Brexit again...

[TheSage]

I'll give you one perfect example of waste (£130m a year),when moving parliament to Strasbourg every month.Just one of the 27 countries vetoed scrapping this waste of money.You can guess who it is.

 

I'll give you an example of waste and incompetence and stupidity. Ten thousand times more costly than that - and counting.

Stand up and take a bow Chris Grayling.

 

£500 million to sort out the mess he made when attempting to privatise the probation service.

£2 billion cost to taxpayers on the collapse of Virgin Trains east coast franchise.

£33 million to Eurotunnel to settle a lawsuit over extra ferry services that did not exist.

£72k was blown on defending a book ban for prisoners.

£23 million on a contract to develop new GPS tracking tags for dangerous offenders that was written off.

 

Need I go on? The bloke is a grade 1 idiot and yet he's one of the troupe of clowns in the Cabinet pushing for a No Deal.

Like the rest of the loonies he hasn't a clue what he's doing or what he's talking about.

Blimey O'Reilly. If anyone thinks we can trust that incompetent buffoon then please turn off the light on your way out.

[Davebrad]

I'm still waiting to see if some of you think we should cede some of our "sovereignty" and be in [or out] of NATO.

 

Surely in NATO, its a collect defence, where its a group of 29 countries, where its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party... so where does sovereignty come into it?

 

So NATO is a defensive support group, where as the eu is the economic union of now 27 countries, and as remainers point out since the end of the 2WW no member state has fought each other so it was worthwhile being a member, but is it as most NATO members are also eu member states, so has peace been due to the eu?

[TheSage]

so where does sovereignty come into it?

 

Sovereignty is an abstract term and there are many ways of defining it. But I presume Leavers would say it is primarily about making our own decisions and not letting other countries influence what we do.

My argument is that sovereignty is often better shared and it is not always sensible to be isolated and on your own. Sometimes being part of a larger organisation for its members' mutual benefit is advantageous and the right thing to do.

 

Sovereignty comes into it because in NATO, like the EU, we have joined a group of nations and shared sovereignty in terms of working together, allocating resources collectively and co-operating. The CIC of NATO is the US President not the PM.

 

It is a perfect example of collaboration to our advantage rather than going it alone.

 

Of course the EU is not primarily a peace keeping organisation but working very closely together with 27 other countries must surely encourage understanding, tolerance and mutual respect. Note, the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012.

 

But that's by the by. The point is that NATO [like the UN and the EU] is an example of where counties share sovereignty for their own benefit and where it's looked upon as a sensible, pragmatic thing to do rather than going it alone and being isolated on our own.

[Fosse69]

I'm still waiting to see if some of you think we should cede some of our "sovereignty" and be in [or out] of NATO.

 

Surely in NATO, its a collect defence, where its a group of 29 countries, where its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party... so where does sovereignty come into it?

 

So NATO is a defensive support group, where as the eu is the economic union of now 27 countries, and as remainers point out since the end of the 2WW no member state has fought each other so it was worthwhile being a member, but is it as most NATO members are also eu member states, so has peace been due to the eu?

 

 

 

Both are clubs, when you join a club you have to give up input money, time, independence, etc. Agree and abide with the rules as agreed and changed to suit changing circumstances. NATO is based on military power requirements lead by the US after WW2. The EU based on Churchill`s Jaw Jaw not War War, also after WW2. on the principle that trading brings countries together on a regular basis, currently regular monthly meetings are held. Over the decades closer ties have been built. NATO currently is less secure with the antics of Trump. The main factor is the French/German relationship, which in the past was mellowed by the UK.

[whotobeakiller]

Depends on what your definition of a bad deal is. I still think the best deal is the one we've got as EU members.

 

Best deal for whom? 17.4 million certainly disagree with you

[whotobeakiller]

What was wrong with the trade deal we already had?

 

People didn't leave because of trade but what was considered was the ability to not be able to trade with the rest of the world without restriction

 

How is the EU a true dictatorship?

 

Well take the above point and the restriction it imposes on our own Good Friday agreement as a couple of examples along with the continual taking of billions of pounds

 

 

 

Their Council of elected Ministers set the policy and have spokesmen and civil servants to negotiate the details?

Do you think any deal or agreement with the EU would allow us to do that?

 

No country is going to walk away now they understand the complexities of 40 odd years of trading treaties. 8 years is the usual negotiating period.

 

All countries could walk away and let the EU implode and we will all trade with each other consensually as friends...what's wrong with that??

[tommytunstall]

You are I believe incorrect, I believe that a proportion of the 17.4 wanted a negotiated deal. That is why there will be a further referendum to decide what people REALLY did want, not what the Britain is great people want. I cannot believe that the majority of this country want to follow the ERG and the Right wing of the Tory party after all the lies we were spun pre and post referendum in 2016.

When people voted to leave they wanted no half baked deals. That would simply be a treaty and an advantage to the EU...it is common sense that coming out but staying in would lead to permutations such as what you have stated.

 

That is why we needed to walk away and be prepared to negotiate for a free trade deal...the emphasis would have been on the EU to do this to level up the growing uncertainty from business within Europe whom would have actively lobbied their MEP's thus putting pressure on the rest of the EU 27 and thus the hierarchy within the EU

 

Instead we have had a tunnel visioned focus on what we stand to 'lose' in trade...thus ignoring the methods we could adopt in negotiating for a free trade deal.

 

We need to remember what we voted leave for in the first place and what the question was. Big Business should have been consulted from the very start to plan and come to a consensus how WTO can work for them. We are talking about increases in tariffs and is purely a mathematical issue what Business could simply have worked around themselves.

