• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#7426]How will Brexit go?***W:46]***

How will Brexit go?


  • Total voters
    114
I think you're right British government have often been delusional. They ignored the federalism at the heart of the project as all talk. They fundamentally misjudged the nature of the EU. Still, they've tended to be relatively straightforward in their dealings with the EU. They practised nothing like Monnet method - constant piecemeal power grabs with somewhat understated aims (though easy enough to discover if you pay attention), nor the desire to enrich themselves at the communities expense, so beloved of some EU nations and regions (France above all else). This doesn't seem that different to me. The British government wants a common sense deal, not realising how central supposedly nonreversible, ever-increasing integration is to the EU project, nor how keen some are to get every penny they can from any EU negotiation, deserved or not.

I do think it strange to consider the British especially delusional, though, when the likes of Juncker are at the centre of the EU.

In the end, the whole Euro project is delusional. The aim, after the failed European Defence Community, which was open about the aims of integration, has been to achieve federalism not through open appeals and grand frameworks, but constant piecemeal integration whose aims is not usually openly stated to the people of Europe (though it is easy enough to find if you pay attention). The assumption is by binding the peoples of Europe tightly together before finally trying to officially create a superstate, the latter will be more or less a fait accompli. This is the Monnet method. But it seems delusional to me. The final marginalisation of the nations of Europe will still be a leap, and one most nations won't wish to take.
 
Not to dismiss the other points you bring up, just, since it's too late for me here to go into every detail today, editing your post for brevity but to nevertheless address this
~................I do think it strange to consider the British especially delusional, though, when the likes of Juncker are at the centre of the EU................~
Something doesn't jive here.

On the one hand you stated Brit governments as holding quite apparent federalism as all talk (implying it was certainly there to see but not believed), on the other you imply connivance on the EU side (piecemeal power grabs, deceptively concealed) and let it culminate in your "attribution" quoted above.

Now if there's one person who never made any bones about ultimate ambitions, it's old Jean-Claude. In fact he is (was) the one seeing himself suffering the connivance of those influential EU members that are all agog with the merits of a common Europe, yet do a quick turnaround whenever the issue of surrendering some of their power to Brussels comes up. Germany, not only the powerhouse but also the one profiting most from the EU, being probably the most prominent example.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of Jean-Claude. One of my main reasons for scepticism over the whole EU thing ever getting off the ground, being lodged in the nature of his ilk. But to also not be misunderstood, I'm not principally opposed to it.

As to the UK just wanting a sensible deal while others enrich themselves at its expense, I'll posit that it by now looks more like Britain wanting to have its cake and eating it too (if only it could get to decide on the flavor and make), while the EU is raising the point of not being in the cake selling business at all.

The Monnet "conspiracy" is totally old hat by the way, still much favoured especially (from where I now live) the other side of the channel. His "ideals" are as dead in the halls of Brussels as he has been long since. The superstate won't happen, not by stealth and not by coup d'etat. Whether Europeans in general want any or none of it, the powers-that-be in national parliaments don't.
 
Last edited:
There's no actual paradox involved. After early setbacks, the Eurocrats decided it was a bad idea to advertise federalism explicitly and officially as their goal, nor to attempt to bring about that goal in one fell swoop. But they still were often reasonably candid if you pay attention. Jacques Delor could stand in the square of Maastricht and say federalism must be the goal of the treaty. The Monnet method involved understatement, not complete silence.

His name was Jean, not Jean-Claude. And there is no conspiracy. It is certainly true the EU has often been guided by divergent voices and interests. De Gaulle had an key early role but was certainly no federalist. Still many of the leading voices of the EU, both within the organisation and in national governments have been federalists, or at least keen on ever increasing integration. All commission presidents, except perhaps some of the non-entities in the early 70s, have been federalists or close (with the possible exception of chairman Roy Jenkins, who was still keen on lots more integration), for example. Together, all these influencs have guided the EU in a course of exponential integration and given it an insatiable need for more and more, all according to the piecemeal, understated methods of the Monnet method.

I agree the method will likely fail, because at one point there will have to be an explicit attempt to make the EU completely sovereign over the nations of Europe, and no amount of piecemeal integration will convince most nations to agree.

I think the problem with the British government is it doesn't understand that the EU is about insatiable integration. It sees it as about economics and cooperation, and therefore doesn't see its departure in a totally different way to the Europeans. It doesn't understand why freer trade and cooperation requires endless regulations and standardisations. What you call having our cake and eating it is actually just us thinking we need to allow the Europeans to decide things like whether open olive oil containers are allowed in restaurants if we are to trade with them.
 
