DEAL or NO DEAL on Brexit

erol · Post by **erol** » Fri 14 Dec 2018 10:09 pm

turtle wrote:You mention that the ERG are extremists as they pushed for a confidence vote in the Government so I take it Corbyn and his rabble of SNP’s and Libdems are also extremists for plotting the downfall of the government with a no confidence vote on the horizon ?

The opposition trying to unseat the government is the same, in terms of being 'extreme', as a backbench MP trying and failing to unseat their own parties sitting prime minister is it ?

erol · Post by **erol** » Fri 14 Dec 2018 10:12 pm

PoshinDevon wrote:Keith.....I only posted to stimulate debate, ......

But so far you have only posted 'fake news' that is pro (extreme) Brexit. Which 'makes me think' Is that because of personal bias or because it is so much easier to find such 'fake news' stories that are pro hard Brexit than it is to find similar that is pro remain ?

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Fri 14 Dec 2018 10:27 pm

erol wrote:
turtle wrote:You mention that the ERG are extremists as they pushed for a confidence vote in the Government so I take it Corbyn and his rabble of SNP’s and Libdems are also extremists for plotting the downfall of the government with a no confidence vote on the horizon ?
The opposition trying to unseat the government is the same, in terms of being 'extreme', as a backbench MP trying and failing to unseat their own parties sitting prime minister is it ?

I suppose that all depends on if you are a hard left Corbyn fanatic ?

erol · Post by **erol** » Fri 14 Dec 2018 11:14 pm

turtle wrote:
erol wrote:
turtle wrote:You mention that the ERG are extremists as they pushed for a confidence vote in the Government so I take it Corbyn and his rabble of SNP’s and Libdems are also extremists for plotting the downfall of the government with a no confidence vote on the horizon ?
The opposition trying to unseat the government is the same, in terms of being 'extreme', as a backbench MP trying and failing to unseat their own parties sitting prime minister is it ?
I suppose that all depends on if you are a hard left Corbyn fanatic ?

Well either I am totally missing the point you are trying to make or we have enter the realm of the truly surreal. The opposition's role, it's job, it's purpose and its function is to try and unseat the government and become the new government. It is not the purpose or function of back bench MP's to try and depose their own party leader whilst they are the sitting prime minster of the UK. Can you not see that fundamental difference ?

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Fri 14 Dec 2018 11:44 pm

Don't you think a general election would be a good place to win the keys to no 10....and i think if you were honest enough you would agree that Labour would fail...again.
Corbyn has little support within his own party other than his cabinet let alone the country.

PoshinDevon · Post by **PoshinDevon** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 12:01 am

erol wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:Keith.....I only posted to stimulate debate, ......
But so far you have only posted 'fake news' that is pro (extreme) Brexit. Which 'makes me think' Is that because of personal bias or because it is so much easier to find such 'fake news' stories that are pro hard Brexit than it is to find similar that is pro remain ?

Erol

Firstly I did vote leave.

However; I am in no way hard line Brexit, out at any cost. There are a couple of Brexit topics with many posts on each and to say that all I have posted is fake news is a sweeping statement and completely incorrect.

Try and understand that if fake news from whatever side of the argument can be disproven then that is in my opinion good as it may well help us all in gaining a better understanding of whether it would be best to leave or remain in the E.U. Not everyone has your breadth of knowledge, debating expertise or the time to dig into and analyse every piece of information posted and some may well be put off posting for these very reasons.

I am more than happy for Kibkom members to post and quote facts to disprove an argument whether that be one to remain or leave. I don’t think it is healthy to be so entrenched as a remainer or leaver.

In the meantime I will refrain from posting and read with interest your comments on why we should remain in the E.U.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 1:53 am

PoshinDevon wrote: However; I am in no way hard line Brexit, out at any cost. There are a couple of Brexit topics with many posts on each and to say that all I have posted is fake news is a sweeping statement and completely incorrect.

Did not mean to give the impression I was saying that was all you have posted. Absolutely not saying that. What I meant is that you had posted a couple of things that were 'doing the rounds' on fb, that were both classic 'fake news' stories. I am genuinely interested to know if there are similar 'social media memes' that are pro remain and also 'fake'. I do not recall having seen any but that does not mean they do not exist. So let's see them if they exist. If they do not then I think it it does pose questions about how 'equaly' both sides of the argument have been put across.

PoshinDevon wrote:In the meantime I will refrain from posting and read with interest your comments on why we should remain in the E.U.

I voted remain (I no longer have a vote having expired my 15 years out of the UK) but I am not a 'hard' remainer either, just like you are not a hard leaver. After the initial shock of the result I was resigned that the UK was leaving the EU. I do genuinely think that other than the behaviour and actions of a hard core minority of extreme 'leavers' there was no way the UK would remain in the EU. Sure we may have still had ties to the EU (customs union, free trade area or some such) as a compromise solution but nothing would have stopped us being out of the EU and any ties that remained after that, as a result of compromise and practicality could be got out of over time if there was genuine will to do so in a sensible managed way. For me the 'group' most culpable for the possibility that the UK does not in the end leave the EU are the very extreme leavers I have been talking about.

kerry 6138 · Post by **kerry 6138** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 9:00 am

erol wrote:. For me the 'group' most culpable for the possibility that the UK does not in the end leave the EU are the very extreme leavers I have been talking about.

No mention of Gina miller campain, Liberal Democrats, Peoples vote campaign / march or the EU refusing to talk a trade deal alongside these negotiations, how much easier it would be Mrs May to sell her deal it incuded real proposals not vague promises.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 10:20 am

kerry 6138 wrote:
erol wrote:. For me the 'group' most culpable for the possibility that the UK does not in the end leave the EU are the very extreme leavers I have been talking about.
No mention of Gina miller campain, Liberal Democrats, Peoples vote campaign / march

I personally do not think any of these groups are as culpable for creating an environment where the possibility that UK does not leave the EU as the hard line extreme leavers are. If a 'compromise' exit approach had been forged with the support of 350 or more MP's cross party then all of the above would have been 'pissing in the wind' and our exit from the EU would have been a certainty.

kerry 6138 wrote:or the EU refusing to talk a trade deal alongside these negotiations, how much easier it would be Mrs May to sell her deal it incuded real proposals not vague promises.

I think the broad parameters of the kind of deals the UK could do with the EU after it exits the EU are well know and understood in broad terms and always have been, because there already exist examples (Norway, Turkey, Switzerland, Canada etc etc). I find the idea that the possibility of brexit not happening is mostly the fault of the EU and it's alleged refusal to 'negotiate' entirely unconvincing. Sounds to me like the 'blame anyone but ourselves' approach.

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 10:56 am

Kerry is right to highlight the constant ongoing frustrations to Brexit one after the other there is some distraction or another to stop us leaving the EU.
And now to be labelled Extremist because we ticked the only box on the ballet paper there was for people who wanted to leave is just so disrespectful but there seems to be little respect for people who just wants to leave.
We now have the EU sounding off about not beefing up the deal to get it through parliament, why on earth would they frustrate the deal further just to be pig headed about a few words, the Tories get a bit of a bad press that it’s took 2 ½ years to get here but I think we know its not just the Tories but on recent events it’s gin clear the EU are very similar to the remain campaign on doing everything they can to stop Brexit in its tracks.
Disgraceful behaviour but we shouldn't be surprised.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 12:04 pm

turtle wrote:And now to be labelled Extremist because we ticked the only box on the ballet paper there was for people who wanted to leave is just so disrespectful but there seems to be little respect for people who just wants to leave.

