Re: Brexit
 

The MEPs can veto or approve the election of the President and the Commissioners - sounds fairly democratic to me...

Re: Brexit
 

Well you are clearly deaf then - They can only choose from a selection of one candidate - so no it is not - far from it! :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 17:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------

Is that the best you can come up with?

Your precious EU being shown for the dictatorship that it is with undemocratic elections of the President... And you can only came back and with this nonsense?

Try harder.... Oh wait, you cannot because you cannot argue with the fact the EU is a dictatorship.

Re: Brexit
 

You told him to stop arguing with you (he wasn't in my opinion) so he did.

Re: Brexit
 

Um - Open your eyes, I posted that to Dave42, not daveeb... :rolleyes:

Secondly - don't interfere in matters which do not concern you. I have told you about this before.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Oh yes the elected MEP’s that can do what exactly ( for their substantial pay and benefits)?

Have an opinion on legislation brought to them by an unelected body. That is all.

They can’t propose change, the can’t bring about change. If they have a issue in which they want make a better life for their constituents, they can’t propose it and bring it to the Parliament themselves. They have to lobby the unelected commission to do something about it. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. If they don’t why do they care? They can’t Be voted out by the constituents.

MEPs are vassal puppets, in place to give the illusion of democracy. Any intelligent person can see this.

Re: Brexit
 

Precisely and now we have a failed German Defence Minister, as European Commission President and I mean 0/10 for their absolute attempt to stop the ongoing revolt against this corrupt EU, they’re literally pouring oil on an open fire, these pricks will never learn, we don’t want a Federal Union, we don’t want an EU Army. The President that’s just been “appointed”, yes “appointed”, not elected, wants both of these. We need to get the hell out NOW of this undemocratic cancerous disgrace of a union.

Re: Brexit
 

Well said :clap:

Re: Brexit
 

Anne Widecombe explains speech for the intellectually challenged.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11...y-nigel-farage

Re: Brexit
 

Appropriately hosted by the Express ..

Re: Brexit
 

Originally hosted by BBC news night,but it's not about the messenger service it's about the message reaching the intellectually challenged,probably still went over some peoples heads but at least she tried to educate them.

Re: Brexit
 

I can't really see the intellectual justification to compare the EU's membership of the EU to 'slaves rising up against their masters'. She seems to be more unhinged than usual lately.

Re: Brexit
 

Really, Damien? You and your followers take everything so literally! You know what she meant, you know very well. We are not free while part of the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I agree it was over the top, Seph. But all this feigned 'offence' taken by the country's thought controllers has become rather ridiculous, don't you think?

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I'm not sure Damien is the Messiah nor is he a very naughty boy for that matter. :D

---------- Post added at 10:55 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

Put it this way, she's a great asset to the campaign. To the remain campaign, I mean.:D

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I tend to think the over-the-top, vindictive hyperbole by her and her Brexit Party colleagues will, in the long run, harm their cause. If they debated as adults rather than constantly try and excite their followers with patently childish descriptions: corrupt, cancerous, oppressors, feudal barons, etc, they would fare better in the long run.

I understand the strategy where you appeal to the base emotions with simplistic and vivid messages but this does not belong in serious political discourse.

---------- Post added at 11:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 ----------

No, it is *all* about the messenger service ...

Re: Brexit
 

Or....

Justification for the intellectually gullible...

Re: Brexit
 

I thought Damien belonged to the "other" lot? :) :devsmoke:

Re: Brexit
 

Those who think the EU is a democratic organisation.

Re: Brexit
 

Our lot is very happy with the Life of Brian. :devsmoke:

Re: Brexit
 

And as per usual, I see you fail to highlight nothing absolutely wrong with the Lib Dem’s mantra and profanity laden attire.

Re: Brexit
 

I agree, Mick, my whole being was offended by that word! :D

Re: Brexit
 

You used to like that word until the LibDems started using it. :D

I'm not sure that if you criticise a controversy-filled speech in the EU Parliament (that leavers like Sephiroth have also criticised), you can only do so if you find fault with another party in the European Parliament.

