canta_brian wrote:I know that you don't tend to give up a winning result, but I keep hearing that brexit will apply the will of the people. If the leave side are still sure of this then why the opposition to a 2nd referendum? Frankly, if they don't think they still have the numbers and yet are still wanting to go ahead then democracy would appear to be fucked.
It's the will of the rural community, who have been conned, ...... it's easy to con the rural community.
These corporate psychopaths will pull any trick to validate their bent psychology and to normalise their deficiency.
The parochial types aren't really clued up.
I think your soundbite machine needs a tweak. Big business and the establishment was lately on the side of remain.
No.
Big business has always been remain.It's a fairly standard response from the psychopathic business community. Too little, too late.
It's just since Lancaster House they've become so very vocal and angry.
Mellsblue wrote:The EU Commission will never compromise on its core pillars, unless it’s absolutely necessary to stop one of the pillars collapsing completely. That is of course their perogative but then they don’t have to worry about trivial things such as elections. It’s also one of the reasons people dislike the EU. Sadly, it’s just more cannon fodder to the hard Brexit supporters. You’d think that a long time member and net financial contributor would warrant some flexibility - and we know the EU can flex their own rules when they need to - but I’ve no idea why anybody is suprised at this response. Sadly, our chief negotiator and PM seem to be.
I’m still not convinced that the EU fully understands that it is not as popular as it assumes itself to be. It’s screaming out for reform, but there is no interest in doing so.
Mellsblue wrote:The EU Commission will never compromise on its core pillars, unless it’s absolutely necessary to stop one of the pillars collapsing completely. That is of course their perogative but then they don’t have to worry about trivial things such as elections. It’s also one of the reasons people dislike the EU. Sadly, it’s just more cannon fodder to the hard Brexit supporters. You’d think that a long time member and net financial contributor would warrant some flexibility - and we know the EU can flex their own rules when they need to - but I’ve no idea why anybody is suprised at this response. Sadly, our chief negotiator and PM seem to be.
I’m still not convinced that the EU fully understands that it is not as popular as it assumes itself to be. It’s screaming out for reform, but there is no interest in doing so.
I have spoken to one of the MPs who was a lead negotiator for Cameron on the pre-referendum concessions. They said that there is no realisation within the Commission that the EU model is even slightly flawed. Getting what they did was an almighty struggle and that previous behaviours - no initial limit to freedom of movement for accession states, net financial contributor, by far the biggest player in intelligence and security etc - have absolutely no sway whatsoever. I’ll add that they were a very vocal Remainer so had no anti-EU bias when reporting the above.
But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Digby wrote:But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Yes, but. The EU has been dominated by the old EU states for a long time, there is significant resistance to change. I genuinely feel that some in Europe wanted to recreate the Holy Roman Empire and perhaps still do with the talk o greater federalism. The newer EU members might want to help reform but many are so dependant on money from the EU, it’s difficult to leverage an argument.
Digby wrote:But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Yes, but. The EU has been dominated by the old EU states for a long time, there is significant resistance to change. I genuinely feel that some in Europe wanted to recreate the Holy Roman Empire and perhaps still do with the talk o greater federalism. The newer EU members might want to help reform but many are so dependant on money from the EU, it’s difficult to leverage an argument.
I said it before: the only way the UK could have left the EU and done good was to set up a new, better EU. There would have been strong support for it amongst the Visegrad countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Czech, Poland) and most likely with a number of other countries. It would have been violently opposed by Benelux and I imagine there would have been substantial opposition from France and Germany, but the rest...not so sure.
Digby wrote:But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Yes, but. The EU has been dominated by the old EU states for a long time, there is significant resistance to change. I genuinely feel that some in Europe wanted to recreate the Holy Roman Empire and perhaps still do with the talk o greater federalism. The newer EU members might want to help reform but many are so dependant on money from the EU, it’s difficult to leverage an argument.
I said it before: the only way the UK could have left the EU and done good was to set up a new, better EU. There would have been strong support for it amongst the Visegrad countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Czech, Poland) and most likely with a number of other countries. It would have been violently opposed by Benelux and I imagine there would have been substantial opposition from France and Germany, but the rest...not so sure.
On some issues it'd prove harder, but we'd likely have gotten support from Romania too on many issues, and on migration Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain would all have been happy to discuss external migration at the very least
Digby wrote:But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Is it? Sure the national parliaments have to vote on EU directives etc but that’s like saying parliament is subservient to the Queen when it’s really just a rubber stamping exercise.
