit. If there is any immediate lost GDP (all figures quoted are speculation not fact) as a result in Brexit, it will be more than recovered in 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 9, 2021 13:38:25 GMT
Who are these people 'fighting against it?' Outside of Scotland (where its a part of a wider independence agenda) there is no remain or rejoin movement. So stop blaming other people. It's done - just badly. We have a leave government with an 80 seat majority and an opposition that daren't mention Brexit. It's completely on the govt/leavers to deliver. But it's got to deliver for everyone and it patently isn't - so what do you want fishermen, musicians, hauliers, the Northern Irish, exporters and the rest to do? - just shut up and put up. Not point out flaws and inconsistencies? Stay silent while damage is being done to economic sectors? They're worse off than they were pre- referendum and their livlihoods are going down the pan now - they're not interested in some sunlit uplands 20 years in the future when the world will be a different place anyway. Oh - and you're not highlighting anything that remainers said would take years to achieve because something that is worse than what we already had is NOT an achievement. There is a rejoin movement seeking to undermine the will of the British people: www.europeanmovement.co.uk/new_chair_of_european_movementLiz Truss is doing a great job delivering. Someone who was against Brexit has achieved a lot in a few years. The economy is booming. I'll agree with you when the £ value and stock market decline. There were always going to be some losers from Brexit, especially with EU import rules. But there is a far bigger, faster growing world market to exploit. If there is any immediate lost GDP (all figures quoted are speculation not fact) as a result in Brexit, it will be more than recovered in 5 years. Oh the old 'will of the people' rhetoric. There's nothing there about rejoin - just building closer ties with Europe and working to correct the deficiencies of Brexit. What's wrong with that? Stop inventing enemies. And even if they were openly campaigning for rejoin why is that 'undermining the will of the people"? Did democracy stop once we voted in 2016? By your logic why wasn't the Vote Leave campaign undermining the "will of the people' from the '73 referendum? Is it only democratic if it's something you agree with?
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 9, 2021 15:49:23 GMT
There is a rejoin movement seeking to undermine the will of the British people: www.europeanmovement.co.uk/new_chair_of_european_movementLiz Truss is doing a great job delivering. Someone who was against Brexit has achieved a lot in a few years. The economy is booming. I'll agree with you when the £ value and stock market decline. There were always going to be some losers from Brexit, especially with EU import rules. But there is a far bigger, faster growing world market to exploit. If there is any immediate lost GDP (all figures quoted are speculation not fact) as a result in Brexit, it will be more than recovered in 5 years. Oh the old 'will of the people' rhetoric. There's nothing there about rejoin - just building closer ties with Europe and working to correct the deficiencies of Brexit. What's wrong with that? Stop inventing enemies. And even if they were openly campaigning for rejoin why is that 'undermining the will of the people"? Did democracy stop once we voted in 2016? By your logic why wasn't the Vote Leave campaign undermining the "will of the people' from the '73 referendum? Is it only democratic if it's something you agree with? The European Movement is clearly a pro EU membership organization. I am all for closer ties and believe many of the reciprocal arrangements we have had with the EU could have been retained for our mutual benefit, but for the EU's intransigence. The reason for the referendum vote in the 1970s was Heath took the UK into the EEC without a mandate from the people. Joining was never on any parties policy in the 1970s election. When Wilson took over as PM he called a referendum to decide whether or not the country stayed in the EEC. The decision was to stay in the EEC. Everyone accepted the decision even if they didn't agree with it. Since the 1970s the EEC has changed into the EU with EU law and ECJ taking precedence over national law. That loss of sovereignty was never put to people to decide. In fact Major tried to keep it secret. Consequently the movement opposed to EU membership grew and threatened to split the Tory party. (Aside from sovereignty, there were other issues, which made people like me change my mind over membership such as the cost of membership escalating, the trade deficit with the EU escalating, the diminished voice of the UK as the EU grew so that the Commission's control of the agenda dominates decision making, the corporate lobbying, the corruption, and a host of other reasons.) To try and settle the division of the Tory party Cameron called a referendum. A once in a generation decision. I would be quite happy to change my mind back to joining a proper European free trade organization without a parliament and court, massive commission, etc. We have had free movement with Ireland for a century for example, anything is possible without giving up our national sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 9, 2021 16:23:24 GMT
Oh the old 'will of the people' rhetoric. There's nothing there about rejoin - just building closer ties with Europe and working to correct the deficiencies of Brexit. What's wrong with that? Stop inventing enemies. And even if they were openly campaigning for rejoin why is that 'undermining the will of the people"? Did democracy stop once we voted in 2016? By your logic why wasn't the Vote Leave campaign undermining the "will of the people' from the '73 referendum? Is it only democratic if it's something you agree with? The European Movement is clearly a pro EU membership organization. I am all for closer ties and believe many of the reciprocal arrangements we have had with the EU could have been retained for our mutual benefit, but for the EU's intransigence. The reason for the referendum vote in the 1970s was Heath took the UK into the EEC without a mandate from the people. Joining was never on any parties policy in the 1970s election. When Wilson took over as PM he called a referendum to decide whether or not the country stayed in the EEC. The decision was to stay in the EEC. Everyone accepted the decision even if they didn't agree with it. Since the 1970s the EEC has changed into the EU with EU law and ECJ taking precedence over national law. That loss of sovereignty was never put to people to decide. In fact Major tried to keep it secret. Consequently the movement opposed to EU membership grew and threatened to split the Tory party. (Aside from sovereignty, there were other issues, which made people like me change my mind over membership such as the cost of membership escalating, the trade deficit with the EU escalating, the diminished voice of the UK as the EU grew so that the Commission's control of the agenda dominates decision making, the corporate lobbying, the corruption, and a host of other reasons.) To try and settle the division of the Tory party Cameron called a referendum. A once in a generation decision. I would be quite happy to change my mind back to joining a proper European free trade organization without a parliament and court, massive commission, etc. We have had free movement with Ireland for a century for example, anything is possible without giving up our national sovereignty. You haven't explained how a group looking to rejoin the EU is undermining the will of the people? Surely its purpose is to make rejoining the will of the people in the same way that the leave campaign made leaving the will of the people in 2016? And please stop talking the UK down with all that fatalistic stuff about the diminished voice of the UK- I thought you argued such talk gets you nowhere?