Re: Brexit
 

The difference is, I’m not professing to be a professional, adult political party. So your point is moot.

Re: Brexit
 

Whatever. That word is still offensive. However you spin it.

Re: Brexit
 

No spin from me.

Re: Brexit
 

Maybe not. Just approval, it seems.

Re: Brexit
 

Surely it's ok for posters like Sephiroth and others to criticise a speech from Ann Widdecombe without having to dig up something from another party and criticise it in the same post?

---------- Post added at 00:34 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------

Where is the approval? If someone like me or Sephiroth calls Ann Widdecombe out for a speech, there is no obligation for us to go back X number of days, minutes and hours and find something from someone else to criticise. Do you really want everyone to live in some kind of Orwellian 1984?

Re: Brexit
 

So you are out to dredge up any nasty stuff on anyone who disagrees with you. H'mm, just as I thought.

Do you have the ability to make any constructive comments?

Anne Widdescombe could not be any further from 1984. What are you talking about exactly? Are you perhaps a little confused?

Sorry, but I can't quite understand where you are coming from. :beer:

Re: Brexit
 

My apologies for any lack of clarity.
All I'm saying is that you can criticise Politician A without having to criticise Politician B.

Re: Brexit
 

Well that very much depends Andrew as if politician A and Politician B are both very much of the same cloth then you can criticise both of them.;)

Re: Brexit
 

Then you will have no issues with being accused of hypocrisy. Anyway...
Enough. Time to move on. Sick of this repetitive banal discourse about what Ann Widdecombe suppose to have said.

Re: Brexit
 

People have the vote in North Korea, but only one result is allowed. Sound familiar? Doesn't matter if 99% of this country wanted something, we wouldn't get it. That is undemocratic.

Re: Brexit
 

Because NK is renowned for it’s Freedom of Movement between it and other countries, has a hereditary Supreme Leader who murders opponents, and has millions of it’s people starving - sounds just like the EU... :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

Irrelevant- that narrow mindedness is back I see. Your defence of the EU is getting boring Hugh.

Regardless-They have an undemocratic system when only one candidate is put forward for confirmation by MEP’s. The EU is undemocratic and you cannot refute this fact, so perhaps, stop trying. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 09:05 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------

Spot on. MEP’s got to vote on a nomination by someone not even on a ballot paper. A failing German minister. The EU Council ignored the lead candidate system, designed to stem the very concept of accusations of the EU being undemocratic.

Re: Brexit
 

It's all about standards and when the bar is set lower than a snakes belly people are fooled into thinking it's a democratic vote. [with only one candidate]

Re: Brexit
 

We can't brag on democracy either. The next PM is being chosen by 0.2% of the population, some of whom have received more than one vote ! Way to go democracy UK !

As for the EU, the recent EU elections bases on a PR system is far more democratic than our first past the post, where depending on which constitutency you're in your vote is pointless.

Try moving the goal posts again as the EU win on democracy ;)

Re: Brexit
 

Rubbish. We’re not talking about MEP Elections. We are talking about the appointment of the EU Commission President.

“Appointed” not “Elected”. :rolleyes:

Re: Brexit
 

And our 'appointed' House of Lords ? We really are no better.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Laughable. This shows how little you know about Lords functionality compared to MEP’s.

Re: Brexit
 

Many roles in the UK are not elected - civil service heads, Lords, the King/Queen. If we criticise the EU for all roles not being elected, should we do the same for the UK?

Re: Brexit
 

This comparison between British Sovereigns and The EU, is pathetic.

The very big difference is, we’re not trying to become a illegitimate Federal corrupt institution. Some of you Remainers need to wake the hell up. The new EU Commission President ambitions for a Federal Europe should worry the hell out of you. A United States of Europe becoming an ever new possibility, an EU Army, all these things you Remainers admonished leavers for, for being utter fantasy, now a distinct reality with this new President. Not in my name. Britain needs to leave, now so more urgently.