I do not label all those who vote leave extremists. I label those who voted leave and for whom no form of leaving other than total separation from the EU with a no deal crash out exit is acceptable. I label them extremists because their position is extreme. There are those who voted leave who believe and accept that staying in some form of customs union is an acceptable form of leaving the EU and to ignore these people or pretend they do not exists is indeed disrespectful to them.

turtle wrote:We now have the EU sounding off about not beefing up the deal to get it through parliament, why on earth would they frustrate the deal further just to be pig headed about a few words,

That the EU can not accept a deal that returns a hard boarder between the RoI and NI is something they have been totally clear about from day one. Given this is a red line then the 'moderate' and pragmatic approach to such would be to leave now in a form that does not require a return to hard boarder between RoI and NI, with some form of customs union and then if necessary over time work out and show viable working alternatives that could mean an exit from this customs union as well without the need for a return to hard boarders. This kind of approach I believe would be acceptable to many who voted leave but it is not acceptable to the extremists leavers. The idea that its just the EU being 'pig headed over a few words' is to me nonsense.

turtle wrote: the Tories get a bit of a bad press that it’s took 2 ½ years to get here but I think we know its not just the Tories but on recent events it’s gin clear the EU are very similar to the remain campaign on doing everything they can to stop Brexit in its tracks.
Disgraceful behaviour but we shouldn't be surprised.

If the extreme leavers could or would accept any form of leaving other than their maximal no deal crash out full and total separation from the EU all on day one then nothing the EU or leavers could do or say would or could stop the UK from leaving the EU.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 1:48 pm

Mowgli597 wrote:One response to the above (from https://not606.com/threads/which-way-forward-with-brexit-poll.369866/page-3

Wow, that's a hell of a list, who dreamed that lot up, I haven't got time to go through it all but it should be noted that the UK agreed a "Special status deal" with the EU in early 2016 which addresses the first few "Known outcomes" above. A short part of which is copied below...

Recalling in particular that the United Kingdom is entitled under the Treaties:

- not to adopt the euro and therefore to keep the British pound sterling as its currency (Protocol No 15),

- not to participate in the Schengen acquis (Protocol No 19),

- to exercise border controls on persons, and therefore not to participate in the Schengen area as regards internal and external borders (Protocol No 20),

- to choose whether or not to participate in measures in the area of freedom, security and justice (Protocol No 21),

- to cease to apply as from 1 December 2014 a large majority of Union acts and provisions in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty while choosing to continue to participate in 35 of them (Article 10(4) and (5) of Protocol No 36),

I think the electorate fell for cosmetic renegotiation in 1975 when Wilson managed to change a two thirds majority for leaving into a two thirds majority for remaining.
I don’t mind anyone being naive enough to fall for a con but to fall for it twice!!!
Can you not see that any nation remaining in the EU would have to have the Euro at some point?
The EU are nothing if not patient, nothing is stopping the project. They might have to wait or repackage but it’s happening.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 2:22 pm

PoshinDevon wrote:

KNOWN OUTCOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED AS TRUE BY ALL SIDES:

1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.
2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.
3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen the move is fully cancelled but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.
5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.
7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.
8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.
9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.
10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights
11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights
12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty
13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation
14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent
15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy
16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them
17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealth
18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.; Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar ect
19: The UK loses control of its judicial system
20: The UK loses control of its international policy
21: The UK loses full control of its national policy
22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.
23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program
24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction
25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty
26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020

Obviously alamism and fake news, so obviously none of these things will be bought in by the EU?
Be interesting to see how much of this happens within the next 10-15 years

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 2:34 pm

turtle wrote: You mention that the ERG are extremists as they pushed for a confidence vote in the Government so I take it Corbyn and his rabble of SNP’s and Libdems are also extremists for plotting the downfall of the government with a no confidence vote on the horizon ?

I think to be fair Corbyn and his band of non extremists are concentrating on removing the socialists from Labour first.

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 2:40 pm

erol wrote:
turtle wrote:You mention that the ERG are extremists as they pushed for a confidence vote in the Government so I take it Corbyn and his rabble of SNP’s and Libdems are also extremists for plotting the downfall of the government with a no confidence vote on the horizon ?
The opposition trying to unseat the government is the same, in terms of being 'extreme', as a backbench MP trying and failing to unseat their own parties sitting prime minister is it ?

Yes it is... especially when (as has been indicated) to the detriment of the country at large or if a Labour Government with literally no policy at all for Brexit wins power.

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 2:49 pm

.

turtle wrote:We now have the EU sounding off about not beefing up the deal to get it through parliament, why on earth would they frustrate the deal further just to be pig headed about a few words,

That the EU can not accept a deal that returns a hard boarder between the RoI and NI is something they have been totally clear about from day one. Given this is a red line then the 'moderate' and pragmatic approach to such would be to leave now in a form that does not require a return to hard boarder between RoI and NI, with some form of customs union and then if necessary over time work out and show viable working alternatives that could mean an exit from this customs union as well without the need for a return to hard boarders. This kind of approach I believe would be acceptable to many who voted leave but it is not acceptable to the extremists leavers. The idea that its just the EU being 'pig headed over a few words' is to me nonsense.

I will try again....when we had the vote the only choice was to leave or stay there was no option to tick leave and wait and see what deal could be negotiated...it was leave so I presume that every body who ticked leave would have had the idea that it would be a straight leave without cling-ons ?
So back to the Label of extremists....in your mind we at the time were or are by definition extremist ?

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 2:58 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Obviously alamism and fake news, ....

Obviously alarmist and fake news because it is just not true. Still who cares about truth and reality when dogma, rhetoric, bombast and lies can get you what you want ?

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 3:02 pm

turtle wrote:.

I will try again....when we had the vote the only choice was to leave or stay there was no option to tick leave and wait and see what deal could be negotiated...it was leave so I presume that every body who ticked leave would have had the idea that it would be a straight leave without cling-ons ?

You can't presume what people voted for even if every single person you have spoken to says that is the reason.

I'm sure the vast majority voted to leave but still wanted the EU to create our laws, control our borders and our fishing waters etc etc. Also in future take control of our forces, currency etc etc.

This whole thing reminds me of the old not the nine oclock news sketch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSINO6MKtco

And then the elite starts bawling when the person in the street gets sick of them and votes for the likes of Trump.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 3:05 pm

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Obviously alamism and fake news, ....
Obviously alarmist and fake news because it is just not true. Still who cares about truth and reality when dogma, rhetoric, bombast and lies can get you what you want ?

So not one of those things will come to pass in the next 10-15 years?

Simple yes or no question, no need to bury the un-answer in 3 pages of dogma, rhetoric, bombast and lies.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 3:53 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: I'm sure the vast majority voted to leave but still wanted the EU to create our laws, control our borders and our fishing waters etc etc. Also in future take control of our forces, currency etc etc.

Are you sure when people voted leave in 2016 they considered Turkey or Canada to be in the EU in everything but name only ? The very idea is nonsense yet today not only do you argue that you believe such models are BRINO you also claim that it is an unquestionable fact that every other person who voted to leave in 2016 also thinks the same.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So not one of those things will come to pass in the next 10-15 years?