|
|
|
Post by meltonjohn on Jul 9, 2021 16:51:08 GMT
There is a rejoin movement seeking to undermine the will of the British people: www.europeanmovement.co.uk/new_chair_of_european_movementLiz Truss is doing a great job delivering. Someone who was against Brexit has achieved a lot in a few years. The economy is booming. I'll agree with you when the £ value and stock market decline. There were always going to be some losers from Brexit, especially with EU import rules. But there is a far bigger, faster growing world market to exploit. If there is any immediate lost GDP (all figures quoted are speculation not fact) as a result in Brexit, it will be more than recovered in 5 years. Oh the old 'will of the people' rhetoric. There's nothing there about rejoin - just building closer ties with Europe and working to correct the deficiencies of Brexit. What's wrong with that? Stop inventing enemies. And even if they were openly campaigning for rejoin why is that 'undermining the will of the people"? Did democracy stop once we voted in 2016? By your logic why wasn't the Vote Leave campaign undermining the "will of the people' from the '73 referendum? Is it only democratic if it's something you agree with? Spot on
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 9, 2021 17:40:55 GMT
Oh the old 'will of the people' rhetoric. There's nothing there about rejoin - just building closer ties with Europe and working to correct the deficiencies of Brexit. What's wrong with that? Stop inventing enemies. And even if they were openly campaigning for rejoin why is that 'undermining the will of the people"? Did democracy stop once we voted in 2016? By your logic why wasn't the Vote Leave campaign undermining the "will of the people' from the '73 referendum? Is it only democratic if it's something you agree with? The European Movement is clearly a pro EU membership organization. I am all for closer ties and believe many of the reciprocal arrangements we have had with the EU could have been retained for our mutual benefit, but for the EU's intransigence. The reason for the referendum vote in the 1970s was Heath took the UK into the EEC without a mandate from the people. Joining was never on any parties policy in the 1970s election. When Wilson took over as PM he called a referendum to decide whether or not the country stayed in the EEC. The decision was to stay in the EEC. Everyone accepted the decision even if they didn't agree with it. Since the 1970s the EEC has changed into the EU with EU law and ECJ taking precedence over national law. That loss of sovereignty was never put to people to decide. In fact Major tried to keep it secret. Consequently the movement opposed to EU membership grew and threatened to split the Tory party. (Aside from sovereignty, there were other issues, which made people like me change my mind over membership such as the cost of membership escalating, the trade deficit with the EU escalating, the diminished voice of the UK as the EU grew so that the Commission's control of the agenda dominates decision making, the corporate lobbying, the corruption, and a host of other reasons.) To try and settle the division of the Tory party Cameron called a referendum. A once in a generation decision. I would be quite happy to change my mind back to joining a proper European free trade organization without a parliament and court, massive commission, etc. We have had free movement with Ireland for a century for example, anything is possible without giving up our national sovereignty. So if you are all for closer ties with the EU why do you have a problem with a group that would like to pursue - er - closer ties with the EU - rather than say the overt antagonism that David Frost seems to be pursuing. Surely engaging with their discussion would be a better use of your time than pointing out inferior trade deals as though they were 'achievements'?
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 9, 2021 17:54:31 GMT
The European Movement is clearly a pro EU membership organization. I am all for closer ties and believe many of the reciprocal arrangements we have had with the EU could have been retained for our mutual benefit, but for the EU's intransigence. The reason for the referendum vote in the 1970s was Heath took the UK into the EEC without a mandate from the people. Joining was never on any parties policy in the 1970s election. When Wilson took over as PM he called a referendum to decide whether or not the country stayed in the EEC. The decision was to stay in the EEC. Everyone accepted the decision even if they didn't agree with it. Since the 1970s the EEC has changed into the EU with EU law and ECJ taking precedence over national law. That loss of sovereignty was never put to people to decide. In fact Major tried to keep it secret. Consequently the movement opposed to EU membership grew and threatened to split the Tory party. (Aside from sovereignty, there were other issues, which made people like me change my mind over membership such as the cost of membership escalating, the trade deficit with the EU escalating, the diminished voice of the UK as the EU grew so that the Commission's control of the agenda dominates decision making, the corporate lobbying, the corruption, and a host of other reasons.) To try and settle the division of the Tory party Cameron called a referendum. A once in a generation decision. I would be quite happy to change my mind back to joining a proper European free trade organization without a parliament and court, massive commission, etc. We have had free movement with Ireland for a century for example, anything is possible without giving up our national sovereignty. You haven't explained how a group looking to rejoin the EU is undermining the will of the people? Surely its purpose is to make rejoining the will of the people in the same way that the leave campaign made leaving the will of the people in 2016? And please stop talking the UK down with all that fatalistic stuff about the diminished voice of the UK- I thought you argued such talk gets you nowhere? A country cannot keep jumping in and out of the EU. To join or leave is not irrevocable but it is a long term commitment. Cameron called a referendum for the nation to make that commitment and he said the decision would be " ...probably for decades, perhaps for a lifetime". He said he would honour that commitment but chose to resign instead. The Tory and Labour parties said they would implement the decision, but after a lot of squabbling over what leave meant, and another PM resignation, it took another general election to " get Brexit done".I think therefore that the action of Heseltine, former PMs, the Speaker, the Lords and those remainers to actively prevent the UK leaving and try and rejoin is clearly undermining the will of the people. I fully expected the referendum would go in favour of remaining in the EU. I am a democrat and would have accepted that decision. You did not see me posting on here arguing for Brexit before the referendum. I was surprised and delighted with the result. What sparked my engagement was the undemocratic refusal by some to accept the decision and try and overturn it. It is not talking Britain down to say during EU membership the voice of the UK has diminished. (As though I would talk my country down(!) which I have represented in Europe for many years.) Since the UK joined, the EU has enlarged with many more nations, all smaller than the UK. The smaller nations get a disproportionately larger number of MEPs. The larger the Council, the less is individual nations influence. The Commission allows a corrupt revolving door of officials moving jobs between the EU and commerce, which exerts a massive undemocratic pressure on the Commission by thousands of lobbyists in Brussels. Cameron sought to exempt the UK from ever closer union in the future, but was denied because it is part of the EU treaties and cannot be changed without another treaty every nation agrees with. Time will tell how successful Brexit will be; give it decades as Cameron said at the referendum, but I'm confident we will see what a blessing leaving is, in a few years. I would be quite happy to change my vote and accept compromise, if the EU were to change the direction it is heading in, and revert to pre Maastricht. Then almost everyone, except dyed in wool the Faragists or United States of Europe supporters, could be content, if not exactly happy. Most of the "losses" due to leaving that people are complaining about were in place prior to Maastricht, and one of the largest objections by many to EU membership, namely freedom of movement to work wasn't in place.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 9, 2021 18:06:25 GMT
