FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > People want to reverse brexit and rejoin eu.
People want to reverse brexit and rejoin eu.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"We are edging closer to the EU and rejoining the customs union. I predict that labour will stay on that path whilst measuring the temperature of the nation as it goes. If they get a warm response over the next 18 months - 2 years, it will become a _anifesto pledge that they will hope pulls voters in. It would be in my opinion the only way they could get a 2nd term, if there is enough support for it. Saying all that, the move would not be a done a deal and not be full membership of the EU, but enough of a draw to mop up some votes. " Any re entry will surely come with negotiations over number of asylum uk will have to take. | |||
| |||
"We are edging closer to the EU and rejoining the customs union. I predict that labour will stay on that path whilst measuring the temperature of the nation as it goes. If they get a warm response over the next 18 months - 2 years, it will become a _anifesto pledge that they will hope pulls voters in. It would be in my opinion the only way they could get a 2nd term, if there is enough support for it. Saying all that, the move would not be a done a deal and not be full membership of the EU, but enough of a draw to mop up some votes. Any re entry will surely come with negotiations over number of asylum uk will have to take. " The devil will be in the detail if we go down this route. Joining the customs union wouldn't come will full membership it would be trade only. We are already moving towards this with greater alignment over standards and goods. I think this will be enough for those that are seeking to rejoin for now, full membership and freedom of movement would be another decade away I would imagine. The reason I think this is the labour plan is it is literally the only thing Labour have that can sway opinion their way for the next GE. They will place a line in the sand with Reform and tories over their ideas to leave ECHR, and as mentioned already making small steps in trade alignment. | |||
| |||
"The problem with this entire conversation is that it will become framed as remain v leaver. Pro EU v Anti EU. That’s not the question we should be asking. Clearly we need to be part of Europe. The question is what type of Europe do we want to be part of? I don’t think anyone can say that Europe is doing well. It has an aging population and has been unable to defend a relatively minor incursion of a neighbour on its eastern flank. Its economies are struggling and it could well suffer a large territorial loss to an “ally” on its Western edge. It lacks innovation. None of its universities (other than in the UK and Switzerland) credibly make the top 20 globally. It has missed out completely on the next generation technologies. What do we want to be part of?" The language is important, we are part of Europe, we are not part of the EU. In my opinion I think there are 2 basic requirements from the public. First would be free movement and the second from a smaller subset, joining the customs union. On the surface both seem simple, but both bring enormous change and a requirement to be full members of the EU and all that comes with it. Freedom of movement will not on the table without being a full member of the EU. | |||
"The problem with this entire conversation is that it will become framed as remain v leaver. Pro EU v Anti EU. That’s not the question we should be asking. Clearly we need to be part of Europe. The question is what type of Europe do we want to be part of? I don’t think anyone can say that Europe is doing well. It has an aging population and has been unable to defend a relatively minor incursion of a neighbour on its eastern flank. Its economies are struggling and it could well suffer a large territorial loss to an “ally” on its Western edge. It lacks innovation. None of its universities (other than in the UK and Switzerland) credibly make the top 20 globally. It has missed out completely on the next generation technologies. What do we want to be part of? The language is important, we are part of Europe, we are not part of the EU. In my opinion I think there are 2 basic requirements from the public. First would be free movement and the second from a smaller subset, joining the customs union. On the surface both seem simple, but both bring enormous change and a requirement to be full members of the EU and all that comes with it. Freedom of movement will not on the table without being a full member of the EU. " Freedom of movement doesn’t have to require EU membership, but the EU won’t give it if we’re not EU members it seems. I get the whole “if you want club benefits then you have to join the club” mentality. But the only reason to have the club is so you can have club officials deciding stuff. And those officials are getting paid ridiculously high salaries so will cling to that job role like a life raft. The problem with the club is a member might have a slightly different desire on one topic, but they either go along with everyone else or nobody gets what they want. What’s wrong with individual nations deciding what’s in their own best interests? Do you think Luxembourg really care about fishing rights in the North Sea? Yet they have a say on it. | |||
| |||
"Its too early to rejoin and I was opposed to leaving, stand by my opinion it was a fuck up how its gone etc.. Said 10 years ago in the endless threads on here that if we did leave it would be a bodge job and gradually over time some of the parts of the deal, the oven ready one as it was later called would be amended slowly.. We put ourselves outside the tent without the ability to influence something which had and has faults but we can't use our decades of input and experience now in trying to shape it.. So no, not yet if we ever do in my lifetime.." As an EU citizen, I would personally be against allowing The UK to join; the asks are too much for The UK system to handle, & The EU shouldn't allow a lukewarm country to join. Plus; UK joining means The EU loses it's own Brexit benefits (Note: there will be no rejoin; UK had the best deal in The EU, & those deals are no longer available if The UK applies. Euro, Schengen, MSs own asks, no rebate, etc., all are on the table) | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's not been given a chance to work because NONE of our w@nker politicians - absolutely none of them - have been willing to carry out the instruction they were given ten years ago. Personally, I don't feel that you can't take two dozen plus countries, with different needs, different outlooks, different economic systems, shove them into a one-size-fits-all unit and expect it to work. I'll give you a comparison by exaggeration. Africa is a continent of fifty plus nations. Some are strong industrial nations. Some are democracies. Some are dictatorships. Some are so poor they haven't got a pot to piss in. Some are so underdeveloped that they're still flinging their own shit at one another. So.....let's say there's an announcement from Africa tomorrow. "Doesn't matter what you produce, what state your economy is in, we're now running it all from the centre and we have one currency". We'd look at them and question their sanity. In my opinion, it's the same with Europe. Some years ago I managed to pick up a set of the leaflets given out for the 1975 Referendum, and we're no closer to sorting out some of the problems we faced half a century ago. I voted "out" in 2016 and would do so every day of the week. But I guess that just makes me one of seventeen and a half million racists who isn't capable of thinking for myself." Which instruction hasn't been carried out? | |||
| |||
| |||
"The problem with this entire conversation is that it will become framed as remain v leaver. Pro EU v Anti EU. That’s not the question we should be asking. Clearly we need to be part of Europe. The question is what type of Europe do we want to be part of? I don’t think anyone can say that Europe is doing well. It has an aging population and has been unable to defend a relatively minor incursion of a neighbour on its eastern flank. Its economies are struggling and it could well suffer a large territorial loss to an “ally” on its Western edge. It lacks innovation. None of its universities (other than in the UK and Switzerland) credibly make the top 20 globally. It has missed out completely on the next generation technologies. What do we want to be part of? The language is important, we are part of Europe, we are not part of the EU. In my opinion I think there are 2 basic requirements from the public. First would be free movement and the second from a smaller subset, joining the customs union. On the surface both seem simple, but both bring enormous change and a requirement to be full members of the EU and all that comes with it. Freedom of movement will not on the table without being a full member of the EU. " Recently Starmer has been more interested in the single market as opposed to the customs union though he is still saying that the UK will not join either (which was also in their _anifesto). Single market comes with freedom of movement as I understand it. One of the reasons given was that joining the customs union would not be compatible with trade deals already done, some of which he celebrated. Rejoining the whole EU could well be what they propose in the next GE as you mention. Presumably any referendum would have to be run under the same rules or would they insist on a minimum majority percentage? | |||
"Are you also following the latest survey and question about it if the people are happy with brexit after tthe eu referendum 9 years ago? Did you also know that on the 23rd june it marks 9 years since the uk voted to leave the european union as well. Anyway, the result of the survey shows that 56% think it was wrong for britain to vote to leave the eu and only 31% still thinks it was the right thing, the survey also shows that brexit was more of a failure than a success, which is understandable, if you look at the promises made during the campaign of it. What is our view of it and do you agree with the result of the survey, it was done by yougov. I agree with it, but of course, if they would rejoin. I dont think they would get the same kind of benefits as they had before or could they? "the people who wanted to stay in and kiss the french and german backside will always try to get britain back into we were 3rd class in the eyes of the french and germans and everything we proposed were shot down the whole thing was only to put money into french and german hands and to sell their goods,,, | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"As a point some parts of the uk didnt vote for brexit, shpuld this mean they have a right to a referendum to rejoin? I can understand the arguments for and against rejoining but we forget one important detail, the EU is now organised with no UK involvement, and politically and economically it is probably not in their best interests to have the UK back in. As stated we had the best deal in the EU, and would never be given a similar offer, we are an independent country, but sadly we have very little to offer and no influence" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise. | |||
" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise." People forget that Cameron tried getting better terms & all he got back was the middle finger | |||
" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise. People forget that Cameron tried getting better terms & all he got back was the middle finger" Why should The UK have better terms than other MSs in The EU? Reading this forum shows that The UK isn't ready & shouldn't be allowed to join The EU again... | |||
"The problem with this entire conversation is that it will become framed as remain v leaver. Pro EU v Anti EU. That’s not the question we should be asking. Clearly we need to be part of Europe. The question is what type of Europe do we want to be part of? I don’t think anyone can say that Europe is doing well. It has an aging population and has been unable to defend a relatively minor incursion of a neighbour on its eastern flank. Its economies are struggling and it could well suffer a large territorial loss to an “ally” on its Western edge. It lacks innovation. None of its universities (other than in the UK and Switzerland) credibly make the top 20 globally. It has missed out completely on the next generation technologies. What do we want to be part of?" An excellent analysis. Europe and the EU are not the same thing. I'm a huge fan of Europe but essentially unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave is not for me. It's always presented as 20-odd countries in harmony, which is far from the truth. Economically, it's at best moribund and essentially consists of the formerly powerful Germany, now in real trouble because of Chinese inroads in vehicles, and France, which is riven with infighting and rapidly headed outside EU rules on GDP/debt ratios. We have absorbed 11 million people since 1991 and the effect on the country has been significant. It's impossible to do so and retain all the best bits - the NHS is for instance heavily oversubscribed. Now on top we have the farce over 'asylum seekers' - we all know that's a vastly overused phrase. To top it all, the UK has effectively transferred much of its heavy industry to China, surrendered its car industry to Milliband's fanaticism, and must trade elsewhere. Statistics actually show we've done far better in some areas than might have been expected, but tying ourselves to the EU won't help. What people really hanker for is convenience - travel, trade etc. - which might have been achieved if so many of our feckless politicians hadn't tried to sabotage Brexit from day one. I've NEVER forgiven Cameron for his cowardice in resigning - despicable behaviour which stabbed us all in the back. | |||
"The problem with this entire conversation is that it will become framed as remain v leaver. Pro EU v Anti EU. That’s not the question we should be asking. Clearly we need to be part of Europe. The question is what type of Europe do we want to be part of? I don’t think anyone can say that Europe is doing well. It has an aging population and has been unable to defend a relatively minor incursion of a neighbour on its eastern flank. Its economies are struggling and it could well suffer a large territorial loss to an “ally” on its Western edge. It lacks innovation. None of its universities (other than in the UK and Switzerland) credibly make the top 20 globally. It has missed out completely on the next generation technologies. What do we want to be part of?" This! Sure joining the EU gives us freedom of movement and free trade which are definitely positives. But it also comes with regulations that have consistently hurt the economy of EU members and having to succumb to the EU bureaucrats' will to interfere with social issues within every country. Free trade and free movement are good ideas. But the EU the way it works today isn't. | |||
| |||
"What people really hanker for is convenience - travel, trade etc. - which might have been achieved if so many of our feckless politicians hadn't tried to sabotage Brexit from day one. I've NEVER forgiven Cameron for his cowardice in resigning - despicable behaviour which stabbed us all in the back." Absolutely spot on (& hence my observation that none of our politicians have truly been interested in carrying out the instruction given ten years ago Cameron being the biggest culprit). Harold Wilson was very clever in 1975. He made his point then stepped back and let everyone else do the arguing. I felt ten years ago that Cameron was "too pro". He COULD have ended up as one of the great PMs (the Coalition was reasonably effective & competent) but he gambled too heavily and lost, his bottle went and he threw his toys out of the pram. What he should have done (or certainly what I would have done) was turn the cash tap off on the Monday morning and said "right, this is how our people have voted, we need to get this sorted". That would have snapped everyone to attention instantly. And don't even get me started on May. She couldn't find her own arse with both hands. | |||
| |||
"insofar as I understand if ya want in you have to adopt the euro. Many will disagree on "sovereignty" or some bizarre point but common currency across the euro zone is a good thing in my opinion because changing money to travel is a pain in the balls and for work it's another layer of headaches. " "Sovereignty" isn't some bizarre point when it comes to having power to control the value of a country's currency. There are numerous cards available, allowing you to spend money in different currencies with much less charge these days. | |||
"I've NEVER forgiven Cameron for his cowardice in resigning - despicable behaviour which stabbed us all in the back." I don't understand why so many people feel this way. Cameron was very much pro-Europe during the campaign, and the vote went against him. This is exactly the sort of circumstance where we expect a leader with morals to admit defeat and step aside so that the people can get the leadership they voted for. I don't think anyone would call Cameron a strong or charismatic leader. What do you think he could have achieved if he had stayed on? | |||
" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise. People forget that Cameron tried getting better terms & all he got back was the middle finger Why should The UK have better terms than other MSs in The EU? Reading this forum shows that The UK isn't ready & shouldn't be allowed to join The EU again..." Why should it have worse? | |||
"The problem with this entire conversation is that it will become framed as remain v leaver. Pro EU v Anti EU. That’s not the question we should be asking. Clearly we need to be part of Europe. The question is what type of Europe do we want to be part of? I don’t think anyone can say that Europe is doing well. It has an aging population and has been unable to defend a relatively minor incursion of a neighbour on its eastern flank. Its economies are struggling and it could well suffer a large territorial loss to an “ally” on its Western edge. It lacks innovation. None of its universities (other than in the UK and Switzerland) credibly make the top 20 globally. It has missed out completely on the next generation technologies. What do we want to be part of? This! Sure joining the EU gives us freedom of movement and free trade which are definitely positives. But it also comes with regulations that have consistently hurt the economy of EU members and having to succumb to the EU bureaucrats' will to interfere with social issues within every country. Free trade and free movement are good ideas. But the EU the way it works today isn't." We import more then we export so even a free trade deal would benefit the EU more then us. If free trade covered services as well as goods, then it would be much more appealing for the UK... | |||
"insofar as I understand if ya want in you have to adopt the euro. Many will disagree on "sovereignty" or some bizarre point but common currency across the euro zone is a good thing in my opinion because changing money to travel is a pain in the balls and for work it's another layer of headaches. " It's not particularly a good thing at all.. you should look into it more rarther then thinking how it makes your life easier. Large exporters like Germany massively benefited from the euro being weaker then the doychmark. Other countries that hit troubled times if they had there own currency it would devalue making them more competitive but instead countries like Greece where stuck with a relatively strong currency | |||
" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise. People forget that Cameron tried getting better terms & all he got back was the middle finger Why should The UK have better terms than other MSs in The EU? Reading this forum shows that The UK isn't ready & shouldn't be allowed to join The EU again... Why should it have worse?" The UK have numerous opt outs that other MS didn't have; for example, not having to sign up to the Euro, not being part of Schengen, opening immigration from Eastern MSs in 2004, when other states had pauses, also the rebate as mentioned. Also the UK pushed for, implemented the creation of The Single Market. So even with opt outs, & pushing policies that The UK wanted, The UK still wasn't happy | |||
With the USA under Trump more clearly not as aligned with us as the EU and other insights into how leaving has damaged our economy and personal wellbeing of the masses, it's good that people are not stubbornly refusing to stick with the wrong team. I wish it was easier for us to get closer | |||
" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise. People forget that Cameron tried getting better terms & all he got back was the middle finger Why should The UK have better terms than other MSs in The EU? Reading this forum shows that The UK isn't ready & shouldn't be allowed to join The EU again... Why should it have worse? The UK have numerous opt outs that other MS didn't have; for example, not having to sign up to the Euro, not being part of Schengen, opening immigration from Eastern MSs in 2004, when other states had pauses, also the rebate as mentioned. Also the UK pushed for, implemented the creation of The Single Market. So even with opt outs, & pushing policies that The UK wanted, The UK still wasn't happy " All those things don't mean the UK had a better deal though.. | |||
" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise. People forget that Cameron tried getting better terms & all he got back was the middle finger Why should The UK have better terms than other MSs in The EU? Reading this forum shows that The UK isn't ready & shouldn't be allowed to join The EU again... Why should it have worse? The UK have numerous opt outs that other MS didn't have; for example, not having to sign up to the Euro, not being part of Schengen, opening immigration from Eastern MSs in 2004, when other states had pauses, also the rebate as mentioned. Also the UK pushed for, implemented the creation of The Single Market. So even with opt outs, & pushing policies that The UK wanted, The UK still wasn't happy All those things don't mean the UK had a better deal though.." It's means that The UK asked to be treated special & so was treated special & was still upset about getting what they asked for | |||
"I don't know anyone who wants to be out of the EU today. Much of the confected anger and fear against Europe is still attempted by some, for their own gain
With the USA under Trump more clearly not as aligned with us as the EU and other insights into how leaving has damaged our economy and personal wellbeing of the masses, it's good that people are not stubbornly refusing to stick with the wrong team. I wish it was easier for us to get closer "I want to be in Europe. I don’t want to be in the EU. The two things are separate. We need to stop conflating them. It should be no surprise that there is a new axis forming in Europe around the “coalition of rhe willing”. Horrible name but what it really means is that the large economies have worked out that they need to work together and start to make decisions that are coherent. The EU is being by passed. It has become a bureaucratic quagmire and the larger countries are taking back power. They never handed foreign policy to the EU for this very reason. France and the UK are starting to work together. Slowly and painfully but the fear of Trump is starting to mean that the countries that have at least some meaningful military capability are starting to align. We need to align with the large economies in Europe but the EU is not the mechanism for that alignment. | |||
| |||
" We certainly didn't have the best deal in the EU. Things like the rebate where begrudgingly conceded by the EU because other countries like France, Germany and Italy massively benefited from EU subsidise. People forget that Cameron tried getting better terms & all he got back was the middle finger Why should The UK have better terms than other MSs in The EU? Reading this forum shows that The UK isn't ready & shouldn't be allowed to join The EU again... Why should it have worse? The UK have numerous opt outs that other MS didn't have; for example, not having to sign up to the Euro, not being part of Schengen, opening immigration from Eastern MSs in 2004, when other states had pauses, also the rebate as mentioned. Also the UK pushed for, implemented the creation of The Single Market. So even with opt outs, & pushing policies that The UK wanted, The UK still wasn't happy All those things don't mean the UK had a better deal though.. It's means that The UK asked to be treated special & so was treated special & was still upset about getting what they asked for" Lots of other EU countries have various opt outs. Poland was just been given a fairly major one after years of arguing... Having some opt outs didn't make the UK special. It made being in the EU marginally more palatable. | |||
"I've NEVER forgiven Cameron for his cowardice in resigning - despicable behaviour which stabbed us all in the back. I don't understand why so many people feel this way. Cameron was very much pro-Europe during the campaign, and the vote went against him. This is exactly the sort of circumstance where we expect a leader with morals to admit defeat and step aside so that the people can get the leadership they voted for. I don't think anyone would call Cameron a strong or charismatic leader. What do you think he could have achieved if he had stayed on?" Cameron was very specifically asked what he would do in the event Remain lost. He made it TOTALLY clear he would honour the result and would NOT resign. Then he did. And thus IMMEDIATELY the EU saw weakness of character and intent. Had Cameron stayed as representative of a Country that HE led into a referendum, they might well have been more inclined to negotiate. He resigned. Instant power vacuum AND an opportunity for Remainers to hope it might be overturned if they made it harder and harder to leave. | |||
"I've NEVER forgiven Cameron for his cowardice in resigning - despicable behaviour which stabbed us all in the back." "I don't understand why so many people feel this way. Cameron was very much pro-Europe during the campaign, and the vote went against him. This is exactly the sort of circumstance where we expect a leader with morals to admit defeat and step aside so that the people can get the leadership they voted for. I don't think anyone would call Cameron a strong or charismatic leader. What do you think he could have achieved if he had stayed on?" "Cameron was very specifically asked what he would do in the event Remain lost. He made it TOTALLY clear he would honour the result and would NOT resign. Then he did. And thus IMMEDIATELY the EU saw weakness of character and intent. Had Cameron stayed as representative of a Country that HE led into a referendum, they might well have been more inclined to negotiate. He resigned. Instant power vacuum AND an opportunity for Remainers to hope it might be overturned if they made it harder and harder to leave." Everyone I've asked previously has just blustered, and changed the subject, and turned out to just hate the Tories. Thanks for being refreshingly different. | |||
"I've NEVER forgiven Cameron for his cowardice in resigning - despicable behaviour which stabbed us all in the back. I don't understand why so many people feel this way. Cameron was very much pro-Europe during the campaign, and the vote went against him. This is exactly the sort of circumstance where we expect a leader with morals to admit defeat and step aside so that the people can get the leadership they voted for. I don't think anyone would call Cameron a strong or charismatic leader. What do you think he could have achieved if he had stayed on? Cameron was very specifically asked what he would do in the event Remain lost. He made it TOTALLY clear he would honour the result and would NOT resign. Then he did. And thus IMMEDIATELY the EU saw weakness of character and intent. Had Cameron stayed as representative of a Country that HE led into a referendum, they might well have been more inclined to negotiate. He resigned. Instant power vacuum AND an opportunity for Remainers to hope it might be overturned if they made it harder and harder to leave." Exactly this. It was a very weak response. | |||
"I've NEVER forgiven Cameron for his cowardice in resigning - despicable behaviour which stabbed us all in the back. I don't understand why so many people feel this way. Cameron was very much pro-Europe during the campaign, and the vote went against him. This is exactly the sort of circumstance where we expect a leader with morals to admit defeat and step aside so that the people can get the leadership they voted for. I don't think anyone would call Cameron a strong or charismatic leader. What do you think he could have achieved if he had stayed on? Cameron was very specifically asked what he would do in the event Remain lost. He made it TOTALLY clear he would honour the result and would NOT resign. Then he did. And thus IMMEDIATELY the EU saw weakness of character and intent. Had Cameron stayed as representative of a Country that HE led into a referendum, they might well have been more inclined to negotiate. He resigned. Instant power vacuum AND an opportunity for Remainers to hope it might be overturned if they made it harder and harder to leave. Everyone I've asked previously has just blustered, and changed the subject, and turned out to just hate the Tories. Thanks for being refreshingly different." Thank you. Brexit should have been a defining moment for the Country. Instead it was a half-assed attempt to regain what we KNOW we have lost. I LOVE Europe. The EU has NOT improved any part of it. | |||
| |||
"Interesting that the City of London has agreed an opt out of any closer alignment. We were told the City would be ruined by Brexit but its one of the few parts of UK economy to be doing well. As for any other new deals with EU, I think we can be confident that whatever Starmer negotiates will be a disaster." The bit about the city of London not wanting to go back in is a bit of a shocker. They were once the big proponents of not leaving. In the article I saw they do not want to come under EU regulation | |||
"Interesting that the City of London has agreed an opt out of any closer alignment. We were told the City would be ruined by Brexit but its one of the few parts of UK economy to be doing well. As for any other new deals with EU, I think we can be confident that whatever Starmer negotiates will be a disaster. The bit about the city of London not wanting to go back in is a bit of a shocker. They were once the big proponents of not leaving. In the article I saw they do not want to come under EU regulation " I remember them being proponents of remain and remember it not making sense at the time as the city didn't benefit from being in the EU and free trade in services had no realistic time in line if ever.. I think the CEO's at the time where just expressing there personal political opinions rather then expressing a non biased view on what was best for the city. | |||
