Jump to content
Phantis Forums

Brexit


Should Britain Leave EU?  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Britain Leave EU?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Quote

For the sake of the world Trump needs to be a success. I just hope he has more of a plan than the UK's brexiters.  Nearly six months later, no tangible plan, just a bunch of buffoons contradicting themselves and running into brick wall after brick wall. 

Really? It wasn't Brexiters that launched a legal challenge to prevent the UK leaving, now its up to the MPs most of whom campaigned for the UK to remain. Besides we both knew that they have no intentions of letting the UK leave.

As for the judges who decided that it needed parliamentary approval.... 

Quote

ONE of the three judges who today ruled Article 50 must be triggered by Parliament founded a European law group working towards integration with Brussels.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728460/Article-50-three-judges-blocked-Brexit

Quote

All four judges to rule on the Government's Brexit case have links to Europe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3911656/And-s-lot-lining-EU-links-judges-rule-Brexit-impact.html

Quote

four of the Supreme Court judges who will decide whether Theresa May can trigger Brexit have previous links to Europe, it has emerged.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/04/Four-judges-to-rule-on-Brexit-have-previous-ties-to-Europe/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on  a second.

Wasn't the point of the UK leaving for UK parliament to  have sovereignty?  Gina Miller launched a legal challenge on the basis of the crown not being able to take away rights enshrined in statute.  If you thought the EU was unaccountable, how is an unelected PM using centuries old royal prerogative any better?  How is that better for the people? Parliament should vote to leave the EU and be done with the issue.  But it wouldn't be the first time a Brexiter is misinformed. 

Terrific, you're citing sources that all decided judicial independence should be done with. Those three rags are worthless. Every person in this country has links to Europe considering we are in Europe. Perhaps instead of finding links to Europe, people should focus on the integrity and professionalism of these legal professionals, and understand the legal precedents involved. Or the unelected PM should've just gone through parliament in the first place. When has it ever been the case a PM can just overturn statute? 

What is the plan by the way? Is it BoJo telling Italians they will lose the ability to sell proseco in the UK? Oh it's a secret. No it's not that either, the leaked memo gave away there is no plan.



 

Edited by King_Katsouranis
Spelling.
  • Like it 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gina Miller who was quoted as saying she was 'sick to the stomach' when the result of the vote came in has now launched a legal challenge because she was worried about 'procedure' I believe her. What was the point of the referendum my well informed Europhile?(unlike us misinformed brexiters) MPs have to ratify it now, most of whom were remainers. 

Wonder if there would be a legal challenge if the vote went the other way Ms Miller? 

But from the beginning I said they wouldn't let us leave, the rest is window dressing. If the vote went the other way we would be told how wonderful democracy is and the will of the people and such tripe. 

And one more time, what was the point of a referendum?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What her motives are is irrelevant. 
Perhaps instead of all the backslapping a simple clause to make the referendum result binding would have been sufficient. However, it wasn't there and that is a problem that Brexiters have to live with. Remember laws are created in parliament, not in pamphlets or on the side of buses. 

Why doesn't May prepare a simple bill to give the PM the authority to trigger Article 50. I have no idea why people are annoyed with an independent judiciary. Perhaps if May  followed the correct legal process this hiccup wouldn't exist.

Ah the wonderful democracy point. The Treaty of Rome from 1957 is the beginning of freedom of movement so to speak.  So surely the UKIPers who campaigned on anti-immigration platforms are the anti-democratic ones, as there was a referendum in 1975.  So they should have accepted the result at the time and shutup? 

It's not my problem that Brexiters made undeliverable promises and have resorted to using Proseco to move the case forward. Quite the climb-down from David Davis and the German free trade deal "within minutes".

"They won't let us leave". No come up with a credible plan instead that is deliverable.

 

Edited by King_Katsouranis
Spelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, if there is a chance the Brexit vote couldn't be enforced, why did they even have the referendum.  The British government would be playing with fire if they did a u-turn at this point.  I think the error the British government made was not having a higher threshold for the referendum ie. requiring a super majority of say 55% or 60%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Cameron thought he wasn't going to win a majority. So at the time of the election it was a ploy to ensure they were bigger than the Labour party, and could govern again in some form of coalition (probably Lib Dems). The Lib Dems would never have allowed a referendum, so in many ways the referendum was never going to happen. However, the Tories won (mostly due to Lynton Crosby's excellent polling and analysis).

