Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The influence of the EU on Britain.
Comments
-
<
One could describe the entire process as meaningless bullshit and a pointless waste of time but it's something that our country has had to do because of a campaign run by Farage, Johnson and the Mail / Telegraph for decades, which Cameron allowed to develop into a 50%+1 referendum. None of this can be put back in the box easily. Only as we approach deadlines do minds become focussed and we move away from the slogan on the bus.
Not Just Farge et al
Corbyn
He voted in favour of leaving the European Economic Community in 1975.
He voted against the Maastricht Treaty that created the EU. Here's what he had to say about it — "It takes us in the opposite direction of an unelected legislative body—the Commission—and, in the case of foreign policy, a policy Commission that will be, in effect, imposing foreign policy on nation states that have fought for their own democratic accountability."
He voted against the Lisbon Treaty which is the current constitutional basis for the EU.
Writing about the Greek crisis last year Corbyn said — "There is no future for a Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage."
In an LBC interview, Corbyn implied that the EU was treating Greece "brutally." — "If Europe becomes a totally brutal organisation that treats every one of its member states in the way that the people of Greece have been treated at the moment, then I think Europe will lose a lot of support from a lot of people."
In an article on his website, Corbyn wrote that the EU was responsible for the gross abuse of human rights in Western Sahara. However, the article was deleted.
In another deleted article on his website, Corbyn wrote this — "The project has always been to create a huge free-market Europe, with ever-limiting powers for national parliaments and an increasingly powerful common foreign and security policy."1 -
Not sure what the argument is re: students voting for Labour but being anti-Brexit. These two stances are not mutually exclusive. Brexit was one part of a wide ranging manifesto. I'll bold the bits below that convinced me of Labour's position over the Tories...
Labour manifesto on Brexit:
Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.
A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips.
It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU.
A Conservative Brexit will weaken workers’ rights, deregulate the economy, slash corporate taxes, sideline Parliament and democratic accountability, and cut Britain off from our closest allies and most important trading partners.
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and, if needs be, negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the UK economy.
The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism.
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/#first3 -
This whole argument seems a bit of a diversion from the real mess that is Brexit anyway. I got sucked in but why are we talking about Corbyn and Labour all of a sudden?2
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-deal-vote-meaningful-plan-mps-eu-withdrawal-bill-liason-committee-yvette-cooper-a8120866.html
Theresa May has been accused of planning to thwart the “meaningful vote” on the Brexit deal won by MPs, after repeatedly refusing to stand by the commitment.
The Prime Minister failed - five times – to guarantee the vote would be on a Bill, allowing it to be amended, or for her to be sent back to Brussels to seek better terms if her deal is rejected.
Instead, Ms May appeared to suggest it would remain what was dubbed a “take-it-or-leave-it” vote – allowing the Government to press head with Brexit, even if MPs object.
Asked, by Labour MP Yvette Cooper, to confirm there would be a “vote on a statute” – on legislation – she said only that there would be an “opportunity to vote on the deal”.
The choice of words immediately provoked suspicions that the Government will seek to strike out the “meaningful vote”, at a later stage of the EU Withdrawal Bill next month.
Fellow Labour MP Alison McGovern told The Independent: “The language of the amendment was crystal clear: Parliament must be given a real, meaningful vote on the terms of Brexit.
“That means by statute, not just a rubber-stamp of whatever the Government manages to negotiate.
“It is not acceptable for the Prime Minister to try and ignore the democratically expressed will of our elected MPs,” said the supporter of the pro-EU Open Britain group.
“That would be an affront to our sovereign Parliament and the opposite of ‘taking back control’.”
Ah feels good.0 -
I guess, in part, because he could well be our next PM and also becauseCallumcafc said:This whole argument seems a bit of a diversion from the real mess that is Brexit anyway. I got sucked in but why are we talking about Corbyn and Labour all of a sudden?
Labour are perceived to be hypocritical in their message of 'delivering the will of the people' then heavily supporting a very soft Brexit.
0 -
Isn't any brexit a hard brexit, and any border a hard border?0
-
If you look at the campaign literature of the Vote Leave campaigns and what more or less every Leave supporting campaigner stated in the campaign, what they promised, by all accounts, was a soft Brexit. Anyone who is talking about taking us out of the Single Market or Customs Union or hard borders is manifestly against the will of the people, given the statements made by the official campaigns.charente addick said:
I guess, in part, because he could well be our next PM and also becauseCallumcafc said:This whole argument seems a bit of a diversion from the real mess that is Brexit anyway. I got sucked in but why are we talking about Corbyn and Labour all of a sudden?