Was there such an opportunity? As Stom points out, France and Germany would never have been on side and with those two plus the Commission pushing against it, it wouldn’t happen. That’s before you get to the point that the vast majority of parliament and government don’t really have any issue with internal freedom of movement and that you have to get in to bed with the likes of Orban. Yuk.
We need to recognise though that we haven’t been the best European partners either so us moaning about change was always going to be a difficult task to implement. For generations, politicians of both main parties have blamed the EU for stuff they didn’t want to take the rap for themselves. The public have responded by electing UKIP to the EU parliament who have no interest in reform, just in causing the maximum chaos. Not a great relationship builder despite the positive we have brought to the EU.
Sandydragon wrote:
Yes, but. The EU has been dominated by the old EU states for a long time, there is significant resistance to change. I genuinely feel that some in Europe wanted to recreate the Holy Roman Empire and perhaps still do with the talk o greater federalism. The newer EU members might want to help reform but many are so dependant on money from the EU, it’s difficult to leverage an argument.
I said it before: the only way the UK could have left the EU and done good was to set up a new, better EU. There would have been strong support for it amongst the Visegrad countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Czech, Poland) and most likely with a number of other countries. It would have been violently opposed by Benelux and I imagine there would have been substantial opposition from France and Germany, but the rest...not so sure.
On some issues it'd prove harder, but we'd likely have gotten support from Romania too on many issues, and on migration Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain would all have been happy to discuss external migration at the very least
Romania wouldn't want a change. The EU turns a blind eye to their governmental corruption and election fraud and in return give them millions in aid, which the government pockets.
Stom wrote:
I said it before: the only way the UK could have left the EU and done good was to set up a new, better EU. There would have been strong support for it amongst the Visegrad countries (Hungary, Slovakia, Czech, Poland) and most likely with a number of other countries. It would have been violently opposed by Benelux and I imagine there would have been substantial opposition from France and Germany, but the rest...not so sure.
On some issues it'd prove harder, but we'd likely have gotten support from Romania too on many issues, and on migration Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain would all have been happy to discuss external migration at the very least
Romania wouldn't want a change. The EU turns a blind eye to their governmental corruption and election fraud and in return give them millions in aid, which the government pockets.
Not on everything, though there's a growing professional class, but on external migration they'd deal
Digby wrote:But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Is it? Sure the national parliaments have to vote on EU directives etc but that’s like saying parliament is subservient to the Queen when it’s really just a rubber stamping exercise.
Was there such an opportunity? As Stom points out, France and Germany would never have been on side and with those two plus the Commission pushing against it, it wouldn’t happen. That’s before you get to the point that the vast majority of parliament and government don’t really have any issue with internal freedom of movement and that you have to get in to bed with the likes of Orban. Yuk.
It wouldn't be easy, merely easier than our chosen path. And even Germany would be more on board with the external migration now , especially if us leading the way gave them cover
Digby wrote:But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Is it? Sure the national parliaments have to vote on EU directives etc but that’s like saying parliament is subservient to the Queen when it’s really just a rubber stamping exercise.
Was there such an opportunity? As Stom points out, France and Germany would never have been on side and with those two plus the Commission pushing against it, it wouldn’t happen. That’s before you get to the point that the vast majority of parliament and government don’t really have any issue with internal freedom of movement and that you have to get in to bed with the likes of Orban. Yuk.
To be honest, the Viktator isn't ideologically right-wing, he just wants to cling onto power in any way. If we was given power and shown a way to make Hungary more relevant, his ideology wouldn't have been the same. And the fascist regimes in Slovakia and Poland could also have been avoided.
Digby wrote:
On some issues it'd prove harder, but we'd likely have gotten support from Romania too on many issues, and on migration Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Spain would all have been happy to discuss external migration at the very least
Romania wouldn't want a change. The EU turns a blind eye to their governmental corruption and election fraud and in return give them millions in aid, which the government pockets.
Not on everything, though there's a growing professional class, but on external migration they'd deal
Trust me, if it reduced their opportunities for corruption it would never get through parliament. And if there was public outcry, they'd bribe enough peasants they'd win any vote.
Sandydragon wrote:We need to recognise though that we haven’t been the best European partners either so us moaning about change was always going to be a difficult task to implement. For generations, politicians of both main parties have blamed the EU for stuff they didn’t want to take the rap for themselves. The public have responded by electing UKIP to the EU parliament who have no interest in reform, just in causing the maximum chaos. Not a great relationship builder despite the positive we have brought to the EU.
