Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Hasn't Barnier said today we'd be welcomed back? Verhofstad? When I get home I'll look up their quotes.
As for the terms, if they want us back it may be on exactly the same terms as before, however I think the Norway single market model is more likely.
They want us back, we were at the top of the league table of the limited list of members states of net positive contributors of funding to the EU, double the contribution of France and close or equal to Germany depending on an absolute or per capita calculation. Poland is the major net beneficiary of the EU budget largesse, the Polish net negative contribution matched the UK net positive contribution to the EU budget, basically, via the EU budget, the UK was funding the rebuilding of the economy of Poland
We were always at the top of the contributors, , even when UK the near-bankrupt poor man of Europe on joining the EEC in the 1970s. Within a coupe of years of joining the EEC, the UK balance of payments changed from neutral to near-permanent deficit, resulting in the the loss of half a million UK manufacturing jobs soon after joinig the EEC. I agree there would be "conditions" to a return, but potentially the EEC will fail, when Germany tires of funding the show.
In which case you made an almightily clumsy job of saying otherwise.
The fact is the English subjugated both the Welsh and the Irish, these two occurrences you mention in the context of EU membership, so what else did you mean?
The UK joined the EU (EEC at the time) voluntarily and then left voluntarily, so why try to make a link when now you are back tracking?
The EU isn't this beast you are trying to create, there are still plenty of countries who are still vying to attain EU membership. If the EU was the subjugator then surely there wouldn't be any countries in Europe not part of the EU?
"When the Council is not acting on a proposal by the Commission or the high representative, a decision is adopted if 72% of the participating Council members, representing at least 65% of the population of the participating member states, vote in favour."
"The 'standard' voting method in the Council:
Qualified majority is the most widely used voting method in the Council."
"It is used when the Council takes decisions during the ordinary legislative procedure, also known as co-decision. About 80% of all EU legislation is adopted with this procedure."
The areas requiring unanimity have been steadily reduced and will probably be ditched entirely in the fullness of time.
I am ideologically opposed to the UK's membership of the EU, regardless of the advantages or disadvantages. I believe it to be a pernicious organisation with a considerable "democratic deficit". Certainly not one that I'd like my country to be a member of or too closely associated with. That, in a nutshell, in my reason for voting to leave. But I think I'd better leave it there because this thread is supposed to be about opinions on how Brexit has turned out, not what happened before it (which has, I imagine, been done to death).
Whatever you think of the way that decisions are made in the E.U. system of government, it still makes our parliamentary system look like a dinosaur (no disrespect to any actual dinosaurs intended).
Compared to our system, where when once elected, a majority government can do more or less what it likes for five years with no way for any opposition parties to stop them. And then there is the House of Lords…
IMHO, our parliamentary system is far from being a fair democratic system. It may have been one of the first ‘democratic’ systems, but it compares very badly against the other improved systems used elsewhere. By improved, I mean the democratic system, not necessarily the actual government formed by the politicians.
That’s one of the things that I find really annoying, that some people in favour of brexit say that it returns control to the people. It does no such thing. It only gives more control to the government currently in power. And IMHO our central government already had far too much power before brexit.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They want us back, we were at the top of the league table of the limited list of members states of net positive contributors of funding to the EU, double the contribution of France and close or equal to Germany depending on an absolute or per capita calculation. Poland is the major net beneficiary of the EU budget largesse, the Polish net negative contribution matched the UK net positive contribution to the EU budget, basically, via the EU budget, the UK was funding the rebuilding of the economy of Poland
We were always at the top of the contributors, , even when UK the near-bankrupt poor man of Europe on joining the EEC in the 1970s. Within a coupe of years of joining the EEC, the UK balance of payments changed from neutral to near-permanent deficit, resulting in the the loss of half a million UK manufacturing jobs soon after joinig the EEC. I agree there would be "conditions" to a return, but potentially the EEC will fail, when Germany tires of funding the show.
Can I point out that a sovereign country cannot go bankrupt. Hence the U.K. could not have been ‘near-bankrupt’. When a country runs out of foreign money reserves, and cannot pay debt payments that are due, it’s called default. More in this article. I won’t quote all of it, as it’s rather long and most of it is off-topic. But here’s the main points:
Perhaps we ought to understand that when a country fails to repay its debt, it does not declare bankruptcy, instead it defaults on loans. And one should remember that the "defaulter is the government, not the country"
When people or institutions go bankrupt, lenders acquire their assets. However, a country's assets cannot be purchased nor can foreign lenders be forced to pay the money owed to the government.
A point to keep in mind here is that if the defaulting country's government assets are located outside of the country, it is a different story.