Labour are perceived to be hypocritical in their message of 'delivering the will of the people' then heavily supporting a very soft Brexit.5 -
Imissthepeanutman said:
I'm ok with what's been agreed
The divorce bill
The Irish border solution
The agreement on Eu citizens and British citizens
I'm ok with the proposed transition period and associated terms outlined by barnier and
If we get a sensible Canada plus deal inc services which is in the best interests of European citizens numbering 600m including us then I will be satisfied my leave vote was the right one.
Nothing has been agreed. Fact.
I’ve heard Teresa May say so.
“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”
Good luck with that.
0 -
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for as soft a Brexit as possible and still hoping (rather than anticipating) that it doesn't happen.Fiiish said:
If you look at the campaign literature of the Vote Leave campaigns and what more or less every Leave supporting campaigner stated in the campaign, what they promised, by all accounts, was a soft Brexit. Anyone who is talking about taking us out of the Single Market or Customs Union or hard borders is manifestly against the will of the people, given the statements made by the official campaigns.charente addick said:
I guess, in part, because he could well be our next PM and also becauseCallumcafc said:This whole argument seems a bit of a diversion from the real mess that is Brexit anyway. I got sucked in but why are we talking about Corbyn and Labour all of a sudden?
Labour are perceived to be hypocritical in their message of 'delivering the will of the people' then heavily supporting a very soft Brexit.
But I would need a lot of convincing that a majority of leavers were expecting a soft Brexit.
0 -
What would happen if Britain just said, we plan to leave June 30 and we won't be paying anything to the EU at all?1
-
Sponsored links:
-
I don't really care what a lot of Brexiters thought. There was pretty much zero reference from the official Leave campaigns about the kind of Brexit that is being pushed through by the Tories currently. If anyone wanted a hard Brexit, then they should have stayed at home instead of voting for what the Leave campaign was suggesting, a very soft Brexit by comparison.charente addick said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for as soft a Brexit as possible and still hoping (rather than anticipating) that it doesn't happen.Fiiish said:
If you look at the campaign literature of the Vote Leave campaigns and what more or less every Leave supporting campaigner stated in the campaign, what they promised, by all accounts, was a soft Brexit. Anyone who is talking about taking us out of the Single Market or Customs Union or hard borders is manifestly against the will of the people, given the statements made by the official campaigns.charente addick said:
I guess, in part, because he could well be our next PM and also becauseCallumcafc said:This whole argument seems a bit of a diversion from the real mess that is Brexit anyway. I got sucked in but why are we talking about Corbyn and Labour all of a sudden?
Labour are perceived to be hypocritical in their message of 'delivering the will of the people' then heavily supporting a very soft Brexit.
But I would need a lot of convincing that a majority of leavers were expecting a soft Brexit.0 -
They might say OK, you can't overfly our airspace any more.NapaAddick said:What would happen if Britain just said, we plan to leave June 30 and we won't be paying anything to the EU at all?
3 -
The researcher must have slipped to the toilet when he rang in. No way would that biased bully have allowed that.Imissthepeanutman said:I liked Mark Price on LBC with JOB this morning.
As he said there is a lot of hysteria about the place.
Lots of other issues in the Uk that are more significant than brexit and I look forward to an optimistic future.
Some of us will never agree.1 -
I voted for an end to the UK being a member of the EU and under the jurisdiction of the European Commission and the EU courts.charente addick said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for as soft a Brexit as possible and still hoping (rather than anticipating) that it doesn't happen.Fiiish said:
If you look at the campaign literature of the Vote Leave campaigns and what more or less every Leave supporting campaigner stated in the campaign, what they promised, by all accounts, was a soft Brexit. Anyone who is talking about taking us out of the Single Market or Customs Union or hard borders is manifestly against the will of the people, given the statements made by the official campaigns.charente addick said:
I guess, in part, because he could well be our next PM and also becauseCallumcafc said:This whole argument seems a bit of a diversion from the real mess that is Brexit anyway. I got sucked in but why are we talking about Corbyn and Labour all of a sudden?
Labour are perceived to be hypocritical in their message of 'delivering the will of the people' then heavily supporting a very soft Brexit.
But I would need a lot of convincing that a majority of leavers were expecting a soft Brexit.
Trade was always a secondary issue for me, as I believe that if people want to trade they will find a way.
The company I work for has just done its biggest ever deal with a German company-the weak pound made us more attractive1 -
Which would be great if we had a trade surplus but we don't. We import more than we export meaning the weak pound is hurting more businesses than it is helping.Southbank said:
I voted for an end to the UK being a member of the EU and under the jurisdiction of the European Commission and the EU courts.charente addick said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for as soft a Brexit as possible and still hoping (rather than anticipating) that it doesn't happen.Fiiish said:
If you look at the campaign literature of the Vote Leave campaigns and what more or less every Leave supporting campaigner stated in the campaign, what they promised, by all accounts, was a soft Brexit. Anyone who is talking about taking us out of the Single Market or Customs Union or hard borders is manifestly against the will of the people, given the statements made by the official campaigns.charente addick said:
I guess, in part, because he could well be our next PM and also becauseCallumcafc said:This whole argument seems a bit of a diversion from the real mess that is Brexit anyway. I got sucked in but why are we talking about Corbyn and Labour all of a sudden?