The fake news propaganda item does not claim that one of the things on on it's list will happen in the next 10-15 years. It claims that the whole list are things that have already been agreed and are going to happen and some of them in the next two to 4 years. It just not true and your attempts to 'spin' otherwise are, in my view, embarrassing. So for example it claims that in 2020 all EU members will 'lose their abstention veto'. This is just not true and plainly so. So you like to have 'wager' now and then and put your money where your mouth is do you ? I am more than happy to bet that the Republic of Cyprus will still have a unilateral veto on the accession or Turkey to the EU at the end of 2020. Want to take that wager ?

kerry 6138 · Post by **kerry 6138** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 4:22 pm

erol wrote"
That the EU can not accept a deal that returns a hard boarder between the RoI and NI is something they have been totally clear about from day one. Given this is a red line then the 'moderate' and pragmatic approach to such would be to leave now in a form that does not require a return to hard boarder between RoI and NI,

NI and GB have no land border nor does Eire and and the EU so goods must be shipped or air freighted beween both, yet we are supposed to believe that technology doesnt exist that could identify country of origin and some pragmatic solution found to the collection of duties.
The border issue has been used by the EU much the same way it treated Cyprus it claims all the territory but suspends the rules or gives special status in the north.
The Good Friday agreement allows for a referendum on unification if the majority in the north call for it so it is to the Rep of Ireland/EUs interest to make things difficult for NI not to be pragmatic and definitely not moderate this is why the DUP are so against the current plan . No one is calling for a border particularly The DUP.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 4:37 pm

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So not one of those things will come to pass in the next 10-15 years?
The fake news propaganda item does not claim that one of the things on on it's list will happen in the next 10-15 years. It claims that the whole list are things that have already been agreed and are going to happen and some of them in the next two to 4 years. It just not true and your attempts to 'spin' otherwise are, in my view, embarrassing. So for example it claims that in 2020 all EU members will 'lose their abstention veto'. This is just not true and plainly so. So you like to have 'wager' now and then and put your money where your mouth is do you ? I am more than happy to bet that the Republic of Cyprus will still have a unilateral veto on the accession or Turkey to the EU at the end of 2020. Want to take that wager ?

Sorry Erol it was a bit much to expect a straight yes or no.

So that’s a yes some of the list will happen in the next 10-15 years but because their timing is off it’s fake news?

Or no, none of those things on the list will ever happen and it is total scaremongering?

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 5:01 pm

kerry 6138 wrote:
NI and GB have no land border nor does Eire and and the EU so goods must be shipped or air freighted beween both, yet we are supposed to believe that technology doesnt exist that could identify country of origin and some pragmatic solution found to the collection of duties.
The border issue has been used by the EU much the same way it treated Cyprus it claims all the territory but suspends the rules or gives special status in the north.
The Good Friday agreement allows for a referendum on unification if the majority in the north call for it so it is to the Rep of Ireland/EUs interest to make things difficult for NI not to be pragmatic and definitely not moderate this is why the DUP are so against the current plan . No one is calling for a border particularly The DUP.

The Backstop is a total fudge and a clause inserted to keep us knitted into the fabric of the EU.
Anyone who seriously thinks that a deal will be struck before the transition period ends is really living in cuckoo land and that is why the majority of the political world and the British public view it for what it is....a bloody train crash of a deal.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 5:51 pm

kerry 6138 wrote:NI and GB have no land border nor does Eire and and the EU so goods must be shipped or air freighted beween both, yet we are supposed to believe that technology doesnt exist that could identify country of origin and some pragmatic solution found to the collection of duties.

So you support May's deal then ? For that is what it seeks to allow. Remain in a customs union while we negotiate and show that such a system is workable. Or if you do not 'trust' the EU then what is wrong with leaving the EU now, remaining in the customs union whilst we negotiate and show such a system works and keep the option open of just unilaterally leaving that customs arrangement should it prove impossible to get agreement with the EU ? If neither of these solutions is acceptable then what is it that you propose ? A crash out no deal leaving in March, even though there is not sufficient support for such in our sovereign parliament and how will that avoid a hard border ?

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 5:55 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Sorry Erol it was a bit much to expect a straight yes or no.

Is the claim that all EU members will loose their veto in 2020 true. Yes or no ? Can we expect a straight answer from you ?

If you claim it is true then will you take my bet , yes or no ? Can we expect a straight answer from you ? Some how I suspect your 'love' of straight yes and no answers may not be quite the same when its being asked of you and not from you.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 6:36 pm

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Sorry Erol it was a bit much to expect a straight yes or no.
Is the claim that all EU members will loose their veto in 2020 true. Yes or no ? Can we expect a straight answer from you ?

If you claim it is true then will you take my bet , yes or no ? Can we expect a straight answer from you ? Some how I suspect your 'love' of straight yes and no answers may not be quite the same when its being asked of you and not from you.

Erol,
You are wasted at multimax old son, you should be one of those defence attorneys who can get a guy with four headless bodies in his boot off because the policeman didn’t have his hat on when searching his car. You would actually believe you were serving justice too.

Point to where I said I agreed with the time scale given on that list?
I know how the game works.
You say it will happen in 2020 they say it is a disgrace to even suggest they would consider such a thing and hey presto it happens albeit slightly relabelled in 2022.

No I’m saying a fair few of those things will happen in 10-15 years and will guarantee that not all countries will have a veto by then including ROC.

You guys had a good run but I’m afraid Brexit and the Trump vote proves people aren’t buying it anymore.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 7:01 pm

erol wrote: the Republic of Cyprus will still have a unilateral veto on the accession or Turkey

So everyone is equal in the good old EU?
So if France and Germany decided it was in their national interests for Turkey to join the EU and the ROC couldn’t be bribed to withdraw their veto France and Germany would just let it go?
Is that what you believe? Seriously?

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 7:02 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Sorry Erol it was a bit much to expect a straight yes or no.
Is the claim that all EU members will loose their veto in 2020 true. Yes or no ? Can we expect a straight answer from you ?

If you claim it is true then will you take my bet , yes or no ? Can we expect a straight answer from you ? Some how I suspect your 'love' of straight yes and no answers may not be quite the same when its being asked of you and not from you.
Erol,
You are wasted at multimax old son, you should be one of those defence attorneys who can get a guy with four headless bodies in his boot off because the policeman didn’t have his hat on when searching his car. You would actually believe you were serving justice too.

Point to where I said I agreed with the time scale given on that list?
I know how the game works.
You say it will happen in 2020 they say it is a disgrace to even suggest they would consider such a thing and hey presto it happens albeit slightly relabelled in 2022.

No I’m saying a fair few of those things will happen in 10-15 years and will guarantee that not all countries will have a veto by then including ROC.

So no simple yes or no answer from you then. What a surprise.

Despite your claim I did and do not say it will happen in 2020 - the 'document' makes the claim that it is already agreed that this will happen in 2020 and states this as a fact. It is just not true. Yet when I call the document 'fake' based on this blatantly untrue statement, you go in to full spin mode to try and refute the claim that it is untrue and therefore fake. As far as you have any sort of argument or position that I can see it would seem to be that the document is not 'fake news' even though the specific time dated claims it makes are blatantly not true but because it somehow expresses some kind of vague 'sentiment' about what might happen in 10-15 years time that you agree with. You do all this and then rail against others 'sophistry' ? It is beyond absurd. Either the claims the documents make are true or they are not. Are the claims made in the document true or not ? yes or no ? Simple question which you will continue to not answer no doubt whilst also making out what a 'plain speaker' you are and berating me and anyone else you disagree with with 'not answering the question'.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You guys had a good run but I’m afraid Brexit and the Trump vote proves people aren’t buying it anymore.

