Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Both sides are arguing and disagreeing about who's adhering to the agreement properly or not. That's typically how these things work, both sides push the envelope as I said.


It's informative that you automatically assume that the EU is doing the right thing, and the UK is at fault.


Can't really have much of a productive discussion when that's the default position you start from on any dispute.


Also....this line of argument that people who voted leave are all now 'surprised' the UK is being treated like a third country is growing tiresome. Yes, the UK is a third country as far as the EU is concerned...that will sometimes involve disputes, arguments and (hopefully) resolutions, as it does between any nations who are not in a customs union (I.e. most nations on earth)...that's not a suprise.

Africa and Asia are gradually creating the supra national bodies for custom unions etc.


West Africa http://www.uemoa.int/en/about-uemoa, South Africa https://www.sacu.int/, East Africa https://www.eac.int/customs-union, North Africa https://maghrebarabe.org/, South East Asia https://asean.org/


Its the direction of travel though - most are heading towards furthest local integration whilst we are moving away from that.

You were the one the brought the fishing dispute into a discussion about how EU citizens are shamefully treated in UK


Most nations have trade agreements based on a willingness to give up some sovereignty to gain advantage (with relative power playing a part)


UK has spent most of it's time doing the opposite and won't countenance ANY ceding of sovereignty - especially involving EU. SO the problems are not going away any time soon


I didn't say the EU is doing the right thing - I said the French were well within their rights

I really don't want to see Scotland leave the UK, just as I didn't want to see the UK leave the EU. But I think it's kind of inevitable that eventually Ireland will be reunited and Scotland will assert independence. I hope I'm wrong, but I can see years of slow decline ahead of us as a result of Brexit. I suspect our children's generation will not look back kindly on what has happened under our watch.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I see perhaps a federal system if Scotland doesn't

> leave.

>

> If you really have 4 equal countries then one

> can't make all the decisions.


It?s hard to have four equal countries if one is ten times the size of the others.

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I see perhaps a federal system if Scotland

> doesn't

> > leave.

> >

> > If you really have 4 equal countries then one

> > can't make all the decisions.

>

> It?s hard to have four equal countries if one is

> ten times the size of the others.



Absolutely, you cant have a federalized model with England being so much larger than the other parts of the UK....just not sustainable. Even with English devolvement being a feature...I just cant see it working effectively.


Perhaps you could split England up 'Game of Thrones' style.....i.e. The North etc etc...I thin Boris might fancy himself as King of the Seven Kingdoms, first of his name, protector of the realm:)

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alex_b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > JohnL Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I see perhaps a federal system if Scotland

> > doesn't

> > > leave.

> > >

> > > If you really have 4 equal countries then one

> > > can't make all the decisions.

> >

> > It?s hard to have four equal countries if one

> is

> > ten times the size of the others.

>

>

> Absolutely, you cant have a federalized model with

> England being so much larger than the other parts

> of the UK....just not sustainable. Even with

> English devolvement being a feature...I just cant

> see it working effectively.

>

> Perhaps you could split England up 'Game of

> Thrones' style.....i.e. The North etc etc...I thin

> Boris might fancy himself as King of the Seven

> Kingdoms, first of his name, protector of the

> realm:)


This is actually not a bad idea. Federal states of Wales, N Ireland, Scotland, Westcountry, The North, London, and herebedragons

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...