Brexit

[Ted Newgent 4,896]

Leaked Gov document 

[Francie 6,368]

 

Boris pulling a moonwalk

[ChrisJones 7,975]

On 30/07/2019 at 15:35, Greyman said:

The eu army project is not being driven forward to protect the eu, but to oppress its citizens, take a look at the yellow vest protests in France many un badged non french riot police dishing out beatings every Saturday,

What's the actual status on this? Do you know of, or anyone else know of?

On 30/07/2019 at 16:36, WILF said:

Happens in Hong Kong and it’s world f***ing news.......happens in France, not a f***ing word about it!

A few of the THL lads met up in London a few years ago for bit of a protest in London. I personally watched police officers removing their insignia and masking up just before a few of the beatings started, as did a few of this forums members. I even told the BBC camera crew that were there where to find the bloke that had been beaten unconscious. That didn't make the news either. Who knows why?

[ChrisJones 7,975]

On 30/07/2019 at 17:16, Nicepix said:

No I don't. The EU have no power to compel countries to oppress their own people. In fact they took steps against Spain in respect of the way they arrested the Basque Seperatist leader and handled the attempt of independence.

I think the EU are guilty of a great deal of oppression against member states, but not in the Stalinist methods.

 

The EU make policy and the individual member states choose how to enforce that policy and even though the beginnings of the EU (the old EEC) were all about making trade easier the formation of the EU from 93 to present has moved towards authoritarianism. It started as simple trade agreements in the 50's and is now threatening Britain with sanctions for leaving. If you think the EU is guilty of a great deal of oppression then you're infact agreeing that they're authoritarian in nature!

I agree that we're not seeing Stalinist methods but the increasing restrictions from the bureaucracy is hardly encouraging for personal liberty. I usually avoid going for the slippery slope argument but looking at the crimes commited on European soil in the last century I believe that the last thing we should be doing is giving the EU the power it craves. That's the main reason I support Brexit and I still have a hard time believing that roughly half of the British population has such a short memory that they believe a large European bureaucracy is a good thing.

[Nicepix 5,650]

18 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

The EU make policy and the individual member states choose how to enforce that policy and even though the beginnings of the EU (the old EEC) were all about making trade easier the formation of the EU from 93 to present has moved towards authoritarianism. It started as simple trade agreements in the 50's and is now threatening Britain with sanctions for leaving. If you think the EU is guilty of a great deal of oppression then you're infact agreeing that they're authoritarian in nature!

I agree that we're not seeing Stalinist methods but the increasing restrictions from the bureaucracy is hardly encouraging for personal liberty. I usually avoid going for the slippery slope argument but looking at the crimes commited on European soil in the last century I believe that the last thing we should be doing is giving the EU the power it craves. That's the main reason I support Brexit and I still have a hard time believing that roughly half of the British population has such a short memory that they believe a large European bureaucracy is a good thing.

I don't agree with your first sentence. If the EU introduce a policy they also instruct member states how to implement it. That is why the V4 are being punished for not complying with the EU policies on refugee immigration quotas. That is why Greece and Italy are being punished for not keeping to the financial rules. It is also a way of making sure that small EU countries don't veto policies benefiting large EU countries. How else can they achieve the dream of 28 totally different countries all agreeing on EU policies?

Of course the EU are authoritarian. It goes without saying that they hold legal superiority over member states in many legal areas. But that does not mean that the EU enforce punishments on the public of member states in the way that you infer. The EU may punish individual countries for breaches of rules but not individuals within those countries. Not yet anyway.

If the British public were made to read the EU's own document; "Three visions, one direction." it would frighten the living daylights out of them:  

https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/other-publications/three-visions-one-direction---plans-for-the-future-of-europe_en

The EU is big business controlling the poor by financial means rather than by military means. Germany via the EU is using politicians and businesses not soldiers and tanks. But the aim is the same as in the 1930's.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

19 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

I don't agree with your first sentence. If the EU introduce a policy they also instruct member states how to implement it. That is why the V4 are being punished for not complying with the EU policies on refugee immigration quotas. That is why Greece and Italy are being punished for not keeping to the financial rules. It is also a way of making sure that small EU countries don't veto policies benefiting large EU countries.

 

Except when they don't. It's been well documented with their handling of the cases surrounding "religious sentiment." One of the reasons people in Britain are now seeing fines and suspended prison sentences for "hate speech" involving religious groups. I accept that there are policies that the EU instruct member states to follow and how to do so, but there are also issues that are pushed back to the respective states and dealt with under their own autonomy.