If by 'you guys' you mean someone who actually cares about truth, reality, logic and reason, then indeed it would seem such ideas are under serious assault. I however see little I personally am culpable for in regards to this assault on such ideals, certainly in comparative terms. I am not for example the one arguing that blatantly untrue claims are not 'fake news'. I lament the assault on truth, reason logic and rationality. You seem to revel in it.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sat 15 Dec 2018 7:05 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
erol wrote: the Republic of Cyprus will still have a unilateral veto on the accession or Turkey
So everyone is equal in the good old EU?
So if France and Germany decided it was in their national interests for Turkey to join the EU and the ROC couldn’t be bribed to withdraw their veto France and Germany would just let it go?
Is that what you believe? Seriously?

The document I called 'fake news' claims that it is already agreed that the RoC will lose it's right to veto in 2020. Is this true ? Yes or no ? Or will you just keep 'un-answering' this question forever ?

kerry 6138 · Post by **kerry 6138** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 12:46 am

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 11:36 am

erol wrote: The document I called 'fake news' claims that it is already agreed that the RoC will lose it's right to veto in 2020. Is this true ? Yes or no ? Or will you just keep 'un-answering' this question forever ?

Lol Erol playing to the gallery. I’ll write this carefully as your reading comprehension seems slow.

The list was printed, did I say it was true? No. I said that considering it will get the usual fake news venom I wager that much of it will come true.

Then I asked you a yes and no question because let’s be honest Erol you say a lot of words but never answer anything that doesn’t suit.

You don't answer but flip it back with ROC veto, yes or no. I reply I am not buying into that time scale and say that ROC will lose their veto in time. To me that answers the question.

So you come back with won’t answer the question eh? Now you aren’t a stupid man but just have the usual left hypocrisy and spin.

So no I do not think the ROC will lose their veto by 2020. I do believe they will lose their veto in the next 10-15 years.
I have answered this question three times now.

I don’t know if it is worth asking you to answer a direct question, but let’s give it a go.

Let’s amend this list and agree that it hasn’t been signed off, although let’s be honest we would never know what has been agreed under the table.

Let’s also knock off the absolute time frame. The EU are nothing but patient. They will allow you to delay stuff or might repackage it but its happening.

We can knock out the bits specific to the UK because please god we won’t have to comply but can apply the rest to the nations that remain.

My list

1: The existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto the system will change to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.
2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU with no exceptions or veto’s.
3: All member states must adopt the Euro and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU.
4: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of its members.
5: Nations will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for any country to have their own parliament or upper house.
6: Nations will NOT be able to make their own trade deals.
7: Nations will NOT be able to set their own trade tariffs.
8: Nations will NOT be able to set their own trade quotas.
9: Nations will lose control of their borders
10: Nations will lose control of planning legislation to create their own laws and to implement them
11: Nations will lose control of their armed forces
12: Nations will lose full control of their taxation policy
13: Nations will lose control of their judicial system
14: Nations will lose control of their national and international policies
I say nations but they won’t be any more they will be provinces

So that’s my amended list. I’ve taken out the bits specific to the UK as hopefully we will be looking on.

I say at least two thirds of those things will come to pass in 10-15 years. The rest will happen within the next 25 years.

So yes or no am I scaremongering?

Yes or no am I wrong and none of those things will happen.

Maybe for ease just quote those two questons and an answer in a separate post. I know you won't answer but I want to be fair and if by some miracle you could give a simple unspun answer to the question I'd hate for it to be lost in 3 pages of Guardianism.

erol wrote: If by 'you guys' you mean someone who actually cares about truth, reality, logic and reason

Logic and reality pmsl at least you didn’t say hypocrisy.

No by you guys I mean the guys who will pee on your head and try and convince you it is warm rain.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 12:09 pm

Quite an interesting documentary on the 1975 referendum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wqAONXOxSk

Does make you wonder this time round when the remainers are questioning the funding is it because they didn't have 8 times the funding this time round so it was a fairer fight. Also wonder if the EU slipped some money into the fighting fund as they did last time.

I guess that would be ok though, foreigners sticking their nose into our affairs are ok as long as it is the EU or Soros bankrolling the right side.

As for the tiny concessions call me Dave got pre referendum. Reckon they were as big a sham as the ones Wilson got back in 1975?

PoshinDevon · Post by **PoshinDevon** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 1:40 pm

I am pleased to see that the “fake” news that I posted has stimulated debate.

Thank you to all contributors.

I think it is important for any news both remain and leave be shared, whether that be fake, partly true or 100% true and proven. Only by being open to such news can we then debate and try and get a better understanding on the whole Brexit mess. Yes we all have our own bias to leave or remain and likely they will not change.....but at least we will be better informed.

Thank you to kerry6138 for the link in your last post. Interesting reading and again will no doubt stimulate further debate.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 2:31 pm

kerry 6138 wrote:https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

Pretty obvious the veto can't last. I know if I say it will end in 2022 I will be called an alarmist as if this will never happen. All that will be wrong is I have the year wrong not the reality.

I can see Germany and France keeping a veto but there is no way that they are going to let a small country delay or stop the "project."

I don't think even the most blind remainer can deny that for the EU to work, it is as a United States of Europe.
So as such you need to look towards the USA for your model. Do some states there have some minor individual laws? For sure in much the same way as different councils in the UK levy different levels of fines for parking offences.

But do those councils or counties or states have their own currency or their own army etc? Absolutely not, how can they have? They are a state in a nation and nations have their own currency, defence policy etc.

So if you want to be a province or a state in a bigger nation you have a right to that opinion. But have your eyes open here and don't try with the help of the EU to pull the wool over our eyes. Don't label us who respect and like our neighbours as nationalists or racists if we wish to retain our identity. Also accept that Germany will dominate because of their economy and France will dominate because it is their ball. Don't delude yourself that you will have much say unless you agree with France and Germany. I have nothing against either country, I have enjoyed visiting both. Visiting, not moving to or being controlled by.

Also don't try and convince us that forcing people together without their express agreement is what is needed for ongoing peace. History doesn't support you no matter how much you try to use it.

PoshinDevon · Post by **PoshinDevon** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 8:03 pm

For those who lean towards remain and say that leavers either suck up to or just post fake news here are two You Tube clips( There are many others) which resonate with me and form some of the reasons why I feel that the UK should leave the EU.

The first is Jacob Reed-Mogg questioning Guy Verhofstadt about the backstop and EU rules. If you think the EU are fair and apply there rules to all member states fairly, think again. It’s 10mins long, so grab a coffee and listen.

https://youtu.be/I4w7W-rduZ8

The second is good old Guy Verhofstadt in action again and his views on sovereignty. Short clip.

https://youtu.be/-xg7JwbJfWA

For those who cannot see where the EU is heading this may help. If you are happy to be part of this then fine. It may take time but rest assured they want only one thing and that is a full single European state.

The EU is like wrestling with an alligator, they will twist, turn and thrash about and rip you to shreds.

I and 17M others do not want to be part of this super state. Oh and don’t try and say it won’t turn out like the you tube clips. I think it will.