Also, the U.K. is currently the fifth or sixth wealthiest country in the world (depending on how you rank countries and their wealth), so why wouldn’t we contribute a fair share to the E.U. budget? Do you think that all countries should pay the same amount to the E.U. budget? Do you apply this principle elsewhere? In which case do you think that a cleaner should pay the same tax as a multibillionaire?
Can you provide some examples of this? I'm particularly interested in those that have provided a positive outcome for UK citizens that would not have been seen had we remained in the EU.
Things that have been done, I have no interest in what-ifs. Brexit was sold as easy way to "make Britain Great again", and actions speak louder than words so some examples of actual achievements would be interesting.
Can I point out that a sovereign country cannot go bankrupt. Hence the U.K. could not have been ‘near-bankrupt’. When a country runs out of foreign money reserves, and cannot pay debt payments that are due, it’s called default. More in this article. I won’t quote all of it, as it’s rather long and most of it is off-topic. But here’s the main points:
Also, the U.K. is currently the fifth or sixth wealthiest country in the world (depending on how you rank countries and their wealth), so why wouldn’t we contribute a fair share to the E.U. budget? Do you think that all countries should pay the same amount to the E.U. budget? Do you apply this principle elsewhere? In which case do you think that a cleaner should pay the same tax as a multibillionaire?
Those east european countries have low levels of debt by govt borrowing, in contrast to countries such as the UK with high levels of debt, countries such as Poland should therefore be borrowing on the international market for the funds for reconstruction
And who’s fault is it that the U.K. has a high level of debt? That’s a choice made by people electing successive governments, most of which lie and say that they have no plans to raise taxes, or worse, claim that they can cut taxes. The result is that they borrow. And the Conservatives (from what I can see) are worst than any of the other parties. Just look at what the Conservative government under Liz Truss tried to do…
Those east european countries have low levels of debt by govt borrowing, in contrast to countries such as the UK with high levels of debt, countries such as Poland should therefore be borrowing on the international market for the funds for reconstruction
Whatever you think of the way that decisions are made in the E.U. system of government, it still makes our parliamentary system look like a dinosaur (no disrespect to any actual dinosaurs intended).
Compared to our system, where when once elected, a majority government can do more or less what it likes for five years with no way for any opposition parties to stop them. And then there is the House of Lords…
IMHO, our parliamentary system is far from being a fair democratic system. It may have been one of the first ‘democratic’ systems, but it compares very badly against the other improved systems used elsewhere. By improved, I mean the democratic system, not necessarily the actual government formed by the politicians.
That’s one of the things that I find really annoying, that some people in favour of brexit say that it returns control to the people. It does no such thing. It only gives more control to the government currently in power. And IMHO our central government already had far too much power before brexit.
Only too true! We suffer very much from having been amongst the first in the field, our two C16 revolutions didn't really deliver much, and "of the people by the people for the people" we certainly haven't got.
Whatever you think of the way that decisions are made in the E.U. system of government, it still makes our parliamentary system look like a dinosaur (no disrespect to any actual dinosaurs intended).
Compared to our system, where when once elected, a majority government can do more or less what it likes for five years with no way for any opposition parties to stop them. And then there is the House of Lords…
IMHO, our parliamentary system is far from being a fair democratic system. It may have been one of the first ‘democratic’ systems, but it compares very badly against the other improved systems used elsewhere. By improved, I mean the democratic system, not necessarily the actual government formed by the politicians.
For my enlightenment and education, please describe or provide examples of superior non-dinosaur democracies, which satisfy your criteria for enhanced democratic representation in the interests of the electorate.
Please account for the democratic deficit of the EU , the deficit being the lack of turnout in elections.
Are you aware of the Santer Commission and the lack of authority of the Eu Parliament to tackle the corruption of the Santer Commission?
Things that have been done, I have no interest in what-ifs. Brexit was sold as easy way to "make Britain Great again", and actions speak louder than words so some examples of actual achievements would be interesting.
The Tories have been the government who presided over the referendum, implemented our leaving the EU, and are now responsible for delivering benefits. Yet now you are suggesting we should have to wait until at least 2025 or even beyond to even begin to see any change for the better. That was not what the leave campaign promised the country. But thank you for proving a point.
For my enlightenment and education, please describe or provide examples of superior non-dinosaur democracies, which satisfy your criteria for enhanced democratic representation in the interests of the electorate.
Please account for the democratic deficit of the EU , the deficit being the lack of turnout in elections.
Are you aware of the Santer Commission and the lack of authority of the Eu Parliament to tackle the corruption of the Santer Commission?
I was told the ability to do something did not count. As I am not a Tory, obviously I will not think that the Tories have made good use of these new abilities, in the rare cases they have actually done so.
The Tories have been the government who presided over the referendum, implemented our leaving the EU, and are now responsible for delivering benefits. Yet now you are suggesting we should have to wait until at least 2025 or even beyond to even begin to see any change for the better. That was not what the leave campaign promised the country. But thank you for proving a point.
