So, Brexit....What's happening?

[jelida]

There is one issue in replying the way Peckris does, and that is if you try to respond by quoting the annotations, you find you are quoting a blank page. I appreciate there are “copy and paste” ways around this,  but from a simple quote and reply point of view it is a nifty way to end the conversation.

Jerry

[Peckris 2]

3 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I don't think that's the case at all. Many respondents on forums will split the quote in a long post, into a series of smaller quotes, so they can address the various points individually. I've done the same myself on other forums.

The problem on this forum is that the entire quote is boxed. So you have to go into the quote itself to respond to the separate points individually. Hence Chris was making his response in a different colour to distinguish between quote and response.     

Thank you Mike. It's just commonsense.

[Peckris 2]

3 hours ago, jelida said:

There is one issue in replying the way Peckris does, and that is if you try to respond by quoting the annotations, you find you are quoting a blank page. I appreciate there are “copy and paste” ways around this,  but from a simple quote and reply point of view it is a nifty way to end the conversation.

Jerry

I hadn't realised that Jerry. Not sure what is the way round that, except to do a normal quote and then adding more annotations in yet another different colour. In another forum I'm in, each level of quoted reply is in a different colour anyway (black, then quoted level 1 = red, level 2 = green, and so on). That can make conversations increasingly lengthy and unmanageable, so I guess there is no perfect method.

[Coinery]

This is interesting viewpoint from Germany.

 

[ozjohn]

May's Brexit is still a cr.ock if she leaves or stays.

[Ukstu]

51 minutes ago, Coinery said:

This is interesting viewpoint from Germany.

 

She speaks sense. Great point of view. 👏

[Peckris 2]

Such irony. Very many Remainers have been saying that reform of the EU from within was the ultimate thing, and something we could have helped achieve if we had stayed.

[Coinery]

20 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Such irony. Very many Remainers have been saying that reform of the EU from within was the ultimate thing, and something we could have helped achieve if we had stayed.

That’s the exact bench I’ve always instinctively sat on, for reasons I cannot always put my finger on, but mostly out of a resistance to the ludicrous and dividing idea that we must ‘take care of our own, first.’ I’ve always wanted the world to be a better place than that.

[Rob]

19 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Such irony. Very many Remainers have been saying that reform of the EU from within was the ultimate thing, and something we could have helped achieve if we had stayed.

Dream on. The EU is and always has been the property of the six founding members, as indeed it should be. They originally came together with a plan to have integrated economies, with each constituent country contributing something different to provide the whole. They didn't need a seventh, or eighth, or whatever country to come on board. Why was de Gaulle always opposed to our membership? Because we were more likely to side with Germany than France. France and French politicians see France's perceived political clout as probably the most important consideration. They always have done. They are currently opposed to any concessions because our leaving will improve their relative importance.

The EU remains fundamentally unreformable because there is no mechanism for reversing policy. The Euro is killing the southern countries and without political union will do so ad infinitum. The quid pro quo is of course Germany's obscene balance of payments surplus courtesy of a weak Euro exchange rate relative to the strength of the economy. All those German funded (and to date also UK funded) payments to the new and under-developed countries are promptly recycled into the purchase of German industrial output. The chronic unemployment seen in the southern countries makes it manifestly clear that the system is not healthy. Germany pays, and will be paying more in the future, but is able to do so, and so the ship sails blissfully on.

Every country that has joined since the 1950s has effectively been providing a semi-captive market for the goods of the 6. It's their ball, and whether you are allowed to play depends on how much you bribe them.

[1949threepence]

13 hours ago, ozjohn said:

May's Brexit is still a cr.ock if she leaves or stays.

Problem being, of course, that nobody is able to come up with anything better. Also, as we saw last night, not even anything out of 8 possible indicative votes, that any of them can agree on.  

[1949threepence]

11 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Such irony. Very many Remainers have been saying that reform of the EU from within was the ultimate thing, and something we could have helped achieve if we had stayed.

Agreed. As one of the big three, our voice would always make a difference. The problem is that the UK has always acted a bit like a petulant rebellious schoolkid. Rather than a fully fledged member on the inside, with worthwhile ideas to discuss. 

At any rate, that's the way it's always come across. 

[Peckris 2]

16 hours ago, Rob said:

Dream on. The EU is and always has been the property of the six founding members, as indeed it should be. They originally came together with a plan to have integrated economies, with each constituent country contributing something different to provide the whole. They didn't need a seventh, or eighth, or whatever country to come on board. Why was de Gaulle always opposed to our membership? Because we were more likely to side with Germany than France. France and French politicians see France's perceived political clout as probably the most important consideration. They always have done. They are currently opposed to any concessions because our leaving will improve their relative importance.

I agree with you about France, but Germany and ourselves have been natural allies for decades. As for "didn't need a seventh, or eighth, or whatever country to come on board", you make it sound like 1) other countries didn't want to join and 2) the EU didn't want them to. The latter held true while de Gaulle vetoed our membership for 10 years, and still holds true for Turkey while its human rights record (among many other things) isn't acceptable.