"Interesting that the City of London has agreed an opt out of any closer alignment. We were told the City would be ruined by Brexit but its one of the few parts of UK economy to be doing well. As for any other new deals with EU, I think we can be confident that whatever Starmer negotiates will be a disaster. The bit about the city of London not wanting to go back in is a bit of a shocker. They were once the big proponents of not leaving. In the article I saw they do not want to come under EU regulation I remember them being proponents of remain and remember it not making sense at the time as the city didn't benefit from being in the EU and free trade in services had no realistic time in line if ever.. I think the CEO's at the time where just expressing there personal political opinions rather then expressing a non biased view on what was best for the city." If I remember correctly, it was more that the City was worried that traders would move to Paris or Berlin and that London would become less important. Whether that has happened or not, I don't know. | |||
"Interesting that the City of London has agreed an opt out of any closer alignment. We were told the City would be ruined by Brexit but its one of the few parts of UK economy to be doing well. As for any other new deals with EU, I think we can be confident that whatever Starmer negotiates will be a disaster. The bit about the city of London not wanting to go back in is a bit of a shocker. They were once the big proponents of not leaving. In the article I saw they do not want to come under EU regulation I remember them being proponents of remain and remember it not making sense at the time as the city didn't benefit from being in the EU and free trade in services had no realistic time in line if ever.. I think the CEO's at the time where just expressing there personal political opinions rather then expressing a non biased view on what was best for the city." That's very possible about it being more personal views. Seems that not only did the doomsday scenario not happen but the city have had a major U turn and now want to stay out. | |||
"Interesting that the City of London has agreed an opt out of any closer alignment. We were told the City would be ruined by Brexit but its one of the few parts of UK economy to be doing well. As for any other new deals with EU, I think we can be confident that whatever Starmer negotiates will be a disaster. The bit about the city of London not wanting to go back in is a bit of a shocker. They were once the big proponents of not leaving. In the article I saw they do not want to come under EU regulation I remember them being proponents of remain and remember it not making sense at the time as the city didn't benefit from being in the EU and free trade in services had no realistic time in line if ever.. I think the CEO's at the time where just expressing there personal political opinions rather then expressing a non biased view on what was best for the city. If I remember correctly, it was more that the City was worried that traders would move to Paris or Berlin and that London would become less important. Whether that has happened or not, I don't know." It turned out the biggest competition is American markets. According to what I have read, they are enjoying the flexibility of being outside the EU regulations and have adapted to the change very successfully. They also mention that recent trade deals put much more focus on financial services than what was previously the case. | |||
"Interesting that the City of London has agreed an opt out of any closer alignment. We were told the City would be ruined by Brexit but its one of the few parts of UK economy to be doing well. As for any other new deals with EU, I think we can be confident that whatever Starmer negotiates will be a disaster. The bit about the city of London not wanting to go back in is a bit of a shocker. They were once the big proponents of not leaving. In the article I saw they do not want to come under EU regulation I remember them being proponents of remain and remember it not making sense at the time as the city didn't benefit from being in the EU and free trade in services had no realistic time in line if ever.. I think the CEO's at the time where just expressing there personal political opinions rather then expressing a non biased view on what was best for the city. If I remember correctly, it was more that the City was worried that traders would move to Paris or Berlin and that London would become less important. Whether that has happened or not, I don't know. It turned out the biggest competition is American markets. According to what I have read, they are enjoying the flexibility of being outside the EU regulations and have adapted to the change very successfully. They also mention that recent trade deals put much more focus on financial services than what was previously the case." From a banker's perspective, EU has caps on bonuses awarded to them. UK also had it while being part of EU and for a few years after brexit. But in 2023, UK removed the cap. | |||
| |||
"Oh, and to add insult to injury, we still have the French natioalised energy industry mercilessly ripping off British energy consumers whilst wearing its wolf's clothing as a moneymaking undertaking. Why the hell are we tolerating such a situation?" Don't blame the French - blame whoever signed the contract! | |||
| |||
| |||
"I can't say I've noticed any major positives since we left. We're now a small country stuck trying to trade between the US and the EU and we don't have the clout to make a lot of noise. Of course, no one could have predicted the US would go the way it has with tariffs, so we face a bit of a double whammy. Personally, re-joining the EU and embracing a large market for frictionless trade on better terms would be better for business in the long run. And give us a bigger voice on the world stage again with the EU behind us. " Of course there would be some trade advantages to re-joining the customs union but there would be disadvantages as well. I know that Trump won't be around forever but at the moment Britain has a much better deal with the US than the EU has. Let's face it the EU economy's are not exactly booming at the moment. Germany is almost in recession. I really don't get the voice on the world stage bit. If that was the case then Von de Leyen, Macron and Mertz would be riding high. They're not. Like it or not Trump is going to be around for another 3 years and he's not taking a blind bit of notice of them. Starmer would be no different. The EU itself has got serious problems. The Orban row is still rumbling on and Euro sceptic party's are on the rise in many of the core members. What if National Rally win in France and/or AfD in Germany? Both distinct possibility's. Where would that leave the EU? A rush to jump back in could leave Britain trapped in a crumbling EU hell hole. I'd sit it out for now. | |||
"Oh, and to add insult to injury, we still have the French natioalised energy industry mercilessly ripping off British energy consumers whilst wearing its wolf's clothing as a moneymaking undertaking. Why the hell are we tolerating such a situation?" | |||
| |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets." Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. " You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets." It's not binary. People in general prefer having control over their own governance. The larger the population electing the governing body, the lesser people's control over it. The EU is elected through a much larger population. Now you add the bureaucracy and the processes through which these appointments happen, people have much less control over these bodies. | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. " On larger issues that is correct but many things go through on the nod from delegated powers. As for the Lords you have half of a point. Yes the Lords are unelected but they only scrutinise and sometimes amend laws that are passed up from the Commons. They don't dictate policy. There is an argument for an elected second chamber in the UK but it could cause more problems than it would solve. When would the elections be? Mid term like in the US? Imagine that right now. Six months to go with the most unpopular government in my lifetime. So you'd get Reform in charge of the 2nd chamber with Starmer in the Commons. The country would grind to a halt. Nothing would ever get through. Hold elections at the same time as a GE? All you would get then is a mirror of the Commons so no real point in a 2nd chamber at all. The EU commission has far too much power to be unelected which, no matter how you spin it, is true. Now an EU commission from the EU parliament floor rather than failed politicians sent out to grass would be a lot more palatable to the electorate. | |||
| |||
| |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. " The house of Lords don't put forward policy.. Where In the EU it works basically the opposite way around where the unelected burocrats put legislation forward for the MEPs to vote on. | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. The house of Lords don't put forward policy.. Where In the EU it works basically the opposite way around where the unelected burocrats put legislation forward for the MEPs to vote on." I never said that the Lord's put forward policy; I said if you feel quality of EU Commission is a problem, it's same case for quality in The Lords. I think some questionable people have been appointed, ie unelected to The HoL; Segei Lebedev, Charlotte Owens come to mind. | |||
| |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. The house of Lords don't put forward policy.. Where In the EU it works basically the opposite way around where the unelected burocrats put legislation forward for the MEPs to vote on. I never said that the Lord's put forward policy; I said if you feel quality of EU Commission is a problem, it's same case for quality in The Lords. I think some questionable people have been appointed, ie unelected to The HoL; Segei Lebedev, Charlotte Owens come to mind." You said you could equally use that argument about the house of Lords. Which is a completely unfair comparison. One legislates and one doesn't. Its a major difference. | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. The house of Lords don't put forward policy.. Where In the EU it works basically the opposite way around where the unelected burocrats put legislation forward for the MEPs to vote on. I never said that the Lord's put forward policy; I said if you feel quality of EU Commission is a problem, it's same case for quality in The Lords. I think some questionable people have been appointed, ie unelected to The HoL; Segei Lebedev, Charlotte Owens come to mind. You said you could equally use that argument about the house of Lords. Which is a completely unfair comparison. One legislates and one doesn't. Its a major difference." I said: "You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords"; in my sentence, where is it mentioned about policy being brought forward? | |||
