Brexit...

[Cornish Steve]

This is what I find so hypocritical. "Britain" chose to leave. Except it didn't. England, being the majority population of a collective of countries, did along with Wales. For all the people complaining about the EU and how they control things, how unfair it is, this is exactly what Britain is for the Scots and Northern Irish. So in terms of fairness, we should let them leave Great Britain and join the EU as independent states, right? How about Gibraltar with a 95% vote to remain? Is that going to happen? Of course not, it's not in "our" interests...

 

All hail democracy...

 

What you're suggesting, I think, is allowing cultures to vote independently, not countries. While I'm all for that, it's wholly impractical right now. What if the Basques were very anti-EU, or the Catalans? Should they be allowed to leave independent of the countries of which they form a part? History has determined national boundaries, not commonsense.

[Cornish Steve]

Oddly enough Matt, I do agree with your sentiment here. The fact of the matter is that UK voted as the UK to leave EU and brexit is happening. We joined the EU as the UK and we must leave the EU as the UK. If, subsequently, Scotland becomes independent and applies for EU membership and meets the membership criteria and is accepted into the EU, then I would only be disapointed that Scotland had left the UK. Once they had left the UK and we had reestablished the fine wall built by Hadrian, then I would wish an independent Scotland the very best of luck.

 

Whilst I strongly believe that a united UK is best for all the countries that form the UK, I would respect democracy and if the democratic decision was for Scotland to become independent, then so be it. I wouldn't like it, I would think it a poor decision but I would respect it and do my best to make it work.

 

Why can't the Remainers that are trying to sabotage Brexit respect democracy and do the same?

 

My own view is that England and Wales should have their own referendun to see if they want to form a separate union. I think the Scots and N Irish would feel very exposed if that happened.

 

Personally, I'd like to see a Federation of Celtic States, since we're aligned culturally.

 

If Scotland left the union, it would only be a matter of time before other Celtic nations would do the same - regardless of their stance on the EU.

[Palfy]

 

No, Matt, I wasn't meaning that you shouldn't quote them but it is always the BBC or Guardian. I'm getting to the stage where if I see a quote by GUA or BBC I don't bother reading as I know what to expect. Don't expect anything else from the Guardian but the BBC is supposed to be impartial. It would be nice to see some other source quoted and if it was anti-Brexit would probably carry more weight.

I agree don't pay any attention to what the papers say, they will only print what their owners opinions are and what's best for their financial situation.

But the BBC don't have an owner to bow to except the government and the British public, so shouldn't we believe that there reporting is not biased and probably the closes your going to get to the true facts.

[Matt]

 

What you're suggesting, I think, is allowing cultures to vote independently, not countries. While I'm all for that, it's wholly impractical right now. What if the Basques were very anti-EU, or the Catalans? Should they be allowed to leave independent of the countries of which they form a part? History has determined national boundaries, not commonsense.

actually, in terms of Brexit I the countries who had very clear results should have their voices heard, but because they're part of a union of countries (like the EU) they've been screwed over by the ones running the union. That's the hypocrisy I see.

 

Catalonia and Basque are not countries but they should be allowed a vote on their independence then, and only then, can they decide to be part of the EU. Not down to culture, but letting the people speak and I know for Catalans exactly how they feel having lived and worked there for a year.

 

The idea of "true" democracy can't work, as you correctly say; it's completely impractical. The idea is nice in theory, but there are those who have no idea about what's best for them and without proper guidance from a structured system, they would suffer and in turn then complain. But that system has to provide for them and, educated or not on the topic, I don't believe either Remain or Leave did their job.

[Palfy]

Personally, I'd like to see a Federation of Celtic States, since we're aligned culturally.

 

If Scotland left the union, it would only be a matter of time before other Celtic nations would do the same - regardless of their stance on the EU.

I would like all the Celtic area's to leave England, I personally think they are a financial burden on the English, never stop whingeing and think they would be better on their own, and then when they have voted to leave there won't be any drawn out negotiations or soft exit, will be exactly as the government are taking us out of the E.U no say

.

[johnh]

I agree don't pay any attention to what the papers say, they will only print what their owners opinions are and what's best for their financial situation.

But the BBC don't have an owner to bow to except the government and the British public, so shouldn't we believe that there reporting is not biased and probably the closes your going to get to the true facts.

Theoretically, yes. But the BBC is run by the liberal elite and has been for many years. They don't have to worry about their income either as its provided as a tax on the population. Needs a root and branch reform including revenue which should be 'earned'.

