brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

The EU are only giving back what was forcibly taken in the first place to keep the whole rotten operation going.
If it didn't exist, member Countries would have more money to spend on helping their people cope with this virus.

[ahinton]

The EU are only giving back what was forcibly taken in the first place to keep the whole rotten operation going.
If it didn't exist, member Countries would have more money to spend on helping their people cope with this virus.

That's as may or may not be; either way, one cannot be a member of most clubs without paying membership fees and, after all, EU has never forced membership of it upon any of its member states.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

There is no may or may not about it. The EU  has no money itself.
The EU certainly makes it difficult to leave their silly club. Even more difficult to cancel the direct debit.
Swallows up billions in senseless beauocracy.

[ahinton]

There is no may or may not about it. The EU  has no money itself.

Indeed. Nor does any government. Each government has only what it can get from taxpayers and borrowings.

The EU certainly makes it difficult to leave their silly club.

Silly or not, UK spent years desperately trying to join and none of the other member states were forced to join - it was a matter of choice. I think it woefully premature to pronounce upon how easy or otherwise it is for a member state to leave EU, especially as only one of them has ever tried this and even that's way from over yet!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The organisation that we joined bears no resemblance to the organisation we wish to leave.
Please feel free to carry on paying into once we are extracted.

[ahinton]

The organisation that we joined bears no resemblance to the organisation we wish to leave.
Please feel free to carry on paying into once we are extracted.

I agree that it has changed considerably since UK joined; indeed, it had chance a fair bit between its inception and the date that UK did join. As you ought to recall and bear in mind, I have never considered EU to be a flawless organisation but I do believe that the principles behind it - those which brought its predecessor into being in the first place - were not merely laudable but vital given the experiences of the two world wars. As I've also noted previously, I feel certain that EU will be a worse organisation without UK should it leave and that will reflect advsersely on UK itself as well as on the remaining member states; UK has been an important member, yet now it is paying fortunes into it without any longer retianing voting and other rights and that will continue to be the case until eiher the negotiations are over or EU disintegrates.

In what still appears to be the relatively unlikely event that EU does disintegrate, just how stupid will UK look, having so far paid almost £4.4bn and counting in order to leave an EU that will no longer exist?!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Agreed, but we wont look half as silly as those wishing to continue.
The sooner we stop paying, the better.

[ahinton]

Agreed, but we wont look half as silly as those wishing to continue.
The sooner we stop paying, the better.

My point was that, in addition to amounts paid under contract to EU, UK has paid on some £4.4bn in order to prepare to leave EU which will look quite incredibly stupid if EU collapses before the negotiations are over and that money will all have gone utterly to waste with nothing in return and nothing rescuable.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It will still be worth it.

[ahinton]

It will still be worth it.

In your opinion rather than based upon fact; the collape of EU, should that occur, will have its own long-term economic disadvantages for all ex-member states including UK and these are likely to be so severe as to ensure that EU holds together, the risk of failure to do so being simply too great for any of its member states to withstand.

That said, I do not believe tht EU will disintegrate, even as a consequence of Covid-19; there would be just too much at stake. As to UK's membership, it is obvious that continuation of negotiations, having already taken a back seat for some time as a direct result of that virus, looks set to do so for the foreseeable futue as other issues have taken over from it in terms of importance for all 28 states.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What long term disadvantages

[ahinton]

What long term disadvantages

Principally economic ones; it is indeed the fear of these that is likely to be the single most significant factor in holding EU together.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is only fear and we must not let weakness hinder progress.

[ahinton]

It is only fear and we must not let weakness hinder progress.

It is only fear because EU's demise hasn't happened and, because of that fear, it almost certainly won't. The disintegration of EU and all the consequent fallout not only in the 28 member states but throughout the world would represent the very opposite of progress, for all the flaws in the EU system.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What fallout?

[ahinton]

What fallout?

Quite obviously that which will be consequent on the immense cost of each member state having to reorganise its affairs, economic, political, cultural and otherwise, following such a disintegration. You have only to consider all the changes that accompanied each member state's accession to EU membership to recognise the even larger ones that will result from EU's demise, should that occur which, nevertheless, I feel pretty certain it won't.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

A cost which will be repaid by not having to contribute to the EU fraud.

[ahinton]

A cost which will be repaid by not having to contribute to the EU fraud.

You think so? It will be a whole lot more expensive than that - and UK is still contributing now anyway and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Where EU might fail is the point - should it be reached - at which the majority of its member states' economies will have been so drained by the consequences of Covid-19 as to render them unable to finance either themselves or EU; that will, of course be quite a few months away, but no one can borrow what others are unprepared to lend.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Indeed they can't, so it is best all members reserve money to help their inhabitants instead of wasting it on a gravy train for politicians, which effectively is what the EU is.

