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

[melvinmelvin]

the last two

 

enjoy

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mavideol]

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

We're not running away, we're leaving.

in this particular case what's the difference

[JAG]

11 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

in this particular case what's the difference

As I said, the problem is intractable, so we leave.

[Samui Bodoh]

23 minutes ago, JAG said:

If we simplify things to the extent you suggest, the problems which we have discussed are intractable. We leave.

 

We're not running away, we're leaving.

 

As for the people challenging the countries political class/establishment and their cosy consensus: perhaps that is what the 2016 referendum, and the current political mess, is about?

This is where you leave me bewildered; I do not understand the value of leaving compared to the value of being part of the largest, richest free trade area in human history.

 

We aren't going to agree, but I just do not believe that this problem is intractable; It is merely very difficult.

 

Oh well, even though we don't agree, I do, on occasion, enjoy the debate.

 

One thing that I have learned over the years; when one is trying to figure out something from British Public Life, one should always consult with the experts;

 

Enjoy!

 

 

[gamini]

10 hours ago, vogie said:

What a fine statesman Tusk is, if he thinks insulting other nations is fine and dandy, he is wrong. He has and still is doing more for the brexit cause than Jeremy Corbyn could even dream of. He is used to getting his own way, and when he doesn't, he just cannot control himself.

 

 

Task is right. His outburst was caused by the utterly pathetic and exasperating stand of British politicians. I think May will go down as the worst British Premier in history. 

[JAG]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Yes. All these false posts need to stop. We've been explaining this to Epsilons for three years and STILL they post falsehoods  or misleading statements. I will start reporting if it continues.

I must confess that your references to "Epsilons" had left me puzzled, although I was certain that it was some clever way of being rude to people that had the temerity to disagree with you. After all, such expressions are central to your posts, and I rather assumed that you have steadily moved through a catalogue of abuse because, from time to time, the TVF system has tired of each particular derogatory term, and stopped you from using it. As I said, I was sure that it was a term of abuse, and because you are so magnificently clever, (and as you regularly remind us have such a splendid education) you could not for long  bear the thought that people here could not appreciate your wit and intellect, so I consoled myself that you would sooner or later have to explain just how jolly clever and erudite you are.

 

Well, lo! The penny has dropped! The "Epsilons" are the uneducated, brutish peasant class in the society described by Aldous Huxley in his novel "Brave New World"! I really must congratulate you on your cleverness! I am sorry it took this simple soldier ( a mere helot after all) so long to get there.

 

So, for those of you, who like me, failed to get the smug little bastards reference to "Epsilons", he is suggesting that we are stupid, brutish, uneducated. inferior etc.

 

What a clever little gamebird he is...

 

I wonder if using such a word - given its provenance -as an all-embracing term of abuse, is contrary to the rules governing posting on this forum, and specifically to the rules about making consistent derogatory references to other posters. It would seem after all, that he is keen to start reporting others...

[CG1 Blue]

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

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.

Whilst I think this is very well written, and you make some valid points, I have to take issue with a couple of things. 

 

Firstly, the only time the public were given a say in entering / staying in the European project was in 1975. Back then it was sold as simply a trading bloc. All of the subsequent (hugely significant) changes were not put to the people, but were rather underhandedly waived through by Major, Blair, Brown etc. Given the British public's general apathy towards European politics there was little resistance. I suspect if we'd had a referendum on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties, with full blown campaigns, we would not be part of the EU now. 

I realise you had a footnote acknowledging that these decisions came from parliament, not the people.  But I just wanted to expand on that. 

 

Secondly, I do understand your point about aiming anger at the UK parliament rather than at the EU, because the UK Parliament enabled the EU to do what it does. But while I agree the UK Parliament is complicit in what transpired, the EU is the body enacting the things that Leavers don't like, and the EU is the body increasingly treating the UK with contempt. So it would be fairer to say the anger should be aimed partly at the UK Parliament for allowing us to get where we are, but most of the anger is justifiably aimed at the EU. 

 

 

[sawadee1947]

11 hours ago, steve187 said:

3 years almost! A deal could have been thrashed out as soon as the referendum result was known. A few meetings and some video conferencing should have had a deal thrashed out in a short period of time. If nothing could be agreed within say 6 months, then we should have walked away, we would be 2 years down the road to a recovery and new trade deals, with decent trading partners not the grater Eu federation pi** takers

Dreamer 

[vogie]

34 minutes ago, gamini said:

Task is right. His outburst was caused by the utterly pathetic and exasperating stand of British politicians. I think May will go down as the worst British Premier in history. 

Tusk is not right, he is one of the most powerfull men in Europe and with that comes a responsability, and one of those responsabilities is not to insult other nations, it just shows what lack of class he has got. He should put his brain in gear before opening his mouth.