19 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

Of course the EU are authoritarian. It goes without saying that they hold legal superiority over member states in many legal areas. But that does not mean that the EU enforce punishments on the public of member states in the way that you infer. The EU may punish individual countries for breaches of rules but not individuals within those countries. Not yet anyway.

 

I wasn't infering that they did enforce punishment over member states I was infering that given enough time and reasoning their brand of authoritarianism would increase proportionately. I also hadn't referenced individuals within countries either. Project Europe started as trade deals in the 50's, moved to linked governments and single currency in the 90's and is now discussing punitive measures for member states that want to withdraw from collective agreement. I simply believe that we're heading in that direction and the evidence supports that.

19 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

If the British public were made to read the EU's own document; "Three visions, one direction." it would frighten the living daylights out of them:  

https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/other-publications/three-visions-one-direction---plans-for-the-future-of-europe_en

The EU is big business controlling the poor by financial means rather than by military means. Germany via the EU is using politicians and businesses not soldiers and tanks. But the aim is the same as in the 1930's.

Can't argue with that at all, mate. That document, among others, should be on the school curriculum!

I don't disagree with anything you've posted so far. I accept that their coerscion has been mainly financial to this point but I think where you and I differ is that I do believe that force is on the cards in the future if the EU dream starts to crack. Again I loathe to use the slippery slope fallacy but two thousand years of European history shows that playing out quite frequently.

Edited August 2, 2019 by ChrisJones
Emphasis

[Nicepix 5,650]

25 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Except when they don't. It's been well documented with their handling of the cases surrounding "religious sentiment." One of the reasons people in Britain are now seeing fines and suspended prison sentences for "hate speech" involving religious groups. I accept that there are policies that the EU instruct member states to follow and how to do so, but there are also issues that are pushed back to the respective states and dealt with under their own autonomy.

" Directives. Each directive contains a deadline by which EU countries must incorporate its provisions into their national legislation and inform the Commission to that effect. The Commission assists member countries in correctly implementing all EU laws. "

" Regulations and decisions become automatically binding throughout the EU on the date they take effect. Directives must be incorporated into national law by EU countries. The Commission monitors whether EU laws are applied correctly and on time and takes action if not.  "

"

The Commission is responsible for making sure that all EU countries properly apply EU law. In this role, the Commission is referred to as the ‘guardian of the treaties’.

The Commission will take steps if an EU country:

• does not fully incorporate a directive into its national law by the set deadline
• might not have applied EU law correctly

"

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law_en

If you break an EU implemented law you will be dealt with by the relevant member state's judicial system. But the laws are uniform throughout the EU. There is no leeway as to how they are written into law. The only variance comes in the way any offences are dealt with via the natural means of justice in those countries. But the EU can and does intervene if it thinks that the laws are not being applied correctly.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Nicepix

[ChrisJones 7,975]

36 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

If you break an EU implemented law you will be dealt with by the relevant member state's judicial system.

Agreed.

36 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

But the laws are uniform throughout the EU.

Agreed.

36 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

There is no leeway as to how they are written into law.

Agreed.

36 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

The only variance comes in the way any offences are dealt with via the natural means of justice in those countries.

Which is what I've been saying from the start when I said that these issues are pushed back to the respective member states. The uniformity of the EU ends with natural justice in member countries.

In the religious sensitivity cases the EU contradicts it's own human rights legislation by pushing the cases back to the autonomy of the respective member states. They explicitly gave the individual member states the right to choose how to enforce these laws through their own contradictory prescident. These landmark decisions have ensured that the member state is bestowed with the authoritative power of arbitrarily selecting which sentiments are worthy of protection which contradicts the link which you posted above, with regard to freedoms of expression. In this area the commission has broken it's end of the deal as it either isn't monitoring the application of the law or it's negligent in it's duties.

I think this is wrong and I can also see how this has, and can be further abused by current and future governments. I can see this as one of the building blocks of the current wave of populism sweeping Europe.