Last edited:
There's no actual paradox involved. After early setbacks, the Eurocrats decided it was a bad idea to advertise federalism explicitly and officially as their goal, nor to attempt to bring about that goal in one fell swoop. But they still were often reasonably candid if you pay attention. Jacques Delor could stand in the square of Maastricht and say federalism must be the goal of the treaty. The Monnet method involved understatement, not complete silence.
Well thanks for confirming the exact point I was making. The example you cite in relation to your claim would present a case of conniving candidness.

I hope you see the oymoron.

His name was Jean, not Jean-Claude.
I was referring to Juncker as my quote of your reference shows.
And there is no conspiracy. It is certainly true the EU has often been guided by divergent voices and interests. De Gaulle had an key early role but was certainly no federalist. Still many of the leading voices of the EU, both within the organisation and in national governments have been federalists, or at least keen on ever increasing integration. All commission presidents, except perhaps some of the non-entities in the early 70s, have been federalists or close (with the possible exception of chairman Roy Jenkins, who was still keen on lots more integration), for example. Together, all these influencs have guided the EU in a course of exponential integration and given it an insatiable need for more and more, all according to the piecemeal, understated methods of the Monnet method.
I won't repeat myself on Monnet, nor on the disconnect between connivance (stealth and treachery) and pretty much recognizable policy being discerned in one and the same narrative.
I agree the method will likely fail, because at one point there will have to be an explicit attempt to make the EU completely sovereign over the nations of Europe, and no amount of piecemeal integration will convince most nations to agree.
shared.
I think the problem with the British government is it doesn't understand that the EU is about insatiable integration. It sees it as about economics and cooperation, and therefore doesn't see its departure in a totally different way to the Europeans.
This isn't about how the British government(s) see it (or have so done), it's about how the British government(s) see and have seen the EU as understanding itself. And choosing to stick their heads in the sand over it on the premise that, if sufficiently ignored, that recognizable part of the equation will somehow vanish.
It doesn't understand why freer trade and cooperation requires endless regulations and standardisations. What you call having our cake and eating it is actually just us thinking we need to allow the Europeans to decide things like whether open olive oil containers are allowed in restaurants if we are to trade with them.
To be clear, we're talking about my cake here too, exception being that I'm aware of either being able to eat it or to have it, not both.

Over-regulating everything to the point of absurdity (example: if Brussels, even where supported by many individual states, rules that energy saving is desirable, everyone from Finland to Sicily must use LED bulbs) is an annoyance that many Europeans share into.

But open (or not) olive oil containers in restaurants (or the curvature parameters of frigging bananas) are the sort of things that anti-European nitpickers gleefully pounce upon, to save themselves from addressing issues of far more meat.

And even where I applaud measures that protect me against swallowing contaminated crap (or simply rancid "quality") as much as I don't want to be served Algerian plonk from a decanter that is claimed as holding good Rioja, this is the sort of thing that should be left in the hands of the individual states to address.

Apart from all of which, that issue (seeing how you raised it) was quickly flushed and not just on account of solely British outcry.
 
I see nothing wrong with the use of conniving here. The Eurocrats are often not entirely straight forward about their aims.

Although I do think Brussels is over bureaucratic and often just plain silly, I wasn't primarily referring to the content of their rules, but scope. They have managed to get vast powers and competencies, to the point where at least 60% of laws and regulations for Britain start in Brussels. It is not so much the wisdom of the olive oil ruling that matters, but the fact Brussels can regulate such minutiae that are only tangentially related to freer trade and cooperation. This is because the EU is not primarily about freer trade and cooperation at an intergovermental level. The British government has never properly understood this, so is bemused by claims about not pulling their weight. They think they have been pulling in a different direction. The British government is right. The kind of powers and contribution the EU demands for our cake is not necessary if the EU really were about freer trade and cooperation. Britain has always been willing to contribute fully to the latter (indeed, unlike some nations, like France and most of the Southern nations, it usually hasn't tried to benefit at others' expense).
 
Over-regulating everything to the point of absurdity (example: if Brussels, even where supported by many individual states, rules that energy saving is desirable, everyone from Finland to Sicily must use LED bulbs) is an annoyance that many Europeans share into.