Whatever we all think of Mrs May, nobody can deny her resolute and as opposed to Mr Tusk, her decorum.

[melvinmelvin]

13 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Whilst I think this is very well written, and you make some valid points, I have to take issue with a couple of things. 

 

Firstly, the only time the public were given a say in entering / staying in the European project was in 1975. Back then it was sold as simply a trading bloc. All of the subsequent (hugely significant) changes were not put to the people, but were rather underhandedly waived through by Major, Blair, Brown etc. Given the British public's general apathy towards European politics there was little resistance. I suspect if we'd had a referendum on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties, with full blown campaigns, we would not be part of the EU now. 

I realise you had a footnote acknowledging that these decisions came from parliament, not the people.  But I just wanted to expand on that. 

 

Secondly, I do understand your point about aiming anger at the UK parliament rather than at the EU, because the UK Parliament enabled the EU to do what it does. But while I agree the UK Parliament is complicit in what transpired, the EU is the body enacting the things that Leavers don't like, and the EU is the body increasingly treating the UK with contempt. So it would be fairer to say the anger should be aimed partly at the UK Parliament for allowing us to get where we are, but most of the anger is justifiably aimed at the EU. 

 

 

ok put, but

you are presumably leaving, so too late to hack EUs inner workings.

should UK opt to remain, not much clout left now, not many would be interested in

UKs views on constitutional improvements.

 

think the 0817 from Victoria and Eastwards past Leytonstone has left now,

too late, alas

 

 

 

 

 

[david555]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

Tusk is not right, he is one of the most powerfull men in Europe and with that comes a responsability, and one of those responsabilities is not to insult other nations, it just shows what lack of class he has got. He should put his brain in gear before opening his mouth.

Whatever we all think of Mrs May, nobody can deny her resolute and as opposed to Mr Tusk, her decorum.

Forgot Jeremy Hunt your foreign minister comparing E.U. with Russia ….. not so long time ago...?  Oh but that was O.K. as said by U.K. side ….. or all the other insults to other E.U. ones ,  not having a problem with that as long as you can have it too  ???? 

Arrogance  no longer a Brits monopoly   

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

in this particular case what's the difference

About 39Bn quid ????

 

Here's a Joint Statement from May & Junker.

[hugocnx]

11 hours ago, vogie said:

What a fine statesman Tusk is, if he thinks insulting other nations is fine and dandy, he is wrong. He has and still is doing more for the brexit cause than Jeremy Corbyn could even dream of. He is used to getting his own way, and when he doesn't, he just cannot control himself.

 

 

Yeah, some fine globalist he is. I don't trust this possible maniacal politician.

Haha, there are so many more so what the heck.

[vogie]

Just now, david555 said:

Forgot Jeremy Hunt your foreign minister comparing E.U. with Russia ….. not so long time ago...?  Oh but that was O.K. as said by U.K. side ….. or all the other insults to other E.U. ones ,  not having a problem with that as long as you can have it too  ???? 

Arrogance  no longer a Brits monopoly   

Do you really have to go off topic to justify what Tusk said, it wasn't even a slip of the tongue, it was in his script. If you think that by deflecting the issue will make it go away well it wont, perhaps that is why the EU is in the mess it is in.

[david555]

Just now, vogie said:

Do you really have to go off topic to justify what Tusk said, it wasn't even a slip of the tongue, it was in his script. If you think that by deflecting the issue will make it go away well it wont, perhaps that is why the EU is in the mess it is in.

Poor defense..... what 1 say can be done also by another individual …, about "mess " agreed you are experts in it seems  

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

Poor defense..... what 1 say can be done also by another individual …, about "mess " agreed you are experts in it seems  

I'm afraid Tusk said it, he owns it.

[david555]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I'm afraid Tusk said it, he owns it.

Yes .., and the Irish PM was even laughing with it , it was just fun to see 

[vogie]

Just now, david555 said:

Yes .., and the Irish PM was even laughing with it , it was just fun to see 

The Irish PM was not laughing, he was grimacing, he knew what a fool he was.????

[evadgib]

27 minutes ago, vogie said:

I'm afraid Tusk said it, he owns it.

 

[Justin Side]

52 minutes ago, vogie said:

Tusk is not right,

Of course he is right.

These right wing ideologists are screwing the UK big time.

They have so much money that they don't give a toss about the average UK citizens.

Shameful.

[evadgib]

Farage has today repeated his pledge to return to the EU Parliament if necessary and that we would win by a much bigger margin if a 2nd neverendum comes our way.

Bring it on ????