All very true. We have been the difficult cousin. Still, we are not alone in sending MEPs to Strasbourg/Brussels who want the EU abolished or radically changed and you’d think the commission would see this as a rather large hint that they need to change and evolve, as all successful institutions must, but it seems to fall on death ears. Cameron also made a couple of strategic blunders when moving the Conservative MEP’s to a more anti-EU group (as a sop to the Con Brexiteers) and for being so anti-Junker (rightly, IMO) even when it was obvious it was fait accompli. Not the best basis for pre-referendum negotiations, not that I’m sure it made much difference to how stubborn the EU would be, ie very.
Digby wrote:But the EU is subservient to the national parliaments and there was the opportunity for us to build a coalition of states with similar outlooks to our own, certainly on migration both internal and external to the EU
Is it? Sure the national parliaments have to vote on EU directives etc but that’s like saying parliament is subservient to the Queen when it’s really just a rubber stamping exercise.
Was there such an opportunity? As Stom points out, France and Germany would never have been on side and with those two plus the Commission pushing against it, it wouldn’t happen. That’s before you get to the point that the vast majority of parliament and government don’t really have any issue with internal freedom of movement and that you have to get in to bed with the likes of Orban. Yuk.
It wouldn't be easy, merely easier than our chosen path. And even Germany would be more on board with the external migration now , especially if us leading the way gave them cover
I’d have to disagree. Getting the EU to change on its core pillars/principles is somewhere between very difficult and impossible. That Germany/Merkel now seems to see the strategic error of their immigration stance, not that I disagree with the message it sent, all seems a bit late in the context of Brexit.
Mellsblue wrote:
Is it? Sure the national parliaments have to vote on EU directives etc but that’s like saying parliament is subservient to the Queen when it’s really just a rubber stamping exercise.
Was there such an opportunity? As Stom points out, France and Germany would never have been on side and with those two plus the Commission pushing against it, it wouldn’t happen. That’s before you get to the point that the vast majority of parliament and government don’t really have any issue with internal freedom of movement and that you have to get in to bed with the likes of Orban. Yuk.
It wouldn't be easy, merely easier than our chosen path. And even Germany would be more on board with the external migration now , especially if us leading the way gave them cover
I’d have to disagree. Getting the EU to change on its core pillars/principles is somewhere between very difficult and impossible. That Germany/Merkel now seems to see the strategic error of their immigration stance, not that I disagree with the message it sent, all seems a bit late in the context of Brexit.
We weren't in a position of needing to persuade the EU we only needed the national governments, we could then have eventually simply sat on the EU. That would've come with the added benefit of sitting on the EU to make the point they're not in charge
Digby wrote:
It wouldn't be easy, merely easier than our chosen path. And even Germany would be more on board with the external migration now , especially if us leading the way gave them cover
I’d have to disagree. Getting the EU to change on its core pillars/principles is somewhere between very difficult and impossible. That Germany/Merkel now seems to see the strategic error of their immigration stance, not that I disagree with the message it sent, all seems a bit late in the context of Brexit.
We weren't in a position of needing to persuade the EU we only needed the national governments, we could then have eventually simply sat on the EU. That would've come with the added benefit of sitting on the EU to make the point they're not in charge
You’ve made an incredibly diffult piece of diplomacy sound incredibly easy. I’m struggling to think a situation where govts have sat on the commission to change one of the pillars.
Mellsblue wrote:
I’d have to disagree. Getting the EU to change on its core pillars/principles is somewhere between very difficult and impossible. That Germany/Merkel now seems to see the strategic error of their immigration stance, not that I disagree with the message it sent, all seems a bit late in the context of Brexit.
We weren't in a position of needing to persuade the EU we only needed the national governments, we could then have eventually simply sat on the EU. That would've come with the added benefit of sitting on the EU to make the point they're not in charge
You’ve made an incredibly diffult piece of diplomacy sound incredibly easy. I’m struggling to think a situation where govts have sat on the commission to change one of the pillars.
Again not easy, but we'd start with at least ten other nations willing to work with us, and that's easier than having all 27 and the EU ranged against us, and we'd have more influence without the same time constraints
I'm also only talking about migration external to the EU and not internal movement
Sandydragon wrote:We need to recognise though that we haven’t been the best European partners either so us moaning about change was always going to be a difficult task to implement. For generations, politicians of both main parties have blamed the EU for stuff they didn’t want to take the rap for themselves. The public have responded by electing UKIP to the EU parliament who have no interest in reform, just in causing the maximum chaos. Not a great relationship builder despite the positive we have brought to the EU.
