You’ve gone so far off track to try and support your beliefs it laughable.
Whats choosing not to be run by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels go to do with the Gurkhas
Brexit Benefits (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter torchomatic
- Start date
Whats choosing not to be run by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels go to do with the Gurkhas
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
A) The European Parliament is elected. I think you mean bureaucrats who are the people employed to do the donkey work that our elected representatives decide needs doing.You’ve gone so far off track to try and support your beliefs it laughable.
Whats choosing not to be run by unelected Eurocrats in Brussels go to do with the Gurkhas
B) ironically we’ve had unelected representatives in the post brexit British government. The current foreign secretary is unelected, a former climate change minister was unelected and the most ironic of all we had a Brexit minister who was… that’s right, unelected. All put in the Lords (which is an unelected chamber swelled by unelected brexiteers all having a say in how the country is run) so they can sit in government.
For someone who’s so anti the EU you don’t seem to know anything about it. If you were genuinely concerned about the country being run by unelected representatives your first and in reality only concern should be the unelected second chamber of the UK.
C) the Gurkhas are from Nepal, which is in Asia and a member of the commonwealth. One of the many countries that we don’t stand alone from in or out of the EU. Which was your “point”. Nothing to do with the EU.
Think Mones a remainer.
Trading bloc not political institution. That’s what people (not just you) don’t seem to get. Id imagine a large majority from this country, would want to be part of a trading bloc with europe but over the years it became a lot more than that. 2016 was the first chance in 40 years that people had their say whether they were happy with those changes.
Have a look what happened in other countries when they finally gave their people a vote on new treaties over the years (France, Holland, Ireland are three from memory). Planned votes on treaties were then called off in other EU states at various times because they could see difficulties in getting public support. Democracy at work !!! It was one of the things that turned me off the EU as an institution in the run up to the vote
Ps I agree with your underlying point that we’re far better off working closely with Europe and other allies though
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
She’s certainly been pro brexit after the vote. TBH I don’t recall what she was saying pre 2016. The point stands though. The presumption that rich people were all remainers is ridiculous and indeed the wealthiest with the most to lose should EU laws on tax avoidance come in were leavers. Maybe it threatened their non dom status, or their ability to do business from shell companies in overseas British territories such as the Isle of Man, where non dom Mone happens to reside.
Most mega rich people will do what they think is best for themselves (weird how most rich people get more selfish the richer they get
). As you say, most will game the system anyway. Most big business will also push what’s best for themselves as well, which was cheap, easily available labour
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Just on this. Do you know why the US left the CPTPP that we’re all supposed to celebrate joining thanks to brexit? They left because they felt they gave up too much sovereignty to join. Trading blocks are political institutions by their very nature.
What’s NATO if not a political institution? Should we leave NATO? And as for the we don’t want to be part of a EU army nonsense that’s been banded around the last couple of day (granted not by you) that was never anything more than a muted idea that no EU nation ever showed any real intent of moving forward with, we’re part of a NATO army that includes many many EU countries.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The point is that it is easier to tackle things like tax avoidance and money laundering working together as a block from a single hymn sheet. Which is what the EU plans to do. For instance a certain coffee seller would have been stopped from paying tax on profits made in the UK in another country at a lower rate. Said country happens to be in the EU so that now excludes us from that arrangement.Most mega rich people will do what they think is best for themselves (weird how most rich people get more selfish the richer they get
Last edited:
As I’ve said for years, you need international (global) cooperation on taxes
Strange comparison. Has nato developed into something different since we joined ? If it did then we should probably have a say. I was just stating why I didn’t like how the EU had changed over the years and what happened when the public were given the chance to agree to those changes/treaties and why votes in other countries were subsequently pulled.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The EU changed over the years with the consent of our elected governments through treaties that we helped to write (or in the case of the withdrawal agreement, wrote). Every government from the time we joined until 2016 were elected with a manifesto that stated closer ties to the EU, so they also gave their consent with our consent. It’s just bollocks to suggest that we woke up one day and the EU changed. Anyone who says that is either full of shit or just haven’t been paying attention. In the case of politician and political commentators, they’re full of shit. In the case of the public, they ain’t been paying attention.
NATO hasn’t developed, it is what it’s always been. It tells us how much we should be spending on our defence budget, it can take our armed forces to war and it gets involved in politics between members. Most notably in British history the cod wars with Iceland which it settled in Icelands favour leaving the British government to compensate the British fishing fleets effected by NATO’s settlement.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Nato can’t take us to war and it can’t dictate our defence spending
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Err, yes it can. An armed attack on one NATO country is an armed attack on all NATO countries, it’s what we signed up to. So for example if Ukraine crumbles and madman Putin then decides to try and take land in Poland for example, we’re at war with Russia. It’s the exact reason why Russias neighbours Finland and Sweden are all of a sudden joining and why Ukraine wants to join once it’s un annexed it’s country from Russia.
I never said dictate, I said it tells us how much we should be spending. That’s a distinct difference from the context you’re trying to add to what I actually said. Most members don’t with the exception of the US. Well, not until… checks notes, Russia invaded Ukraine. All of a sudden NATO members see the value in NATO values and are steadily increasing their military budgets in line with NATO policy.
I know it’s an emotive subject for you but going round getting overly defensive and shouting every alternative view about the EU is ‘bollocks’ is OTT. I had to google to check I wasn’t talking bollocks but worth you reading the below on the European Constitution
Blair confirms EU referendum u-turn | European Union | The Guardian
Tony Blair confirmed the biggest u-turn of his premiership today, conceding a referendum on the EU constitution and declaring defiantly: "Let the battle be joined."