Problem here is, your own government agreed to it. Blame them, instead of Brussels. Plus, LED bulbs are a GOOD thing, which makes this complaint even more absurd. Could have at least used the outdated curbed cucumber example (which can also be explained btw).

What people tend to forget, is that the "absurd regulations" coming from Brussels, are coming because the member states governments want them.
 
Last edited:
Problem here is, your own government agreed to it. Blame them, instead of Brussels. Plus, LED bulbs are a GOOD thing, which makes this complaint even more absurd. Could have at least used the outdated curbed cucumber example (which can also be explained btw).
Sure. What I find silly is the notion of "one size fits all" that governs from the Arctic circle to almost Africa. Plus the fact that at least one shop here that I know is still stocking the old bulbs on account of there being such a demand for them.

At the time when the prohibitive regulation offered only CFLs (basically miniaturized neons), I still bought the old incandescents myself, at least for use in places where CFLs barely lasted due to not taking the strain of constant on/off repetition. Like outside lights hooked up to a movement sensor and, of course, bathrooms and toilets.

In such use the darn things had a lower life span than incandescents and thus actually increased overall energy cost, alone on what went into the production (of the replacements). I don't care whether some pencil pusher in Brussels wasn't thinking or whether local authorities fobbed it off to there so as to not to have to think for themselves.

Point remaining that (to take the two ends of the scale) on average much darker Norway and (again on average) much sunnier Andalucia don't fit the same solution (or it them).

With the later LEDs I'm very pleased, not having discovered any such drawbacks as above yet.
What people tend to forget, is that the "absurd regulations" coming from Brussels, are coming because the member states governments want them.
I've never forgotten that, I'm questioning the whole system in that respect.
 
I see nothing wrong with the use of conniving here. The Eurocrats are often not entirely straight forward about their aims...........~
To re-focus, we're talking here (as the thread indicates) about Brexit and how the "connivance"" originally came up in this context of "divorce" as much as in supposed prevarications leading to the original "marriage" in the first place.

On the premise of one partner having constantly misled the other.

I've repeatedly pointed out that this was not so.

Choosing to believe what one finds convenient in face of what actually is, with that reality actually being concealed by nobody, is something one has oneself to blame for.

In love the described disconnect can be explained by the hormonally induced insanity that tends to befall people, here the cognitive dissonance needs to be explained by other means.

I shan't dwell on the reference to France and other nations enriching themselves at the UK's expense (or anybody else's), since gish gallops detracting from focus on a particular (and thus defined) item are something I try not to engage in.
 
Sure. What I find silly is the notion of "one size fits all" that governs from the Arctic circle to almost Africa. Plus the fact that at least one shop here that I know is still stocking the old bulbs on account of there being such a demand for them.

The old "one size fits all" argument. It is the same argument that old angry white men use to stop change :)

At the time when the prohibitive regulation offered only CFLs (basically miniaturized neons), I still bought the old incandescents myself, at least for use in places where CFLs barely lasted due to not taking the strain of constant on/off repetition. Like outside lights hooked up to a movement sensor and, of course, bathrooms and toilets.

You sound more and more like an old man :) Do the math.. LEDs last a long time. I have 2 LEDs on a sensor in the house (the bedroom to bathroom route), and they have been functioning fine for 4+ years and they get turned on and off ALOT. Before that I had the CFL bulbs for 5 years, and changed them at least twice. Before that it was the traditional bulbs and well they popped often.

I have seen first hand on my electrical bill, what LEDs can do. When you switch out a 100 watt bulb with a 8 watt bulb and get the same output... well.. you do the math. Even switching out CFLs can save quite a bit (depending on how many we are talking about). The future is LEDs.

In such use the darn things had a lower life span than incandescents and thus actually increased overall energy cost, alone on what went into the production (of the replacements). I don't care whether some pencil pusher in Brussels wasn't thinking or whether local authorities fobbed it off to there so as to not to have to think for themselves.

LEDs dont have lower life spans than incandescents.. they do however use much less power for the same effect.

Point remaining that (to take the two ends of the scale) on average much darker Norway and (again on average) much sunnier Andalucia don't fit the same solution (or it them).

When talking LEDs .. yes the solution is the same. It is the same with water saving toilets, and other stuff that saves us money in the short and long run. The ones that dont like LEDs... power companies.

Now if you want to bitch about "one size fits all", then go after the new EU regulation that has been in force in Spain for a year now... always on lights on all cars, like we have in Northern Europe.
 