"I am voting REFORM to stay as far away from the EU as physically possible Say NO to rejoining the corupt EU" Voting Reform won't move you physically further from the EU or guarantee that you might accidentally stray a little closer to France or Ireland... | |||
"I am voting REFORM to stay as far away from the EU as physically possible Say NO to rejoining the corupt EU" | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. The house of Lords don't put forward policy.. Where In the EU it works basically the opposite way around where the unelected burocrats put legislation forward for the MEPs to vote on. I never said that the Lord's put forward policy; I said if you feel quality of EU Commission is a problem, it's same case for quality in The Lords. I think some questionable people have been appointed, ie unelected to The HoL; Segei Lebedev, Charlotte Owens come to mind. You said you could equally use that argument about the house of Lords. Which is a completely unfair comparison. One legislates and one doesn't. Its a major difference. I said: "You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords"; in my sentence, where is it mentioned about policy being brought forward?" Policy wasn't mentioned. So was you unaware of how different the two bodies are, other than they are both unelected? | |||
"Corrupt in what way? Serious question I am voting REFORM to stay as far away from the EU as physically possible Say NO to rejoining the corupt EU" Google EU Quatargate.. | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. The house of Lords don't put forward policy.. Where In the EU it works basically the opposite way around where the unelected burocrats put legislation forward for the MEPs to vote on. I never said that the Lord's put forward policy; I said if you feel quality of EU Commission is a problem, it's same case for quality in The Lords. I think some questionable people have been appointed, ie unelected to The HoL; Segei Lebedev, Charlotte Owens come to mind. You said you could equally use that argument about the house of Lords. Which is a completely unfair comparison. One legislates and one doesn't. Its a major difference. I said: "You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords"; in my sentence, where is it mentioned about policy being brought forward? Policy wasn't mentioned. So was you unaware of how different the two bodies are, other than they are both unelected?" I know how both operate | |||
"I am voting REFORM to stay as far away from the EU as physically possible Say NO to rejoining the corupt EU" Well said 
Totally agree
Vote REFORM | |||
"I am voting REFORM to stay as far away from the EU as physically possible Say NO to rejoining the corupt EU Well said
Totally agree
Vote REFORM "Quoting your own previous post doesn't make your response accurate or valid..  | |||
"“unelected bureaucrats determined to tell us how we must behave” If you’re referring to the European Commission, please, please, please not that old chestnut… They no more tell us how we must behave than unelected DVLA employees in Wales decide how much tax I must pay on my car, unelected customs officials in Dover fine me for bringing in more than 200 cigarettes, unelected Police Officers give me a speeding ticket, unelected Judges send me to prison… One should be thankful that they - like European Commission officials - have gone through a rigorous selection procen and been appointed because of their experience and skills. Not “elected” because they come across well in newspapers and tweets. Not really a good analogy. DVLA officials, Police and customs officers Etc. Enforce rules, they don't make policy. The EU commission does. As for experience and skills? You are joking I hope. The EU commission has been the graveyard of failed politicians almost from the beginning. Just think back to a few of ours. Jenkins, Kinnock, Brittan and Mandelson, even Clegg had a go at it. Current president Von der Layen was shuffled off to Brussels by Merkel because she was fucking useless as German defence minister and they had to dump her somewhere. She sent German soldiers on Arctic manoeuvres with broom sticks instead of guns. Yes really. And she's now being touted as the next head of NATO. God help us. She did give me one giggle though. She campaigned for the re-wilding of wolves in Germany and she won. Then guess what? Her pet horse was eaten by.. yep you guessed it, a pack of wolves. The Germans don't call her "Flinten Ushi" for nothing. Prior to her we had Juncker the D*unker who apart from being almost permanently pissed left a huge financial scandal behind when he left Luxembourg. And before him (drum roll) we had Van Rompuy a failed Belgian politician who was going to stop the traffic in Moscow and Washington. NOT! I know the Europhiles like to present them as "elected" because their home elected governments have sent them there. But they should really give their head a wobble. The elected bit may be tenuous but the useless bit is 100% certain. You are forgetting to mention the drivers for policies are EU Commissioners, whose applications are voted on by The EP, then by The European Council/heads of state. You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords. The house of Lords don't put forward policy.. Where In the EU it works basically the opposite way around where the unelected burocrats put legislation forward for the MEPs to vote on. I never said that the Lord's put forward policy; I said if you feel quality of EU Commission is a problem, it's same case for quality in The Lords. I think some questionable people have been appointed, ie unelected to The HoL; Segei Lebedev, Charlotte Owens come to mind. You said you could equally use that argument about the house of Lords. Which is a completely unfair comparison. One legislates and one doesn't. Its a major difference. I said: "You could equally use your argument about quality with the (unelected) House of Lords"; in my sentence, where is it mentioned about policy being brought forward? Policy wasn't mentioned. So was you unaware of how different the two bodies are, other than they are both unelected? I know how both operate" So you did knowingly draw a false equivalence.. There is a big difference between unelected people drawing up and implementing legislation compared to people just scrutinising and amending legislation that has been created by people who have actually been elected... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hmm...If the Leave vote had lost by two points instead of winning by two points, Reform would be 100% pushing for another referendum IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY. Funny how it doesn't work the other way around." If my Aunt had bollocks she'd be my Uncle | |||
| |||
"Acting on the verification that it is now January 2026, here are the documented and claimed benefits of Brexit for the UK as of the 2024–2026 period: 1. Regulatory Sovereignty and "Agile" Regulation Sector-Specific Laws: The UK has diverged from EU rules in high-growth sectors. It can now set independent Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulations, allowing the UK to remain the third-largest AI user globally by being more nimble than the EU’s "AI Act". Financial Services: The government has removed the "bankers' bonus cap" and reformed Solvency II rules to unlock billions in insurance capital for long-term investment in UK infrastructure. Science and Innovation: The UK has its own rules for gene-edited crops and lab-grown meat, which previously faced long delays for approval across all EU member states. 2. Independent Trade Policy Global Agreements: As of 2026, the UK has secured trade deals with over 70 countries, including landmark agreements with Australia and New Zealand. CPTPP Accession: The UK formally joined the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, providing tariff-free access to 99.9% of UK goods exports to high-growth markets in the Indo-Pacific. Digital Trade: The UK has led on world-first digital economy agreements (e.g., with Singapore), which reduce paperwork and facilitate data flows. 3. Migration Control Points-Based System: The end of Freedom of Movement allowed the UK to implement a points-based immigration system that prioritizes high-skilled workers (doctors, scientists) over low-skilled labor. Attractiveness for Talent: By 2025, the OECD ranked the UK significantly higher for its attractiveness to skilled migrants, explicitly attributing this to the flexibility of the post-Brexit visa system. 4. Fiscal and Tax Freedoms EU Budget Contributions: The UK no longer pays an annual net contribution to the EU budget (historically around £9bn per year), allowing those funds to be redirected to domestic priorities. VAT Flexibility: Leaving the EU allowed the UK to abolish VAT on tampons (the "tampon tax") and other sanitary products, and to impose VAT on private school fees—neither of which were permitted under EU directives. Freeports: The UK has established eight Freeports in England (and others in Scotland and Wales), offering tax reliefs and simplified customs to stimulate regional "levelling up". 5. Animal Welfare and Environment Live Exports Ban: The UK used its new powers to ban the export of live animals for slaughter, a practice the EU currently allows. Fisheries: As an independent coastal state, the UK now negotiates its own fishing quotas, resulting in a "quota uplift" for British vessels compared to the previous Common Fisheries Policy. Agriculture: The UK replaced the "bureaucratic" Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) with a system that pays farmers for environmental stewardship rather than just land ownership. 6. Recent 2025 Developments EU Security Agreement: In May 2025, the UK secured a new Security and Defence Partnership with the EU, allowing the UK defense industry to participate in the £150 billion SAFE fund while remaining outside the EU. SPS Agreement: A 2025 deal on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures is projected to add £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040 by reducing border red tape for food and steel exports. " Can you please elaborate, perhaps give the financial benefit last year, this year and for the next 10 years of these "brexit benefits" Also include the losses suffered by export due to restrictions on trade with the EU ? What's the benefit per person in reduced taxation or improved services that becomes if all these "brexit benefits" .... Oh .. wait A black passport printed in god knows where ain't putting food on anyones table is it ? | |||