Re: Brexit
 

How do you personally think your life will change for the better when we leave? What are you expecting to see?

Re: Brexit
 

We all know by now that countries can veto greater integration and presidents come and go. So, no, I'm not worried, even if we do end up remaining in the EU.
I am however worried about any disintegration of the UK. But according to Farage, that's a price worth paying for Brexit. Do you agree with him? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8988146.html

Re: Brexit
 

Stop deflecting. Guy Verhofstadt is trying to champion and wants to remove each countries veto power.

---------- Post added at 11:07 ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 ----------

Irrelevant. I expect democracy to be enacted. We voted to leave.

Re: Brexit
 

Wow, a genuinely good question :tu:

Direct personal benefit to me is hard to quantify. I expect to see the House of Commons reenergised by having to directly formulate laws in all the areas where at present it simply waves through directives from Brussels. I expect to see lobbying presently targeted at Brussels aimed squarely at our own parliamentarians. I expect to see laws on the environment, health and safety, market regulation etc passed here to be amendable down the line as circumstances change, following debate held here, to suit us. I expect to see our Press begin to hold our parliament accountable for all the laws it passes instead of blaming Brussels. And I expect all of that enrich our national life and in the longer run I expect the freedom and energy thus unleashed will enable the country to become a happier, wealthier place. I consider that to be a personal benefit to me and to all.

Perhaps you were hoping for some attempt to claim instant financial rewards, however I hope you will agree that voting for short-term financial reasons is selfish and, well, shortsighted.

Re: Brexit
 

Well that can't be done, sorry Guy.
Don't you have an opinion on whether the disintegration of the UK is a price worth paying for Brexit?

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 ----------

Quality answer. :tu:

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I don’t think the disintegration of the UK is on the cards (caveat - it may accelerate the process of reunification in Ireland but that is the endgame envisaged by the GFA even though nobody will say it out loud - the circumstances and mechanism for a “border poll” are written into law in both the UK and Ireland, which is not the case, for example, with regards to Scotland).

Scottish Nationalists will “warn” that calls for a second referendum on independence will become irresistible if X, Y, or Z happens but then they warn that on a weekly basis so there’s no reason to take it especially seriously. I appreciate that only makes the national news when the cries are especially shrill but within Scotland it is part of the background noise and these things have far less lasting effect on Scottish public opinion than you might think.

There is a body of opinion here that says if/when Brexit occurs, whether or not there’s a deal, the sheer uncertainty it will cause over the short to medium term will make people think twice about supercharging it with more constitutional shenanigans. Scots are canny, they won’t vote to make themselves poorer and the unicorns-for-all argument that proved a tough sell even in 2014 is impossible now.

Nicola Sturgeon is presently engaged in a massive exercise in party management, trying not to allow the independence movement to fracture. There are some proper bravehearts in her party who really do think they should be holding another vote right now. There are also pragmatists (and Sturgeon is one of them) who actually do believe in the SNP’s started policy after 2014, which is that they shouldn’t hold another referendum until the polls consistently showed a comfortable lead for separation. That has never been the case in Scotland, at any point before or since 2014. Sturgeon’s solution is to present a Bill that will create an enabling Act, detailing how any referendum that the Scottish government has the power to call, should be conducted. It will not attempt to authorise the administration to hold any referendum that it is *not* authorised for. So the rules it creates will enable the Scottish government to hold a referendum on, for example, extending the franchise to age 16 for any election it is responsible for (local councils, for example), but its rules can only be applied to an independence referendum if Westminster has devolved the power to do so via the granting of a Section 50 order as it did in 2013.

Expect, this autumn, much noise to be made about this legislation as it is presented to Holyrood, but do not be fooled. Sturgeon is doing something because she has to be seen to be doing something.

Re: Brexit
 

The country as a whole will prosper with our new freedoms and the right PM at the helm. Boris seems to have the right ideas, with his tax free ports, etc.

