|
|
Post by maxplonk on Oct 2, 2018 17:40:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 2, 2018 18:50:22 GMT
We will have to disagree Oggy. The EU have made it clear that the currency is vitally important to the project...it cannot be allowed to fail I agree that they won’t allow the euro to fail. Would any nation, or group of nations that share a currency, allow it to “fail”!? Those in the EU but who do not have the euro are proof that having the euro is not fundamental to being a member of the eu. It is an example of the leave campaign’s project fear approach when people say otherwise. As I say Oggy we again must agree to disagree. The Euro and the Eurogroup are absolutely fundamental to the EU project of ever closer Political and Economic union ( five presidents'report) |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 2, 2018 19:27:51 GMT
I agree that they won’t allow the euro to fail. Would any nation, or group of nations that share a currency, allow it to “fail”!? Those in the EU but who do not have the euro are proof that having the euro is not fundamental to being a member of the eu. It is an example of the leave campaign’s project fear approach when people say otherwise. As I say Oggy we again must agree to disagree. The Euro and the Eurogroup are absolutely fundamental to the EU project of ever closer Political and Economic union ( five presidents'report) So fundamental that 9 nations don’t have the euro. More countries have an A in their name that are part of the EU than have the euro. Is having an A in your nation’s name also fundamental to the EU!? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 2, 2018 19:29:29 GMT
As I say Oggy we again must agree to disagree. The Euro and the Eurogroup are absolutely fundamental to the EU project of ever closer Political and Economic union ( five presidents'report) So fundamental that 9 nations don’t have the euro. More countries have an A in their name that are part of the EU than have the euro. Is having an A in your nation’s name also fundamental to the EU!? No .it's the direction of travel that's important. It's in the report. What do you think Political and Economic union is? Monetary union, Fiscal union. Ever closer union |
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Oct 2, 2018 19:34:54 GMT
Just a quick point about joining the Euro, or rather the flawed logic behind the Euro not being fundamental to the future of the EU. Cast your mind back to when the Euro was proposed, and there was (and still is) an economic criteria to follow before a country is allowed to join the Euro. If the economy of a proposed country was not/is not strong enough, then that country cannot join. It's largely forgotten now, but there were serious concerns about the strength of the Greek and Italian economies, in that they did not meet the economic criteria to join the Euro. In the end, ways were found to make the figures work, and they were allowed to join or rather the Germans let them join and coincidentally the Greek government made huge borrowing to pay for major infrastructure work largely carried out by German multinational companies.
Anyway, I digress, so to sum up, every country in the EU is expected to join the Euro at the earliest opportunity and the reasons for not joining are economic stability and public acceptance.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 2, 2018 19:44:12 GMT
Just a quick point about joining the Euro, or rather the flawed logic behind the Euro not being fundamental to the future of the EU. Cast your mind back to when the Euro was proposed, and there was (and still is) an economic criteria to follow before a country is allowed to join the Euro. If the economy of a proposed country was not/is not strong enough, then that country cannot join. It's largely forgotten now, but there were serious concerns about the strength of the Greek and Italian economies, in that they did not meet the economic criteria to join the Euro. In the end, ways were found to make the figures work, and they were allowed to join or rather the Germans let them join and coincidentally the Greek government made huge borrowing to pay for major infrastructure work largely carried out by German multinational companies. Anyway, I digress, so to sum up, every country in the EU is expected to join the Euro at the earliest opportunity and the reasons for not joining are economic stability and public acceptance. You are correct Richie of course. I didn't really want to post this as it's too much for some,, as it's the EUs own strategy,, but the criteria are all laid out in the link. "The Eurogroup published the "Five Presidents Report". The document laid down a roadmap to deepen the Economic and Monetary Union in two stages, and complete it by 2025 at the latest. Since then, a lot has been done in order to "deepen by doing". EU economic policy coordination – the European Semester – has been strengthened, the toolbox for EU level economic governance has been improved with the creation of National Productivity Boards and a European Fiscal Board, and important steps have been taken towards completing the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union. However, the euro area architecture is not yet complete." ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-and-fiscal-policy-coordination/economic-and-monetary-union/deepening-economic-and-monetary-union_en |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 2, 2018 20:17:08 GMT