In the words of Maggie... no, no, no

LooseBoots · Post by **LooseBoots** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 8:56 pm

17.4 million voted to leave.

the percentage that won was hardly the majority. Seeing that such lies were used and some people , incorrectly voted on the strength of those lies.

A great percentage voted as a protest vote.

I dont think it was properly thought through or presented in a correct manner.

My personal view is that it is better to stay IN THE CLUB and make the change from within , given that the majority of our market is within the EU.

Plus the fact that we have 3 times more MEPSs than most countries. I f we leave with NO DEAL we will still be bound by EU rules but with no say.

If the original vote had been based on the TRUTH which ALL politicians , whatever party seem to be lacking then fair enough. But it wasnt.

So what is the harm in a second referendum.

As do the people of Ireland.

I worked near the stock exchange in London when an IRA bomb went off.

I don't want anyone to go through that again.

The YOUNG people , at least , deserve it.

Mowgli597 · Post by **Mowgli597** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 9:20 pm

PoshinDevon wrote:For those who cannot see where the EU is heading this may help. If you are happy to be part of this then fine. It may take time but rest assured they want only one thing and that is a full single European state.

........... I and 17M others do not want to be part of this super state.

But 16,141,241 do. What’s more 26,033 had their votes rejected.

And many people who, though still U.K. taxpayers and therefore will be affected to a greater or lesser extent, were denied a vote.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 9:58 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Lol Erol playing to the gallery. I’ll write this carefully as your reading comprehension seems slow.

You do not think you play to the gallery ? For me your whole 'give me a yes / no' answers to a loaded question is just that. I responded in kind but I did not and do not 'start' such behaviours. Yet I am accused of such by someone who does pro actively start such things ? Feels very unfair to me. Nor will I make out you do this because that is what 'those on the right do'. I will make out you do them because I see you do them.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The list was printed, did I say it was true? No. I said that considering it will get the usual fake news venom I wager that much of it will come true.

You are arguing that some or much of the things in the document will come true eventually. For me that entirely misses the point of why that document is fairly and justly called 'fake news'. It does not , like your spin, claim that these things are what is going to happen and the way the EU is heading. It claims that these things have already been agreed by all parties. This is just not true. It is a lie. It is designed to mislead people in to thinking that without any member state having to agree anything further that these things will now happen on the dates specified. Yet you still make out that me calling it 'fake news' on that basis is 'venom'. It is not.

The things you say may well come to pass but the point, the most important point, that you do not mention, is that any change to the right of individual members vetos can only happen with consent of those individual members. It is just a fact that they have, still have and continue to have a veto on any changes to their veto. This is the egregious lie that is in the document, that you ignore and dismiss. It makes out that this agreement has already happened. It has not. Yes the Lisbon treaty did change which areas were subject to individual vetos and which were not but this was done with the individual separate consent of each and every member state, including the UK. Any further changes require the same.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Then I asked you a yes and no question because let’s be honest Erol you say a lot of words but never answer anything that doesn’t suit.

Everyone chooses what to reply to and what to ignore when responding on forums like these. I do it and you do it (if you want examples just ask but you must know you do it). What I try not to do and sometimes do end up doing only in 'retaliation' is to constantly call other's out for doing it whilst ignoring the fact that I also do it. You repeatedly 'call out' others for not answering the question and usually a heavily loaded question at that, vastly more regularly than I, or just about any other poster here, does imo and yet you seem oblivious to your habit of doing exactly the same. I think that habit / tactic / technique, that you use so much, is 'playing to the audience' if I am frank.

I am saying the document is fake news because it is has blatant lies in it, claims that are factually incorrect and not true. It does not say that certain things will inevitably happen in the future. It say that these things have already been agreed and are going to happen now on set dates without the need for any further consent from anyone. This is not true and it what I have been saying all along and that you just write off as 'not saying anything'.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:You don't answer but flip it back with ROC veto, yes or no. I reply I am not buying into that time scale and say that ROC will lose their veto in time. To me that answers the question.

The yes / no thing was in retaliation. You started that. I was saying the document was fake news and to refute that claim you tried to force me in to your yes/no answer. The point is the document is fake news, designed with the specific intent to mislead, regardless of what may happen in the future by future agreement and individual consent of members because it claims as fact that these things are now happening without any need for future consent from individual members or any ability for those member to resist them if they want to.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So you come back with won’t answer the question eh? Now you aren’t a stupid man but just have the usual left hypocrisy and spin.

It is not hypocrisy or spin to be frustrated by you trying to make out the blatant lies in the document are not blatant lies designed to mislead. Again you post as if you are genuinely unaware of how your posts and behaviour here can seem like spin or hypocrisy. The original question as far as I am concerned was 'is that document fake new or not'. It is and regardless of what may happen in the future as I have explained. To me your whole approach of changing it to 'these things will happen some time sooner or later' was indeed you 'spinning' as was your 'just give a yes / no' answer was 'playing to the gallery'. I am also fed up with this whole 'because that is what the left do' rhetoric of yours. The idea that the 'right' does not spin (or any number of other things you ascribe to the 'left') is so patently false but more than that I try and ascribe to you the things that you do and say. I do not ascribe to you false generalisations about the 'right' generically. As an example of the difference, I will and have talked about my 'issues' with say the Daily Mail (as it was under Dacre). You will talk about 'Guradianistas. You personalise it and tar anyone you disagree with with the broadest of brushes that more often than not apply just the same to the 'right' anyway. It is for me a tedious and wearing approach to discussion with you here in text.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Let’s amend this list and agree that it hasn’t been signed off, although let’s be honest we would never know what has been agreed under the table.

This is the whole crux of the matter for me. It has not been signed off. In order for it to be signed off requires the individual consent of each and every member separately. They may choose to consent to these things at some point in the future but they can not be imposed on any member state if they are adamant that they do not want to agree to such. They have a veto. That is fact. Speculating that things get agreed in private without 'our' knowledge is just that speculation. Fact. Speculation. These things will happen if all the members states individually agree to them happening and will not and can not happen as long as a member state says they will not accept them. That is the truth but not one that suits your agenda I suspect.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: I say at least two thirds of those things will come to pass in 10-15 years. The rest will happen within the next 25 years.

If you are saying they will happen even if a given member state is adamant and resolute that they do not want them to happen, then yes you are in my view undoubtedly scaremongering.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Maybe for ease just quote those two questons and an answer in a separate post. I know you won't answer but I want to be fair and if by some miracle you could give a simple unspun answer to the question I'd hate for it to be lost in 3 pages of Guardianism.

And so it goes on. Can the RoC be forced by the EU against it firm and determined will to give up it's veto on Turkey's entry ? No it can not. Yes the EU may try and 'bully' it , it may try and argue persistently for years and years that the RoC does not need that veto and it may try and offer it all sorts of 'quid pro quo' incentives to trade for giving it up. That is politics but the simple plain fact is that if the RoC stands firm on this issue it can not be forced to give this up against it's will. That is the truth and the claim in the document that it has already given it up and this will be implemented in 2020 is a lie. There is not other word for it than lie and no amount of spin changes this. It has NOT been agreed and can ONLY be agreed with the CONSENT of the RoC.

erol wrote:No by you guys I mean the guys who will pee on your head and try and convince you it is warm rain.