Nobody except for a few extreme politicians in parliament wanted to leave, now loads are overcompensating on their position. It is a tough proposition at the moment. Vote Leave never defined what exactly their position was re single market  and customs union. So it is ambiguous what Brexit means.  Unfortunately, our negotiating position isn't very strong, and can be undermined be any of the other 27 members. 

The thing is May could Brexit to a Norway model and feasibly have Brexited. Part  of the electorate won't have accepted that. But then again vote leave should have done two things;

1. Made the referendum binding in law, not in pamphlets. 
2. Had an official position of what Brexit meant, not have every politician contradict each other. 


BTW on the anti-establishment theme. Nigel Farage (former currency trader, man with offshore tax structure) is considering accepting a life peerage in The Lords. I'm not sure he is the man of the working class people think he is. 
 

Edited by King_Katsouranis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Nobody except for a few extreme politicians in parliament wanted to leave,

'Extreme' to describe those that don't share your view. 52% of the people are also extreme and mis informed.

Come up with a plan? how about trigger article 50 and respect the will of the people, or don't they matter? But they drag their heels, keep delaying, legal challenges, all on purpose by the way as the government has no desire to leave.

And yes they won't let us leave they never intended to(like I mentioned straight after the referendum), dress it up how you like but that's the case, it wasn't legally binding for a reason. 

Quote

David Cameron thought he wasn't going to win a majority. So at the time of the election it was a ploy to ensure they were bigger than the Labour party, and could govern again in some form of coalition (probably Lib Dems). The Lib Dems would never have allowed a referendum, so in many ways the referendum was never going to happen. However, the Tories won (mostly due to Lynton Crosby's excellent polling and analysis).

Correct and they won because people were desperate for a referendum, and despite the lies from the establishment doom and gloom predicted by the likes of Mark Carney and the promise of 'change the EU from within' by the remainers people still voted out.  

Quote

But then again vote leave should have done two things;

1. Made the referendum binding in law, not in pamphlets. 
2. Had an official position of what Brexit meant, not have every politician contradict each other. 

True but they'd never have let them make it legally binding. Official position? they're all incompetent, for a reason in my view. 

As for Farage he single handedly forced the referendum which has shown British people that voting doesn't matter its irrelevant. He deserves a peerage for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extreme? Name a sensible Tory politician who was leave before June 23.

Triggering article 50 isn't a plan. The plan is what happens, whats negotiated for, whats the fallback position and what are the objectives and what compromises are made. None of those exist, there is no plan.

It wasn't legally binding because of sheer incompetence of the pro-brexit politicians.

Ah the establishment doom and gloom. You realise, as there hasn't been a Brexit and there is a depreciated currency right now is considered favourable in economic terms. The fact we are doing nothing above ordinary with it is telling.

The point about Farage is simple. What sort of anti-establishment candidate accepts a peerage, has an offshore tax structure and is an ex city trader? The answer is a racist fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, I forgot Cameron was forced into the referendum vote.  Still, if the remain had won with 50.1% does it mean that the views of the 49.9% should be ignored ?  And likewise, I don't feel that the leave winning with 52% was a strong enough result.  But it is what it is.

The important thing to note is that regardless how the future pans out for England, there is a large portion of the population that is not happy with specific elements of EU policy.  The main one being immigrants driving down wages.  Even if this idea can be debunked, it's a fact that this was the main driver for the result.  The EU and England did not do enough to address this issue ... somehow.

Parliament gambled and lost big time.  They expected to win, and not do anything about the immigration issue.  When it would have been better in my opinion, to address it and the notion of Brexit would have been a marginal issue after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ThrylosG7 said:

@Bananas you make some good points - as your aware I'm far more to the right than you - but at least your not so far left that we cant find some common ground lol 

I think both left and right have valid ideas.  It's fair to say I'm more left than right, but I'm not against an idea just because it's right or for an idea just because it's left.  As for the majority of this new age SJW issues, it makes me want to get a machine gun and start shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bananas said:

Ah, yes, I forgot Cameron was forced into the referendum vote.  Still, if the remain had won with 50.1% does it mean that the views of the 49.9% should be ignored ?  And likewise, I don't feel that the leave winning with 52% was a strong enough result.  But it is what it is.