The EU remains fundamentally unreformable because there is no mechanism for reversing policy. The Euro is killing the southern countries and without political union will do so ad infinitum. The quid pro quo is of course Germany's obscene balance of payments surplus courtesy of a weak Euro exchange rate relative to the strength of the economy. All those German funded (and to date also UK funded) payments to the new and under-developed countries are promptly recycled into the purchase of German industrial output. The chronic unemployment seen in the southern countries makes it manifestly clear that the system is not healthy. Germany pays, and will be paying more in the future, but is able to do so, and so the ship sails blissfully on.

Not true. For one thing, the French had a stranglehold on the Common Agricultural Policy for ages, but it was the UK that played a prominent role in transforming it, which is why it's well over 20 years since you heard of a beef mountain, milk lake, or whatever.

Every country that has joined since the 1950s has effectively been providing a semi-captive market for the goods of the 6. It's their ball, and whether you are allowed to play depends on how much you bribe them.

See my comment above - it's obviously in the interests of joining countries, or why would they in the first place? Talk of "bribes" is just silly.

 

[ozjohn]

Re: Rob's post above.

Can't help yourself Pekris2 ?? As well as being incapable of writing your own stuff unless someone has something to say that offends your view you also fail to appreciate people are capable of thinking for themselfs and have more sense than you give them credit for

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, ozjohn said:

Re: Rob's post above.

Can't help yourself Pekris2 ?? As well as being incapable of writing your own stuff unless someone has something to say that offends your view you also fail to appreciate people are capable of thinking for themselfs and have more sense than you give them credit for

Chris was replying to Rob's post, which itself had quoted and commented on Chris's standalone post above. 

I've already stated above why he might reply the way he does - a point which you completely ignored. Now when he has written a standalone post and he responds to the poster replying to it, you're still having a pop at him. What's your problem? 

 

[Coinery]

43 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Chris was replying to Rob's post, which itself had quoted and commented on Chris's standalone post above. 

I've already stated above why he might reply the way he does - a point which you completely ignored. Now when he has written a standalone post and he responds to the poster replying to it, you're still having a pop at him. What's your problem? 

 

I agree, that’s a very odd statement ozjohn. Debate is what’s going on here, and it’s a sensible, easy-to-read, way to present it. I can’t imagine for a second that Rob sees Chris’ arguments as anything other than food for further debate?

Edited March 28, 2019 by Coinery

[Sword]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the way Chris replies to posts either. Just a friendly word ozjohn, I think some of your remarks are getting too sharp and personal. 

Chris has refrained from commenting on your posts regarding Brexit for a while now. Perhaps it is diplomatic  to do the same and accept his opinions differ from yours.

 

 

[Rob]

4 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

Every country that has joined since the 1950s has effectively been providing a semi-captive market for the goods of the 6. It's their ball, and whether you are allowed to play depends on how much you bribe them.

See my comment above - it's obviously in the interests of joining countries, or why would they in the first place? Talk of "bribes" is just silly.

I accept bribe is not the right word, but the simple fact remains that we have paid more in than we have got out for 45 out of 46 years. That's an awful lot of money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

I think that countries joined based on an illusion that it would provide a ready market for their goods which would be easy to sell into, or in the case of the less developed countries that it would provide a free upgrade to their infrastructure. In the case of goods, yes it will up to a point, but if the product quality isn't equal to or better than the market you are selling into, you are on a hiding to nothing. Selling Germans imported goods is one of the more difficult tasks on this planet, but that is the biggest and most affluent market.

Clearly convenience is the major selling point for a single market, but the moot point is whether it offsets the price paid in loss of control and an acceptance that the rules will be set by a group or body that don't have your best interests in mind. In my view, I don't think it does because what you can't control will always bite you on the a**e whether it is sooner or later. I guess it's the difference between having enough self confidence in our collective abilities, or being reliant on others to decide people's lives in a dependency culture.

[ozjohn]

Coinery,

Ok you think it's ok, fine. I may be old fashioned but  I call it interruption and talking over someone which I find is poor manners and very rude to edit some ones work in that fashion. I have never said Pekris2's comments should be censored just posted as a normal post not piggybacked on to another post.

Sword,

Pekris2 has been pretty sharp with me in the past on this topic.

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by ozjohn

[Sword]

5 hours ago, ozjohn said:

Pekris2 has been pretty sharp with me in the past on this topic.

OK. But the friction between you and Chris has been obvious for months now. It will be really nice if it is possible to move on and keep things congenial.

(This whole Brexit process is already depressing enough as it is)

[Ukstu]

[Diaconis]

35 minutes ago, Ukstu said:

Does it come in a box?

[1949threepence]

So May's deal defeated again, albeit by a further reduced majority, but parliament won't accept a no deal brexit. So back we go to the EU, cap in hand once again, to seek what will this time be a much longer extension wholly on their terms. Plus having to field candidates for the June EU elections.

So much for democracy.

Edited March 29, 2019 by 1949threepence

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Diaconis said:

Does it come in a box?

Marked "comprehensively shafted"?

[jaggy]

18 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

So May's deal defeated again, albeit by a further reduced majority, but parliament won't accept a no deal brexit. So back we go to the EU, cap in hand once again, to seek what will this time be a much longer extension wholly on their terms. Plus having to field candidates for the June EU elections.

So much for democracy.

Parliament might not have a choice. The EU might simply say no.

[1949threepence]

8 minutes ago, jaggy said:

Parliament might not have a choice. The EU might simply say no.

I hope they do - clean break divorce. Bumpy road at first, but we'll get over it.