What is that if not 'playing to the gallery' ? And you throw around the accusation of hypocrisy more than any other poster on this forum that I can think of ?

erol · Post by **erol** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 10:07 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I guess that would be ok though, foreigners sticking their nose into our affairs are ok as long as it is the EU or Soros bankrolling the right side.

Or Bannon and the Koch brothers ? (should I shout hypocrisy now ?)

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:As for the tiny concessions call me Dave got pre referendum. Reckon they were as big a sham as the ones Wilson got back in 1975?

Yes they were 'sham' concessions, because any substantive change to the rules we have already consented to require treaty re negotiation. There is only one sensible time at which seeking any changes of substance to the agreements we have previously consented to - and that is during treaty renegotiation. No UK government has ever 'ask the people' in these periods. Labour in 75 and Cameron in 2000 and whatever only offered referenda at time that suits their own petty party needs and thus of course they got next to nothing because that was all that was possible at those times. The betrayal here is with UK governments not the EU imo.

PoshinDevon · Post by **PoshinDevon** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 10:16 pm

Mowgli597 wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:For those who cannot see where the EU is heading this may help. If you are happy to be part of this then fine. It may take time but rest assured they want only one thing and that is a full single European state.

........... I and 17M others do not want to be part of this super state.
But 16,141,241 do. What’s more 26,033 had their votes rejected.

And many people who, though still U.K. taxpayers and therefore will be affected to a greater or lesser extent, were denied a vote.

It means nothing.

The vote was a majority to leave.

You can throw in the old chestnut about people dying, young people never got out of bed, overseas ex pats who never voted, UK tax payers denied the vote or even rejected votes. It happens at each and every election.....but we don’t overturn that result a few months later. It’s not how democracy works.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 10:42 pm

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Pretty obvious the veto can't last. I know if I say it will end in 2022 I will be called an alarmist as if this will never happen. All that will be wrong is I have the year wrong not the reality.

I think the only real question here is can this happen without the individual consent of each member state or not.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I can see Germany and France keeping a veto but there is no way that they are going to let a small country delay or stop the "project."

So how will this work in practice then in your view. We are in a treaty renegotiation period and Germany and France say to Cyprus, going forward we will keep vetos on entry of new members but you must give yours up. How will France and Germany force the RoC to agree to this ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I don't think even the most blind remainer can deny that for the EU to work, it is as a United States of Europe.

There are those in the EU, governments and 'people' who believe constant evolution towards a 'United states of Europe' is the way forward and the long term trend. I happen to be one of them as an evolution towards a united states of the world. However this idea that the 'EU' is a singular thing with a singular objective is to me a simplification that does not serve much purpose. There are elements within the EU, both governments and people, that are as opposed to this as anyone or government in the UK is. They may not be dominant but they are there.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So if you want to be a province or a state in a bigger nation you have a right to that opinion. But have your eyes open here and don't try with the help of the EU to pull the wool over our eyes.

You may think that the drive of the EU towards greater integration and towards a federal united states of Europe is some sinister hidden plot. I do not think this. For me the only question is , if the UK is within the EU as it exits today and is determined to resist such moves does it have the means and ability to unilaterally resist such things. If it does not then sure we should get out of it. If our politicians do not resit it when it is clear that the 'people' want it resisted then the fault is with our politicians and political system is it not ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Don't label us who respect and like our neighbours as nationalists or racists if we wish to retain our identity.

And just because some people with a given view label others such things do not attach the blame for that to anyone here you disagree with or make out it is something only the 'left does'. I have never called any individual racist for voting leave. Not here not anywhere. I have gone to pains to not do so and to refute the practice of doing so, repeatedly. Have you 'tarred' me with that brush (that I just write of anyone who supports leave as racist) ? You may think you have not but from where I am sitting it feels like you do so constantly.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Also accept that Germany will dominate because of their economy and France will dominate because it is their ball. Don't delude yourself that you will have much say unless you agree with France and Germany. I have nothing against either country, I have enjoyed visiting both. Visiting, not moving to or being controlled by.

So imagine France and Germany really want something in the EU and in fact all members want it or at least are willing to consent to it, except the UK. What happens in a scenario like that ? According to you we should accept that France and Germany will get their way and the UK will not. Or have I misunderstood you ? Yet exactly this happened in 2011 and we, the UK, under Cameron in a coalition government, vetoed the change that France and Germany wanted and all other 26 members were willing to accept. So to me there are your claims of what we must accept as true because you say so and then there is historical fact and reality of what has actually happened in the past and the two are quite quite different from where I am sitting. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... hange.html or https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... -eu-treaty)

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Also don't try and convince us that forcing people together without their express agreement is what is needed for ongoing peace. History doesn't support you no matter how much you try to use it.

If you mean consent of respective member state's democratically elected governments then all changes have been with such consent. If your argument is that national democratically governments act in ways against the will of the people who voted them in to power, and consent to things the people do not consent to, then your argument should be with those national governments surely ?

PoshinDevon · Post by **PoshinDevon** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 10:48 pm

LooseBoots wrote:17.4 million voted to leave.

the percentage that won was hardly the majority. Seeing that such lies were used and some people , incorrectly voted on the strength of those lies.

It was a majority, that’s how democracy works

A great percentage voted as a protest vote.

Proof? Some also say young people never voted .....whose fault is that

I dont think it was properly thought through or presented in a correct manner.

Maybe not but Cameron said there would be a vote, the vote took place with two clear choices and both sides presenting there case

My personal view is that it is better to stay IN THE CLUB and make the change from within , given that the majority of our market is within the EU.

Respect your opinion, however we have been a reluctant club member for 40+ years and IMO the U.K. has never fully embraced the European dream. We just don’t have that mentality to be managed/ruled by someone else. The club is moving towards a huge E.U. single state, slowly but surely.

Plus the fact that we have 3 times more MEPSs than most countries. I f we leave with NO DEAL we will still be bound by EU rules but with no say.

If we leave with No Deal we will not be bound by E.U. rules. We may choose to keep the existing rules or we may choose to amend them over time, however as we will not be in the EU we will not be bound by any future rules. If we leave with the PMs proposed deal we will be bound by E.U. rules and have no say.

If the original vote had been based on the TRUTH which ALL politicians , whatever party seem to be lacking then fair enough. But it wasnt.

Politicians are in the game of being elected.....truth and promises are secondary. Sad but true unfortunately. The voters have to try and sort the wheat from the chaff. Not easy I will agree.

So what is the harm in a second referendum.

Lots IMO. If we went down this route why not have a second general election vote....sorry but democracy doesn’t work like that. Whilst politicians and UK politics isn’t presenting itself in the best light at the moment, to go back on the referendum vote would be wrong. The PM has ruled out a second referendum but who knows....she is a politician!

As do the people of Ireland.

I worked near the stock exchange in London when an IRA bomb went off.

I don't want anyone to go through that again.

The YOUNG people , at least , deserve it.

I know a lot of young people who voted leave. Also just to be balanced I also know a lot of young people who never voted at all.....but whose fault is that.