The European Movement is clearly a pro EU membership organization. I am all for closer ties and believe many of the reciprocal arrangements we have had with the EU could have been retained for our mutual benefit, but for the EU's intransigence. The reason for the referendum vote in the 1970s was Heath took the UK into the EEC without a mandate from the people. Joining was never on any parties policy in the 1970s election. When Wilson took over as PM he called a referendum to decide whether or not the country stayed in the EEC. The decision was to stay in the EEC. Everyone accepted the decision even if they didn't agree with it. Since the 1970s the EEC has changed into the EU with EU law and ECJ taking precedence over national law. That loss of sovereignty was never put to people to decide. In fact Major tried to keep it secret. Consequently the movement opposed to EU membership grew and threatened to split the Tory party. (Aside from sovereignty, there were other issues, which made people like me change my mind over membership such as the cost of membership escalating, the trade deficit with the EU escalating, the diminished voice of the UK as the EU grew so that the Commission's control of the agenda dominates decision making, the corporate lobbying, the corruption, and a host of other reasons.) To try and settle the division of the Tory party Cameron called a referendum. A once in a generation decision. I would be quite happy to change my mind back to joining a proper European free trade organization without a parliament and court, massive commission, etc. We have had free movement with Ireland for a century for example, anything is possible without giving up our national sovereignty. So if you are all for closer ties with the EU why do you have a problem with a group that would like to pursue - er - closer ties with the EU - rather than say the overt antagonism that David Frost seems to be pursuing. Surely engaging with their discussion would be a better use of your time than pointing out inferior trade deals as though they were 'achievements'? I think I have covered these points already and repeatedly. I am fully in favour of mutually beneficial reciprocal arrangements with the EU on all the problem areas like travel, retirement, performing arts, students etc. I don't see membership of the EU as a prerequisite. Frost is engaged in negotiation and being deliberately provocative to get more for his side of the table. Teresa May friendly approach got her nowhere. The EU have been equally vexatious as they have to demonstrate to other nations that they should not consider leaving. I only mention trade deals because we have had 4 years of remainers saying it could not be done, e.g. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/reality-check-will-it-take-10-years-to-do-a-uk-eu-trade-deal-post-brexitThe reality is all trade deals we had as members of the EU have been rolled over, more have been made. We have atrade deal with the EU , time will tell how well it will turn out for both sides. Clearly we have to get back to a pre pandemic norm to see the effect of Brexit in the short term.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 9, 2021 18:26:20 GMT
You haven't explained how a group looking to rejoin the EU is undermining the will of the people? Surely its purpose is to make rejoining the will of the people in the same way that the leave campaign made leaving the will of the people in 2016? And please stop talking the UK down with all that fatalistic stuff about the diminished voice of the UK- I thought you argued such talk gets you nowhere? A country cannot keep jumping in and out of the EU. To join or leave is not irrevocable but it is a long term commitment. Cameron called a referendum for the nation to make that commitment and he said the decision would be " ...probably for decades, perhaps for a lifetime". He said he would honour that commitment but chose to resign instead. The Tory and Labour parties said they would implement the decision, but after a lot of squabbling over what leave meant, and another PM resignation, it took another general election to " get Brexit done".I think therefore that the action of Heseltine, former PMs, the Speaker, the Lords and those remainers to actively prevent the UK leaving and try and rejoin is clearly undermining the will of the people. I fully expected the referendum would go in favour of remaining in the EU. I am a democrat and would have accepted that decision. You did not see me posting on here arguing for Brexit before the referendum. I was surprised and delighted with the result. What sparked my engagement was the undemocratic refusal by some to accept the decision and try and overturn it. It is not talking Britain down to say during EU membership the voice of the UK has diminished. (As though I would talk my country down(!) which I have represented in Europe for many years.) Since the UK joined, the EU has enlarged with many more nations, all smaller than the UK. The smaller nations get a disproportionately larger number of MEPs. The larger the Council, the less is individual nations influence. The Commission allows a corrupt revolving door of officials moving jobs between the EU and commerce, which exerts a massive undemocratic pressure on the Commission by thousands of lobbyists in Brussels. Cameron sought to exempt the UK from ever closer union in the future, but was denied because it is part of the EU treaties and cannot be changed without another treaty every nation agrees with. Time will tell how successful Brexit will be; give it decades as Cameron said at the referendum, but I'm confident we will see what a blessing leaving is, in a few years. I would be quite happy to change my vote and accept compromise, if the EU were to change the direction it is heading in, and revert to pre Maastricht. Then almost everyone, except dyed in wool the Faragists or United States of Europe supporters, could be content, if not exactly happy. Most of the "losses" due to leaving that people are complaining about were in place prior to Maastricht, and one of the largest objections by many to EU membership, namely freedom of movement to work wasn't in place. The question was not about what happened after the referendum, but how is it that a group seeking to rejoin the EU is undermining the will of the people? The likelihood of that happening is irrelevant. You say Remainers are talking the country down when they question the UK's global influence post-Brexit, but when you say the UK needed to leave the EU as it was incapable of exerting influence surely that is the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jul 9, 2021 18:52:53 GMT
So if you are all for closer ties with the EU why do you have a problem with a group that would like to pursue - er - closer ties with the EU - rather than say the overt antagonism that David Frost seems to be pursuing. Surely engaging with their discussion would be a better use of your time than pointing out inferior trade deals as though they were 'achievements'? I think I have covered these points already and repeatedly. I am fully in favour of mutually beneficial reciprocal arrangements with the EU on all the problem areas like travel, retirement, performing arts, students etc. I don't see membership of the EU as a prerequisite. Frost is engaged in negotiation and being deliberately provocative to get more for his side of the table. Teresa May friendly approach got her nowhere. The EU have been equally vexatious as they have to demonstrate to other nations that they should not consider leaving. I only mention trade deals because we have had 4 years of remainers saying it could not be done, e.g. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/reality-check-will-it-take-10-years-to-do-a-uk-eu-trade-deal-post-brexitThe reality is all trade deals we had as members of the EU have been rolled over, more have been made. We have atrade deal with the EU , time will tell how well it will turn out for both sides. Clearly we have to get back to a pre pandemic norm to see the effect of Brexit in the short term. I would suggest that Frost is less antagonistic than the French fisherman descending on Jersey or the veiled references to power supply cuts to the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 9, 2021 19:43:32 GMT
So if you are all for closer ties with the EU why do you have a problem with a group that would like to pursue - er - closer ties with the EU - rather than say the overt antagonism that David Frost seems to be pursuing. Surely engaging with their discussion would be a better use of your time than pointing out inferior trade deals as though they were 'achievements'? I think I have covered these points already and repeatedly. I am fully in favour of mutually beneficial reciprocal arrangements with the EU on all the problem areas like travel, retirement, performing arts, students etc. I don't see membership of the EU as a prerequisite. Frost is engaged in negotiation and being deliberately provocative to get more for his side of the table. Teresa May friendly approach got her nowhere. The EU have been equally vexatious as they have to demonstrate to other nations that they should not consider leaving. I only mention trade deals because we have had 4 years of remainers saying it could not be done, e.g. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/reality-check-will-it-take-10-years-to-do-a-uk-eu-trade-deal-post-brexitThe reality is all trade deals we had as members of the EU have been rolled over, more have been made. We have atrade deal with the EU , time will tell how well it will turn out for both sides. Clearly we have to get back to a pre pandemic norm to see the effect of Brexit in the short term. But you also say there would always be winners and losers (though I'm not sure Vote Leave was ever honest with those likely to be losers). That so the losers are losers now whilst - in your words - it may take decades- for it to become apparent who the winners are. So what do you propose we do for the losers - many of whom didn't want this- while we wait decades? Just abandon them in the name of some greater ideology? It's fine having some long term vision (fantasy?) - but you still have to manage the day to day (or year to year) in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 9, 2021 19:49:13 GMT
