The EU debate - Part III

We all know nothing will change withthe EU, better to get out first, because others will leave when the UK outperforms the whole of the EU.

 

The loss of sovereignty is on going, and despite any claims or hollow words to the contrary, is an inherent part of what the EU was aimed to be from the get go.

 

I truly believe that to be the case.
Again, the reason I voted out.

 

You mean like the UK?

Not that I'm advocating a fully integrated one country Europe. I think that would be a horrendous idea which is why it won't happen unless one country goes to war with the rest of Europe and wins.

 

That was the aim of the federalists, not all!

The federalists currently have no mandate, as Juncker has admitted.

 

Please elaborate.

You won't.

Because you can't.

You're too dim-witted.

 

Depends how much you believe him, and how much influence he actually has. Their actions don't match his words.

 

Almost everyone I know who voted out and almost all politicians on the out campaign support retaining the UK and free movement of people between its member countries (and Ireland). This simply demonstrates that the sovereignty argument is a fiction as it would apply equally well to the UK.
I'm not sure how we are going to allow free movement of people from Ireland while restricting people from other EU countries.

 

It's ridiculous to have the idea that it would be better for London to become independent of the UK.
There was a referendum on AV but it was rejected. I regret that but I didn't whine about it. I felt that if we had AV it would have resulted in MPs being more in tune with their constituencies.

 

By passing a law.

 

So Ireland will become the gateway into the UK for all the foreigners you're scared of. What will have changed other than the route in?

 

I've no doubt that Juncker is a federalist. However, he's also a pragmatist. He admits himself that the idea of a federal Europe is a non starter. To use his own words, 'The people have no appetite for it'

I think we need to look back at how times have changed since the original idea of a united Europe was first formed. The war was fairly recently over. Europe was still an unstable and dangerous place. Russia held sway in the east. The idea of a United Western Europe, that would have no more wars amongst themselves and to counter the Soviet threat, would have seemed very appealing. Indeed it very much appealed to Churchill himself at that time.

Where the EU has failed, IMO, is to not take into account that the world has moved on. Times have changed. The need for a United Europe is now more of a trade necessity, not so much a United military one. Essentially, trade is the new method of war amongst so called civilised nations. To be part of that united trade bloc is a vital for the health of the U.K. economy.

It would have been to our advantage to stay and to try and slowly reform the EU from inside. I don't think we would have been totally alone in that wish. It will change, or it will die.

 

You are wrong about literally no one in the UK wanting to adopt the Euro. Many people I know think it would be a good idea. Less opportunity for speculators to play with the currency. Open borders within the EU and customs union is also a good idea as reduces trading costs. The EU army is a non-starter for many years yet. London leaving the UKwas a fanciful comment, but what would Londoners do if the rest of the U.K. voted in an extreme right wing government and they had voted for a left wing one. Do you not think that a secessionist movement would arise.

 

Problem is. Paul, adopting the euro would mean having our prevailing interest rates controlled by The ECB in Frankfurt.

This 'one size fits all' monetary policy has already been a failure in mainland Europe.

 

He's also a Labour voter and Remainer

That's gotta feel like the ultimate betrayal to Pete and the rest of the KKK (Kloset Kitchen Knuts)

Warning: Part of this post might not be entirely accurate

 

I see we can add a lack of education to your list of life failings.

You no mark brick counter

 

His actions, or at least the actions of the EU, betray his words. The end game has barely changed.

 

I agree that there are problems within the Eurozone monetary system, and joining now will not be a wise idea. If we had joined at it's inception the 'city' ,via the government would have had an enormous influence on policy. We probably would have prevented Greece and possibly Italy joining the system, although as Italy was one of the original six it may have been politically difficult.
I think for the single market to reach optimum success monetary policy should be standardised. Individual countries will still be able to operate their own fiscal policies implemented by their elected governments of whatever hue they choose.
The problem is that the EU has been mercilessly demonised, mostly unfairly in my opinion, by right-wing nationalistic press and it is becoming very difficult to correct all the garbage that is spouted about it.
If ear that leaving the EU will not be good for my children

 

You can't console yourself with that notion I'm afraid Bod.

As May has already clearly decreed that the referendum result was largely driven by immigration, so she's taken it upon herself to declare that free movement won't be on the table, therefore neither will the single market.

This dumb Tory bitch and her right wing cronies are going push us down the hard Brexit path, make no bones about it.

The practicalities of achieving that will have to be a full border between northern and southern island again, what a ****ing mess.

 

A standardized monetary system is what they've already got from the ECB in Frankfurt. It doesn't work!

Unfortunately, in a lot of ways monetary and fiscal policy are entwined. Trying to operate them completely separately doesn't work, as has been demonstrated.

Greece should certainly never have been allowed into the single currency. Nor would they have been if they hadn't paid Goldman to cook their books!