Great victory for the EU in the Ryder Cup. What a shame we will be imposters in the next tournament. Europe ... embracing all that is good in a shared and productive collective. 40 years of industrial and legal and community progress .... all chucked away because some madman UKIP failed politician saw it as his dream. Aided and abetted by a band of Tory blue-bloods who will shaft us plebs as soon as they get the chance. Corporate greed abounds in the 51st State. More proof that remoaners still can't distinguish between the EU and Europe. Therefore they didn't know what they were voting for. |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 2, 2018 20:21:42 GMT
Yes. Before going to a country to live, you get a job. |
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Oct 2, 2018 21:56:41 GMT
Seriously, that looks like a good possible outcome of Brexit to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Oct 2, 2018 22:00:49 GMT
Yes. Before going to a country to live, you get a job. Well sometimes you have to go to a country to find work there, which is why under EU law, immigrants have up to three months after entry to prove that they had a job, or other income to support themselves, AND health insurance so that the NHS could claim back treatment costs - since 2004. I still haven't heard any explanation why the UK government didn't implement these laws. |
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Oct 2, 2018 22:02:19 GMT
Yes. Before going to a country to live, you get a job. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 2, 2018 22:22:47 GMT
Can you explain what you brexiters worked out about tariffs? we already HAVE a tariff free deal which is working well,the £ falling by at least 12% making imports dearer for the U.K is the price we are paying add to that exports may have risen but in real terms we receive less in foreign currency due to poor exchange rates and you think this is advantages? So we pay more for imports because because we have to buy in currencies other than gbp but we get less for exports because we have to sell in currencies other than gbp, do you produce economic forecasts for the treasury with that sort of logic..... And part of the deal with tariff free access with the EU currently is having to apply excessive tariffs to non eu goods as part of the protectionist racket that is the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 3, 2018 7:13:23 GMT
Yes. Before going to a country to live, you get a job. Well sometimes you have to go to a country to find work there, which is why under EU law, immigrants have up to three months after entry to prove that they had a job, or other income to support themselves, AND health insurance so that the NHS could claim back treatment costs - since 2004. I still haven't heard any explanation why the UK government didn't implement these laws.Because Blair and the labour party had a secret policy to flood the country with socialist labour voters on handouts dependant on them so they would get voted in for the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Oct 3, 2018 7:40:43 GMT
You go to the shops and buy food (which most of which is imports) is it not rising or is it not a issue for you because of your wealth? Why do economists say a weak £ is good for increasing exports because they become CHEAPER (definition cost the buyer less) might be a simplistic view but ask the vast majority in business if leaving is good or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Oct 3, 2018 7:42:27 GMT
Well sometimes you have to go to a country to find work there, which is why under EU law, immigrants have up to three months after entry to prove that they had a job, or other income to support themselves, AND health insurance so that the NHS could claim back treatment costs - since 2004. I still haven't heard any explanation why the UK government didn't implement these laws.Because Blair and the labour party had a secret policy to flood the country with socialist labour voters on handouts dependant on them so they would get voted in for the long term. A secret policy which was happily adopted by every single subsequent administration doesn't sound very plausible, and doesn't fit well with Blair's brand of New Labour "socialism". |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 7:49:20 GMT
Great victory for the EU in the Ryder Cup. What a shame we will be imposters in the next tournament. Europe ... embracing all that is good in a shared and productive collective. 40 years of industrial and legal and community progress .... all chucked away because some madman UKIP failed politician saw it as his dream. Aided and abetted by a band of Tory blue-bloods who will shaft us plebs as soon as they get the chance. Corporate greed abounds in the 51st State. More proof that remoaners still can't distinguish between the EU and Europe. Therefore they didn't know what they were voting for. Jesus wept. 😌 |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 8:38:18 GMT