I think I have covered these points already and repeatedly. I am fully in favour of mutually beneficial reciprocal arrangements with the EU on all the problem areas like travel, retirement, performing arts, students etc. I don't see membership of the EU as a prerequisite. Frost is engaged in negotiation and being deliberately provocative to get more for his side of the table. Teresa May friendly approach got her nowhere. The EU have been equally vexatious as they have to demonstrate to other nations that they should not consider leaving. I only mention trade deals because we have had 4 years of remainers saying it could not be done, e.g. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/reality-check-will-it-take-10-years-to-do-a-uk-eu-trade-deal-post-brexitThe reality is all trade deals we had as members of the EU have been rolled over, more have been made. We have atrade deal with the EU , time will tell how well it will turn out for both sides. Clearly we have to get back to a pre pandemic norm to see the effect of Brexit in the short term. I would suggest that Frost is less antagonistic than the French fisherman descending on Jersey or the veiled references to power supply cuts to the UK. Neither of which came from the EU.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 9, 2021 19:50:13 GMT
A country cannot keep jumping in and out of the EU. To join or leave is not irrevocable but it is a long term commitment. Cameron called a referendum for the nation to make that commitment and he said the decision would be " ...probably for decades, perhaps for a lifetime". He said he would honour that commitment but chose to resign instead. The Tory and Labour parties said they would implement the decision, but after a lot of squabbling over what leave meant, and another PM resignation, it took another general election to " get Brexit done".I think therefore that the action of Heseltine, former PMs, the Speaker, the Lords and those remainers to actively prevent the UK leaving and try and rejoin is clearly undermining the will of the people. I fully expected the referendum would go in favour of remaining in the EU. I am a democrat and would have accepted that decision. You did not see me posting on here arguing for Brexit before the referendum. I was surprised and delighted with the result. What sparked my engagement was the undemocratic refusal by some to accept the decision and try and overturn it. It is not talking Britain down to say during EU membership the voice of the UK has diminished. (As though I would talk my country down(!) which I have represented in Europe for many years.) Since the UK joined, the EU has enlarged with many more nations, all smaller than the UK. The smaller nations get a disproportionately larger number of MEPs. The larger the Council, the less is individual nations influence. The Commission allows a corrupt revolving door of officials moving jobs between the EU and commerce, which exerts a massive undemocratic pressure on the Commission by thousands of lobbyists in Brussels. Cameron sought to exempt the UK from ever closer union in the future, but was denied because it is part of the EU treaties and cannot be changed without another treaty every nation agrees with. Time will tell how successful Brexit will be; give it decades as Cameron said at the referendum, but I'm confident we will see what a blessing leaving is, in a few years. I would be quite happy to change my vote and accept compromise, if the EU were to change the direction it is heading in, and revert to pre Maastricht. Then almost everyone, except dyed in wool the Faragists or United States of Europe supporters, could be content, if not exactly happy. Most of the "losses" due to leaving that people are complaining about were in place prior to Maastricht, and one of the largest objections by many to EU membership, namely freedom of movement to work wasn't in place. The question was not about what happened after the referendum, but how is it that a group seeking to rejoin the EU is undermining the will of the people? The likelihood of that happening is irrelevant. You say Remainers are talking the country down when they question the UK's global influence post-Brexit, but when you say the UK needed to leave the EU as it was incapable of exerting influence surely that is the same thing? My point is the UK has left the EU but there are still people seeking to rejoin. This undermines the government in seeking to resolve issues in Northern Ireland, fishing, divorce bill, etc. etc. when the government is trying get Brexit done. There is no world government, the UK takes its place just as other countries and chairs G7/G20 meetings, environment conferences, etc. The UK's influence is determined by size, power, diplomacy, alliances, treaties, etc. The EU has an executive/Commission, parliament, Council, court, etc. that make laws that member countries are required to obey, so having little influence as Cameron and May found is not in the UK's best interests. The tax regime (financial contribution) is VAT and GDP based and skewed against the UK even after Thatcher's rebate. All the administration centres are based in Germany, France, and BeNeLux countries. Explain how the EU claim we owe over £40 billion divorce bill. Having influence is critically important if you are carrying the tab. The. EU gave nothing to Cameron and May because they thought they had all the power and the UK would meekly roll over encouraged by people like Blair who had secret meetings with the EU.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jul 9, 2021 19:53:01 GMT
I would suggest that Frost is less antagonistic than the French fisherman descending on Jersey or the veiled references to power supply cuts to the UK. Neither of which came from the EU. You truly believe that?😂😂😂 The rhetoric from the EU over fishing hardly discouraged it and I don’t recall any condemnation from the EU afterwards either.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jul 9, 2021 19:57:13 GMT
I think I have covered these points already and repeatedly. I am fully in favour of mutually beneficial reciprocal arrangements with the EU on all the problem areas like travel, retirement, performing arts, students etc. I don't see membership of the EU as a prerequisite. Frost is engaged in negotiation and being deliberately provocative to get more for his side of the table. Teresa May friendly approach got her nowhere. The EU have been equally vexatious as they have to demonstrate to other nations that they should not consider leaving. I only mention trade deals because we have had 4 years of remainers saying it could not be done, e.g. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/15/reality-check-will-it-take-10-years-to-do-a-uk-eu-trade-deal-post-brexitThe reality is all trade deals we had as members of the EU have been rolled over, more have been made. We have atrade deal with the EU , time will tell how well it will turn out for both sides. Clearly we have to get back to a pre pandemic norm to see the effect of Brexit in the short term. But you also say there would always be winners and losers (though I'm not sure Vote Leave was ever honest with those likely to be losers). That so the losers are losers now whilst - in your words - it may take decades- for it to become apparent who the winners are. So what do you propose we do for the losers - many of whom didn't want this- while we wait decades? Just abandon them in the name of some greater ideology? It's fine having some long term vision (fantasy?) - but you still have to manage the day to day (or year to year) in the meantime. I'm not sure I follow your logic, there are inevitably losers in a referendum. What do you think we should do for them? Keep holding an annual referendum until the losers either win or give up trying? Just supposing we hold another referendum and the result is reversed, what are you going to propose the new losers do? Wait decades to realise that yes, the losers were right all along? I'm not really sure what remainers are bitching about other than they just lost a once in a generation democratic vote.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 9, 2021 20:11:39 GMT