 

[Justin Side]

2 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Farage has just repeated his pledge to return to the EU Parliament if necessary and that we would win by a much bigger margin if a 2nd neverendum comes our way.

Bring it on ????

You hanging on the words of that moron?

Good grief.

[Dumbastheycome]

12 hours ago, steve187 said:

3 years almost! A deal could have been thrashed out as soon as the referendum result was known. A few meetings and some video conferencing should have had a deal thrashed out in a short period of time. If nothing could be agreed within say 6 months, then we should have walked away, we would be 2 years down the road to a recovery and new trade deals, with decent trading partners not the grater Eu federation pi** takers

A large percentage of the possible  alternative  trading  partners who were  summarily  dismissed  when the UK  chose to  selectively participate in the EU and  have now formed  trade  participation with the remaining alternative trading partners may  be unlikely to be  begging at the trading  door of the UK !

Tween rock and  hard place. 

[evadgib]

2 minutes ago, Justin Side said:

You hanging on the words of that moron?

Good grief.

What did YOU make of them?

[partington]

10 minutes ago, Justin Side said:

You hanging on the words of that moron?

Good grief.

Here's non-hypocrite Farage in 2016:

 

"The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

 

Asked by the BBC about his Daily Mirror comments, Mr Farage said he was not admitting defeat in the referendum, saying: "I think we are going to win."

But he added: "If we were to lose narrowly, there'd be a large section, particularly in the Conservative Party, who'd feel the prime minister is not playing fair, that the Remain side is using way more money than the Leave side and there would be a resentment that would build up if that was to be the result."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

So this guy declares that losing the leave referendum by 52:48 wouldn't be convincing and would need another referendum. But winning 52:48 is fine by him. Idiot.

[evadgib]

4 minutes ago, partington said:

Here's non-hypocrite Farage in 2016:

 

"The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

 

Asked by the BBC about his Daily Mirror comments, Mr Farage said he was not admitting defeat in the referendum, saying: "I think we are going to win."

But he added: "If we were to lose narrowly, there'd be a large section, particularly in the Conservative Party, who'd feel the prime minister is not playing fair, that the Remain side is using way more money than the Leave side and there would be a resentment that would build up if that was to be the result."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

So this guy declares that losing the leave referendum by 52:48 wouldn't be convincing and would need another referendum. But winning 52:48 is fine by him. Idiot.

Which part of 'Winning again by a much bigger margin' did you not understand?

[Justin Side]

Just now, evadgib said:

Which part of 'Winning again by a much bigger margin' did you not understand?

Probably the fact that he is totally wrong.

[david555]

https://news.sky.com/story/live-juncker-tells-may-he-will-not-reopen-brexit-deal-talks-11630539

Breaking

LIVE: Theresa May promises there will be an Irish backstop - EU

 

All the latest updates as the prime minister holds key meetings in Brussels, fighting to reopen Brexit negotiations.

 

[elliss]

8 hours ago, rixalex said:

If British people don't want May as their PM, they can vote for a party that doesn't have her as their leader. If the British people don't want Juncker as President of the EU, they can do what?

 

  Vote Labour , ha ha ..

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

I must confess that your references to "Epsilons" had left me puzzled, although I was certain that it was some clever way of being rude to people that had the temerity to disagree with you. After all, such expressions are central to your posts, and I rather assumed that you have steadily moved through a catalogue of abuse because, from time to time, the TVF system has tired of each particular derogatory term, and stopped you from using it. As I said, I was sure that it was a term of abuse, and because you are so magnificently clever, (and as you regularly remind us have such a splendid education) you could not for long  bear the thought that people here could not appreciate your wit and intellect, so I consoled myself that you would sooner or later have to explain just how jolly clever and erudite you are.

 

Well, lo! The penny has dropped! The "Epsilons" are the uneducated, brutish peasant class in the society described by Aldous Huxley in his novel "Brave New World"! I really must congratulate you on your cleverness! I am sorry it took this simple soldier ( a mere helot after all) so long to get there.

 

So, for those of you, who like me, failed to get the smug little bastards reference to "Epsilons", he is suggesting that we are stupid, brutish, uneducated. inferior etc.

 

What a clever little gamebird he is...

 

I wonder if using such a word - given its provenance -as an all-embracing term of abuse, is contrary to the rules governing posting on this forum, and specifically to the rules about making consistent derogatory references to other posters. It would seem after all, that he is keen to start reporting others...

Damn, I'll have to move on....????

 

Not all Brexiters are the same. I needed a collective term to describe those who didn't really understand what was going on but were still staunch Brexiters.

 

Clearly Boris and Mogg are alphas. Bad ones...

 

Many, indeed most, Brexiters here are knowledgeable of the facts. We just agree to differ.