A thought. Suppose there was a second ref with the questions: Remain, leave with a (Chequers?) deal, leave with no deal. The leave vote is split and Remain wins (that's what Remain want after all) The EU quite rightly say that having triggered A50 the UK can't assume the status that we had before. New terms of membership will have to be negotiated. Those terms of membership should surely then be put to a peoples vote to decide if acceptable, if not what then? Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 3, 2018 8:50:42 GMT
Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. Or, how about we have two questions as follows... 1. Leave or Remain. If Leave wins we leave, as in leave every aspect of the EU as a 'leave' vote would suggest. 2. Assuming Remain wins we vote again on what type of Remain it should be, IE should we just Remain in the customs union, should we Remain even stronger & join the Euro etc, do we accept any future laws/changes/etc... that the EU make, or do we just remain exactly as it is now down to the very last detail forever more. Seems fair to me, gotta be clear afterall so as we'd know what we were voting for. |
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Oct 3, 2018 9:08:03 GMT
A thought. Suppose there was a second ref with the questions: Remain, leave with a (Chequers?) deal, leave with no deal. The leave vote is split and Remain wins (that's what Remain want after all) The EU quite rightly say that having triggered A50 the UK can't assume the status that we had before. New terms of membership will have to be negotiated. Those terms of membership should surely then be put to a peoples vote to decide if acceptable, if not what then? Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. " 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave." That's what DID happen isn't it? ".... unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means." I think most of us DID understand what 'leave' meant and means. There was a lot of discussion and debate about it at the time. It was only 'not understood' by those who, with hindsight, chose not to understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Oct 3, 2018 9:08:20 GMT
More proof that remoaners still can't distinguish between the EU and Europe. Therefore they didn't know what they were voting for. Jesus wept. 😌 Instead of rolling your eyes, why don't you explain why you think the European team winning the Ryder Cup is a victory for the European Union, and why the British players will be imposters at the Ryder Cup in two years time. It's not an unreasonable request. |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 9:32:05 GMT
Instead of rolling your eyes, why don't you explain why you think the European team winning the Ryder Cup is a victory for the European Union, and why the British players will be imposters at the Ryder Cup in two years time. It's not an unreasonable request. Do you honestly think I reckon the EU won the Ryder Cup? It's an allegory. Hidden meaning in an event. An analogy. A parallel symbolism of working together. A throw-away comment to signify the futility and personal sadness I feel that we are leaving the European Union. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Oct 3, 2018 11:09:16 GMT
A thought. Suppose there was a second ref with the questions: Remain, leave with a (Chequers?) deal, leave with no deal. The leave vote is split and Remain wins (that's what Remain want after all) The EU quite rightly say that having triggered A50 the UK can't assume the status that we had before. New terms of membership will have to be negotiated. Those terms of membership should surely then be put to a peoples vote to decide if acceptable, if not what then? Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. Apart from we've already done the leave/remain bit do you honestly think 35+ million electorate would have the capacity to vote on a deal to remain or leave? Even the 'clued up' on here can't agree on what's already been voted on and that was a simple in/out question. Referendum 12 Thursday 6th Feb 2020. Would you prefer to leave with a Canada plus plus over a Norway deal? Would you prefer to remain with a subjugated fiscal policy or exclude membership of the ECJ? Anyway you don't want another referendum as it's up to our elected representatives to fuck it up now, we've done our bit. We'll have 'Vote Hammond's remain deal or the hens will stop laying'. 'Vote Boris's leave deal or invading aliens will breech our open borders'. No thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 3, 2018 12:08:16 GMT
You go to the shops and buy food (which most of which is imports) is it not rising or is it not a issue for you because of your wealth? Why do economists say a weak £ is good for increasing exports because they become CHEAPER (definition cost the buyer less) might be a simplistic view but ask the vast majority in business if leaving is good or not? Thats a bit of a change from your previous statement "exports may have risen but in real terms we receive less in foreign currency due to poor exchange rates" because here is the thing we either sell in GBP or they sell at GBP converted at the exchange rate at time of sale otherwise the seller is taking on the foreign currency risk of the buyer so we get the same amount of gbp as we would regardless of brexit because funnily enough exchange rates go up and down all the time ! |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Oct 3, 2018 14:13:38 GMT