The vote was to leave. Sadly politicians have let the country down by making such a horlicks of it all. Hence the arguments rage on.

erol · Post by **erol** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 10:54 pm

PoshinDevon wrote:The first is Jacob Reed-Mogg questioning Guy Verhofstadt about the backstop and EU rules. If you think the EU are fair and apply there rules to all member states fairly, think again. It’s 10mins long, so grab a coffee and listen.

https://youtu.be/I4w7W-rduZ8

I only have watched the first few minutes of it and basically Mogg's first question. What strikes me is what about the sovereign rights of the 26 Members of the EU ? Do they also have a right to, together, have sovereign control of their borders, to determine what standards products and food should meet to be sold in their countries, to control who can enter their countries or not ? Or is this only something the UK has a right to and that in order for us to be able to get what we sovereignly want, they must give up their ability to say , for example, we do not want chlorinated chickens or hormone saturated beef to enter in to our countries and be sold to our population ?

PoshinDevon · Post by **PoshinDevon** » Sun 16 Dec 2018 11:06 pm

erol wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:The first is Jacob Reed-Mogg questioning Guy Verhofstadt about the backstop and EU rules. If you think the EU are fair and apply there rules to all member states fairly, think again. It’s 10mins long, so grab a coffee and listen.

https://youtu.be/I4w7W-rduZ8
I only have watched the first few minutes of it and basically Mogg's first question. What strikes me is what about the sovereign rights of the 26 Members of the EU ? Do they also have a right to, together, have sovereign control of their borders, to determine what standards products and food should meet to be sold in their countries, to control who can enter their countries or not ? Or is this only something the UK has a right to and that in order for us to be able to get what we sovereignly want, they must give up their ability to say , for example, we do not want chlorinated chickens or hormone saturated beef to enter in to our countries and be sold to our population ?

Fine Erol....watch the whole clip plus the short second clip. It’s not fake news, it’s actually what Verhofstadt believes is the way forward.

The first clip is JRM highlighting how so called EU rules are not really rules at all. He is specifically referring to the NI backstop arrangements which I am sure you will understand is probably the biggest issue to be resolved as far as the U.K. is concerned. So let’s concentrate on this one aspect and not grey the discussion with other issues. Rules appear to be able to be manipulated as and when it fits the E.U. aims. As for the second clip about sovereignty etc, it’s clear what Verhofstadt thinks.

JRM has a great questioning technique, backed up by extensive knowledge of both E.U. and U.K. politics and how things work. His questioning in the first clip IMO exposes many failings.

We won’t agree of course!

turtle · Post by **turtle** » Mon 17 Dec 2018 12:07 am

When you look at Verhofstadt body language he is all over the place...very very uncomfortable and his falling over his words is way more than a language issue.

The second clip i saw some weeks ago and can't believe this "rant" hasn't gone viral, how the hell remainers can back a statement like that beggars belief.

erol · Post by **erol** » Mon 17 Dec 2018 12:16 am

PoshinDevon wrote: JRM has a great questioning technique, backed up by extensive knowledge of both E.U. and U.K. politics and how things work. His questioning in the first clip IMO exposes many failings.

I think Mogg is a product of his environment of lifelong privilege and advantage. He is for me the very epitome of a member of a ruling 'elite'.

PoshinDevon wrote: We won’t agree of course!

Well we agree that we will not agree. I find his 'argument' in the clip ridiculous to be honest. Even if you accept that he is right that the 'EU breaks it's own rules when it suits the EU' which is itself debatable, the argument that it should do so for a country that wants to leave the EU in the 'same' way it does for those that are members of the EU and do not want to leave is for me the first falsehood in his argument.

It is like I have been a member of a golf club and mid way through my current membership I say I want to leave the club, because it is badly run and I do not like the way it run. However I do still want to be able to play a round of golf every alternate Wednesday, as a non member. The club says to me but the rules are the course can only be used by Members and there are no basis for non members to play there. To which I say but yeah you could choose to just let me play if you wanted to because when Geoff managed to get Tiger Woods to come and play at the club, the club happily chose to ignore the rule saying only members can play. To me the whole argument that the EU should bend over backwards to help the UK and particularly Mogg get what they want smacks of exactly the kind of 'privilege' that defines his life.

The impression he is trying to create imo is that in the event of a no deal exit the EU would choose to require the RoI to inspect or track or monitor or control some way the movement of goods and people across the border to NI just out of whim and for no reason other than to make things difficult for the UK out of some kind of spite or hatred. The thesis is to me nonsense for the very reasons I already mentioned when I had only seen the first minute of the clip. Namely that the EU being concerned with being able to have control of it's common borders is not some made up 'whim'. It is the same issue that the likes of Mogg claim are central to the UK and it's sovereignty. Mogg's argument, as I understand it, is that in order for the UK to regain it's sovereignty and control of it's borders in a way that most suits and is convenient for the UK, the EU should choose to put it's own at risk. Frankly I find it embarrassing that a UK MP would try and make such an argument.

erol · Post by **erol** » Mon 17 Dec 2018 12:29 am

turtle wrote:The second clip i saw some weeks ago and can't believe this "rant" hasn't gone viral, how the hell remainers can back a statement like that beggars belief.

It has been posted here before. So on the one hand we have the narrative that there is a 'secret plan' to evolve the EU in to a federal united states of Europe in the dark and behind the backs of the 'people' of Europe and then there is the 'outrage' that a democratically elected MEP openly advocates for a federal Europe. Seems like some kind of contradiction there ?

The guy (no pun intended) is an MEP. He was elected to that role. That is how democracy works, some times people who believe in and want things different to what you may believe and want get elected. So what are we saying then really ? That because not every elected MEP has views that 'we' (a given individual, or the 'people of the UK') agree with, this alone is reason to not want to be part of the EU ?

Mowgli597 · Post by **Mowgli597** » Mon 17 Dec 2018 4:36 am

PoshinDevon wrote:
Mowgli597 wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:For those who cannot see where the EU is heading this may help. If you are happy to be part of this then fine. It may take time but rest assured they want only one thing and that is a full single European state.

........... I and 17M others do not want to be part of this super state.
But 16,141,241 do. What’s more 26,033 had their votes rejected.

And many people who, though still U.K. taxpayers and therefore will be affected to a greater or lesser extent, were denied a vote.
It means nothing.

The vote was a majority to leave.

You can throw in the old chestnut about people dying, young people never got out of bed, overseas ex pats who never voted, UK tax payers denied the vote or even rejected votes. It happens at each and every election.....but we don’t overturn that result a few months later. It’s not how democracy works.

But a democratically elected government can be changed a few months later - by a vote of no confidence or a PM electing to call a new election etc. etc., not by the will of the electorate.

Your argument seems to be that a referendum vote is binding for all time, which is patently not the case. Further referenda can and will be held, or are you saying that there has to be a time limit before this can happen?

Those calling for a new referendum are simply saying now that we know the likely terms under which Brexit may happen, do you still want to continue? That to me seems more democratic. Government of the people by the people.

PoshinDevon · Post by **PoshinDevon** » Mon 17 Dec 2018 8:16 am

erol wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote: JRM has a great questioning technique, backed up by extensive knowledge of both E.U. and U.K. politics and how things work. His questioning in the first clip IMO exposes many failings.
I think Mogg is a product of his environment of lifelong privilege and advantage. He is for me the very epitome of a member of a ruling 'elite'.