But you also say there would always be winners and losers (though I'm not sure Vote Leave was ever honest with those likely to be losers). That so the losers are losers now whilst - in your words - it may take decades- for it to become apparent who the winners are. So what do you propose we do for the losers - many of whom didn't want this- while we wait decades? Just abandon them in the name of some greater ideology? It's fine having some long term vision (fantasy?) - but you still have to manage the day to day (or year to year) in the meantime. I'm not sure I follow your logic, there are inevitably losers in a referendum. What do you think we should do for them? Keep holding an annual referendum until the losers either win or give up trying? Just supposing we hold another referendum and the result is reversed, what are you going to propose the new losers do? Wait decades to realise that yes, the losers were right all along? I'm not really sure what remainers are bitching about other than they just lost a once in a generation democratic vote. Should have followed the thread fella - it wasn't the losers of the referendum we were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 9, 2021 20:14:13 GMT
Neither of which came from the EU. You truly believe that?😂😂😂 The rhetoric from the EU over fishing hardly discouraged it and I don’t recall any condemnation from the EU afterwards either. If you can't distinguish between the acts of individuals, soverign nations and the European Union then it's hardly any surprise that the debate is confused.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Jul 9, 2021 20:33:14 GMT
You truly believe that?😂😂😂 The rhetoric from the EU over fishing hardly discouraged it and I don’t recall any condemnation from the EU afterwards either. If you can't distinguish between the acts of individuals, soverign nations and the European Union then it's hardly any surprise that the debate is confused. Indeed, and if you can’t, then it’s hardly any surprise that the debate is confused.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 9, 2021 21:36:02 GMT
The question was not about what happened after the referendum, but how is it that a group seeking to rejoin the EU is undermining the will of the people? The likelihood of that happening is irrelevant. You say Remainers are talking the country down when they question the UK's global influence post-Brexit, but when you say the UK needed to leave the EU as it was incapable of exerting influence surely that is the same thing? My point is the UK has left the EU but there are still people seeking to rejoin. This undermines the government in seeking to resolve issues in Northern Ireland, fishing, divorce bill, etc. etc. when the government is trying get Brexit done. The government said it got Brexit done , were they lying? Johnson said it was a great deal, given the NI,fishing issues etc was he lying? I would say those really undermining the UK are those saying we should not honour what we signed, making us appear untrustworthy to the world. Far more undermining that than a few arguing to rejoin.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Jul 9, 2021 21:38:16 GMT
I'm not sure I follow your logic, there are inevitably losers in a referendum. What do you think we should do for them? Keep holding an annual referendum until the losers either win or give up trying? Just supposing we hold another referendum and the result is reversed, what are you going to propose the new losers do? Wait decades to realise that yes, the losers were right all along? I'm not really sure what remainers are bitching about other than they just lost a once in a generation democratic vote. Should have followed the thread fella - it wasn't the losers of the referendum we were talking about. I have followed the thread.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 9, 2021 23:24:48 GMT
My point is the UK has left the EU but there are still people seeking to rejoin. This undermines the government in seeking to resolve issues in Northern Ireland, fishing, divorce bill, etc. etc. when the government is trying get Brexit done. The government said it got Brexit done , were they lying? Johnson said it was a great deal, given the NI,fishing issues etc was he lying? I would say those really undermining the UK are those saying we should not honour what we signed, making us appear untrustworthy to the world. Far more undermining that than a few arguing to rejoin. Brexit is done in the sense of we have legally left the EU on 1st January. The deal includes lots of agreed phased changes some of which are now in dispute. Most notably Northern Ireland which the government wants to both change and phase over a longer period. Many changes take place gradually over years, referred to as grace period. This is due to various reasons; firstly putting resources in place. The EU has the resources as it has always been regulating imports from outside the EU and placed immediate restrictions/rules on food imported from the UK. The UK does not have the resources as most of our imports are from the EU and have previously been unchecked. The UK will be imposing similar restrictions on food imports from the EU later this year when resources are in place. With restrictions on food moving in both directions, it might actually result in the UK being more self sufficient, which will not be a bad thing. One of the major problems in Northern Ireland is the massive resources needed to check the high level of imports from mainland Britain which the UK government is trying to remove. Another reason for implementation of change is the necessary changes in the law. Much (virtually all I believe) EU regulations were passed over into UK law prior to 31st December last year, but now it is necessary to change some of that law into UK law, for example CE marking will change to UKCA marking at the end of this year. You will be aware that the agreement on fishing is phased over 5.5 years. But here there have been problems with Jersey (not in the UK, never in the EU) and to get licences French fishermen have to demonstrate they have historically fished in Jersey waters. which many are unable to do, so Jersey is refusing them licences which is making the French fishermen very upset. Here is a simple CBI timeline on some of the changes: www.cbi.org.uk/uk-transition-hub/whats-next-a-brexit-timeline/As for the honesty of politicians, would you buy a car off Boris? Do you know a politician who tells the whole truth and not leave out what they would prefer you did not know. Then there are bare faced liars as you suggest. Many of our food producers, fisherman, etc. have met an instant barrier to exporting. What is the difference between lying and trickery? What do you make of what Barnier was saying about food imports last September?: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-food-barnier-exports-transition_uk_5f6b760cc5b6718910f4349bIt is clear that the EU outsmarted our government on many aspects of the Brexit deal. You seem to focus all your questions at UK government but that is not entirely the case: www.politico.eu/article/northern-ireland-halts-construction-of-inspection-facilities-for-post-brexit-checks/Of course the media does not help in all this debate. They produce misleading statistics, the use of %s being the most common one al tell bare faced lies. Such as selling shellfish into the EU is banned. Some types of shellfish that are imported into the EU must either come from unpolluted waters or be purified before being sold. What was OK to sell into the EU on 31st December was OK but on 1st January was not legal because either British waters are polluted from 1st January and/or the fish need purifying. One tradesman is doing this and exporting to the EU but most do not have the resources to purify and consider it not financially viable. But it is OK for EU fisherman to fish from the same waters. We have been taken for suckers. Everyone to their own viewpoint. I decided about 20 years ago that the EU was corrupt and only interested in protecting European business from world competition by means of a customs barrier to the rest of the world, which the UK is now learning about now we are on the other side. The EU talk about trade agreement and the UK actually has a "free trade" agreement, many of the other countries have trade agreements with tariffs such as the Japan - EU trade agreement The EU has over 13,000 tariffs on imported goods. Legislation is all drafted by the Brussels commission who under constant lobbying by big business to implement laws that protect primarily German industry. transparency.eu/lobbyistsinbrussels/#:~:text=Based%20on%20these%20findings%2C%20a%20conservative%20estimate%20for,become%20more%20transparent%20and%20open%20to%20public%20scrutiny. Then when it comes to breaking the law, the EU has slapped billions of £ fines on IT companies over the law; money.cnn.com/2018/07/18/technology/eu-biggest-fines-tech/index.htmlQuite right too, but when 4 huge German car companies collude to break environmental legislation on pollutants destroying the planet, and polluting cities and deliberately deceiving the public, the EU fines them a miserable Euro 875 million. Daimler avoided being fined by grassing on the rest. www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9768339/amp/EU-fines-4-German-car-makers-875MILLION-euro-emission-collusion.htmlSome people should have gone to gaol. Including those officials who knew all along. Is Germany the only country to cheat? Ask the Germans they seem to have learnt off the Italians: www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-fiat-chrysler-emissions-docum-idUSKCN1174O3
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 10, 2021 8:16:04 GMT
I see the EU wants an extra £1.8bn for the divorce bill.