Edited August 2, 2019 by ChrisJones
Typo

[Nicepix 5,650]

You wrote: " The EU make policy and the individual member states choose how to enforce that policy and even though the beginnings of the EU (the old EEC) were all about making trade easier the formation of the EU from 93 to present has moved towards authoritarianism. "

That is totally incorrect.  Read the EU's own publications I posted earlier. It can and does ensure that laws are enforced throughout the EU. Anyone can be found guilty of something they haven't done, or acquitted of something they have done. That is the lottery of courts. The standards of justice might differ dependent on the liberal or otherwise regime in each country. But the EU retains the power to ensure that the laws they implement are upheld. That is written into EU law.

You also wrote: " The soviet union lasted 70 years.  They killed millions and people still think it's a good idea. It's only because they ran out of money that they collapsed. You think these Eurocrats won't resort to authoritarianism to keep that gravy train rolling?"

That is pure speculation. The EU might be the crookedest organisation in town and make the FIFA scandal look like a Christmas Club swindle, but they are a long, long way off the USSR. They don't hold the member countries by military force for one thing.

I'm not going to pursue this any further. You are living in Fairyland.

 

 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

50 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

You wrote: " The EU make policy and the individual member states choose how to enforce that policy and even though the beginnings of the EU (the old EEC) were all about making trade easier the formation of the EU from 93 to present has moved towards authoritarianism. "

That is totally incorrect. 

As you posted above...

2 hours ago, Nicepix said:

The only variance comes in the way any offences are dealt with via the natural means of justice in those countries. But the EU can and does intervene if it thinks that the laws are not being applied correctly. 

 

Isn't this what we're both saying?! EU make laws. Member states enforce them based on their own legal systems?!

• We both understand that the EU make the rules.
• We both understand that EU offer guidance for compliance
• We both understand the EU will intervene if it thinks that these laws aren't being applied correctly.
• Those that disagree with a verdict have the right to an EU appeal to clarify whether that law is being applied correctly.

Where we seem to disagree is on the legal cases over several years that have changed that interpretation.
 

50 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

It can and does ensure that laws are enforced throughout the EU.

Once more I agree with you but there rulings on religious sensitivities have left that to the autonomy of individual member states. The EU has very publically punted that interpretation of it's own ECHR! Seriously! Look it up! They're either abiding by their own legal prescidence in these cases or they're negligent in enforcing their own charter as these legal issues are contradictory!

50 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

You also wrote: " The soviet union lasted 70 years.  They killed millions and people still think it's a good idea. It's only because they ran out of money that they collapsed. You think these Eurocrats won't resort to authoritarianism to keep that gravy train rolling?"

That is pure speculation. The EU might be the crookedest organisation in town and make the FIFA scandal look like a Christmas Club swindle, but they are a long, long way off the USSR. They don't hold the member countries by military force for one thing.

 

I agree!!!! It is pure speculation and as I've also said I loathe to invoke the slippery slope but with historical hindsight that has played out over two millennia in Europe!

The EU has gone from a trade deals in the 50's. Consolidated government and single currency in the 90's to hinting at sanctions against member states for wishing to leave the collective in 2019! This is how authoritarianism works!!

I have never disputed with you that they are the old USSR. I simply stated that despite it's extremely public crimes against humanity there are people that still voluntarily fly the hammer and sickle and think that it's a good idea!

I haven't disputed with you that they hold member states by military force or anything like it. They don't even have a standing army to my knowledge and in an earlier post I asked for clarification on what that status is. I simply stated that a government which is threatened by enemies both real and perceived becomes increasingly authoritarian in nature and you have agreed with this in several posts up to this point!

50 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

I'm not going to pursue this any further. You are living in Fairyland. 

The daftest point of all of this is that neither of us live in Britain!

Edited August 2, 2019 by ChrisJones
Typo

[VOON 1,317]

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/bank-of-england-governor-warns-of-instant-impact-from-no-deal-brexit-1.3975354

 

[VOON 1,317]

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/chris-johns-the-tragic-death-of-fiscal-arithmetic-in-brexit-britain-1.3975378

 

 

[WILF 46,810]

Not being funny mate, but Ireland’s press and politicians are in no position to lecture anyone about economics and fiscal policy !

[sandymere 8,263]

[VOON 1,317]

..it's an interesting  article on what might happen with Brexit......and I would say no-one can predict what's going to happen on 31th Oct.... Not even Boris.....and I don't think there's anyone lecturing, Wilf......the debate , from what I see, seems to be.....EU and Ireland are trying to Torpedo Brexit...nowt about what happens after the 31st Oct......

 

Boris stated before the referendum "  There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal"',  I think it's either a general election for the U.K or leave on the 31st.....thoughts?