The old "one size fits all" argument. It is the same argument that old angry white men use to stop change
I'm old, I'm white (well. brown currently) and I'm often angry.:2razz:

None of which means I oppose sensible change (even where anger is about the only thing within my own influence).
You sound more and more like an old man :) Do the math.. LEDs last a long time. I have 2 LEDs on a sensor in the house (the bedroom to bathroom route), and they have been functioning fine for 4+ years and they get turned on and off ALOT. Before that I had the CFL bulbs for 5 years, and changed them at least twice. Before that it was the traditional bulbs and well they popped often.
but my anger over people who can't read or can't concentrate sufficiently on what is written to understand it, is unlikely to change.:2razz:

I was talking of CFL's and not LED's when I addressed the stupidity of being forced to install them in places where habitual short on/off cycles would make them pop as fast (in some experiences of mine faster) than incandescents. Okay, probably the ones I bought weren't all state of the art high quality (read cheap offers) but that they don't like frequent and short on/off cycles is standard knowledge.

So even if they didn't pop as regularly as the previous incandescents, replacement came with a heavier purchase load and the energy put into their production was a lot higher to start with, unnecessary frequent replacement thus exacerbating the problem of overall energy waste. Savings on actual consumption being negligible on the very account of the "on" cycle being short (sensor driven outside lights barely two minutes per night and my {us at the time} being prone to use the crapper for its intended purpose and not a one or more hour newspaper reading session).

Places of frequent and short on/off cycles, get it?

In places like living room and even bed room (night time reading) their life span would be larger on account of not constantly being switched on and off.

I have seen first hand on my electrical bill, what LEDs can do. When you switch out a 100 watt bulb with a 8 watt bulb and get the same output... well.. you do the math. Even switching out CFLs can save quite a bit (depending on how many we are talking about). The future is LEDs.
If you would do something about the backlight of your monitor screen clearly having had it, you'd be able to read that I expressed having no problem with LEDs.

Whole house is equipped with them.

LEDs dont have lower life spans than incandescents.. they do however use much less power for the same effect.
Oh ferchrissake, you trying to drive me to drink before the sun is under the yardarm? Whoever said the first or denied the other?

Now if you want to bitch about "one size fits all", then go after the new EU regulation that has been in force in Spain for a year now... always on lights on all cars, like we have in Northern Europe.
You mean being too blind to see those equipped with help in being seen is different in bright sunlight to what it is in encroaching dusk?

You one of those of still insufficient age to realize that being seen in such light conditions is as important as seeing?

And if there's any regulations in Spain requiring drivers of older cars to switch their lights on during the day in perfect visibility conditions, that regulation must have gone by me. Newer models (anything made after Feb-2011) being required to have position lights (DRLs) that come on (and stay on) with ignition notwithstanding.

Besides which such a default setting (equipment) didn't apply to headlights (low beam) even in Scandinavia, their instrumentalisation was originally optional. Where parking lights were on and stayed that way with the turning of the key and the low beam headlight function finally became the default to which car makers produced. Even before the arrival of the current DRLs of usually LED make that I find useful in any circumstances, seeing how they're a lot brighter and thus more noticeable than the previous "parking light" setting.

As such, when travelling in Scandinavia in the past and with my car not being of Scandinavian standard (lacking DRLs at the time) I've always had my headlights on there (low beam), as required. In fact specifically on motorways thruout Europe (Autobahn, Autovia, Autoroute) I've always done that as well, on the premise of preferring to be seen before my old age anger requires me to be felt. Add a swinging tyre iron into the equation and you get the picture.:mrgreen:

Of course no amount of visibility assistance (lights or of any other nature serving recognition) is going to help those who can't tell the diff. between Olot FC (Unió Esportiva Olot) and Girona FC.:lol:
 
full tilt "cognitive dissonance" boogie.
 
One at least need credit Hammond with having, if not retracted, admitting the paucity of word choice.

Now if he'd gone a step further to say by "enemy the other side of the table" he actually meant the table in his own party...........

that woulda bin rerely sumpin'

:mrgreen:

But exaggerated hopes are always bad, especially when they're my own.:lol:
 
I'm old, I'm white (well. brown currently) and I'm often angry.:2razz:

None of which means I oppose sensible change (even where anger is about the only thing within my own influence).
but my anger over people who can't read or can't concentrate sufficiently on what is written to understand it, is unlikely to change.:2razz:

Ahh shaddddd up... I get it now.. blame it on Trump or May or the fact it was early... just ignore the post.