From memory and subsequently checking wiki Holland and France rejected EC. Six countries pulled referendum on the subject and then they all just pushed through Treaty of Lisbon instead without any referendum (apart from Ireland getting vote on it - rejected first time, told to try again)
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It isn’t it’s a fallacy - each member has autonomy to decide if it wants to attack if a nato member requests assistance and it does not itself have to respond.
Countries do not have to respond if Poland is attacked
It has no authority over what anyone spends and many ignore the levels of spend
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It’s article 5. The idea that we would bow out from that if a NATO country was attacked, especially the that member was the US or a European member is for the birds. You seem to have no grasp of either history or the current climate.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So you’ve picked the one possible example from hundreds if not thousands of ways we helped shape the EU through ours and EU democracy while members.I know it’s an emotive subject for you but going round getting overly defensive and shouting every alternative view about the EU is ‘bollocks’ is OTT. I had to google to check I wasn’t talking bollocks but worth you reading the below on the European Constitution
Blair confirms EU referendum u-turn | European Union | The Guardian
Tony Blair confirmed the biggest u-turn of his premiership today, conceding a referendum on the EU constitution and declaring defiantly: "Let the battle be joined."amp.theguardian.com
From memory and subsequently checking wiki Holland and France rejected EC. Six countries pulled referendum on the subject and then they all just pushed through Treaty of Lisbon instead without any referendum (apart from Ireland getting vote on it - rejected first time, told to try again)
You’re also buying into a myth on what happened in Ireland. The actual facts are that the sitting Irish government tried and failed to use the referendum on the Lisbon treaty as a power grab to change the Irish constitution. The Irish people rightly rejected that forcing the Irish government to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty only. The Irish never rejected the Lisbon treaty and were always going to accept it, the government tried to pull a fast one and were called out on it. The Irish voted on two separate referendums, it was not the myth of keep voting until they got the “right” result.
The UK referendum or lack of barely got noticed, indeed we voted Labour in again despite the lack of referendum, that’s how unbothered we were.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s a fallacy
The NATO Treaty Does Not Give Congress a Bye on World War III
In the event of an armed attack, the United States “reserves the right to determine for itself what military action, if any, is appropriate.”
www.lawfaremedia.org
EC was 2005. Our election was May 2005. Referenda were held by other countries up to July 2005 (both France and Holland rejections came after our general election). No referendum was held in U.K. Next election was 2010 and Tories won.
I saw this stuff as undemocratic, you don’t, which is fair enough, but what I’m saying is not bollocks
Edit - I was more concerned about the countries that rejected the EC and/or those that were promised referendum but never given the opportunity (after its rejections) rather than Ireland who eventually voted through Lisbon anyway
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. On the matter of the Lisbon Treaty I do see the cancellation of the referendum on it as undemocratic, that aside though the fact is we constantly voted in increasingly pro European governments since joining with a mandate for further ties to the EU. That’s just a fact and that is democracy in action. As is changing our mind, as will be changing it again should that happen in the future. We didn’t join one day then wake up the next morning to find it had changed overnight.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You should try reading past the headline. It basically says that the government thought the houses would have to ratify it as a checks and balance procedure. Same as we did when we went to war and in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article is spelling out a procedure. You’re labelling it a fallacy because you don’t understand the procedure for checks and balances. If Russia attacked a European NATO country without a Corbyn type led government we would be going to war. You’re living in cloud cuckoo land if you honestly believe different.It’s a fallacy
The NATO Treaty Does Not Give Congress a Bye on World War III
In the event of an armed attack, the United States “reserves the right to determine for itself what military action, if any, is appropriate.”
Tony, it was never "our" consent thats what your not getting. The people dont want it, the establishment does. When you say people voted for parties that had in the manifesto for closer ties, every major party had that so there would have been no one to vote for so thats pretty pathetic by you. Your the one not paying attention, its gone, over, never coming back, your a minority you traitor.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
The ‘establishment’ is also pro-Brexit. Unless you think the ultra-rich and privileged people aren’t part of it.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Traitor, good one. You shat over your own country over an ideology that you’re too immature to understand. You really shouldn’t be going around calling anyone a traitor. You didn’t even vote leave for a tangible reason that you can fashion into a balanced argument like Steve for instance. You’re just a rabid moron.
Its over Tony, the ship has sailed. Your getting angry now i can feel it, dont do it to yourself. You lost.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I did read past the headline tony - you stated Nato has the power to force countries into war - past the headline it’s shown that’s not the case - you said forced. Now you are babbling on about Corbyn - someone you voted for - forever the gift that keeps giving
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You voted UKIP Tony
You appear to have mixed up forces, noun, and forces, verb.
Article 5 allows all signatories to take whatever action they individually deem necessary In case of attacke on one of them. It doesn’t force signatories to use armed force (go to war).
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
The less we have to do with the EU the better, if anyone loves it so much they can always move there
In reality of course, we deal every bit as much with the EU since Brexit as we ever did before, it’s just that now it costs us much more money, time & energy to do so.
But less money, time and energy required to get a pandemic vaccine in place.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Which we did under EU regulation as we were still in the transition period and legally obligated to do so, so did. One of the biggest urban myths going that the vaccine rollout was a Brexit bonus, as confirmed by the woman responsible for the UK’s vaccine rollout during a parliamentary select committee meeting. Didn’t stop Tory MP’s falsely claiming it to be true though.
I wonder why the EU wanted to steal our vaccines then.