"Hmm...If the Leave vote had lost by two points instead of winning by two points, Reform would be 100% pushing for another referendum IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY. Funny how it doesn't work the other way around. If my Aunt had bollocks she'd be my Uncle "Dodging the logic doesn't make you look smart. | |||
"Hmm...If the Leave vote had lost by two points instead of winning by two points, Reform would be 100% pushing for another referendum IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY. Funny how it doesn't work the other way around." "If my Aunt had bollocks she'd be my Uncle" "Dodging the logic doesn't make you look smart." There was no logic in your original post, just a baseless assertion. | |||
"Its too early to rejoin and I was opposed to leaving, stand by my opinion it was a fuck up how its gone etc.. Said 10 years ago in the endless threads on here that if we did leave it would be a bodge job and gradually over time some of the parts of the deal, the oven ready one as it was later called would be amended slowly.. We put ourselves outside the tent without the ability to influence something which had and has faults but we can't use our decades of input and experience now in trying to shape it.. So no, not yet if we ever do in my lifetime.. As an EU citizen, I would personally be against allowing The UK to join; the asks are too much for The UK system to handle, & The EU shouldn't allow a lukewarm country to join. Plus; UK joining means The EU loses it's own Brexit benefits (Note: there will be no rejoin; UK had the best deal in The EU, & those deals are no longer available if The UK applies. Euro, Schengen, MSs own asks, no rebate, etc., all are on the table)" That's okay as the majority still don't want to join the sinking ship of the EU. Keir Starmer will soon be removed from his position and his dreams of re-joining are perhaps why he has been voted the most "Disliked" Disgraceful prime minister that the UK has ever had. | |||
"Its too early to rejoin and I was opposed to leaving, stand by my opinion it was a fuck up how its gone etc.. Said 10 years ago in the endless threads on here that if we did leave it would be a bodge job and gradually over time some of the parts of the deal, the oven ready one as it was later called would be amended slowly.. We put ourselves outside the tent without the ability to influence something which had and has faults but we can't use our decades of input and experience now in trying to shape it.. So no, not yet if we ever do in my lifetime.. As an EU citizen, I would personally be against allowing The UK to join; the asks are too much for The UK system to handle, & The EU shouldn't allow a lukewarm country to join. Plus; UK joining means The EU loses it's own Brexit benefits (Note: there will be no rejoin; UK had the best deal in The EU, & those deals are no longer available if The UK applies. Euro, Schengen, MSs own asks, no rebate, etc., all are on the table) That's okay as the majority still don't want to join the sinking ship of the EU. Keir Starmer will soon be removed from his position and his dreams of re-joining are perhaps why he has been voted the most "Disliked" Disgraceful prime minister that the UK has ever had." Apparently the city of London bosses don't want to rejoin and also don't want closer integration. The vote went against them first time around (as they wanted to remain) and now if we vote to rejoin, then it would have gone against them again | |||
"Its too early to rejoin and I was opposed to leaving, stand by my opinion it was a fuck up how its gone etc.. Said 10 years ago in the endless threads on here that if we did leave it would be a bodge job and gradually over time some of the parts of the deal, the oven ready one as it was later called would be amended slowly.. We put ourselves outside the tent without the ability to influence something which had and has faults but we can't use our decades of input and experience now in trying to shape it.. So no, not yet if we ever do in my lifetime.. As an EU citizen, I would personally be against allowing The UK to join; the asks are too much for The UK system to handle, & The EU shouldn't allow a lukewarm country to join. Plus; UK joining means The EU loses it's own Brexit benefits (Note: there will be no rejoin; UK had the best deal in The EU, & those deals are no longer available if The UK applies. Euro, Schengen, MSs own asks, no rebate, etc., all are on the table) That's okay as the majority still don't want to join the sinking ship of the EU. Keir Starmer will soon be removed from his position and his dreams of re-joining are perhaps why he has been voted the most "Disliked" Disgraceful prime minister that the UK has ever had. Apparently the city of London bosses don't want to rejoin and also don't want closer integration. The vote went against them first time around (as they wanted to remain) and now if we vote to rejoin, then it would have gone against them again " I think you will find that the City has a schizophrenic relationship with Brexit. At a personal level many in the city are part of that social set where admitting you voted to leave would turn you into a social pariah. At a business level they think it is brilliant. The City is a bridge between capital markets. Those are global capital markets, not just EU ones. The city works best when it can deal with everyone but not be tied to their rules. The UK financial regulators are amongst the best in the world and this means that the City is generally able to go anywhere and be looked upon favourably. The EU regulators are earnest and well meaning but they are just not upto the job. Over the last 15 years European banks and financial institutions have largely disappeared from the global rankings. They have been regulated to death. On a professional level the last thing the City wants is to lose the UK regulatory regime. | |||
| |||
" On a professional level the last thing the City wants is to lose the UK regulatory regime. " Regulatory regime in what context/aspect exactly ? Is there not a common regulatory banking framework worldwide that all banks have to adhere to ? And if not, why not ? | |||
" On a professional level the last thing the City wants is to lose the UK regulatory regime. Regulatory regime in what context/aspect exactly ? Is there not a common regulatory banking framework worldwide that all banks have to adhere to ? And if not, why not ?" For one thing, EU has caps on banker bonuses. The cap was removed by UK after Brexit. One of the main reasons why London retained its financial power in spite of many doomsday predictions. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes need rejoin as cant wait get out this country for good" you do realise you can still move to an eu country dont you? As ling as you can prove you can support yourself you wont have a problem moving | |||
| |||
"Yes need rejoin as cant wait get out this country for goodyou do realise you can still move to an eu country dont you? As ling as you can prove you can support yourself you wont have a problem moving " Don’t need to prove you can support yourself. You just lie about fleeing persecution and they hand you everything on a plate | |||
"Remoaners still whiny little bitches." Pathetic comment. Tell us what you won by voting for Brexit. Lay out the benefits which have given us so much since we left. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The “Common Market” which we joined was a good idea, and still would be. A trading block with common standards, where trading of goods is easy. Extending that to make the movement of people, finance and services easy is also good. Note: “Easy” not “Free”. The EU, with its goal of “Ever Closer Political Alignment” is not a good idea as the people of Europe are too diverse in viewpoints and living standards. This caused tensions in the 70s and 80s when money was given to southern states to build infrastructure. This was made worse when the former soviet countries were allowed to join. So leaving wasn’t in itself a bad decision, however our government (all of them since) have, along with the Civil Service remainer blob, deliberately made a complete mess of any opportunities to deregulate and prosper. With the current government system it is impossible for brexit to be a success." When you stop paying your fees at the golf club you cant expect to play on the course for free, you pay more for daily greens fees than being a member. EU is a club, UK left and has to PAYG | |||
"The “Common Market” which we joined was a good idea, and still would be. A trading block with common standards, where trading of goods is easy. Extending that to make the movement of people, finance and services easy is also good. Note: “Easy” not “Free”. The EU, with its goal of “Ever Closer Political Alignment” is not a good idea as the people of Europe are too diverse in viewpoints and living standards. This caused tensions in the 70s and 80s when money was given to southern states to build infrastructure. This was made worse when the former soviet countries were allowed to join. So leaving wasn’t in itself a bad decision, however our government (all of them since) have, along with the Civil Service remainer blob, deliberately made a complete mess of any opportunities to deregulate and prosper. With the current government system it is impossible for brexit to be a success. When you stop paying your fees at the golf club you cant expect to play on the course for free, you pay more for daily greens fees than being a member. EU is a club, UK left and has to PAYG " Leaving a club then having to PAYG is stupidity. Leaving and going to a club where the rules are less onerous and the fees are lower is more sensible. Our political classes can’t see that. | |||
| |||
"100% yes. You genuinely need to be in denial of reality itself these days to still be an unironic pro brexiter. And as a 26 year old, I’m more than entitled than some boomer to make that call. " Your not more or less entitled than anyone else to make a call on anything. Thats called democracy. | |||
"100% yes. You genuinely need to be in denial of reality itself these days to still be an unironic pro brexiter. And as a 26 year old, I’m more than entitled than some boomer to make that call. Your not more or less entitled than anyone else to make a call on anything. Thats called democracy."