Of course no amount of visibility assistance (lights or of any other nature serving recognition) is going to help those who can't tell the diff. between Olot FC (Unió Esportiva Olot) and Girona FC.:lol:

At least I am not .. never mind!!! And how did you know I had an LED screen???.. two actually muhha. I still blame Bush.
 
Ahh shaddddd up... I get it now.. blame it on Trump or May or the fact it was early... just ignore the post.
It was too good to pass, probably on same account of it being too early for me as well (late night causing me to rise just as late).:lol:

At least I am not .. never mind!!! And how did you know I had an LED screen???..
People who have HD Sat receivers when I haven't even realized that I need one, also have LED screens. That simply figures.

Got them now BTW (the HD receivers) but still need the 100,000 bucks eye transplant. Both (the receivers, not the eyes) are running on HD TVs and I still see little difference (not that anything was bad to start with).
I still blame Bush.
Heck, I still blame Harding.:lol:
 
To re-focus, we're talking here (as the thread indicates) about Brexit and how the "connivance"" originally came up in this context of "divorce" as much as in supposed prevarications leading to the original "marriage" in the first place.

On the premise of one partner having constantly misled the other.

I've repeatedly pointed out that this was not so.

Choosing to believe what one finds convenient in face of what actually is, with that reality actually being concealed by nobody, is something one has oneself to blame for.

In love the described disconnect can be explained by the hormonally induced insanity that tends to befall people, here the cognitive dissonance needs to be explained by other means.

I shan't dwell on the reference to France and other nations enriching themselves at the UK's expense (or anybody else's), since gish gallops detracting from focus on a particular (and thus defined) item are something I try not to engage in.

I don't think this gets to the heart of the matter., The Eurocrats are not straightforward about their aims. They often use manipulation, back-handed deals, and all sorts of things like that.

If you don't think that some nations, like France and Spain, enrich themselves at the expense of others, then you don't know enough about the EU. At one point, the CAP was 90% of the EU budget, and the lion's share of the money was going to French farmers. Other nations, like Britain and Germany, are much more circumspect in playing that game.
 
Brexit: European Parliament says Britain's new offer on EU citizens' rights is inadequate | The Independent

EU Parliament says UK Brexit on EU citizens rights is inadequate.. Good, because it is.

It is simple as I see it.. EU citizens living in the UK on the date of leaving should have residency as they have now. EU citizens coming after the date of leaving should be given residency under certain conditions to be negotiated.

That seems fair. I've never felt comfortable discussing the rights (Or lack of) rights for those already in the UK contributing.
 
The EU just took a massive dump on David Davis and his Brexit goons by announcing that the UK Banks will lose all passporting rights to do business in the EU, when the UK leaves.

Brexit: UK banks will lose 'passporting rights' after Britain leaves EU, Brussels says | The Independent

How long will May and David Davis last now, that it is clear that the UK banking industry will get hit hard with Brexit.

David Davis looks a broken man. The crapalanche of Brexit is inexorably gathering weight.

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

Mainland British history has always marginalised the 'Northern Irish' problem. The Brexiters have their dream of being an island. Hello, you have an actual physical border with the EU.
 
Looks like a divorce deal has been made... UK has caved and is going to pay 40+ billion pounds.
 
Looks like a divorce deal has been made... UK has caved and is going to pay 40+ billion pounds.

Yea.....funny how divorce bills were never mentioned prior to the vote. I think the EU is laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Yea.....funny how divorce bills were never mentioned prior to the vote. I think the EU is laughing all the way to the bank.

I said all along when people were considering which way to vote that perhaps the greatest uncertainty associated with leaving the EU is that no country has ever done it before, so no one can/could predict the exact resulting consequences of a yes vote. It's new ground.
 
Meanwhile N. Ireland has barely avoided a parliamentary crisis (and in the process torpedoing of any Brexit deal) with deputy PM Fitzgerald having resigned just in time to forestall a no-confidence vote that would have led to new elections.

https://news.sky.com/story/irish-deputy-prime-minister-to-resign-sky-sources-11147587

Which still leaves the issue of the border to the Republic hanging in the air, what with

Irish warn Theresa May: change course or risk Brexit chaos

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/25/phil-hogan-ireland-eu-commissioner-brexit-chaos
 
Back
Top Bottom