The Single Market... Johnsons lies come home to roost

indeedido said:
...to your satisfaction.
Major is the politician I despise most for his role in accelerating the EU. He went with it because he supported it. It didn't and doesn't make him right.
Veto my ****. A veto is irrelevant when you have a PM committed to the whole "project" in any case.

I will switch out now as there are the usual suspects emerging and ganging up.
Click to expand...
So no real response then? You'd have the UK be subject to all the rules but with no power? With limited availability of structural funds etc? UK citizens being barred from taking jobs in the European institutions?

You can't honestly think that there's no difference between being in the EEA and being in the EU.
 
BoroMart said:
absolutely, and not before time.....sadly it won't be the party that suffer though, they'll do what they always do, rally together, blame him for incompetence, then push some other billionaire stooge into the hot seat with promises of 'levelling up', and opportunity for the poor etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the thick greedy bar stewards this country houses will either fall for it and or lap up the new lie
 
I have never been a big supporter of the be in the EU to influence it.

As indeedio says the right of veto is all well and good providing our mep's are representing me, which I think they don't for several reasons. The ones who bother attending are generally pro EU the ones who don't like where the EU is going were often not bothering to show up. The ridiculous salaries aside I don't support the political union.

I understand the arguments for full EU membership rather than paying subs for access to the market, but access to the market and freedom of movement is all I want.

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with this viewpoint but it is a valid one.
 
Laughing said:
I have never been a big supporter of the be in the EU to influence it.

As indeedio says the right of veto is all well and good providing our mep's are representing me, which I think they don't for several reasons. The ones who bother attending are generally pro EU the ones who don't like where the EU is going were often not bothering to show up. The ridiculous salaries aside I don't support the political union.

I understand the arguments for full EU membership rather than paying subs for access to the market, but access to the market and freedom of movement is all I want.

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with this viewpoint but it is a valid one.
Click to expand...

It’s not a valid one because of the reasons set out above. The disconnect has always been the notion that you can have your cake and eat it which is what the proposition amounts to. If you want access to the SM and freedom of movement but don’t want to be in the Union then you become a rule taker with no influence or power. You cede control to the political Union you’re desperate not to be a part of. As I said above it’s a circle no leaver has been able to square.

Basing a decision on how our very special opt outs and vetos may have been exercised at some point in the future seems an odd approach to me, especially given that it isn’t MEPs that exercised those rights of veto. Indeed in some cases failing to veto had to be ratified by referendum. It is fundamental misunderstandings of how the EU works like this that I think led us to this point.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It’s not a valid one because of the reasons set out above. The disconnect has always been the notion that you can have your cake and eat it which is what the proposition amounts to. If you want access to the SM and freedom of movement but don’t want to be in the Union then you become a rule taker with no influence or power. You cede control to the political Union you’re desperate not to be a part of. As I said above it’s a circle no leaver has been able to square.

Basing a decision on how our very special opt outs and vetos may have been exercised at some point in the future seems an odd approach to me, especially given that it isn’t MEPs that exercised those rights of veto. Indeed in some cases failing to veto had to be ratified by referendum. It is fundamental misunderstandings of how the EU works like this that I think led us to this point.
Click to expand...
As part of the cu and sm we are subject to trade rules not political rules. Which is my point.
 
Laughing said:
I have never been a big supporter of the be in the EU to influence it.

As indeedio says the right of veto is all well and good providing our mep's are representing me, which I think they don't for several reasons. The ones who bother attending are generally pro EU the ones who don't like where the EU is going were often not bothering to show up. The ridiculous salaries aside I don't support the political union.

I understand the arguments for full EU membership rather than paying subs for access to the market, but access to the market and freedom of movement is all I want.

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with this viewpoint but it is a valid one.
Click to expand...
Apart from the first line, which I think is patently untrue unless you're a superpower like the US or China and can influence them economically (which we aren't) you can surely influence a union better if you're on the inside voting and vetoing?

The rest of it is true: Brexit sadly means brexit. There are enough people who have believed the lies and can't admit it that it's impossible to go back. We have seen on here how desperately people will defend it and will put up with job losses and even food shortages to have their brexit. SO tragically they probably won't make it possible to go back.

The trick now is to convince these people that brexit shouldn't mean THIS brexit. That there can be a better way. It won't be perfect but Restoring FoM and jointing EFTA would fix some of the problems.

Hopefully even the hardened brexiters will eventually realise you can have brexit without having to put up with food shortages.
 
SmallTown said:
Apart from the first line, which I think is patently untrue unless you're a superpower like the US or China and can influence them economically (which we aren't) you can surely influence a union better if you're on the inside voting and vetoing?

The rest of it is true: Brexit sadly means brexit. There are enough people who have believed the lies and can't admit it that it's impossible to go back. We have seen on here how desperately people will defend it and will put up with job losses and even food shortages to have their brexit. SO tragically they probably won't make it possible to go back.

The trick now is to convince these people that brexit shouldn't mean THIS brexit. That there can be a better way. It won't be perfect but Restoring FoM and jointing EFTA would fix some of the problems.