He will realise that when he grows up, still just a young man (much to learn). | |||
| |||
"Firstly, I do not think that the UK should rejoin the EU. It simply would not work. It is too expensive and the better route is to chip away and get piecemeal agreements. I also wonder why those who continue to say that Brexit hasn't worked due to remoaners blocking opportunities or certainly not taking advantage of them haven't realised that if there were really such great opportunities to take advantage of, they would have been taken by the conservative government that had plenty of time to implement them (although even Reece Mogg as minister of Brexit Opportunities couldn't list anything that was actually worthwhile implementing). Let's get real, politicians would like to see the UK grow amd to prosper. Any government worth their salt wants to stay in power and go down in history as the government that made things work better. If these opportunities existed do you really think that they wouldn't have been discussed at length? If they were that good do people really think that they would be blocked because a person or a group of people is (or are) a remoaner? It is far easier for people to blame remoaners for something that was never going to work and bang on about a mysterious opportunity that they can't actually define apart from it being better. More employment, less tax, higher wages, better housing, higher social payments etc.etc. Yes, we would all like that but Brexit didn't ever deliver anything other than problems and those that advocated that better life out with the EU had no substance from which to base their dreams on. A total fairytale with a bad ending. It's done, get over it and stop banging on about what was never going to be or blaming everyone but those who actually voted for it. " The last paragraph is pathetic shrug the shoulders nonsense. Thats the attitude politicians want the electorate to take. Accept and carry on doesnt address the crap that comes with Brexit. Again led down an uncertain path with no forseeable outcomes or vision. Pathetic | |||
| |||
"Everyone was conned... They said it wasn't a legally binding vote. There was alot we could have done as a country in the position we were in and now... We stand like the pariah we are and deserve to be given our conduct in the last 400 years" Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? I can keep going and going... The world was and is a terrible place | |||
"Everyone was conned... They said it wasn't a legally binding vote. There was alot we could have done as a country in the position we were in and now... We stand like the pariah we are and deserve to be given our conduct in the last 400 years Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? I can keep going and going... The world was and is a terrible place" Exsactly so as I said as a country we are quite deserving of the position we have found ourselves in post brexit. We let people steamroll their idea without a plan. The moment Cameron stepped down after suggesting it in the first place we should have known it was a sinking ship. | |||
"We stand like the pariah we are and deserve to be given our conduct in the last 400 years" Our ‘conduct’…? What? It’s almost as if you’re unaware of what the UK has done in the last 400 years.  | |||
"Everyone was conned... They said it wasn't a legally binding vote. There was alot we could have done as a country in the position we were in and now... We stand like the pariah we are and deserve to be given our conduct in the last 400 years Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? I can keep going and going... The world was and is a terrible place Exsactly so as I said as a country we are quite deserving of the position we have found ourselves in post brexit. We let people steamroll their idea without a plan. The moment Cameron stepped down after suggesting it in the first place we should have known it was a sinking ship. " Exactly nothing... You still haven't explained why we should be a pariah because of the last 400 years of our history,but not France, Germany ect ect | |||
" Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? " nice straw you've built there. now, back to reality. | |||
" Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? nice straw you've built there. now, back to reality. "*straw man* | |||
" Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? nice straw you've built there. now, back to reality. "What reality would that be? Care to expand or are you just going to make more meaningless posts.. | |||
| |||
"Reported today Uk farm exports are down 37% since Brexit Basic payments scheme gone too 6k farm closures reported on the back of labours iht grab Uk fat as fuck on cheap imported foods, full of hormones, added sugars and chemicals Reap what you sow " Down 37% to the EU not down 37% overall. ( although they are down ) | |||
" Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? nice straw you've built there. now, back to reality.
What reality would that be? Care to expand or are you just going to make more meaningless posts.."no, i'll stick at pointing out your unecessarily meaningless posts that veer wildly off topic thanks all the same. | |||
| |||
"I’d rather be in EU as I liked freedom of movement across the bloc / business etc Personally think we would have been better off staying in and being more involved at leading But reality is we are done and dusted and that’s that. So it makes no odds now . " I think those are fair comments. Short to medium term, we would would definitely have been somewhat better off in the EU (economicaly). Long term I am not so sure. I wasn't a fan of free movement. EU economies are two unequal and you just ended up with mass movement of people from the Ex-soviet countries to the western ones. It was managed really poorly and I can't understand how they only predict 10s of thousands to come. | |||
| |||
"Reported today Uk farm exports are down 37% since Brexit Basic payments scheme gone too 6k farm closures reported on the back of labours iht grab Uk fat as fuck on cheap imported foods, full of hormones, added sugars and chemicals Reap what you sow Down 37% to the EU not down 37% overall. ( although they are down )" Not easy to nail down but quick Google search shows it's not all bad news: European appetite fuels a 20% jump in UK dairy sales abroad Booming European demand has pushed UK dairy exports to a record £1.1 billion in the first half of 2025 – a 20 percent jump on last year. Shipments to the Netherlands increased by 15% to £130m, while France recorded a 41% surge to £82m. Exports to Spain climbed 40% to £35m, and Germany saw a 25% rise to £32m. Beyond Europe, the US, Asia and the Middle East also delivered strong results. Exports to the US rose by 30% to £43 million, while shipments to Asia and Oceania grew 22% to £73m. Trade with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries was up 28%, reaching £46 million, according to the figures. And: UK food, feed, and drink (FFD) exports reached £24.6 billion in 2024, showing a 0.5% increase over 2023. Despite challenges, the industry has seen a 40% growth in value over the last decade, with 2025 data showing a 20% jump in dairy exports to Europe and a 30% rise to the US. Exports are supported by new trade barrier removals and, while EU trade remains significant, growth is targeted in non-EU markets. That said the figures are from this government so may be way off | |||
" Our conduct over the last 400 years? As opposed to what other countries conduct over the last 400 years? France, Germany, Portugal? Turkey and the otomom empire? China? Congo? Suddan? Conduct in Ireland. Famine in Ireland in late 1840s early 1850s. People died in their hundreds of thousands whilst it was part of the UK. British government couldnt look after their own people while food was exported. Do people not know their own history. One of many atrosities in Ireland. nice straw you've built there. now, back to reality.
What reality would that be? Care to expand or are you just going to make more meaningless posts..
no, i'll stick at pointing out your unecessarily meaningless posts that veer wildly off topic thanks all the same.
It was a bang on topic response, to what the OP had put.
