Jump to content

EU rebuffs May, says no-plan Brexiteers deserve 'place in hell'


webfact

Recommended Posts

At last Corbyn gets off the fence in a letter to May setting out Labour's stance for the Brexit withdrawal agreement. IMO, it's the most sensible, practical and rational course to benefit the whole UK's population.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/corbyn-sets-out-five-brexit-demands-to-bring-country-together/ar-BBTgHQC?li=BBoPWjQ

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 524
  • Created
  • Last Reply
23 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Exactly. Brexiteers around JRM and his buddies had their chance to oust her and get in charge of Brexit. They didn’t. Losers. 

How about the 2016 silver medalists?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Pearce ripped into the 5 unelected EU presidents during Sky's press preview this morning and David Davis quipped on Ch4 news last night that the last thing they (EU Parliament) wants is Farage!😊

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And why didn't her party elect a new competent leader to negotiate a good Brexit deal?

Is it possible that that didn't happen because they all knew nobody will be able to deliver mission impossible?

The only mission that they had to accomplish was the one the PM set prior to the vote. "We will enact whatever the people decide". The people decided to leave. The only mission therefore was to leave the EU.

 

As to why her party didn't elect a competent leader - a person who, for starters, believes in Brexit - is it possible that MPs are most likely to vote for someone to lead them that they feel is like-minded to themselves? And since the majority of them don't believe in Brexit, is it a great surprise that they voted for a person like May? I think not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grouse said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/house-of-commons-adjourned-four-hours-early-at-327pm-mps-a8766471.html

 

MPs have nothing to debate??!!!

 

The lot of them can go to hell!

 

Time for a major shake up.

frightening indeed

 

repeat:

I don't think UK has much of a bright future either way - Brexit or remain

 

you quite simply do not have a political system capable of handling modern day complex

challenges in an adequate manner -

what you have is locked in medieval thinking - and you are proud of it

 

shame on parliament - the real culprit behind this omnishambles

Tory and May do not help much, but the real responsibility stays

with the so called  sovereign parliament

 

(UK parliament is not sovereign in my view, in particular not when it comes to processes.)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The only mission that they had to accomplish was the one the PM set prior to the vote. "We will enact whatever the people decide". The people decided to leave. The only mission therefore was to leave the EU.

 

As to why her party didn't elect a competent leader - a person who, for starters, believes in Brexit - is it possible that MPs are most likely to vote for someone to lead them that they feel is like-minded to themselves? And since the majority of them don't believe in Brexit, is it a great surprise that they voted for a person like May? I think not.

The majority of voters decided to leave the EU, NOT the Single Market or Customs Union which May tacked on afterwards, and got it past parliament. And this is now becoming the sticking point in the latest quest by her to persuade the EU not to have a backstop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JAG said:

 

The pathetic limpwristed and incompetent government with which the UK is currently saddled has from the very start approached the who;e matter with the intention of not actually leaving the EU. They have made no concrete proposals, rather they started the whole process by essentially agreeing to pay the EU an eye-watering sum of money. Once that was offered and accepted, they then turned their attention to arranging (not negotiating) an arrangement which effectively binds the UK to the EU permanently, with no representation or input. A vassal state, as it has been described. To nobody's surprise, it was rejected by parliament, they (the government) are the ones who have closed their eyes and are dreaming.

 

As for Tusk, and his coterie of unelected, essentially unaccountable "Presidents", Commissioners" and assorted functionaries, (who have managed to invest themselves with all the trappings and titles of a putative European Federal State), they too are party to it. They must have thought May and her government's intentions to be just the ticket. They "own" the mess to a similar extent. Tusk is perched triumphantly on top of this steaming crock of shit, proclaiming "about special places in hell" for those who don't want it. 

 

 The referendum, subsequent acts of parliament, and a general election, all determined that the UK would leave the EU. Parliament decided, absolutely constitutionally, that should happen in March 2019. This charged the government with making adequate arrangements, which parliament could pass into law. The government has failed (deliberately in my opinion), to make any sort of adequate arrangements. Tusk knew that - he must have done - just as he must have known that May's deal would not pass parliament.

 

Now, I believe that you are a Canadian, Samui Bodoh? Would you, in the context of the North American continent, (were your various trade agreements to have progressed in the way that the EU has), be happy to allow a second rate Mexican politician, for whom you cannot vote, either to put in or remove from office, pass those sort of comments, or head an organisation in which he could essentially tell Canada what it could or could not think or decide, no matter what your House of Commons or Senate decided or wished?

I'm sure you wouldn't, but that is what you are suggesting that the UK should be.

 

 

Hi JAG

 

I think that your post traverses several areas/spheres, so let me attempt to get to some of them, piece by piece and point by point.

 

First, Canada did not enter into a trade agreement like the EU, and so comparisons aren't really possible (sorry). Yes, AFTA then NAFTA, now USMCA all have dispute settlement mechanisms (they are the heart of the deal(s)) for which we ceded some sovereignty, but they aren't anywhere near as intrusive as the EU method of regulating things. Sorry, to ask me to react in the North American context to an EU situation simply doesn't work; Canada chose NOT to enter into an agreement like the EU.

 

Let me repeat the last bit of the paragraph above as it is, to me, the key to everything;

 

Canada chose NOT to enter into an agreement like the EU.

 

In counterpoint, the UK chose to enter into the EU.