Hopefully even the hardened brexiters will eventually realise you can have brexit without having to put up with food shortages.
Click to expand...
Really not interested in engaging with you st.
 
bear66 said:
So EEA plus? (Norway are not part of the customs union.)
Click to expand...
I would want to be part of both the customs union and single market. I think I read a few years ago that Norway, with a mature border system still had an average 20 minute delay on goods passing across their /EU border which would be longer for us as we don't have the infrastructure. There was a paper at the time that analysed what even an additional 20 minute delay meant that it was almost catastrophic for us due to the throughput of our ports which are much busier than Norway.
 
My swipe keyboard on my phone just makes up **** that it thinks I might want to say at some point in the future.
 
Laughing said:
I would want to be part of both the customs union and single market. I think I read a few years ago that Norway, with a mature border system still had an average 20 minute delay on goods passing across their /EU border which would be longer for us as we don't have the infrastructure. There was a paper at the time that analysed what even an additional 20 minute delay meant that it was almost catastrophic for us due to the throughput of our ports which are much busier than Norway.
Click to expand...

But then surely if we are part of the SM and CU you accept that we must also accept all four of the freedoms and regulatory alignment without having any ability to influence any of it?
 
Laughing said:
I have never been a big supporter of the be in the EU to influence it.

As indeedio says the right of veto is all well and good providing our mep's are representing me, which I think they don't for several reasons. The ones who bother attending are generally pro EU the ones who don't like where the EU is going were often not bothering to show up. The ridiculous salaries aside I don't support the political union.

I understand the arguments for full EU membership rather than paying subs for access to the market, but access to the market and freedom of movement is all I want.

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with this viewpoint but it is a valid one.
Click to expand...

MEPs don't have a meaningful veto, so this is a canars. Thee council - which is heads of state - has the veto.

The power still lies with the heads of state. Hence why Hungary and Poland still get their money despite having rule of law proceedings brought against them - because they can undermine broader policies in the council, which requires unanimity.

It's all well and good to call it a valid opinion, but it can still be challenged if it's not based in fact
 
LaPennaBianca said:
MEPs don't have a meaningful veto, so this is a canars. Thee council - which is heads of state - has the veto.

The power still lies with the heads of state. Hence why Hungary and Poland still get their money despite having rule of law proceedings brought against them - because they can undermine broader policies in the council, which requires unanimity.

It's all well and good to call it a valid opinion, but it can still be challenged if it's not based in fact
Click to expand...
Of course its based in fact. Meps have a say in policy in the European Parliament. The uk has a veto vote but based on Meps representing their constituents.

Don't get me started on the fact that only a handful of folks can propose legislation.

I don't like the way the EU operates. Mind I don't like the way or parliament operates either but I can't do a lot about that.

The referendum, for some was a chance to get out of the EU political union.
 
Laughing said:
Of course its based in fact. Meps have a say in policy in the European Parliament. The uk has a veto vote but based on Meps representing their constituents.

Don't get me started on the fact that only a handful of folks can propose legislation.

I don't like the way the EU operates. Mind I don't like the way or parliament operates either but I can't do a lot about that.

The referendum, for some was a chance to get out of the EU political union.
Click to expand...

The veto comes in the Council where each country is represented by their head of state and it requires unanimity. Nothing to do with MEPs.

Yes MEPs have a say in policy, but nothing gets done without the council's approval. Especially not treaty changes - which is the only way to change the SM and CU. If the UK was in the SM and CU but not in the council then we'd be affected by this hypothetical new treaty. If we were a full member we'd have a role in drafting it (as with Maastricht and Lisbon) and be able to veto it. We'd even have the chance to have a referendum on it.
 
Same_as_before said:
Germany will not vote for it. Apart from China the only other countries products I see are German. Try telling the CEOs of BMW, VW and Merc they can't sell their cars and trucks in the UK.
Click to expand...
What? The sanctions that they've talked about, that could be imposed, wouldn't affect exports of German cars to the UK.

They would be in the form of large fines against the UK or the removal of the trade benefits currently applicable to UK exports.

EU threatens fines or trade sanctions if UK reneges on Brexit deal
 
Adi_Dem said:
To anyone’s reasonable satisfaction, largely because it can’t be. No ganging up as far as I can see.

And the power of veto on the major issues would not have been in the hands of the PM or government since failure to exercise them would need to be ratified by referendum. It’s once again an erroneous prediction of what might have happened with a veto vote without any real evidence.
Click to expand...
There was no referendum for Maastricht or Lisbon, just a PM action.
A pro EU "project" leader with a Govt majority can ALWAYS avoid a referendum.
Spin it however you want.
It's not an erroneous prediction at all. We disagree, that's fine. It does not make you right.
 
Laughing said:
Of course its based in fact. Meps have a say in policy in the European Parliament. The uk has a veto vote but based on Meps representing their constituents.

Don't get me started on the fact that only a handful of folks can propose legislation.

I don't like the way the EU operates. Mind I don't like the way or parliament operates either but I can't do a lot about that.

The referendum, for some was a chance to get out of the EU political union.
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top