Re: Brexit
 

I thought it was a good question to, deserving of a good answer. I do wonder how many vote for the greater good rather than personal gain though, when I supported ukip to an unhealthy degree it was mainly for my benefit although I was well aware there were millions of others like me at the time being under cut and forced out of industries due to unfettered immigration. It will be good to remove the governments stock excuse of the eu made us do it though and make them take responsibility for there decisions for a change to.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Couple of things jump out, why is it called project fear if you belived it and how can labour be bound by a rejected manifesto, they lost get over it

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Yet you say they were aware of how bad it was going to be because project fear told them so but now you say they didn't believe it anyway, it's a very muddled summation, sounds like your trying to have cake and eat it

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

We still don't believe those prophesies either Seph.

Re: Brexit
 

They lost me at ww3

Re: Brexit
 

Well when Brown took over no one got a vote on it. But we do get a say every 5 years and we got rid then, and Johnson or Hunt will be decided on next time around.

Puppet MEPs that have no legislative power, whoop, whoop.

---------- Post added at 20:40 ---------- Previous post was at 20:38 ----------

I agree, the 2nd chamber needs reform, but the 2nd chamber in our system has no real power.

They can delay and frustrate legislation but they can’t stop it.

Re: Brexit
 

I'm clearly misunderstanding, so leavers knew what was ahead because they'd been told what to expect by someone they didn't believe but at the same time based on that lack of belief they still knew what they were voting for, is that really the gist of what you're saying, sounds like something the lib dems would stick on a t-shirt to me

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

But according to you they based their decision on what the remainers told them,.things they didn't believe in

You can't have it both ways, although that is somewhat in the spirit of brexit admittedly, cake, eating it etc

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

The prophecies might come true old chap we don't know yet. Brexit, as you may have noticed, hasn't happened. It might be worse. Bozza being PM no one would have dared to make part of Project Fear, as it would have been too far fetched and too depressing.

Re: Brexit
 

I have a dream that JohnsonB as PM will see what an impossibility Brexit is at the moment and just say stuff this and revoke Article 50.

Re: Brexit
 

By all means dream on!

Re: Brexit
 

Seems more of a nightmare than a dream :erm:

Re: Brexit
 

A true nightmare to everyone would be a November general election in which Jezza gets in. A no-deal substantially increases the chances of this happening.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

If the ERG accepts the deal on the table or a window-dressed version of it from BoJo, then there won't be an election before Brexit. If they don't there will probably be one.

Re: Brexit
 

The real nightmare would be if we remained in the EU.

Presumably, it has escaped you that the Eurozone is faring worse than the UK's economy at present, so to think we are going to be worse off when we leave is a fallacy.

Something else that might have escaped you is that under the existing rules, the UK is under an obligation to contribute over £200bn to any future eurozone bailout in the event of a crisis. That is a matter of when, not if. Furthermore, that is only the minimum end of the scale, and that sum could increase to over £400bn.

This is not Brexit's version of Project Fear - this is truly our liability as a member of the EU, even though we are not part of the Eurozone.

When you look at all this in the round, and the stifling bureaucracy it is burdening us with, it does make one wonder if those wedded to the idea of remaining in the EU actually understand all these downsides.I'd wager that the economic forecasters haven't taken that liability into account when assessing whether we would be better or worse off after Brexit.

I really think many remainers ars just worried about their European holidays!

---------- Post added at 17:30 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Labour isn't exactly faring that well in the latest polls I've seen.

Re: Brexit
 

Old Boy, please desist from making stuff up. The UK won't be liable for any future Eurozone bailout.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-36456277

Re: Brexit
 

Didn't make it up, mate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...-clean-brexit/

Britain could face paying more than €200bn to the European Union in the event of a eurozone bail-out unless the UK leaves under a managed clean Brexit, according to leading City and business figures.

The warning comes from the Brexit Coalition, a new grouping that represents 29 diverse pro-Brexit campaigning organisations, including the Alliance of British Entrepreneurs, Artists for Brexit and Farmers for Britain as well as Labour Leave and Green Leaves.