Labour are perceived to be hypocritical in their message of 'delivering the will of the people' then heavily supporting a very soft Brexit.
But I would need a lot of convincing that a majority of leavers were expecting a soft Brexit.
Trade was always a secondary issue for me, as I believe that if people want to trade they will find a way.
The company I work for has just done its biggest ever deal with a German company-the weak pound made us more attractive
It would also help if the weak pound was being caused by an actual economic plan that is deliberately keeping it low, which makes sense if Brits had more money in their pocket and business confidence was up. But it's not, It's being caused by economic chaos and British families are worse off than they were a year ago, as well as confidence dipping.5 -
Russia can land commercial planes in the EU, right? So can the US. Heck, we have bases all over Europe and we are not in the EU. I am not saying what you say is impossible, but starting a trade war seems like a response that would hurt the EU a lot more than not getting a bribe from Britain to leave. Plus, are the EU really that organized? Just curious.seth plum said:
They might say OK, you can't overfly our airspace any more.NapaAddick said:What would happen if Britain just said, we plan to leave June 30 and we won't be paying anything to the EU at all?
0 -
Aeroplane travel is only one area.
How about forced repatriation of UK nationals to the UK if the UK basically says sod you?0 -
A direct flight to Gibraltar cannot originate from any other EU country except UK.NapaAddick said:
Russia can land commercial planes in the EU, right? So can the US. Heck, we have bases all over Europe and we are not in the EU. I am not saying what you say is impossible, but starting a trade war seems like a response that would hurt the EU a lot more than not getting a bribe from Britain to leave. Plus, are the EU really that organized? Just curious.seth plum said:
They might say OK, you can't overfly our airspace any more.NapaAddick said:What would happen if Britain just said, we plan to leave June 30 and we won't be paying anything to the EU at all?
This is at the insistence of Spain.
........and this is while we are both in the EU.
2 -
Thank you. Very interesting.0
-
Both Russia and the United States have agreements with the EU to allow their registered carriers (provided they meet safety standards) to fly into EU airspace. The USA has access to the UK as part of an EU-negotiated agreement. If the UK just walks away, as of 30 June, it will have no agreements in place on the date of departure (partly because other countries may wish to renegotiate to their benefit and partly because the UK, whilst still a member of the EU, may not negotiate separately). Airlines would be very uncomfortable at the thought of flying into any country without legally binding agreements on air travel.NapaAddick said:
Russia can land commercial planes in the EU, right? So can the US. Heck, we have bases all over Europe and we are not in the EU. I am not saying what you say is impossible, but starting a trade war seems like a response that would hurt the EU a lot more than not getting a bribe from Britain to leave. Plus, are the EU really that organized? Just curious.seth plum said:
They might say OK, you can't overfly our airspace any more.NapaAddick said:What would happen if Britain just said, we plan to leave June 30 and we won't be paying anything to the EU at all?
The problem is that this is just one of thousands of problems, some easily addressed, others incredibly complex, that would arrive on day 1.
On a very simple level, for example, the UK driving licence is acceptable across the EU as proof that people are legitimately allowed to drive, in days of yore, an international driving licence used to be required. What happens, on 30 June, for those people driving on holiday, or hauling freight, across the Continent if the UK were to just eff off? Would they be insured? Could they be stopped by police and their vehicles impounded? After all, they would, without some agreement between the UK and EU, would they not not have a valid driving licence for driving outside the UK?
The more general question, about saying goodbye and, as a certain Foreign Secretary of this parish might suggest, the EU could go whistle for any of the UK's agreed financial commitments, is really quite dangerous for the UK. Firstly, in order to agree schedules with the World Trade Organisation, and the UK would, in that circumstance, have a dire need to agree those schedules (for a reason I'll go into in a minute), the UK needs the agreement of the other WTO member states - what do you think are the chances that the EU would agree without any concessions?
The UK would have to agree schedules for the very simple reason that it would not be considered an honest actor by many possible trading partners - any trading agreement is, in effect, a promise to behave appropriately, if not exactly honourably, and to honour commitments, could anyone outside the UK be reasonably be expected to sign up to a Treaty with the UK if it is seen to not honour its obligations to the EU?