You didn't point out anything at all did you? Just made a unnesery moronic post, that you can't back up. Thanks for your riveting contribution to the discussion " | |||
"Are you also following the latest survey and question about it if the people are happy with brexit after tthe eu referendum 9 years ago? Did you also know that on the 23rd june it marks 9 years since the uk voted to leave the european union as well. Anyway, the result of the survey shows that 56% think it was wrong for britain to vote to leave the eu and only 31% still thinks it was the right thing, the survey also shows that brexit was more of a failure than a success, which is understandable, if you look at the promises made during the campaign of it. What is our view of it and do you agree with the result of the survey, it was done by yougov. I agree with it, but of course, if they would rejoin. I dont think they would get the same kind of benefits as they had before or could they? "Nine years ago? I thought it was going to be ten years ago in June this year…? | |||
" Nine years ago? I thought it was going to be ten years ago in June this year…?" If it really is nearly ten years, then it is a bloody disgrace that we still aren't getting decent right hand drive cars straight from Japan. | |||
"If it really is nearly ten years, then it is a bloody disgrace that we still aren't getting decent right hand drive cars straight from Japan." It's been nearly 10 years since the vote, but only 6 years since Brexit actually happened. Slightly less of a disgrace, but your complaint still stands. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Wow real cute to be condescending to me." If you're going to act like an entitled brat, you can expect to get negative responses. "You’re 55 years old, I’m 26, so I’ll be the one cleaning up after this generational mishap because you lot figured we’d regain freedoms (which nobody can ever explain to me we didn’t have)" I'll explain one to you so that you aren't so confused. When we were in the EU we were unable to negotiate trade deals with other countries, because that power lay solely with the EU. Now that we have left we can do that. That is a freedom that we didn't have under the EU, which we now have. | |||
"Wow real cute to be condescending to me. You’re 55 years old, I’m 26, so I’ll be the one cleaning up after this generational mishap because you lot figured we’d regain freedoms (which nobody can ever explain to me we didn’t have)" In the Brexit referendum of 2016, 73 percent of people aged between 18 and 24 voted to Remain in the European Union, compared with just 40 percent of people aged over 65. In fact, the propensity to have voted Leave increases with age, with the three oldest age groups here voting leave and the three youngest voting to Remain. (Statista) 64% of the 16-24 age group voted. If more younger voters could have been bothered to vote the outcome could have been different Its a case of do nothing, then don’t complain about it. | |||
"Wow real cute to be condescending to me. You’re 55 years old, I’m 26, so I’ll be the one cleaning up after this generational mishap because you lot figured we’d regain freedoms (which nobody can ever explain to me we didn’t have)" I'm sure your generation will govern with great wisdom. | |||
"Wow real cute to be condescending to me. If you're going to act like an entitled brat, you can expect to get negative responses. You’re 55 years old, I’m 26, so I’ll be the one cleaning up after this generational mishap because you lot figured we’d regain freedoms (which nobody can ever explain to me we didn’t have) I'll explain one to you so that you aren't so confused. When we were in the EU we were unable to negotiate trade deals with other countries, because that power lay solely with the EU. Now that we have left we can do that. That is a freedom that we didn't have under the EU, which we now have." And none of those trade deals have been huge. Great benefit eh? I think not | |||
| |||
| |||
"Wow real cute to be condescending to me. You’re 55 years old, I’m 26, so I’ll be the one cleaning up after this generational mishap because you lot figured we’d regain freedoms (which nobody can ever explain to me we didn’t have) In the Brexit referendum of 2016, 73 percent of people aged between 18 and 24 voted to Remain in the European Union, compared with just 40 percent of people aged over 65. In fact, the propensity to have voted Leave increases with age, with the three oldest age groups here voting leave and the three youngest voting to Remain. (Statista) 64% of the 16-24 age group voted. If more younger voters could have been bothered to vote the outcome could have been different Its a case of do nothing, then don’t complain about it. " It makes sense because people in the age 16-24 benefit out of free movement. They want to go outside the country either for university or just exploring Europe while doing some job to sustain themselves. Older people in UK have settled here and have seen the negative side of the EU - A power structure that you don't have much control over and has started dictating things not just on economic issues but on social issues too. | |||
"You’re 55 years old, I’m 26, so I’ll be the one cleaning up after this generational mishap because you lot figured we’d regain freedoms (which nobody can ever explain to me we didn’t have)" "I'll explain one to you so that you aren't so confused. When we were in the EU we were unable to negotiate trade deals with other countries, because that power lay solely with the EU. Now that we have left we can do that. That is a freedom that we didn't have under the EU, which we now have." "And none of those trade deals have been huge. Great benefit eh? I think not" The OP didn't ask about benefits, they asked about freedoms, so I gave them an example of a freedom that we have gained by leaving the EU. Whether or not we've taken advantage of that freedom is a different question. | |||
| |||
"People ask what benefits we have gotten. Let’s discuss a few points because part of the problem is we didn’t get what we thought we were gonna get, for all sorts of reasons…. 1. People didn’t want Brussels having power over Westminster and being able to dictate how we run our country. Do the courts, conventions and commissions etc of Europe still hold sway in Westminster? Because if they don’t, then that’s a major benefit! If they do, we didn’t get what was voted for. 2. Freedom for any EU citizen to live anywhere within the EU and claim benefits etc. regardless of nationality. An idea dreamt up by a leftie think tank in the EU without any thought to the consequences. And our government went along with it. How many millions flocked from Eastern Europe to settle here? Not having that is a benefit because economic migration, as we have been seeing ever since and has still continued since leaving but from outside the EU, is bad. An EU convention amongst other things is what ties our hands legally. Plus the fact that we’ve had a left wing or centre left government since John Major lost the election who actually want to welcome countless millions of benefits scroungers and no skill workers here. We have enough of those already. 3. Make our own deals. Trade or otherwise, EU members have less freedom than countries outside the EU to make deals with countries outside the EU. Have we? And are the one we have done any good? Again, that comes down to two things, the fact that our government officials actually miss all the freebies and free travel they used to get all over Europe. Not they have to send a trade envoy of two instead. Unless it’s sucking up to a brutal dictatorship like China then our own dictator goes. And the fact these things can take years to hash out. They shouldn’t, but they do. This is a benefit. Freedom is always a good thing. Taking away any form of freedom is always a bad thing. 4. Not paying to be in a club where we have close to zero influence and nobody else really wants us there. Clear benefit. One that is often counter argued by saying it’s cost us more than we saved? But it’s shouldn’t have. Again this comes down to poor negotiation. A cold hard Brexit would have been better that what we got because at leather both sides would have have to have kept trying to get an agreement that both sides were happy with. The EU wanted to bloody our nose so no other country would try to leave. 5. Financial freedom. Being tied to the EUs monetary systems is what causes financial friction within individual countries. Greece, Italy and Spain have all come close to financial, part of which is because of being in the EU and being restricted by its rules. 6. The fishing industry should have bounced back, but they were sold down the river by own negotiation team. That should have been a benefit and it is one we voted for, but we are only voters, we weren’t at the negotiating table. 7. Industrial support. Not allowed while in the EU. We need to support our steel industry for example. Buying cheap low grade steel from China is bad for business, the economy and the environment. There are others but this is a benefit 8. Financial services sector. Again, this was suffering while in the EU but has bounced back since. This is a benefit 9. No euro. Yes there are benefits but the majority of the population don’t want it. The reasons are irrelevant. No we don’t have it but it was only a matter of time and if we ever asked to rejoin, the Euro would be a requirement. 10. Most of the benefits of being in the EU could be provided to all countries of Europe for next to no cost. The EU is nothing more than a leftie club that provides jobs for the boys with salaries that dwarf most countries leaders salaries. And there’s tens of thousands of them all passing meaning less papers to each other, attending meetings to discuss the last meeting, lunches paid for by the tax payers, expenses accounts running into tens of millions. For what? Free trade? Just do it. Everyone supposedly wants it, yet the Eurocrats block it cos it puts them out of a job Free movement? No problem, just agree if that what everyone wants. You don’t need thousands of people discussing it for decades, all on stupid money An EU parliament? For what? What do they discuss? More regulations and more jobs big the boys to oversee them. A European Court? Why? More money. Idiot lawyers like Starmer earning millions putting cases forward that have already been rules in by half a dozen other courts. Absolutely pointless waste of money. A European Commission? See above. So please can someone tell me what benefits the EU has that countries couldn’t have outside the EU if each countries civil servants actually did their job in a reasonable, timely manner. " On paper the EU is a no brainer, the reality is more objective. Personally I wanted us to stay in the EU, however the more I see the EU evolve the more I see the EU as a mirror of the US. States within a boundary that differ so drastically they end up opposing one another. | |||