The important thing to note is that regardless how the future pans out for England, there is a large portion of the population that is not happy with specific elements of EU policy.  The main one being immigrants driving down wages.  Even if this idea can be debunked, it's a fact that this was the main driver for the result.  The EU and England did not do enough to address this issue ... somehow.

Parliament gambled and lost big time.  They expected to win, and not do anything about the immigration issue.  When it would have been better in my opinion, to address it and the notion of Brexit would have been a marginal issue after that.

Well interestingly Nigel Farage said if it was 52 - 48 remain it would mean nothing. So using the precedent he set, this vote should mean nothing? It's not that simple. The UK has been driving the UK for years (expansion into Eastern Europe, opt outs and rebates, single market is a Tory idea). The UK has managed to get a really good deal by carefully negotiating when it had leverage. Now we are sat at a table still playing poker, instead our cards are exposed and we have a s%$#! hand. May's approach doesn't help either, nor does it fit with her government's plan on budget repair. The Tories are going to lose somewhere on it politically in a real big way. 

The immigration and wages point is not really true. But I get it, if I was from some s%$#!-hole area decimated by the post-industrial economy and had no chance of social mobility or having a good life then immigrants are good to blame. The problem for these areas are, the biggest investors in the areas were the EU. The government is forecasting reduced revenues and wants to cut a deficit, and suddenly the biggest investor in the area has been told to sod off. What good is going to come from that? Most of the immigrants are centered around the larger urban cities anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ThrylosG7 said:

@Bananas you make some good points - as your aware I'm far more to the right than you - but at least your not so far left that we cant find some common ground lol 

The other issue with the EU is its complexity - and the fact its another layer of govt - a layer that is full of people who no one knows - at all let alone knows what they stand for and what their beliefs are on top of that you have a committee possibly full of people from every country except your own making policies that affect your country- immigration for example - some countries are affected far more than others..but the countries affected the most may not be part of the policy discussion  - somehow that just doesn't sit right with me - and many people. The EU elections and the roles of different representatives are so complex the average person unless they are political nut would not understand what is going on.

Then you have the bigger nations bullying smaller ones...Germany was crying about subsidies to Greece over the years - however those subsidies not only helped modernise Greeces roads and transport to a certain extent - the contracts were given to countries that provided the subsidies - it also created jobs in greece - jobs that paid taxes - in turn Greece was able to purchase high value items from germany - like Military equipment , the citizens could afford german cars...That was the plan for places like greece - and how countries like germany would benefit- the Rio Antirrio bridge was Greek and french companies...for example. 

You get the picture - all this creates a lot of distrust and questions...people dont trust politicians as it is - and most of them use double speak - which makes us hate them even more . The EU was a good idea to begin with - until they decided that national sovereignty was too much of a burden - and the EU elites developed god complexes...

 

You make some good points from a Greek perspective.  From a Greek perspective the EU hasn't delivered enough to the country. From a British perspective, its the opposite. The UK has benefited so much, that is why it is so laughable Brexit is going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

policy making?

 

greece can't appoint referees to a soccer match or know how to best use the old airport which is sitting idle for 13 years.

how is anyone in EU going to take us seriously in matters of policy or strategic direction?

 

Greece only joined for the subsidies, we NEVER intended to drive or direct policy..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at it from that perspective, then I agree. It still doesn't change the fact that sometimes it would be better for the harmony of the EU for smaller nations to have their voices heard in policy matters. 

The perception from non-Europeans on the EU is fascinating. The benefits that the average European has gained from the EU are huge. Imagine being stuck in a backwater and as a European you can go to any EU member's embassy for consular assistance. Imagine travelling anywhere in Europe and being able to get free health care. Imagine before EU directives people used to get 10 days annual leave instead of the 20 - 25 as a minimum now.

Instead in this country we are worried about  immigrants filling jobs that Brits don't want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The answer is a racist fraud.

You gotta love the racist tag, band it about to anyone we disagree with in an attempt to discredit them, its funny though no one on these boards gets called racist when they band about terms like'Monkeydonian' or 'Skop mongrel' or when people say let the boats sink full of immigrants. 

Maybe Cameron could be accused of racism for the bombing of say Libya. Or maybe someone who has grief and outrage when terror kills in France or Belgium but isn't too bothered when the same happens in say Turkey or a Russian plane. Saying all that I can call anyone I don't agree with racist. A meaningless term nowadays. 