[Cornish Steve]

I would like all the Celtic area's to leave England, I personally think they are a financial burden on the English, never stop whingeing and think they would be better on their own, and then when they have voted to leave there won't be any drawn out negotiations or soft exit, will be exactly as the government are taking us out of the E.U no say

.

 

Then why did the English insist on defeating them militarily, forcing them to change to become English, making it unacceptable to speak their own languages (which is why Cornish died out), and insisting on moving in en masse?

 

I would simply repeat what I wrote earlier: a suprastate will only succeed if all constituent cultures want to be a part of it. It's rather interesting to see that not even the English want to be part of Britain.

[Guest rusty747]

Then why did the English insist on defeating them militarily, forcing them to change to become English, making it unacceptable to speak their own languages (which is why Cornish died out), and insisting on moving in en masse?

 

I would simply repeat what I wrote earlier: a suprastate will only succeed if all constituent cultures want to be a part of it. It's rather interesting to see that not even the English want to be part of Britain.

I think you raise very valid points. Hopefully, lessons learned from a successful Brexit might be applied to the Union of a truly United Kingdom.

 

For me, the biggest difference between UK and EU is that there is, in UK, far more that binds us together than forces us apart. And we have over a thousand years of history behind us. I believe that our internal UK differences should be celebrated in the various regions of UK whilst, at the same time, sitting under the greater umbrella of a United Kingdom. I believe that is both desirable and possible in UK due to our shared history, overlapping cultures and homogenous geography. I honestly believe it is neither desirable nor practically possible in the EU.

Edited March 10, 2017 by rusty747

[Matt]

I think you raise very valid points. Hopefully, lessons learned from a successful Brexit might be applied to the Union of a truly United Kingdom.

 

For me, the biggest difference between UK and EU is that there is, in UK, far more that binds us together than forces us apart. And we have over a thousand years of history behind us. I believe that our internal UK differences should be celebrated in the various regions of UK whilst, at the same time, sitting under the greater umbrella of a United Kingdom. I believe that is both desirable and possible in UK due to our shared history, overlapping cultures and homogenous geography. I honestly believe it is neither desirable nor practically possible in the EU.

theres part of the argument in a nutshell. The EU is several decades old, but the UK has evolved (mostly through violent means) over a thousand years nearly. Giving up on it now is a complete lack of patience and respect.

[Guest rusty747]

theres part of the argument in a nutshell. The EU is several decades old, but the UK has evolved (mostly through violent means) over a thousand years nearly. Giving up on it now is a complete lack of patience and respect.

Oh, here we go.

 

No, it isn't Matt. There are too many cultural and national differences within the EU and very little commonality other than that contrived by the EU. Only today Poland has said that it feels blackmailed by France over the re election of Tusk. This in relation to the 2 speed EU and funding for Poland. There is so much more that binds UK together.

 

And anyway, its largely academic now as it looks like Article 50 will be triggered next Tuesday.

Edited March 10, 2017 by rusty747

[Matt]

Oh, here we go.

 

No, it isn't Matt. There are too many cultural and national differences within the EU and very little commonality other than that contrived by the EU. Only today Poland has said that it feels blackmailed by France over the re election of Tusk. This in relation to the 2 speed EU and funding for Poland. There is so much more that binds UK together.

 

And anyway, its largely academic now as it looks like Article 50 will be triggered next Tuesday.

another hypocrisy. France and Poland, London and Liverpool. Rich and poor. It's the same thing, and why greater unity is a must to bring equality. The UK is a forced arrangement, the EU is a unity through choice and strength because of that. Far from perfect, but it didn't have to conquer, at least through violent means.

[Matt]

Dude, I'd love to discuss this "face to face", if you'd like to call

[Guest rusty747]

Dude, I'd love to discuss this "face to face", if you'd like to call

Need a few beers each, first, I think Matt.

 

But 'face to face' or on line, we won't ever agree and as I said earlier, its largely academic now as Article 50 looks set to be triggered on Tuesday.

 

Our respective efforts would be far better utilised in getting the best Brexit deal possible, rather than holding what Remainers would regard as a post mortem over events that have already been decided and will continue to happen.

 

I am quite excited at seeing Article 50 triggered. It will mean the phoney war is over and we can actually get on with the job of regaining our country - with all of its various cultures.

Edited March 10, 2017 by rusty747

[MikeO]

Need a few beers each, first, I think Matt.

 

But 'face to face' or on line, we won't ever agree and as I said earlier, its largely academic now as Article 50 looks set to be triggered on Tuesday.

 

Our respective efforts would be far better utilised in getting the best Brexit deal possible, rather than holding what Remainers would regard as a post mortem over events that have already been decided and will continue to happen.