I imagine Bluffer will tell them to go whistle for it, like last time, prompting much glee amongst the Brexiteers.
And then pay it.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 10, 2021 9:29:29 GMT
The government said it got Brexit done , were they lying? Johnson said it was a great deal, given the NI,fishing issues etc was he lying? I would say those really undermining the UK are those saying we should not honour what we signed, making us appear untrustworthy to the world. Far more undermining that than a few arguing to rejoin. We have been taken for suckers. Everyone to their own viewpoint. I decided about 20 years ago that the EU was corrupt and only interested in protecting European business from world competition by means of a customs barrier to the rest of the world, which the UK is now learning about now we are on the other side. "Doubters do not achieve; sceptics do not contribute; cynics do not create." Your post. So, for20 years you have neither contributed nor created? Do you not recognise the contradiction that it's okay for you to be sceptical and cynical about the EU , but to suggest anyone forming a negative opinion re-Brexit is neither contributing or creating?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jul 10, 2021 9:39:47 GMT
My point is the UK has left the EU but there are still people seeking to rejoin. This undermines the government in seeking to resolve issues in Northern Ireland, fishing, divorce bill, etc. etc. when the government is trying get Brexit done. The government said it got Brexit done , were they lying? Johnson said it was a great deal, given the NI,fishing issues etc was he lying? I would say those really undermining the UK are those saying we should not honour what we signed, making us appear untrustworthy to the world. Far more undermining that than a few arguing to rejoin. You should see how many agreements the EU and Germany, France dont honour the information is all out there.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jul 10, 2021 11:32:41 GMT
The government said it got Brexit done , were they lying? Johnson said it was a great deal, given the NI,fishing issues etc was he lying? I would say those really undermining the UK are those saying we should not honour what we signed, making us appear untrustworthy to the world. Far more undermining that than a few arguing to rejoin. Brexit is done in the sense of we have legally left the EU on 1st January. The deal includes lots of agreed phased changes some of which are now in dispute. Most notably Northern Ireland which the government wants to both change and phase over a longer period. Many changes take place gradually over years, referred to as grace period. This is due to various reasons; firstly putting resources in place. The EU has the resources as it has always been regulating imports from outside the EU and placed immediate restrictions/rules on food imported from the UK. The UK does not have the resources as most of our imports are from the EU and have previously been unchecked. The UK will be imposing similar restrictions on food imports from the EU later this year when resources are in place. With restrictions on food moving in both directions, it might actually result in the UK being more self sufficient, which will not be a bad thing. One of the major problems in Northern Ireland is the massive resources needed to check the high level of imports from mainland Britain which the UK government is trying to remove. Another reason for implementation of change is the necessary changes in the law. Much (virtually all I believe) EU regulations were passed over into UK law prior to 31st December last year, but now it is necessary to change some of that law into UK law, for example CE marking will change to UKCA marking at the end of this year. You will be aware that the agreement on fishing is phased over 5.5 years. But here there have been problems with Jersey (not in the UK, never in the EU) and to get licences French fishermen have to demonstrate they have historically fished in Jersey waters. which many are unable to do, so Jersey is refusing them licences which is making the French fishermen very upset. Here is a simple CBI timeline on some of the changes: www.cbi.org.uk/uk-transition-hub/whats-next-a-brexit-timeline/As for the honesty of politicians, would you buy a car off Boris? Do you know a politician who tells the whole truth and not leave out what they would prefer you did not know. Then there are bare faced liars as you suggest. Many of our food producers, fisherman, etc. have met an instant barrier to exporting. What is the difference between lying and trickery? What do you make of what Barnier was saying about food imports last September?: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-food-barnier-exports-transition_uk_5f6b760cc5b6718910f4349bIt is clear that the EU outsmarted our government on many aspects of the Brexit deal. You seem to focus all your questions at UK government but that is not entirely the case: www.politico.eu/article/northern-ireland-halts-construction-of-inspection-facilities-for-post-brexit-checks/Of course the media does not help in all this debate. They produce misleading statistics, the use of %s being the most common one al tell bare faced lies. Such as selling shellfish into the EU is banned. Some types of shellfish that are imported into the EU must either come from unpolluted waters or be purified before being sold. What was OK to sell into the EU on 31st December was OK but on 1st January was not legal because either British waters are polluted from 1st January and/or the fish need purifying. One tradesman is doing this and exporting to the EU but most do not have the resources to purify and consider it not financially viable. But it is OK for EU fisherman to fish from the same waters. We have been taken for suckers. Everyone to their own viewpoint. I decided about 20 years ago that the EU was corrupt and only interested in protecting European business from world competition by means of a customs barrier to the rest of the world, which the UK is now learning about now we are on the other side. The EU talk about trade agreement and the UK actually has a "free trade" agreement, many of the other countries have trade agreements with tariffs such as the Japan - EU trade agreement The EU has over 13,000 tariffs on imported goods. Legislation is all drafted by the Brussels commission who under constant lobbying by big business to implement laws that protect primarily German industry. transparency.eu/lobbyistsinbrussels/#:~:text=Based%20on%20these%20findings%2C%20a%20conservative%20estimate%20for,become%20more%20transparent%20and%20open%20to%20public%20scrutiny. Then when it comes to breaking the law, the EU has slapped billions of £ fines on IT companies over the law; money.cnn.com/2018/07/18/technology/eu-biggest-fines-tech/index.htmlQuite right too, but when 4 huge German car companies collude to break environmental legislation on pollutants destroying the planet, and polluting cities and deliberately deceiving the public, the EU fines them a miserable Euro 875 million. Daimler avoided being fined by grassing on the rest. www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9768339/amp/EU-fines-4-German-car-makers-875MILLION-euro-emission-collusion.htmlSome people should have gone to gaol. Including those officials who knew all along. Is Germany the only country to cheat? Ask the Germans they seem to have learnt off the Italians: www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-fiat-chrysler-emissions-docum-idUSKCN1174O3Thought you said the German cartels got away with everything in the EU? This penalty and fine pretty much flushes all your complaints and statements on that down the shitter. 875m doesn't seen insignificant to me either. Perhaps the figures only suit when they support your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 10, 2021 12:50:49 GMT