As for Fraud, MR Obama, MR Trump, MRS Clinton and Boris Johnson all spring to mind(and many more too) 

 

And we're still in the EU and it still hasn't been audited and we're still net contributors and voting is still irrelevant. But then deep inside we all know that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, King_Katsouranis said:

The immigration and wages point is not really true. But I get it, if I was from some s%$#!-hole area decimated by the post-industrial economy and had no chance of social mobility or having a good life then immigrants are good to blame. The problem for these areas are, the biggest investors in the areas were the EU. The government is forecasting reduced revenues and wants to cut a deficit, and suddenly the biggest investor in the area has been told to sod off. What good is going to come from that? Most of the immigrants are centered around the larger urban cities anyway.

I agree with what you're saying, but maybe if the government hadn't concentrated so much of the wealth and benefits in "the City" alone those on the fringes wouldn't have felt so disenfranchised.  We can blame who we will, but the government should take a large portion of the blame for Brexit even being a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I come across a topic where Monkeydonian is used I would call it out. The same way I called out some posters for suggesting Greece should only take Orthodox refugees. Some people would rather take an Orthodox Syrian who will contribute nothing to Greece, instead of a Muslim Syrian who  is a doctor as an example. I argued that the Muslim  in that scenario would be better. So yeah, you can call me racist as you please, but I've argued against that several times. 

 

Quote

As for Fraud, MR Obama, MR Trump, MRS Clinton and Boris Johnson all spring to mind(and many more too)

Absolutely. At the same time most people believe Farage isn't a fraud. It's delusional. 


 

Quote


And we're still in the EU and it still hasn't been audited and we're still net contributors and voting is still irrelevant. But then deep inside we all know that. 

The audited point is misinformation. See here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
You'll find HMRC has similar issues.

Obviously, we can't go anywhere as May is incapable of forming a plan to do so. Look at her record in the Home Office, she ballsed up everything she touched.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bananas said:

I agree with what you're saying, but maybe if the government hadn't concentrated so much of the wealth and benefits in "the City" alone those on the fringes wouldn't have felt so disenfranchised.  We can blame who we will, but the government should take a large portion of the blame for Brexit even being a possibility.

It's absolutely true. But that is Blair and the Tories failing with the city. Ironically, Barnier wanted to regulate the city further but the UK said no, several times. But then people feel disenfranchised with the benefits of the city. So they decide to tell the EU to sod off. The same EU who wanted to regulate the city in a better manner, so the average Brit wouldn't feel so left behind.

The problem that exists now is that is the UK's only significant export. Revenues are already forecast to get hammered, regulating the city means less government spending = lower growth rates.  Staying in the EU is not palatable politically either. Another massive conflict for the government. 

The people who voted for Brexit have managed to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the EU that many don't realize or choose to forget, is that it's controlled by Germany.  It's not an equal partnership by any means.

Does anyone believe that if Germany's economy was up the creek and they had option (a) inflation, spending, growth or option (b) deflation of 25% they would choose option (b) ?!  No way in hell they would choose that.  And yet that is the "medicine" they've pushed for the Greek economy.  And it's not just Greece that is suffering.

Another problem with the EU model is that it's inherently inflexible.  Once you have a situation like that in Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Ireland the normal tools to get you out of the rut (a) interest rates and (b) currency devaluation, aren't there anymore.

There is no plan to "fix" Greece or any of these economies.  The EU is a basket case that nearly all neutral economists agree is almost beyond repair.  The only solution currently is deflation, which means unemployment, which means lost opportunity.  Every other serious economy post GFC pumped money into their economies to avoid this situation.  I'm talking the U.S., Australia, Canada, Japan.  Pretty much every 1st world economy.  But the EU knew better apparently.

The only way this ends is if Germany chooses to end it, but I don't see that happening.  If the EU was dissolved, the Deutsche Mark would quickly increase in value, making their exports expensive and uncompetitive.  Germany needs the EU.

It's a fundamentally undemocratic institution.  May it dissolve in my life time.  If it does, bbq at my house and free alcohol on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger nations have always had control. That is how a union/partnership will always work. The smaller nations take the bung in terms of subsidies, which generally keeps them happy(unless it goes wrong).