 

I am quite excited at seeing Article 50 triggered. It will mean the phoney war is over and we can actually get on with the job of regaining our country - with all of its various cultures.

 

How are you and Matt going to be involved in the negotiations ?

 

Article fifty triggering or not will make no difference to my views, I don't get this "done so let's all get behind it" attitude.

 

Everything from slavery, apartheid, soviet communism and council tax was enshrined in law at the time but people who disagreed made their points heard and eventually sanity prevailed. Not comparing the brexit argument to any of those obviously but just making the point that if you're in a minority on something you don't immediately change your view and fall into line just because you're outvoted.

[johnh]

Everything from slavery, apartheid, soviet communism and council tax was enshrined in law at the time but people who disagreed made their points heard and eventually sanity prevailed - and we voted to leave the EU.

[Guest rusty747]

Everything from slavery, apartheid, soviet communism and council tax was enshrined in law at the time but people who disagreed made their points heard and eventually sanity prevailed - and we voted to leave the EU.

Perfect John, Perfect.

[Guest rusty747]

How are you and Matt going to be involved in the negotiations ?

 

Article fifty triggering or not will make no difference to my views, I don't get this "done so let's all get behind it" attitude.

 

Everything from slavery, apartheid, soviet communism and council tax was enshrined in law at the time but people who disagreed made their points heard and eventually sanity prevailed. Not comparing the brexit argument to any of those obviously but just making the point that if you're in a minority on something you don't immediately change your view and fall into line just because you're outvoted.

Point taken Mike but the fact is that Brexit is happening and whether you voted for it, against, abstained or whatever, it is going to affect us all.

 

Surely, it would be better to accept it (not asking anyone to support it if they can't - a bit like asking a toffee to support the rs I know) rather than (not everyone I know) constantly wail and gnash teeth over what has been democratically voted for and is happening.

[MikeO]

Point taken Mike but the fact is that Brexit is happening and whether you voted for it, against, abstained or whatever, it is going to affect us all.

 

Surely, it would be better to accept it (not asking anyone to support it if they can't - a bit like asking a toffee to support the rs I know) rather than (not everyone I know) constantly wail and gnash teeth over what has been democratically voted for and is happening.

 

 

And we democratically voted to join in 1975; so should everyone who campaigned to leave this time not have accepted that result and got behind it? Or is there a statute of limitations in force whereby I have to go along with "the will of the people" for a certain period before I can express my opinion/opposition again?

[Guest rusty747]

And we democratically voted to join in 1975; so should everyone who campaigned to leave this time not have accepted that result and got behind it? Or is there a statute of limitations in force whereby I have to go along with "the will of the people" for a certain period before I can express my opinion/opposition again?

 

Actually Mike, we voted to join a Common Market, not the EU. If it had remained purely a Common Market then the creeping Federalism which has driven so much of the Leave campaign would not be there.

 

We voted to join a Common Market, not to surrender our Sovereignty. I and enough others to form a voting majority want back what we never agreed to give away.

Edited March 11, 2017 by rusty747

[Bailey]

Going back to the dissolution of the UK, I was watching Question Time the other night and the SNP candidate, pro independence, was praising how their Universities are free. Aren't Scottish unis funded by UK taxpayers as a whole? Surely if they did become independent they would have to start charging for them?

[MikeO]

Actually Mike, we voted to join a Common Market, not the EU. If it had remained purely a Common Market then the creeping Federalism which has driven so much of the Leave campaign would not be there.

 

We voted to join a Common Market, not to surrender our Sovereignty. I and enough others to form a voting majority want back what we never agreed to give away.

 

Actually we voted to remain in the European Community (often referred to colloquially as the common market though never officially called that) that we'd already joined a couple of years earlier as promised in an election manifesto (a government sticking to their manifesto, wow!). Communities evolve. We've chosen to go backwards. Some people, the majority of those that voted, think that's a good idea. I don't so there's no way I'm getting behind it.

Presumably you think all Americans should now rally round Trump?

[Guest rusty747]

Actually we voted to remain in the European Community (often referred to colloquially as the common market though never officially called that) that we'd already joined a couple of years earlier as promised in an election manifesto (a government sticking to their manifesto, wow!). Communities evolve. We've chosen to go backwards. Some people, the majority of those that voted, think that's a good idea. I don't so there's no way I'm getting behind it.

Presumably you think all Americans should now rally round Trump?