Brexit is done in the sense of we have legally left the EU on 1st January. The deal includes lots of agreed phased changes some of which are now in dispute. Most notably Northern Ireland which the government wants to both change and phase over a longer period. Many changes take place gradually over years, referred to as grace period. This is due to various reasons; firstly putting resources in place. The EU has the resources as it has always been regulating imports from outside the EU and placed immediate restrictions/rules on food imported from the UK. The UK does not have the resources as most of our imports are from the EU and have previously been unchecked. The UK will be imposing similar restrictions on food imports from the EU later this year when resources are in place. With restrictions on food moving in both directions, it might actually result in the UK being more self sufficient, which will not be a bad thing. One of the major problems in Northern Ireland is the massive resources needed to check the high level of imports from mainland Britain which the UK government is trying to remove. Another reason for implementation of change is the necessary changes in the law. Much (virtually all I believe) EU regulations were passed over into UK law prior to 31st December last year, but now it is necessary to change some of that law into UK law, for example CE marking will change to UKCA marking at the end of this year. You will be aware that the agreement on fishing is phased over 5.5 years. But here there have been problems with Jersey (not in the UK, never in the EU) and to get licences French fishermen have to demonstrate they have historically fished in Jersey waters. which many are unable to do, so Jersey is refusing them licences which is making the French fishermen very upset. Here is a simple CBI timeline on some of the changes: www.cbi.org.uk/uk-transition-hub/whats-next-a-brexit-timeline/As for the honesty of politicians, would you buy a car off Boris? Do you know a politician who tells the whole truth and not leave out what they would prefer you did not know. Then there are bare faced liars as you suggest. Many of our food producers, fisherman, etc. have met an instant barrier to exporting. What is the difference between lying and trickery? What do you make of what Barnier was saying about food imports last September?: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-food-barnier-exports-transition_uk_5f6b760cc5b6718910f4349bIt is clear that the EU outsmarted our government on many aspects of the Brexit deal. You seem to focus all your questions at UK government but that is not entirely the case: www.politico.eu/article/northern-ireland-halts-construction-of-inspection-facilities-for-post-brexit-checks/Of course the media does not help in all this debate. They produce misleading statistics, the use of %s being the most common one al tell bare faced lies. Such as selling shellfish into the EU is banned. Some types of shellfish that are imported into the EU must either come from unpolluted waters or be purified before being sold. What was OK to sell into the EU on 31st December was OK but on 1st January was not legal because either British waters are polluted from 1st January and/or the fish need purifying. One tradesman is doing this and exporting to the EU but most do not have the resources to purify and consider it not financially viable. But it is OK for EU fisherman to fish from the same waters. We have been taken for suckers. Everyone to their own viewpoint. I decided about 20 years ago that the EU was corrupt and only interested in protecting European business from world competition by means of a customs barrier to the rest of the world, which the UK is now learning about now we are on the other side. The EU talk about trade agreement and the UK actually has a "free trade" agreement, many of the other countries have trade agreements with tariffs such as the Japan - EU trade agreement The EU has over 13,000 tariffs on imported goods. Legislation is all drafted by the Brussels commission who under constant lobbying by big business to implement laws that protect primarily German industry. transparency.eu/lobbyistsinbrussels/#:~:text=Based%20on%20these%20findings%2C%20a%20conservative%20estimate%20for,become%20more%20transparent%20and%20open%20to%20public%20scrutiny. Then when it comes to breaking the law, the EU has slapped billions of £ fines on IT companies over the law; money.cnn.com/2018/07/18/technology/eu-biggest-fines-tech/index.htmlQuite right too, but when 4 huge German car companies collude to break environmental legislation on pollutants destroying the planet, and polluting cities and deliberately deceiving the public, the EU fines them a miserable Euro 875 million. Daimler avoided being fined by grassing on the rest. www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9768339/amp/EU-fines-4-German-car-makers-875MILLION-euro-emission-collusion.htmlSome people should have gone to gaol. Including those officials who knew all along. Is Germany the only country to cheat? Ask the Germans they seem to have learnt off the Italians: www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-fiat-chrysler-emissions-docum-idUSKCN1174O3Thought you said the German cartels got away with everything in the EU? This penalty and fine pretty much flushes all your complaints and statements on that down the shitter. 875m doesn't seen insignificant to me either. Perhaps the figures only suit when they support your agenda. Yes looks like the EU finally caught up with one of them. I assure you there are other German industry cartels, so my former posts still stand. VW 's fine is Euro 500m which you seem to regard as not insignificant. Other none EU companies get fined billions of Euros for essentially tax evasion/avoidance. VW made Euro 19billion profit in 2019 alone. They are guilty of cheating on pollution laws, which crime is greater? Presumably finance revenue is far more important to the EU than the environment. (There I go again being cynical) I consider their fine paltry. Furthermore I think it is so serious German management overseeing this criminal act should go to prison for endangering the lives of people in cities VW pollute. Daimler got off scot-free. Others were rumoured to be guilty but not prosecuted, presumably due to lack of evidence. ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/en/community/city-science-initiative/document/health-costs-air-pollution-european-cities-and-linkage
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 10, 2021 13:30:10 GMT
Thought you said the German cartels got away with everything in the EU? This penalty and fine pretty much flushes all your complaints and statements on that down the shitter. 875m doesn't seen insignificant to me either. Perhaps the figures only suit when they support your agenda. Yes looks like the EU finally caught up with one of them. I assure you there are other German industry cartels, so my former posts still stand. VW 's fine is Euro 500m which you seem to regard as not insignificant. Other none EU companies get fined billions of Euros for essentially tax evasion/avoidance. VW made Euro 19billion profit in 2019 alone. They are guilty of cheating on pollution laws, which crime is greater? Presumably finance revenue is far more important to the EU than the environment. (There I go again being cynical) I consider their fine paltry. Furthermore I think it is so serious German management overseeing this criminal act should go to prison for endangering the lives of people in cities VW pollute. Daimler got off scot-free. Others were rumoured to be guilty but not prosecuted, presumably due to lack of evidence. ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/en/community/city-science-initiative/document/health-costs-air-pollution-european-cities-and-linkageThere are plenty of examples of the EU taking action against cartels - including against German companies. Two pretty recent ones I've had involvement in (not as part of the Cartel!!!!) are vehicle parts pricing (German firms Brose, Keikart and Magna) and truck pricing cartel (Including German firms MAN and Daimler as well as DAF and Volvo). Once proven the fine is only part of it and it opens the door to massive lawsuits - which is certainly what is happening in the truck cartel. As you imply though - they're often difficult to prove - and what happened in both the above is that one of the participants eventually 'fessed as part of a plea bargain and brought the rest down. So - if as you say you have knowlege of other cartels you should perhaps share it - it may help with getting a prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 10, 2021 14:13:11 GMT
