jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
Now stop this Olaf it's twice now I've had to agree with you lol
So . . . .
- Thread starter Woodsmoke
- Start date
- Status
So let me please get this right:If leaving was so simple, (and to me it is) why are we still in ?
Personally I think we are still in because the sore losers are still in charge, but they tell us we can't just pick our ball up and go home.
Leaving the EU the day after the vote was as easy as saying, we reject all EU imposed laws, we are now in control of our borders, all failed asylum seekers, and all non working immigrants will be evicted as of now. Holiday makers and people travelling here on business will carry comprehensive heath cover. Most importantly you, the EU have already received our final payment.
But that didn't happen, because the re-mainers decided to **** it all up for everyone for all time
So much for democracy.
Neil.
You object to circa 48% of the population seeking to minimise what they see as the unnecessary negatives within our exit from the EU because it doesn't concur with your preffred approach?
Let's imagine there was a referendum to ban the private ownership of firearms for all but the yet to be defined "professional" vermin controler, and the vote went in favour of such.
Would you go gently into that good night that is accepting the "will of the people" or would you rage against the dying of the light with a passion and guile you feel should be denied to so-called Brexit "remainers"?
And by raging I mean seek to limit or overturn the final detail of the legislation that determines who will or will not retain their 22 Hornet.
K
I would prolly go public with what I have been doing for nigh on 51 years mesen ... thereby retain firearms ownership.
No, Steve, & I would prolly need a lot of employee's too!
deeangeo
Well-Known Member
Clearly Olaf you and others have an extremely negative view of what our country can achieve.
I believe this is a great country in spite of our politicians, not because of them. I certainly don't believe another layer of politicians in the EU lining their pockets is beneficial to the UK.
As for relying on other powers (Brussels/EU), they would bankrupt this country rather than see us thrive beyond necessary contributions to their mis-begotten organisation.
You do not understand me. I’m taking about holding power and influence in the world, not loosing it. I do believe in the ability of my country, I’m a British Patriot, that’s why I don’t want to see Britain get dragged through the dirt just for the benefit of a few Billionaires.
If the UK had secured some trading agreements with other countries over the past couple of years then I’d be most happy to try a different approach. Bottom line is we haven’t. We used to be a great shipping and trading country. The problem at the moment- and I mean at the moment- is that we can’t even hire a UK shipping company that owns its own ships ..... neither do we have the production capacity that is needed to stand on our own island and trade independently, assuming that we had any trading agreements with at least someone.
The way the EU functions is about to get a shake up in the EU next election , the UK should have bums on seats at that time. We can leave without any deal at any time and not pay a single penny if we like , and I think that is far preferable to Theresa’s absolutely horrifically c rap deal. We need a new government here too and we can do something about that in the next general election too. We can vote in our new government and we can also vote in some decent MEPs if we stay for now.
Now is so not the time to leave the EU and I hope that we get a final say in it.
Kindest regards, Olaf
jimmy milnes
Well-Known Member
Do you not think that any imminent shake up of the EU is because of Great Britain leaving and them realising the ivory tower isn't as solid as they thought ?
Had we stayed in nothing would change for the better, so you could say ''tongue in cheek'' that's something else the remaining countries need to thank Great Britain for if it does get the shake up it needs.
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
All I can say to support Olaf is the last time we had a trade war with the USA was about cheap steel. Bush. The man we went into Iraq with as Allies. And the French didn't. Huh! Didn't do us any good though when it came to Bush imposing tariffs on UK and EU steel. No "special relationship" for the UK then!
Both times the UK as part of the EU won. For as a bloc we, the EU, placed tariffs on US goods in politically sensitive States and the US backed down WITHIN THREE WEEKS and removed its tariffs on imported British (and EU) steel. Outside of the EU we'd have very little hope of a positive outcome and anyone that thinks that the UK has any sort of "special relationship" with the USA vis-a-vis trade is living in cuckoo land.
Be very, very, very clear this "special relationship" with the USA has always been a One Way Street. Suez? Skybolt? Lend-Lease Payments?
That's OK...surely we can rely on the WTO?
You're having a laugh! Read this (from Wikipedia) anyone that thinks WTO Rules cut any ice with the USA when it comes to fair play:
"2002 US Steel Tariff:
On March 5, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush placed tariffs on imported steel. The tariffs took effect March 20 and were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. Research shows that the tariffs adversely affected US GDP and employment.
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.
On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.
After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs. In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4 2003."
Both times the UK as part of the EU won. For as a bloc we, the EU, placed tariffs on US goods in politically sensitive States and the US backed down WITHIN THREE WEEKS and removed its tariffs on imported British (and EU) steel. Outside of the EU we'd have very little hope of a positive outcome and anyone that thinks that the UK has any sort of "special relationship" with the USA vis-a-vis trade is living in cuckoo land.
Be very, very, very clear this "special relationship" with the USA has always been a One Way Street. Suez? Skybolt? Lend-Lease Payments?
That's OK...surely we can rely on the WTO?
You're having a laugh! Read this (from Wikipedia) anyone that thinks WTO Rules cut any ice with the USA when it comes to fair play:
"2002 US Steel Tariff:
On March 5, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush placed tariffs on imported steel. The tariffs took effect March 20 and were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. Research shows that the tariffs adversely affected US GDP and employment.