In a letter sent this week to Conservative Party constituency chairmen and senior Tory officials, the Brexit Coalition urges members to support a new prime minister who is “committed unequivocally” to backing a clean WTO-based Brexit, one which would avoid having to pay such massive contingent liabilities to the EU.

Daniel Hodson, coalition president and former Liffe boss, says that under existing rules the UK Government is obligated to a contribution of around €207bn (£186bn) to any bail-out should the eurozone tip into financial crisis.

“Given the current dire straits in which the eurozone finds itself, a financial crisis is an increasingly likely scenario,” he says.

The UK is liable for at least this amount – a figure which could grow to as much as €441bn or even more – if the Brexit process becomes so drawn out that it overlaps with the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework.

Mr Hodson, who is also chairman of The City for Britain, adds: “These liabilities have not been discussed deeply enough in the Brexit debate. To avoid the scenario in which the UK would have to rescue EU banks despite not being a member of the eurozone, the UK needs to leave the EU and cut its contractual ties as soon as possible.”

The letter also raises two other areas of national importance which the pro-Brexit campaigners claim have been ignored by the national media but need greater scrutiny: defence and the fishing industry.

With regard to the UK’s defence, the campaigners claim the country risks losing permanent control of key areas of decision making over its armed forces and defence strategy.

They claim that the current EU proposal, recently adopted by the Government, effectively brings the UK under the influence of the EU’s new “Defence Union”, which could have the affect of “immediately eroding democratic UK accountability over aspects of defence finance, procurement and foreign policy”. It also fears that even intelligence architecture and procurement could fall under EU influence.

The third area of concern should the UK stay closely aligned with the EU, and not opt for a clean departure, is the continued overfishing of the UK’s territorial waters and the disastrous impact on the Scottish fishing industry.

A managed exit would help the Scottish fishing industry, and doing so could help cement the union. The coalition also proposes a “Brexit Kitemark” to all sitting MPs and parliamentary candidates regardless of party based on their commitment to a managed Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

Sorry, it looks like the Brexit coalition made it up, not your good self. FullFact gives a good and thorough explanation.
The summary is https://fullfact.org/europe/will-uk-...zone-bailouts/

Re: Brexit
 

More lies, we sold our fishing quota rights of and the over fishing is the result of a scam perpetrated by some of the wealthiest families in the country

More than a quarter of the United Kingdom’s fishing quota is in the hands of a tiny group of the country’s wealthiest families, an Unearthed investigation has found.

Just five families on the Sunday Times Rich List hold or control 29% of the UK’s fishing quota.

The finding comes from a new Unearthed investigation that traced the owners of more than 95% of UK quota holdings – including, for the first time, those of Scotland, the UK’s biggest fishing nation.

It reveals that more than two-thirds of the UK’s fishing quota is controlled by just 25 businesses – and more than half of those are linked to one of the biggest criminal overfishing scams ever to reach the British courts.

Meanwhile, in England nearly 80% of fishing quota is held by foreign owners or domestic Rich List families, and more than half of Northern Ireland’s quota is hoarded onto a single trawler.

The news comes as the government is preparing to publish a new fisheries bill, which will set the legal foundations for the UK’s fishing industry after Brexit. But while the government is hoping it can net access to more fishing rights in the Brexit negotiations, it has said the new bill will not see any redistribution of the UK’s existing quota rights.

As Unearthed’s investigation reveals, this would leave the bulk of UK fishing rights in the hands of a small domestic elite and a handful of foreign multinationals.

Responding to Unearthed’s findings, shadow environment secretary Sue Hayman said ministers needed to take “urgent action to use the powers that they have domestically to redistribute fishing quota to deliver a fairer deal for smaller boats”.