Frankly, IMHO, it would be an example of a Government acting out of some form of temper tantrum (the sort of thing that I would be more likely to expect from a certain Donald Trump), and would have really damaging consequences for UK businesses.9 -
Sponsored links:
-
The bits I have written in bold is what I imagine brexit voters would say.NornIrishAddick said:
Both Russia and the United States have agreements with the EU to allow their registered carriers (provided they meet safety standards) to fly into EU airspace. The USA has access to the UK as part of an EU-negotiated agreement. If the UK just walks away, as of 30 June, it will have no agreements in place on the date of departure (partly because other countries may wish to renegotiate to their benefit and partly because the UK, whilst still a member of the EU, may not negotiate separately). Airlines would be very uncomfortable at the thought of flying into any country without legally binding agreements on air travel. I don't care.NapaAddick said:
Russia can land commercial planes in the EU, right? So can the US. Heck, we have bases all over Europe and we are not in the EU. I am not saying what you say is impossible, but starting a trade war seems like a response that would hurt the EU a lot more than not getting a bribe from Britain to leave. Plus, are the EU really that organized? Just curious.seth plum said:
They might say OK, you can't overfly our airspace any more.NapaAddick said:What would happen if Britain just said, we plan to leave June 30 and we won't be paying anything to the EU at all?
The problem is that this is just one of thousands of problems, some easily addressed, others incredibly complex, that would arrive on day 1. I don't care.
On a very simple level, for example, the UK driving licence is acceptable across the EU as proof that people are legitimately allowed to drive, in days of yore, an international driving licence used to be required. What happens, on 30 June, for those people driving on holiday, or hauling freight, across the Continent if the UK were to just eff off? I don't care. Would they be insured? I don't care.Could they be stopped by police and their vehicles impounded? I don't care. After all, they would, without some agreement between the UK and EU, would they not not have a valid driving licence for driving outside the UK? I don't care.
The more general question, about saying goodbye and, as a certain Foreign Secretary of this parish might suggest, the EU could go whistle for any of the UK's agreed financial commitments, is really quite dangerous for the UK. I don't care. Firstly, in order to agree schedules with the World Trade Organisation, and the UK would, in that circumstance, have a dire need to agree those schedules (for a reason I'll go into in a minute), the UK needs the agreement of the other WTO member states - what do you think are the chances that the EU would agree without any concessions? I don't care.
The UK would have to agree schedules for the very simple reason that it would not be considered an honest actor by many possible trading partners I don't care. - any trading agreement is, in effect, a promise to behave appropriately, if not exactly honourably, and to honour commitments, could anyone outside the UK be reasonably be expected to sign up to a Treaty with the UK if it is seen to not honour its obligations to the EU? I don't care. Go whistle!
Frankly, IMHO, it would be an example of a Government acting out of some form of temper tantrum (the sort of thing that I would be more likely to expect from a certain Donald Trump), and would have really damaging consequences for UK businesses. I don't care.7 -
Damien Green resigned for breeches of ministerial code.
How many of the cabinet is that . 3 in a few months.
A moribund government not fit for office.3 -
I hear he is lined up for Swansea.ShootersHillGuru said:Damien Green resigned for breeches of ministerial code.
How many of the cabinet is that . 3 in a few months.
A moribund government not fit for office.4 -
Interesting to see if David Davis follows up on his threat to resign if Green goes?ShootersHillGuru said:Damien Green resigned for breeches of ministerial code.
How many of the cabinet is that . 3 in a few months.
A moribund government not fit for office.0 -
If he says been pushed then it's David Davis' get out of jail card isn't it?ShootersHillGuru said:Damien Green resigned for breeches of ministerial code.
How many of the cabinet is that . 3 in a few months.
A moribund government not fit for office.0 -
Asked to resign. Davis is full of shit.Chaz Hill said:
Interesting to see if David Davis follows up on his threat to resign if Green goes?ShootersHillGuru said:Damien Green resigned for breeches of ministerial code.
How many of the cabinet is that . 3 in a few months.
A moribund government not fit for office.
1 -
-
And there was me, thinking breeches were an item of 18th century clothing....ShootersHillGuru said:Damien Green resigned for breeches of ministerial code.
How many of the cabinet is that . 3 in a few months.
A moribund government not fit for office.
3 -
Jo Swinson, MP, has been granted - with significant restrictions - access to David Davis's "sectoral analyses". I have posted all eleven tweets from her thread, as not everyone wants to click away from CL and onto Twitter.
It's an honest and astonishing exposé of what looks like an abrogation of duty.
Davis either hasn't bothered to do the work or has done it and left the most harmful pieces out of the record. Either way he should be sacked. But, of course, he won't be.
So that leaves the question, are we happy that Britain's economic future will be determined by someone who is untrustworthy and/or incompetent?
5
This discussion has been closed.