I think your views on Mogg are somewhat typical of those who have some slight prejudice against anyone who may have had a more privileged life, education and upbringing. But does that make him the ruling elite? In the last election JRM in representing his North East Somerset constituency polled over 53% of the votes, increasing his majority and was 10000 votes ahead of his nearest rival. No mean feat for a conservative in the last election. Clearly his constituents see him in a favourable light and value his services as a politician despite his so called ruling elite status. I can find many other politicians past and present who have had a more privileged life but are still very good at the job. As an aside the Royal Family have a privileged life but I still think they do a good job. There are of course also a goodly number that are not so good at their job! Just because someone speaks eloquently, is educated and has what could be classed as a more privileged lifestyle is not an argument for saying they are a ruling elite. Is it his “posh” accent that grates or is it because he can dissect a discussion and ask probing questions which I don’t think is a bad thing. He can also remain calm and controlled despite some more robust debates or discussions with journalists, politicians or the general public. I believe a lot of people just see him as an upper class toff and tefuse to acknowledge any of his attributes as a politician.

PoshinDevon wrote: We won’t agree of course!
Well we agree that we will not agree. I find his 'argument' in the clip ridiculous to be honest. Even if you accept that he is right that the 'EU breaks it's own rules when it suits the EU' which is itself debatable, the argument that it should do so for a country that wants to leave the EU in the 'same' way it does for those that are members of the EU and do not want to leave is for me the first falsehood in his argument.

It is like I have been a member of a golf club and mid way through my current membership I say I want to leave the club, because it is badly run and I do not like the way it run. However I do still want to be able to play a round of golf every alternate Wednesday, as a non member. The club says to me but the rules are the course can only be used by Members and there are no basis for non members to play there. To which I say but yeah you could choose to just let me play if you wanted to because when Geoff managed to get Tiger Woods to come and play at the club, the club happily chose to ignore the rule saying only members can play. To me the whole argument that the EU should bend over backwards to help the UK and particularly Mogg get what they want smacks of exactly the kind of 'privilege' that defines his life.

The impression he is trying to create imo is that in the event of a no deal exit the EU would choose to require the RoI to inspect or track or monitor or control some way the movement of goods and people across the border to NI just out of whim and for no reason other than to make things difficult for the UK out of some kind of spite or hatred. The thesis is to me nonsense for the very reasons I already mentioned when I had only seen the first minute of the clip. Namely that the EU being concerned with being able to have control of it's common borders is not some made up 'whim'. It is the same issue that the likes of Mogg claim are central to the UK and it's sovereignty. Mogg's argument, as I understand it, is that in order for the UK to regain it's sovereignty and control of it's borders in a way that most suits and is convenient for the UK, the EU should choose to put it's own at risk. Frankly I find it embarrassing that a UK MP would try and make such an argument.

Erol - It was about questioning the so called E.U. rules and there fair implementation. Especially in regard to the NI backstop. Verhofstadt in my opinion was clearly floundering to provide a reasonable explanation. It is questioning why there is a need for a hard border, who would control it etc etc. The second clip re sovereignty shows clearly Verhofstadt's views on the matter. There are many of us that could be called old fashioned but sovereignty is something that we feel strongly about. I find it frustrating that some on the remain side just don't see or want to see what is put before them. I have spent a pleasant hour last night searching out You Tube clips re the E.U., what delegates are saying and how some present there case. Some of the speeches are very concerning.

As I have said I am not a hard Brexiteer and for sure not everything on the leave side has been perfect but the longer this discussion continues my own resolve is strengthened.

EnjoyingTheSun · Post by **EnjoyingTheSun** » Mon 17 Dec 2018 11:33 am

erol wrote: I think Mogg is a product of his environment of lifelong privilege and advantage. He is for me the very epitome of a member of a ruling 'elite'.

Let’s ignore the usual attack the messenger bit as I totally agree Rees Mogg comes from a life of privilege and advantage he didn’t have to navigate the streets have no name of Chippenham on his way to prep school and grammar school like Jeremy Corbyn.

Let’s have a little look at the real power behind the throne in the Labour Party, Seamus Milne, Corbyn’s closest advisor.

The son of former BBC Director General Alasdair Milne was raised in a mansion in Holland Park and went to the kitchen sink comprehensive Winchester College. Maybe when his Dad was forced to quit because of the unbiased bent of the BBC the Milne family struggled but as the old man left millions I doubt it.

Rees Mogg off course went to Eton where the fees are cheaper.

After Oxford the Maoist Seamus went into journalism where I’m sure his father’s connections in the media can only have held him back.

But people can turn away from their upbringing of course so let’s have a look at this working class warrior.

Obviously writing for the Guardian for 30 years, surprise surprise, with all the other working class kids provided him with enough money to buy his place in the urban jungle that is Richmond for cash. It is now worth around two million. Obviously both his children went to grammar schools.
I would say hypocrisy but I honestly don’t believe that you actually know what hypocrisy is. It is a word which came up before with Rees Mogg who makes no secret of his background.

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Its like when you linked that link on Rees Mogg's voting record as an example of his hypocracy. I pointed out that even if you don't agree with his voting it is only illustrates hypocracy if he votes one way and does something completely different.
You need to go back and read that discussion again I think. I posted Mogg's voting record in response to your claim that 'left' politicians happily supported legislation that affected other people adversely, safe in the knowledge that such legislation would have no impact on them personally. I posted Mogg's record to show the simple truth that politicians on the right also do this. That was the point at which you then tried to make out that what we were talking about was hypocrisy. Now having 'moved the goal posts' you then go on to kick ball after ball in to the moved goal posts (all your subsequent stuff about hypocrisy of Moore and others on your 'enemy list').

No supporting legislation that doesn’t affect you directly isn’t hypocrisy. It could be called selfish or a lack of empathy for sure but not all legislation will affect you directly. Legislation on gay rights won’t affect you directly if you are not gay so by your rationale you would have to call out anyone who isn’t gay and voting a hypocrite whether they are for or against. It is a label you could comfortably put on Ray Cohn from the McCarthy era who labelled many as gay and was gay himself. Whilst I believe outing someone who simply wishes to keep their sexuality private is wrong I do agree that outing gay people who actively speak out against gay rights as a ploy to keep their own sexuality secret is fair game.
Having a large stock portfolio when you speak out against capitalism certainly qualifies so isn’t moving the goalposts. Turning a blind eye to those you support is also hypocrisy.
Had you have mentioned The Daily Mail banging on about tax dodgers while dodging tax themselves I’d have given you that. Were positions reversed you would of course pointed out that nothing they are doing is illegal. Being caught isn’t the only proviso on being a hypocrite you know!

As I said here;

erol wrote:
As for the stuff on Rees Mogg again you are spinning and deliberately missing the point.
My point is the likes of Blair, Abbott and Harperson will happily chorus against selective education for the masses. Fair enough whether you agree with it or not they are entitled to their view. But don’t you find it a tiny bit hypocritical when they take advantage of selective education for their own children.
OK Rees Mogg voted against stuff like same sex marriages and allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life. Again you agree or disagree with his view but he would only be a hypocrite if he had a church wedding to a man and had arranged for his own elderly relatives to be helped on their way.
If you can’t see the distinction there is no hope.

I think what I call hypocrisy fits the definition “the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case” than your do as I say not as I do.
Getting caught in a lie doesn’t make you a liar, not telling the truth makes you a liar. I know it is a useful distinction at times. It’s a bit like two cars doing 100 MPH on a motorway. It isn’t just the one who is caught by the police who has been speeding, though again it is useful when you need to hide behind the “well morally…..” bit.

I'll get to the other stuff later and also reply to whatever you write to try and explain why Milne isn't the " very epitome of a member of a ruling 'elite'."

Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Join us