All very true. We have been the difficult cousin. Still, we are not alone in sending MEPs to Strasbourg/Brussels who want the EU abolished or radically changed and you’d think the commission would see this as a rather large hint that they need to change and evolve, as all successful institutions must, but it seems to fall on death ears. Cameron also made a couple of strategic blunders when moving the Conservative MEP’s to a more anti-EU group (as a sop to the Con Brexiteers) and for being so anti-Junker (rightly, IMO) even when it was obvious it was fait accompli. Not the best basis for pre-referendum negotiations, not that I’m sure it made much difference to how stubborn the EU would be, ie very.
Unfortunately, the change that the EU seems to think is required is more federalism, not a root and branch reform.
Digby wrote:
We weren't in a position of needing to persuade the EU we only needed the national governments, we could then have eventually simply sat on the EU. That would've come with the added benefit of sitting on the EU to make the point they're not in charge
You’ve made an incredibly diffult piece of diplomacy sound incredibly easy. I’m struggling to think a situation where govts have sat on the commission to change one of the pillars.
I'm also only talking about migration external to the EU and not internal movement
Ah, ok. I’m not really sure we’re that bothered about external immigration, by dint of being almost the furthest away from the entry routes, and current EU rules meaning that legally external immigrants should register/seek asylum at their point of entry.
Sandydragon wrote:We need to recognise though that we haven’t been the best European partners either so us moaning about change was always going to be a difficult task to implement. For generations, politicians of both main parties have blamed the EU for stuff they didn’t want to take the rap for themselves. The public have responded by electing UKIP to the EU parliament who have no interest in reform, just in causing the maximum chaos. Not a great relationship builder despite the positive we have brought to the EU.
All very true. We have been the difficult cousin. Still, we are not alone in sending MEPs to Strasbourg/Brussels who want the EU abolished or radically changed and you’d think the commission would see this as a rather large hint that they need to change and evolve, as all successful institutions must, but it seems to fall on death ears. Cameron also made a couple of strategic blunders when moving the Conservative MEP’s to a more anti-EU group (as a sop to the Con Brexiteers) and for being so anti-Junker (rightly, IMO) even when it was obvious it was fait accompli. Not the best basis for pre-referendum negotiations, not that I’m sure it made much difference to how stubborn the EU would be, ie very.
Unfortunately, the change that the EU seems to think is required is more federalism, not a root and branch reform.
Agreed. However, I think that may be at a turning point......just as we are leaving.
Mellsblue wrote:
You’ve made an incredibly diffult piece of diplomacy sound incredibly easy. I’m struggling to think a situation where govts have sat on the commission to change one of the pillars.
I'm also only talking about migration external to the EU and not internal movement
Ah, ok. I’m not really sure we’re that bothered about external immigration, by dint of being almost the furthest away from the entry routes, and current EU rules meaning that legally external immigrants should register/seek asylum at their point of entry.
Can I have some of what your drinking Mells. You do remember all the fuss about the Calais 'Jungle' camp & the fact that it was made up of
mostly people from Afghanistan/Iraq & North Africa. Somehow I dont't think France would have been the point of entry of most of them
Digby wrote:
I'm also only talking about migration external to the EU and not internal movement
Ah, ok. I’m not really sure we’re that bothered about external immigration, by dint of being almost the furthest away from the entry routes, and current EU rules meaning that legally external immigrants should register/seek asylum at their point of entry.
Can I have some of what your drinking Mells. You do remember all the fuss about the Calais 'Jungle' camp & the fact that it was made up of
mostly people from Afghanistan/Iraq & North Africa. Somehow I dont't think France would have been the point of entry of most of them
No. I paid for it and I'm drinking all of it.
EU law is that on entry to the bloc, the country of entry must register them and the migrant won't have freedom of movement until they are granted asylum plus X number of years. What more would you have the EU do? I also remember most of the fuss was made daily mail readers rather than the government themselves. In the grand scheme of things, the jungle makes very little difference to immigration numbers and I doubt the govt will spend much political capital on it, mainly as they haven't at any point so far. It's also a tiny percsntage of illegal immigrants in the bloc and if Italy etc struggle to get help from other EU countries I can't see our pleas of help to stop the handful getting in from France gaining much traction.
Is it an actual law on seeking refugee status in the first safe country reached, or is that specifically EU law?
Certainly there's a convention, sort of. In future the EU may have little incentive not to give all refugees a train ticket to Blighty, I would if I was them, I'd even ask Turkey if they wanted to join in such fun, as we see the law of unintended consequences meshing with the will of the people