 

What we now know is the EU is a true dictatorship and the only way it will implode is if countries start to walk away

[whotobeakiller]

You are I believe incorrect, I believe that a proportion of the 17.4 wanted a negotiated deal. That is why there will be a further referendum to decide what people REALLY did want, not what the Britain is great people want. I cannot believe that the majority of this country want to follow the ERG and the Right wing of the Tory party after all the lies we were spun pre and post referendum in 2016.

 

As has been repeated on so many occasions, Leavers wanted what was offered on the ballot paper and to leave the EU....no custom union lock...no single market lock no jurisdiction of the European courts and a freedom to be accountable for anything and everything without interference.

 

As for a 2nd referendum...anything which locks us into the above is not leaving and is purely a further treaty with the EU which flys in the face of the decision of the first referendum.

 

A 2nd referendum is a concession for the remain vote to pick and choose what they want. If there is a no deal option with the added option for a free trade deal without amendment then only then would such a vote be a fair one.

[Fosse69]

People didn't leave because of trade but what was considered was the ability to not be able to trade with the rest of the world without restriction

 

 

 

Well take the above point and the restriction it imposes on our own Good Friday agreement as a couple of examples along with the continual taking of billions of pounds

 

 

 

Do you think any deal or agreement with the EU would allow us to do that?

 

 

 

All countries could walk away and let the EU implode and we will all trade with each other consensually as friends...what's wrong with that??

A country of 50M with few trade specialist cannot possibly compete with a union of 500M,

the GFA is not ours it is an international treaty with Ireland and the US.

The money is not taken, it is our agreed membership fee.

Why should non-members have a say, like we have had in the past 40 years or so.

Trade as friends like with Trump?

[Davebrad]

I'll give you an example of waste and incompetence and stupidity. Ten thousand times more costly than that - and counting.

Stand up and take a bow Chris Grayling.

 

£500 million to sort out the mess he made when attempting to privatise the probation service.

£2 billion cost to taxpayers on the collapse of Virgin Trains east coast franchise.

£33 million to Eurotunnel to settle a lawsuit over extra ferry services that did not exist.

£72k was blown on defending a book ban for prisoners.

£23 million on a contract to develop new GPS tracking tags for dangerous offenders that was written off.

 

Need I go on? The bloke is a grade 1 idiot and yet he's one of the troupe of clowns in the Cabinet pushing for a No Deal.

Like the rest of the loonies he hasn't a clue what he's doing or what he's talking about.

Blimey O'Reilly. If anyone thinks we can trust that incompetent buffoon then please turn off the light on your way out.

 

 

I agree he presided over some cock ups, and he will go at the next election, but can any eu officals be got rid of as easy as that? the 2 top men tusk and junker are not elected, and ministers are from the individual states ie 27 transport ministers etc in a committee...so how can a inept one be dismissed?

Our no deal option was our biggest bargaining chip ie no one wanted it but the eu feared it, and who got rid of it that's it parliament.

[For Us All]

I'll give you an example of waste and incompetence and stupidity. Ten thousand times more costly than that - and counting.

Stand up and take a bow Chris Grayling.

 

£500 million to sort out the mess he made when attempting to privatise the probation service.

£2 billion cost to taxpayers on the collapse of Virgin Trains east coast franchise.

£33 million to Eurotunnel to settle a lawsuit over extra ferry services that did not exist.

£72k was blown on defending a book ban for prisoners.

£23 million on a contract to develop new GPS tracking tags for dangerous offenders that was written off.

 

Need I go on? The bloke is a grade 1 idiot and yet he's one of the troupe of clowns in the Cabinet pushing for a No Deal.

Like the rest of the loonies he hasn't a clue what he's doing or what he's talking about.

Blimey O'Reilly. If anyone thinks we can trust that incompetent buffoon then please turn off the light on your way out.

 

I'm not defending Grayling but to say that it's ten thousand times more costly is somewhat of an exaggeration,if you don't mind me saying so.

This travelling circus has already cost £3 billion so far and there seems to be no end to the waste.

Campaigners also point to the*environmental cost*of 19,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted per year and to the loss of thousands of working hours for lawmakers and staff members because of the commute.

The bad news is that unfortunately Strasbourg is more like to be around a lot longer than Chris Grayling and consequently continuing to waste billions.

Any idea who's got the contract for the gravy train removals?

[Fosse69]

I agree he presided over some cock ups, and he will go at the next election, but can any eu officals be got rid of as easy as that? the 2 top men tusk and junker are not elected, and ministers are from the individual states ie 27 transport ministers etc in a committee...so how can a inept one be dismissed?

Our no deal option was our biggest bargaining chip ie no one wanted it but the eu feared it, and who got rid of it that's it parliament.

Tusk and Juncter were selected by the Council of Ministers for terms of office, usually based on their political careers Tusk an ex PM. So their competence would be known. Whereas in the UK it is down to the PM to select a minister, not 27 PMs to agree on the selection. I know what I prefer.

[Davebrad]

so a straight question to the remainers, why do you think 51.9%- 17,410,742 people voted to leave, and not the bus answer please

[ginge]

so a straight question to the remainers, why do you think 51.9%- 17,410,742 people voted to leave, and not the bus answer please

 

No idea !! It baffles me considering there are no tangible benefits for leaving.

[Fosse69]

so a straight question to the remainers, why do you think 51.9%- 17,410,742 people voted to leave, and not the bus answer please

 

Who knows? Lots of different answers, probably the one that tipped it was a protest against the establishment, especially the areas left behind. Leaving the EU will make no difference, As for the bulk of the vote from Tory areas probably the answer would be in the Mail.