We have been taken for suckers. Everyone to their own viewpoint. I decided about 20 years ago that the EU was corrupt and only interested in protecting European business from world competition by means of a customs barrier to the rest of the world, which the UK is now learning about now we are on the other side. "Doubters do not achieve; sceptics do not contribute; cynics do not create." Your post. So, for20 years you have neither contributed nor created? Do you not recognise the contradiction that it's okay for you to be sceptical and cynical about the EU , but to suggest anyone forming a negative opinion re-Brexit is neither contributing or creating? I'm sorry you take that view. Apart from a few posts on the impact of Brexit in football in 2016, I only started to seriously give my views after the referendum, prompted by the action of many to criticise, undermine, and reverse the result. With the country having voted to leave I developed a passion to see Brexit delivered. I think I have tried to put constructive arguments in favour of Brexit based on my work and personal experiences, and wherever possible supported by links to reference articles and data. Since the UK left the EU, I have also tried to dispel and dispute false and misleading posts by remainers. Recently, as Brexit unfolds, I have taken to pointing out the error and incorrect forcasts remainers have been making about the impact of Brexit such as the trade deals achieved. I am conscious many are sick and tired of Brexit, and there are many who now believe "it is done, so let's move on." Personally I cannot sit by and let comments with which I disagree, and forcasts of doom, pass by on a subject I have strong views on and which I feel I am able to make informed comment. I am happy for anyone to correct any errors of fact I may have made or if I have linked something erroneous, and have apologised and withdrawn on the odd occasion that has happened. If I plead guilty to anything, it is that I have continued to criticise the EU as an organisation which is arguably unnecessary now we have left, but then no one is forced to read my views on the EU.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 10, 2021 14:21:29 GMT
Yes looks like the EU finally caught up with one of them. I assure you there are other German industry cartels, so my former posts still stand. VW 's fine is Euro 500m which you seem to regard as not insignificant. Other none EU companies get fined billions of Euros for essentially tax evasion/avoidance. VW made Euro 19billion profit in 2019 alone. They are guilty of cheating on pollution laws, which crime is greater? Presumably finance revenue is far more important to the EU than the environment. (There I go again being cynical) I consider their fine paltry. Furthermore I think it is so serious German management overseeing this criminal act should go to prison for endangering the lives of people in cities VW pollute. Daimler got off scot-free. Others were rumoured to be guilty but not prosecuted, presumably due to lack of evidence. ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/en/community/city-science-initiative/document/health-costs-air-pollution-european-cities-and-linkageThere are plenty of examples of the EU taking action against cartels - including against German companies. Two pretty recent ones I've had involvement in (not as part of the Cartel!!!!) are vehicle parts pricing (German firms Brose, Keikart and Magna) and truck pricing cartel (Including German firms MAN and Daimler as well as DAF and Volvo). Once proven the fine is only part of it and it opens the door to massive lawsuits - which is certainly what is happening in the truck cartel. As you imply though - they're often difficult to prove - and what happened in both the above is that one of the participants eventually 'fessed as part of a plea bargain and brought the rest down. So - if as you say you have knowlege of other cartels you should perhaps share it - it may help with getting a prosecution. Thank you for that informative post. I regret I shall have to pass on going into print accusing companies of unethical practices as I do not want to be embroiled in legal action. I have repeatedly posted the attached link and leave it to those who have legal advisors to make accusations. I draw your attention to the revolving doors. www.alter-eu.org/corporate-capture-in-europe-when-big-business-dominates-policy-making-and-threatens-our-right
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Jul 10, 2021 15:22:39 GMT
"Doubters do not achieve; sceptics do not contribute; cynics do not create." Your post. So, for20 years you have neither contributed nor created? Do you not recognise the contradiction that it's okay for you to be sceptical and cynical about the EU , but to suggest anyone forming a negative opinion re-Brexit is neither contributing or creating? I'm sorry you take that view. Apart from a few posts on the impact of Brexit in football in 2016, I only started to seriously give my views after the referendum, prompted by the action of many to criticise, undermine, and reverse the result. With the country having voted to leave I developed a passion to see Brexit delivered. I think I have tried to put constructive arguments in favour of Brexit based on my work and personal experiences, and wherever possible supported by links to reference articles and data. Since the UK left the EU, I have also tried to dispel and dispute false and misleading posts by remainers. Recently, as Brexit unfolds, I have taken to pointing out the error and incorrect forcasts remainers have been making about the impact of Brexit such as the trade deals achieved. I am conscious many are sick and tired of Brexit, and there are many who now believe "it is done, so let's move on." Personally I cannot sit by and let comments with which I disagree, and forcasts of doom, pass by on a subject I have strong views on and which I feel I am able to make informed comment. I am happy for anyone to correct any errors of fact I may have made or if I have linked something erroneous, and have apologised and withdrawn on the odd occasion that has happened. If I plead guilty to anything, it is that I have continued to criticise the EU as an organisation which is arguably unnecessary now we have left, but then no one is forced to read my views on the EU. I am not questioning you having to sit by and let comments with which you disagree pass by . Those who don't want to discuss the ongoing saga of Brexit don't need to read or engage on here. I take it from your reply that you cannot see how some might consider your views of those with negative views of Brexit being no different to your negative views on the EU, and that their negativity and cynicism re-Brexit over the last 5 years is no different to yours re-the EU over the last 20 years.
|
|