“Fishing was the poster child of the Leave campaign and [environment secretary Michael] Gove has already broken promises he made to the industry to secure full control of our waters during the transition,” she continued. “With all the talk of ‘take back control’, ministers have the power to distribute UK quota now and put the smaller-scale fleet first. So why wasn’t it mentioned in their white paper?

Thanks to Greenpeace the truth is out there

The investigation found:

The five largest quota-holders control more than a third of UK fishing quota
Four of the top five belong to families on the Sunday Times Rich List
The fifth is a Dutch multinational whose UK subsidiary – North Atlantic Fishing Company – controls around a quarter of England’s fishing quota
Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests
More than half (13) of the top 25 quota holders have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of offences in Scotland’s £63m “black fish” scam – a huge, sophisticated fraud that saw trawlermen and fish processors working together to evade quota limits and land 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel
One of the flagships of the “Brexit flotilla” – which sailed up the Thames in 2016 to demand the UK’s exit from the EU – is among the UK’s 10 biggest quota-holders
Around 29% of UK fishing quota is directly controlled by Rich List families. Some of these families have investments in dozens of other fishing companies, meaning companies holding 37% of UK quota are wholly or partly owned by these Rich List families.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

See post 3878

Re: Brexit
 

So, is "a managed Brexit" or "a quick and clean Brexit" Newspeak language for a no-deal Brexit?

Re: Brexit
 

It's more a quick managed brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

So what? We are talking about British jobs here, that's what counts.

---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ----------

I think you are all missing the point here that the 'no deal' Brexit is our bargaining chip. Rule it out and the EU won't listen.

I doubt very much that we will end up with no deal as that would hurt many EU countries. Those who are arguing that we should rule out a 'no deal' are just trying to sabatage the negotiations.

As I have said all along, the negotiations should be held behind closed doors, not subject to the public gaze.

Re: Brexit
 

The negotiations are over, Old Boy, closed doors, open doors or no doors at all. There may be an opportunity for some window-dressing but nothing fundamental will be discussed or can alter. Parliament won't accept a no-deal, talk of that is just to win votes from the Party faithful.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I'm getting a bit fed up with this, you posted an article about fishing quotas and that's been shown to be bull crap you've moved the goalposts and tried to say now it's about jobs, what will you attempt to change it to when that claim is proven to be nonsense to, it's been like this throughout, pin the likes of nigel down with a fact and he'll squirm around trying to say he meant this instead, it's part of the reason brexit is such a mess

Re: Brexit
 

So very many articles on this. Rather than reposting links, I suggest we wait till November when we can find out for ourselves.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

Lots of nonsense being talked about what business wants, especially by those advocating no deal. The Director-General of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, kicked this into touch today.
https://www.ft.com/content/e41124f2-...6-a4640c9feebb

Re: Brexit
 

government losing a no confidence vote before October and forcing a general election is one way they be other ways too

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

A week is a long time in politics so we are told..

Re: Brexit
 

How many weeks does it take to organise and hold an election?
Will the result of said election guarantee no no-deal?
Clutching at straws comes to mind.

Re: Brexit
 

We won't be accepting the backstop on the permanent basis that is currently on offer, Andrew. The EU is posturing on this.

Re: Brexit
 

Ask Theresa May as she was telling us repeatedly there would not be one while behind the scenes she was already planning for one.

Re: Brexit
 

The article I posted was essentially about the UK's obligation to bail out countries of the Eurozone in the event of a financial crash. The fishing issue was the very last part of that article, which was not my focus.

My comment to you was in relation to your comment about foreign ownership of our fishing fleets, so no need to get your knickers in a twist.

Re: Brexit
 

l doubt it..

---------- Post added at 08:01 ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 ----------

Politics is like the wind as it can blow in a different direction very quickly...

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, I think it is pretty clear now that the electorate just want us to get on with it.

Re: Brexit
 

I have no need to ask her anything.

Re: Brexit
 

A second vote or an election? ;)

Re: Brexit
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8991351.html These views may have been influenced by the fact we’ve moved from

"easiest deal in the world"

to

"" Determined to leave come what may"