To my mind, it was always blindingly obvious that Brexit was a long term thing. People were voting 'yes' or 'no' to a massive change in the UK's status, the way it is governed, and our trade etc. relationships. That's not a change that you expect to happen and adjust to overnight: It's a long term thing that is inevitably going to take years to iron out the changes, in order to (hopefully) secure benefits over the next few decades. Whether you are a Remainer or a Brexiter, it's utterly naive to demand to see all the fruits of Brexit within a year or two of it happening. At this stage we're only just about dealing with the transition from in-the-EU to out-of-the-EU. So I don't see any issues at all with suggesting we should wait a few more years to see what happens before judging the success or otherwise of Brexit. (Although equally, there's nothing wrong with looking at what's happened so far as early indicators and trying to draw what lessons you can from them).
Things didn't turn out as we were told because we were told them by politicians. The electorate should work on the assumption that all politicians tell lies, especially when they want you to vote. I've adopted this strategy for many years and never base my votes on what politicians promise me. You may occasionally come unstuck as from time to time they are caught telling the truth, but overall you'll be on fairly solid ground. Anybody who based their vote in the referendum on what they were told by politicians has only themselves to blame.
NHS budget 2017-17: £142bn
NHS budget 2022-23: £180bn (it was necessarily far greater in the two years of the pandemic but I'll ignore that).
An increase of £38bn, or around £730m a week.
Not really an example of politicians telling the truth as I understand we are still shelling out vast sums to the EU, so the extra funds must be coming from somewhere else.
To my mind, it was always blindingly obvious that Brexit was a long term thing. People were voting 'yes' or 'no' to a massive change in the UK's status, the way it is governed, and our trade etc. relationships. That's not a change that you expect to happen and adjust to overnight: It's a long term thing that is inevitably going to take years to iron out the changes, in order to (hopefully) secure benefits over the next few decades. Whether you are a Remainer or a Brexiter, it's utterly naive to demand to see all the fruits of Brexit within a year or two of it happening. At this stage we're only just about dealing with the transition from in-the-EU to out-of-the-EU. So I don't see any issues at all with suggesting we should wait a few more years to see what happens before judging the success or otherwise of Brexit. (Although equally, there's nothing wrong with looking at what's happened so far as early indicators and trying to draw what lessons you can from them).
And I wouldn't disagree that it is a long term thing. But my point is that it wasn't sold to the public as such. Instead it was presented as a magic button that we could just press and "make Britain great again". Leave the EU and we would stop most immigration, we would have country after country lining up to sign golden trade deals, and the money we would save would go straight to the NHS to turn it around. That is what many people bought into. Maybe if the debate hadn't been so petty and puerile, these things would have been more publicly debated and allowed a more informed decision and expectation.
The Tories have been the government who presided over the referendum, implemented our leaving the EU, and are now responsible for delivering benefits. Yet now you are suggesting we should have to wait until at least 2025 or even beyond to even begin to see any change for the better. That was not what the leave campaign promised the country. But thank you for proving a point.
The very same, they also talked about Brexit being "easy". Just vote Leave and let the good times roll they said. They didn't...
There is a dark corner of my mind that sometimes wonders if the covid restriction u-turn was partly driven by someone whispering into BoJo's ear that lockdown might be a good place to hide Brexit bad news. I mean I'm not saying this is definitely the case mind, but I'm certainly thinking it loudly...
The very same, they also talked about Brexit being "easy". Just vote Leave and let the good times roll they said. They didn't...
There is a dark corner of my mind that sometimes wonders if the covid restriction u-turn was partly driven by someone whispering into BoJo's ear that lockdown might be a good place to hide Brexit bad news. I mean I'm not saying this is definitely the case mind, but I'm certainly thinking it loudly...
COVID and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine have both hidden the full effects of Brexit. Of course those two things caused a lot of issues on their own globally, but Brexit has exacerbated things. We only need to look at 2023 growth forecasts for G7 economies, where the UK is the only one forecast to shrink.
It's perhaps ironic that Jacob Rees-Mogg was the person who actually said it could take 50 years to see the benefits. Of course, his business ventures likely saw benefits within about 50 seconds, along with other disaster capitalists.
COVID and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine have both hidden the full effects of Brexit. Of course those two things caused a lot of issues on their own globally, but Brexit has exacerbated things. We only need to look at 2023 growth forecasts for G7 economies, where the UK is the only one forecast to shrink.
It's perhaps ironic that Jacob Rees-Mogg was the person who actually said it could take 50 years to see the benefits. Of course, his business ventures likely saw benefits within about 50 seconds, along with other disaster capitalists.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