Singling out Germany isn't IMO accurate. The UK has  also had a significant influence on the EU. The single market, expansion into the east and opt outs evidence that.  Here is an article on the EU controlling UK laws;  https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/. The UK more often than not gets what it wants out of the EU.

I agree with inflexibility, but that is more a problem with the common currency than the single market.  The UK and Scandi nations all were able to control monetary policy, and were able to recover fairly well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So yeah, you can call me racist as you please, but I've argued against that several times. 

You misunderstand me, I wasn't calling you a racist just pointing out that the term is banded about and used to discredit people we don't like to hear, the media do it all the time. A meaningless term now.

Quote

The audited point is misinformation. See here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
You'll find HMRC has similar issues.

OLAF is notified of some 12,000 cases of possible fraud every year, and says that it adopts a “zero tolerance” policy towards corruption and fraud in EU institutions. In reality, OLAF must be somewhat more tolerant than “zero” as it investigates only some 200 cases per year – that is to say 98% of reported cases go uninvestigated.

This is the most likely explanation of the fact that, since 1999, OLAF has sent only 335 people to jail and recovered only 1.1 Billion Euros of EU money – less than one-thousandth of the amount unaccounted for.

One other obstacle to OLAF nailing anyone inside the EU is that EU law gives EU officials immunity from prosecution both while they work in the EU and then for the rest of their lives for any acts committed in the course of their duties. Even if OLAF managed to put together a case against an EU employee, he or she could not be prosecuted anyway.

First Chief Accountant appointed
This long history of corruption and fraud brings us to the case of Marta Andreason, who in 2002 was appointed the EU’s first Chief Accountant, the director responsible for budget execution and the EU’s accounting officer.

From the start, Andreasen was critical of the EU’s accounting system for being open to fraud, criticisms she raised with  her superior but to no effect. She voiced her doubts to Commissioner Michaele Schreyer and the Commission President Romano Prodi, and when she got no reply approached members of the EU Parliament’s Budget Control Committee.

Because of her doubts, she refused to sign off the 2001 European Commission accounts and went public with her concerns. She suffered a similar fate to Paul van Buitenen before her, and was sacked for speaking out (“failure to show sufficient loyalty and respect”.) In reality she was fired for refusing to sign the account and embarrassing the Commission by letting the cat out of the bag about the extent of fraud.

http://www.richardmilton.net/have-the-eu-accounts-been-signed-off-or-not/

You really wanna be part of this union??

Quote

Obviously, we can't go anywhere as May is incapable of forming a plan to do so. Look at her record in the Home Office, she ballsed up everything she touched.

Cameron lost the vote, his position became untenable so he left, Theresa May also campaigned for us to remain and is appointed as PM, you couldn't make it up. Theresa May also handed G4S loads of contracts despite them being caught fleecing the government over tagging prisoners who had long been released or dead and still charging the state for tagging dead people, they ballsed up the security during the olympics and we had to draft the army in, and they are still handed lucrative contracts. Some conspiracy theorists believe that its because her husband is a major shareholder in G4S as the reason they keep getting contracts, it's probably just bad management.

Remember May campaigned for us to remain, why would she have an exit plan when she clearly doesn't want us to leave? Besides my loathing for the EU is in no way an endorsement for the UK government. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, js1000 said:

You misunderstand me, I wasn't calling you a racist just pointing out that the term is banded about and used to discredit people we don't like to hear, the media do it all the time. A meaningless term now.

That is fair enough, my mistake on the first part. Farage though, he is a racist no two ways about it.  Look at the definition of racist, then see Farage's comments about Romanians and "Chinks". The guy is just an a**hole all round. He is no friend of the working man like he claims.

I'm prepared to discuss the accounts issue, but lets not use that nut job Richard Milton as a source. As it stands Full Fact gave a pretty comprehensive debunking to that theory.  HMRC's compliance is probably worse to budget.

Re May, it's not her job to come up with a plan. There are three muttering Brexiters in charge of various departments, who can't come up with a plan between them. The latest is a transitional plan, which will probably be the end agreement  (Brexit in name only and no real change).Just like the Lords was supposed to be abolished 100 years ago.

Which brings me to this point, if that is likely to be the case should the UK bother? The by-election on December 1 should give us more clarity on the importance of Brexit in the electorate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...