The tariffs ignited international controversy as well. Immediately after they were filed, the European Union announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States, thus risking the start of a major trade war. To decide whether or not the steel tariffs were fair, a case was filed at the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil and others joined with similar cases.
On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments. The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.
After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs. In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4 2003."
Last edited:
I think the EU is fundamentally flawed in both philosophy and construction.
It comprises countries and cultures have hated each other over the last 1000 years
I have no idea how the USA managed to unite 50 states under one political umbrella but the EU ain't gonna replicate it
The founders of the USA understood government and (like the UK) ensured that there were institutions set up in opposition to each other so that no one entity could have total control
The EU is based around centralised control
This is NOT something we should be part of
enfieldspares
Well-Known Member
Of course the strength of the USA is that no State can ever secede from the Union. There's no Article 50 in the US Constitution. The EU actually, I'm sure others will know, have a mechanism for individual Member Nations to carry out blocking measures and the ECJ like the US Supreme Court then interprets those measures.
Blair chose NOT to do this...he could have done...with immigration rights from the new Eastern European accession states in respect of them having immediate Free Movement Rights. So, again, folks are blaming the EU for the failure of the UK to act in protection of the UK's interests.
A shooting analogy. Don't blame the loader if you can't hit the pheasants. All he does is hand you the loaded gun. To enable you to use it. If you can't manage to hit the pheasants with what he's given you and they then all stream past it's your fault not his!
And, like the US Supreme Court, then binds the 50 States to that legal ruling even though that ruling may strike down that individual State's enacted law....see the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia....as contrary to the Constitution. Just as the ECJ will strike down enacted national Member Nation laws if they are contrary to the EU "Four Freedoms" that we all signed up for in 1973 just like all the US States signed up to their constitution in 1776.
Blair chose NOT to do this...he could have done...with immigration rights from the new Eastern European accession states in respect of them having immediate Free Movement Rights. So, again, folks are blaming the EU for the failure of the UK to act in protection of the UK's interests.
A shooting analogy. Don't blame the loader if you can't hit the pheasants. All he does is hand you the loaded gun. To enable you to use it. If you can't manage to hit the pheasants with what he's given you and they then all stream past it's your fault not his!
And, like the US Supreme Court, then binds the 50 States to that legal ruling even though that ruling may strike down that individual State's enacted law....see the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia....as contrary to the Constitution. Just as the ECJ will strike down enacted national Member Nation laws if they are contrary to the EU "Four Freedoms" that we all signed up for in 1973 just like all the US States signed up to their constitution in 1776.
Last edited:
And yet we have a an EU commission that lies its way into power and a superstate
Meanwhile we have a human rights court that the UK does not need but allow its enemies to exploit it
We have a set of protectionist rules that suit individual country's particular weaknesses to the detriment of others
Besides all this
Humans work well as individuals, family groups, tribes and (in extremis) countries - the individual doesn't do well in collective organisations where some political belief is imposed over natural behavior
Meanwhile we have a human rights court that the UK does not need but allow its enemies to exploit it
We have a set of protectionist rules that suit individual country's particular weaknesses to the detriment of others
Besides all this
Humans work well as individuals, family groups, tribes and (in extremis) countries - the individual doesn't do well in collective organisations where some political belief is imposed over natural behavior
tackb
Well-Known Member
we took on those lend lease payments to free Europe from Nazi oppression and we've only just paid them back recently , as well as paying to be a member of a club that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us our commonwealth and the Americans...…...
I don’t need to say it tongue in cheek, I can say it quite honestly. I don’t think that the shake up in the EU is solely due to this here Brexit fiasco, but I think that it is and has been and always will be a contributing factor. If we were to scrap article 50 and stay, we would have a very enhanced position of respect with many of the other countries in the EU who share pro EU views but are not happy with how it’s currently run.
You can’t steer a vehicle if your not even sat in the car !
Kindest regards, Olaf
tackb
Well-Known Member
frankly , no !
if we cancelled it all the other eu states will see us as bottling it as we have achieved bugger all , I could agree with you if we had got concessions from the eu but if we cancel they have basically beaten us and brought us to heel and the future would be very grim indeed with no progress except to reinforce the eu's stance that bullying works.
Roro
Well-Known Member
Yes but the four freedoms were no problem back in 73 though, as they are now. Free movement and mass immigration/asylum are causing major problems now, in nearly every country in the eu.
african jack
Well-Known Member
The UK could not do any trade deals against EU rules
That has got to be worthy of the one-liner(even if a little long) joke award at the Edinburgh Festival.
If we were to scrap article 50 and stay, we would have a very enhanced position of respect with many of the other countries 
. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=KjWYHeg8_5I&usg=AOvVaw3aQ1bLEbS4Us4gPuKdv43n
. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=KjWYHeg8_5I&usg=AOvVaw3aQ1bLEbS4Us4gPuKdv43nAbsolutely not the case. The UKs got a very strong position in Europe as a member.
It’s one of the few members that have a very tailored membership as it stands. It was crafted over a very long period of time by some extremely excellent UK lawmakers so as to give us a very beneficial position , a position protected by law. The ECU ruling that the UK can cancel article 50 WITHOUT the EU members approval has given us a very powerful hand if we were to cancel the present mechanism.
Kindest regards, Olaf
- Status
Similar threads