 

You asked a few times to enter, were refused, asked again, then held a referendum to legitimize/solidify that choice. Further, every single change in status, every single rule, every single alteration to the original agreement, every single new member, every single decision that the EU has made was done with either the direct consent of the UK, or enabled by the UK ceding sovereignty to the EU to make the decision. Or, put more simply, the UK gave the right to make decisions on behalf of the UK to the EU. You did this through various treaties, your de facto acceptance of the rules and regulations, your voluntary participation and acceptance of the changes made, etc. To put it the most simple way that I can; no one forced the UK to be a member of the EU all those years, no one held a gun to your collective heads, no one went to war to make you change your policies;

 

YOU CHOSE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE EU AND ACCEPTED ALL ITS RULES, REGULATIONS, ETC.

 

YOU CHOSE TO DO IT.

 

You agreed. Every step of the way, you agreed. Every treaty, you agreed. Every new rule, you agreed. Every new policy, you agreed. If you hadn't agreed, you could have left, but you didn't. You stayed, and thus you agreed.

 

(Hmm... allow me a note of comprehension; when I say "you agreed", I am referring to your Parliament, not you personally).

 

If the UK did not agree, it should have left the EU, but it did NOT.

 

Now, let me move on to the present day. I see a great deal of anger at the EU on behalf of the 'Brexiteers', but respectfully, it is misplaced. The UK Parliament gave consent to everything the EU has/had done by either direct or indirect means, and thus you should direct your anger at the UK Parliament. The EU bureaucracy/commission/institutions (I don't know them all) used the authority given by the UK Parliament to implement their vision of what the EU should be.

 

In respect to the comments quoted in the original article (above), yes, it is a bit obnoxious. That said, I stand by my statement that they were accurate. Like it or not, the UK has been a member of the EU for 40+ years, coordinating your policies, refining your rules and regulations, streamlining your processes, etc. and to "crash out" without a managed agreement in place is idiotic. Sorry, but you would not re-model a bathroom without a plan (this was a point made by another member above; sorry I am not giving you credit!), yet somehow leaving an organization/agreement the size and scope of the EU without a detailed plan is okay? It is idiotic. Sorry, I am being blunt, but...

 

Finally, let me briefly touch on the large question of whether the UK should leave or stay with the EU, as I know we disagree.

 

First, the economic argument. Forgive me, but anyone who believes that the UK can leave the largest, richest free trade area in the history of the planet and do better elsewhere is wrong. The UK is going to be weakened economically. If you disagree, then I simply do not know what to say.

 

Second, the argument in favour of leaving for cultural/identity reasons does hold some validity to me, even though I think it is wrong here. Simply put, in my view the British culture has sustained itself for generations and generations and is much more resilient that the EU influence. I think we disagree on that, so lets just leave it there for now.

 

All told, we will have to agree to disagree on this. I think the UK entered into the EU with its eyes wide open, it agreed (directly or indirectly) with all the actions of the EU for over 40 years, and is culturally strong enough to withstand the EU's influence on it.

 

As above, agree to disagree.

 

Cheers

 

PS Can I suggest that you get angry with your Parliament? That, to me, is where it should be directed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grouse said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/house-of-commons-adjourned-four-hours-early-at-327pm-mps-a8766471.html

 

MPs have nothing to debate??!!!

 

The lot of them can go to hell!

 

Time for a major shake up.

you mean new elections, correct? house cleaning is longtime due, after Cameron left it should have been done, that Johnson guy is a messed up one, btw, where is he now, longtime no see

Link to post
Share on other sites

the useless politicians and alcoholics around red wine eu clown junker are getting very nervous as theresa stands her ground, well done. hopeully the eu disrupts further as in spain the catalan parties threaten to topple the useless socialist government. brexit is freedom for the uk.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The majority of voters decided to leave the EU, NOT the Single Market or Customs Union which May tacked on afterwards, and got it past parliament. And this is now becoming the sticking point in the latest quest by her to persuade the EU not to have a backstop.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The majority of voters decided to leave the EU, NOT the Single Market or Customs Union which May tacked on afterwards, and got it past parliament. And this is now becoming the sticking point in the latest quest by her to persuade the EU not to have a backstop.

you can not have one without the other, if you are not a EU member why should you have access to single market.....if you have a membership in a club that requires you to pay a fee to be able to enjoy the rewards they offer,  would you expect to be able to access/enjoy the same rewards if you didn't hold the membership

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

you can not have one without the other, if you are not a EU member why should you have access to single market.....if you have a membership in a club that requires you to pay a fee to be able to enjoy the rewards they offer,  would you expect to be able to access/enjoy the same rewards if you didn't hold the membership

not correct

you can

 

you can be in SM without being a member of EU

you can have a CU with EU without being a member

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spidey said:

He was expressing his personal opinion, something he could arguably criticised for, given his position, but it's what the US has the First Amendment for any why their President is allowed to spew his bile.

His position and therefore he himself, is unelected,  he is appointed by other politicians, not elected by the people of the EU.  let's not forget, or indeed brush over,  that rather important point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Not an impressive post; read a bit more history.

 

I note you were confused army reference to the Poles elsewhere. Nothing can be understood clearly without the historical context.

 

Please lay out for us what you wish to see in future...

No need to be so dismissive of the options of others.  I know the history, I lived through lot of it.  Where did i say anything about the Polish or the army? I think instead of dismissing me, you need to read posts more carefully. As to the future.  I was quite clear on why I voted leave, what I wanted from leaving  and what I now  want to happen. I don't owe you or anyone else an explanation, although I have listed the reasons in previous posts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

🤨His position and therefore he himself, is unelected,  he is appointed by other politicians, not elected by the people of the EU.  let's not forget, or indeed brush over,  that rather important point. 

Was May elected by the people ...or.... just replaced as PM by …. Cameron's run away …? looks similar isn't it ?

We have more politicians in Europe just installed by politic party's …., do not compare with U.K. system …., BTW are your "Lords" elected ….by the British people ?😋

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...