The EU debate - Part III

Brussels will determine which of our legislation matches theirs and so proves our goods are fit for sale in the EU. We will do the same in the other direction. Removal of admin could lead to goods and services being subject to additional customs checks or rejection.

 

It's not really clear what you're trying to say there.

They already know which of the current rules are applicable. It's a far cry from the admin of the whole EU being involved.

 

We've been through the EU admin already, by transposing the EU law into our own we will have to create a mirror of all the bodies we currently share with other EU countries. As we then adjust and amend our law to remove those bodies then we will still find ourselves maintaining similar levels of admin.
As I see it there will be very little benefit other than saying it's British Red tape instead of EU red tape.

 

I think that's an exaggeration. We have/had bodies to deal with our legislation. Trade deals may need extra resources, but once in place, there'd be limited need for mirroring.

Over and above that, they are only one element of the administration in Brussels, which in effect duplicates what we have hear anyway.

 

Our manufacturers will still have to abide by EU standards for all exports into the EU. We will no longer have any input into those regulations. Leaving the single market and customs union will increase costs which will inevitably be passed on to the ultimate purchaser, the public. This will be in addition to price rises due to exchange rates falling.

 

Again, I disagree. As Juncker has admitted, there is no appetite amongst the people of Europe for a federal Europe.

 

Like a terraced craphole in Mitcham?...

 

Quotes from Junker


1999[edit]

• We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.

referring to his colleagues in the European Council[disputed—see talk page]
Jean-Claude Juncker, quoted by Dirk Von Kock 'Die Brüsseler Republik' in Der Spiegel (2000) , then by Florian Eder 'Junckers Tricks in den langen Brüsseler Nächten'in Die Welt (2012).
2005[edit]

• If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'.
  • On the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
    • quoted in Rennie, David (26 May 2005). "Keep up the pressure for a No vote, Left warned". The Telegraph (UK). Retrieved on 29 June 2011.

2006[edit]

• I am determined, as is the Government, to do everything to preserve everything that we have worked for and that we believe in … by using all necessary means to fend off the hostile (bid).
  • On the bids on Arcelor by Mittal, 5 February 5, 2006 What they said about the Arcelor bid"; Business Times, Malaysia

2007[edit]

• The constitutional treaty was an easily understandable treaty. This is a simplified treaty which is very complicated."

On the Lisbon Treaty, 23 June 2007 . EU leaders hammer out treaty deal. Swissinfo / NZZ (24 June 2007). Retrieved on 2007-06-26..

• I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries."
  "Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
  "There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU's powers, there is Charter of Fundamental Rights.
  • On the Lisbon Treaty, Le Soir L'invité du lundi Jean-Claude Juncker : « Succès objectif, déception atmosphérique », 2 July 2007, Le Soir, 2 July 2007, page 18 Bruno Waterfield, Brendan Carlin: 'Don't tell British about the EU treaty', Telegraph, 3 July 2007.

• We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.
  • When talking about economic reforms.[1].

2011[edit]

• Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup [...] I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious [...] I am for secret, dark debates.
  • Jean-Claude Juncker, 20 April 2011, quoted in "Eurogroup chief: 'I'm for secret, dark debates'", EUobserver, 21 April 2011. Retrieved 19 May 2011.

2012[edit]

• I don't think Spain will need any kind of external support.
  • Jean-Claude Juncker, 17 April 2012. Eurogroup chief: Not if, but when for Spanish bailout, experts believe, Reuters, 18 April 2012. Retrieved 24 July 2012.

2015[edit]

• There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties
  • Originial quote in french: Il ne peut y avoir de choix démocratique contre les traités européens…
  • Jean-Claude Juncker, 'Greece: The dangerous game' (1 February 2015), from a french newspaper Le Figaro Jean-Claude Juncker : «Pas question de supprimer la dette grecque» (28 January 2015)

2016[edit]

• We feel we need a Capital Market Union, Energy Union, Economic and Monetary Union but we also think we need security union
  • After the 2016 Brussels bombings. [2] (23 March, 2016)

• Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.
  • To the European Forum Alpbach. [3] (22 August 2016)

 

That's not federalism. Any form of central Gvt controls fiscal policy. That's not the case in the EU.

 

And then there's this!....


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/even-if-britain-stays-its-game-over-for-the-federalists-nq88cjf98

 

Now it's my turn to question what you are trying to prove. Juncker is a federalist looking for more integration and cooperation, others are not. Means little in determining what member states do/ don't accept.

 

What sort of insult is that then? A London Poly insult for use by grown-ups perhaps.

 

It means that whilst he may say there's no appetite for it, his actions and words before and since clearly show it only means he'll find another way to achieve the goal.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...sm-to-be-overcome-by-doubling-down-on-europe/

Seemingly others can see through his bullshit too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...fault-and-he-must-go-says-czech-foreign-mini/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...are-sleepwalking-towards-defeat-britain-must/

 

Why can you not understand that if Juncker himself has had to conceded there no appetite, there really is no appetite.

Yes, we all know Juncker is an arch federalist, that's really nothing new! However, what Juncker might like, and what can be sold to the people of Europe are two entirely separate things, as he has himself conceded.

 

Why can't you accept that him saying there's no appetite, doesn't mean he'll stop making the EU even more of a federal state than it already is? It's always been the aim of the EU since it's conception by the Germans.

Those having no appetite are not necessarily in a position to prevent it.

 

No one is really listening to Juncker though, that's the point. He is the worst sort of bureaucratic functionary, but he has very limited influence. It's the elected heads of state of 27 countries we have to deal with, not Juncker. He's basically a civil servant.

 

NSIS does.

If he's of no consequence, they can scrap his role and spend the money on something meaningful.

The fact someone with his mind set and views was elected to the role should set alarm bells ringing.

 

It is not a federal state, as I've already explained.

Yes, the original idea of France and Germany was to form a federal Europe. However, that was many years ago. Times have changed, the people of Europe do not want it.

It is currently unsaleable to the people of Europe. Juncker knows it.

Why you persist in flogging a dead horse - yet again, I've no idea...

 

Yeah, they could spend the money on the NHS.

 

You ,may have claimed it's not in your opinion a federal state, but many academics feel that it is one, and treat it as such.