Mike, the creeping Federalism is why the majority who voted, voted to leave. We did not join the EU in 1973 or 1975. The term wasn't even in use then. I think you might be referring to EEC or the European ECONOMIC Community, aka the Common Market but most definitely not the EU.

 

A European Free Trade Area made sense in the 70's because of geo political and technological limitations on trade. Nowadays, even those reasons do not exist.

 

Look at NAFTA. A successful free trade association with no attempt to interfere in domestic politics or to create a supra state. That is where the EU went wrong and that is why it has now got a bloody nose.

 

And, whilst not relevant to brexit, I will answer your follow up question.

 

Yes, I do think the American people should support their President.

Edited March 11, 2017 by rusty747

[johnh]

 

Actually we voted to remain in the European Community (often referred to colloquially as the common market though never officially called that) that we'd already joined a couple of years earlier as promised in an election manifesto (a government sticking to their manifesto, wow!). Communities evolve. We've chosen to go backwards. Some people, the majority of those that voted, think that's a good idea. I don't so there's no way I'm getting behind it.

Presumably you think all Americans should now rally round Trump?

 

As one who voted, we were told that we were joining the Common Market. There was no mention of it morphing into a Federal State. If there had been, I can assure you, the vote wouldn't have been 'yes'.

[MikeO]

 

As one who voted, we were told that we were joining the Common Market. There was no mention of it morphing into a Federal State. If there had been, I can assure you, the vote wouldn't have been 'yes'.

 

You should've done your research John .

 

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_en

 

"By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace."

[Guest rusty747]

You should've done your research John .

 

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_en

 

"By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace."

I am sure John can defend himself Mike but you are still not right. The decision made by the UK in 1973 and subsequently endorsed by referendum in 1975 was based purely on joining a Common Market. That was the term used in the run up to 1973 and the term used in the referendum of 1975. As John quite rightly points out, if there had been mention of a Federal Union in the referendum of 1975 the outcome would have been very different. Are you suggesting the British (Labour) government of the day was dishonest with us over the 1975 referendum?

You can build any amount of conspiracy theories around that if you like but the fact of the matter is that the British people have endured enough of the march towards Federalism and are taking their country back.

 

We can argue over semantics all you like but the EU is not what it was sold to us as and we are leaving.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

 

No mention whatsoever of a European Federation in the referendum question.

Edited March 11, 2017 by rusty747

[MikeO]

I am sure John can defend himself Mike but you are still not right. The decision made by the UK in 1973 and subsequently endorsed by referendum in 1975 was based purely on joining a Common Market. That was the term used in the run up to 1973 and the term used in the referendum of 1975. As John quite rightly points out, if there had been mention of a Federal Union in the referendum of 1975 the outcome would have been very different. Are you suggesting the British (Labour) government of the day was dishonest with us over the 1975 referendum?

You can build any amount of conspiracy theories around that if you like but the fact of the matter is that the British people have endured enough of the march towards Federalism and are taking their country back.

 

We can argue over semantics all you like but the EU is not what it was sold to us as and we are leaving.

 

He doesn't need to defend himself I'm not having a pop just being playful, I'm old enough to remember it well (though not quite old enough to have voted) and I know how it was sold.

 

No need to argue over semantics but just as an observation you want out because the EU is "not what....was sold to us". How about Brexit being not what was sold to us?

[Guest rusty747]

He doesn't need to defend himself I'm not having a pop just being playful, I'm old enough to remember it well (though not quite old enough to have voted) and I know how it was sold.

 

No need to argue over semantics but just as an observation you want out because the EU is "not what....was sold to us". How about Brexit being not what was sold to us?

I think you do the general British populace a slight disservice there Matt. There was misinformation on both sides re brexit. The electorate imho could see the core issue. Federalism as a part of the United States of Europe or reclaim Sovereignty.

 

They chose to reclaim Sovereignty - quite rightly imho.

 

Time out while we watch the game?

[Matt]

Little mistake of mistaken identity there, but at least it's in keeping with the whole topic

[MikeO]

I think you do the general British populace a slight disservice there Matt. There was misinformation on both sides re brexit. The electorate imho could see the core issue. Federalism as a part of the United States of Europe or reclaim Sovereignty.

 

They chose to reclaim Sovereignty - quite rightly imho.

 

Time out while we watch the game?

 

Don't want to appear picky but I'm Mike not Matt; more fake news from the brexit camp .

 

I think time out completely for me really because we're fundamentally different ideologically and although I realise I'm in a minority I'm quite comfortable with that and I respect that people have different views.

[Guest rusty747]

Whoops. Sorry guys. Right message, wrong recipient. Beers on me then!