You go to the shops and buy food (which most of which is imports) is it not rising or is it not a issue for you because of your wealth? Why do economists say a weak £ is good for increasing exports because they become CHEAPER (definition cost the buyer less) might be a simplistic view but ask the vast majority in business if leaving is good or not? Thats a bit of a change from your previous statement "exports may have risen but in real terms we receive less in foreign currency due to poor exchange rates" because here is the thing we either sell in GBP or they sell at GBP converted at the exchange rate at time of sale otherwise the seller is taking on the foreign currency risk of the buyer so we get the same amount of gbp as we would regardless of brexit because funnily enough exchange rates go up and down all the time ! You have a different take on it to all the business people i have spoken with,the vast majority are in dire straits and fearful of a hard Brexit,a soft or Brexit or a reversal of the decision are their favoured outcomes,but you have your opinion i have mine  |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Oct 3, 2018 14:41:47 GMT
More proof that remoaners still can't distinguish between the EU and Europe. Therefore they didn't know what they were voting for. Jesus wept. 😌 Last time Jesus wept was when he read the liberal party’s stance on Europe |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 3, 2018 14:42:08 GMT
Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. Or, how about we have two questions as follows... 1. Leave or Remain. If Leave wins we leave, as in leave every aspect of the EU as a 'leave' vote would suggest. 2. Assuming Remain wins we vote again on what type of Remain it should be, IE should we just Remain in the customs union, should we Remain even stronger & join the Euro etc, do we accept any future laws/changes/etc... that the EU make, or do we just remain exactly as it is now down to the very last detail forever more. Seems fair to me, gotta be clear afterall so as we'd know what we were voting for. In hindsight, asking a second question (whether it was remain or leave that won two years ago) looks a decent idea now doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Oct 3, 2018 15:30:18 GMT
Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. " 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave." That's what DID happen isn't it? ".... unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means." I think most of us DID understand what 'leave' meant and means. There was a lot of discussion and debate about it at the time. It was only 'not understood' by those who, with hindsight, chose not to understand it. I beg to differ,a lot of people foolishly believed the £350 million slogan for the N.H.S., believed the statement we will get deal like Norway but with extra advantages,nobody mentioned the Irish border issue,nobody mentioned so many of the issues voting leave as created so most of you did NOT know exactly what it entailed. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 3, 2018 15:33:03 GMT
Because Blair and the labour party had a secret policy to flood the country with socialist labour voters on handouts dependant on them so they would get voted in for the long term. A secret policy which was happily adopted by every single subsequent administration doesn't sound very plausible, and doesn't fit well with Blair's brand of New Labour "socialism". Not really, he could have signed up for a quota on limitations as part of the agreement for Romania etc. joining but he didn't, and then once it had been signed and agreed there was no turning back, but this wasn't the secret one. Here is the secret one, the beans were spilled by one of his former aides: - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 3, 2018 15:38:56 GMT
Instead of rolling your eyes, why don't you explain why you think the European team winning the Ryder Cup is a victory for the European Union, and why the British players will be imposters at the Ryder Cup in two years time. It's not an unreasonable request. Do you honestly think I reckon the EU won the Ryder Cup? It's an allegory. Hidden meaning in an event. An analogy. A parallel symbolism of working together. A throw-away comment to signify the futility and personal sadness I feel that we are leaving the European Union. We only let European golfers join in with us in 1979, it was GB and then GB and Ireland until then  |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Oct 3, 2018 15:53:19 GMT
Well sometimes you have to go to a country to find work there, which is why under EU law, immigrants have up to three months after entry to prove that they had a job, or other income to support themselves, AND health insurance so that the NHS could claim back treatment costs - since 2004. I still haven't heard any explanation why the UK government didn't implement these laws.Because Blair and the labour party had a secret policy to flood the country with socialist labour voters on handouts dependant on them so they would get voted in for the long term. According to gov.uk you have to be British,Irish or qualifying commonwealth by birth to vote in U.K. elections so i can`t see that being correct? |
|