[ahinton]

Indeed they can't, so it is best all members reserve money to help their inhabitants instead of wasting it on a gravy train for politicians, which effectively is what the EU is.

The problem with that argument is one that I have often cited in respect of UK's NHS which is dependent largely on just two income sources, taxpayers and government borrowings; in times like this (unusual though I agree them to be), the fact that each country's economy is in increasingly poor shape means not only that they'll want to keep them to themselves rather than funding EU but also that they'll generate less and less revenue from their taxpayers and therefore be less able and willing to lend funds to other countries even while record low interest rates pertain.

In proportional terms, EU is no more a "gravy train for politicians" than are the governments of each and every one of its individual member states; it only looks bigger because there are 28 nations involved!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Their leadership is not elected by the voters, so it differs from the democracy of its members.

[ahinton]

Their leadership is not elected by the voters, so it differs from the democracy of its members.

But that fact alone does not make EU any more of a "gravy train for politicians" than the governments of any of its member states which, after all, officially sanction and endorse the selection of EU's leadership. Again, in so saying, it is important to remember not only that this has always been the case but also that no part of the EU institution or that of its predecessor organisationas has ever forced any EU member state to join it or to remain a member state; indeed, all applications for membership of EU have been made by governments whose leaderships are either democratically elected or elected by voters who are party members.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It doesn't force anyone to join it, but it is not the same organisation that we voted to join 40 years ago.
It does forcibly extract vast sums of money from its members, billions of which is soaked up in beauocracy and administration.
I hear that a Downing Street spokesman has said there is to be no extension to the Brexit negotiations which I hope is the case.

[ahinton]

It doesn't force anyone to join it, but it is not the same organisation that we voted to join 40 years ago.

No, I agree with that.

It does forcibly extract vast sums of money from its members, billions of which is soaked up in beauocracy and administration.

But hasn't it always, just as other such organisations elsewhere do?

I hear that a Downing Street spokesman has said there is to be no extension to the Brexit negotiations which I hope is the case.

Who cares what that person might say? On what or whose authority has he/she said it anyway? As long as negotiations remain suspended due to Covid-19 which affects every country on the planet, not just EU's 28 member states, it will by definition self-extend in any case and, frankly, if we're all still locked down by the end of this year (which was to be the deadline), it'll probably all be over anyway.

While the ravages of Covid-19 and its impacts continue to pertain, most other legislative issues will have to take a back seat and indeed are already doing so.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

They are already doing so, but that does not mean we need to extend the deadline.
The people have been clear. They want out and they want it by the end of the year.
If you dont, tough titties.

[ahinton]

They are already doing so, but that does not mean we need to extend the deadline.
The people have been clear. They want out and they want it by the end of the year.
If you dont, tough titties.

As long as negotiations remain suspended because of Covid-19 and its consequent lockdowns, that deadline will inevitably self-extend; a negotiation deadline means just what it says - a date by which all negotiations will have completed by mutual agreement between UK and the rest of EU - and, as there appears to be scant evidence of progress on these for the foreseeable future, extension is happening daily by default whether anyone likes it or not.

By the way, "the people" set no deadline for completion of negotiations; the referendum question included no such deadline or even reference to such negotiations, as I'm sure you must know.

For the record, how often have you even heard mention of Brexit on news bulletins of late? That it barely receives more than the odd passing reference any longer is, however, hardly suprising in the circumstances; EU/UK and pretty much everyone else has far more pressing issues right now and for the foreseeable future...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The negotiations do not need to be complete. If they are, we leave and if they are not, we leave.
Talking is over. It is time for action.

[ahinton]

The negotiations do not need to be complete. If they are, we leave and if they are not, we leave.
Talking is over. It is time for action.

Until the negotiations are complete, no one on either side of them can possibly know how anything will function thereafter.

"The people" will expect their government to complete the negotiations, otherwise their trust in it will quite justifiably wane yet further.

"The people" voted in a referendum promised, launched and run by their government; they now expect that government to act - by continuing with a vast raft of negotiations, when that becomes possible.

You write that "talking is over"; why, then, is UK in a now indefinite transition period? The answer to that is, quite clearly, because the talking is far from over; on the contrary, it is now suspended for obvious reasons. I accept that it ought to have been over by now, almost four years after the vote, but that is far from the case and everyone knows it.

"Time for action" is, however, an impossiblity right now and will remain so until the whole of EU has fully recovered from the virus and returned to as near normal as possible; no one, however, can possibly predict when or even whether that might be.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is the remoaners who are to blame for the delays, otherwise it would be done and dusted.

[ahinton]

It is the remoaners who are to blame for the delays, otherwise it would be done and dusted.

So the virus has been caused and is being perpetuated solely by "remoaners", whoever they might be; how interesting! I'd like to see anyone provide evidence for that! If, on the other hand, you're referring to the length of time that it took to negotiate before the virus struck, you have only to examine the history of UK government's handling of the negotiations - the government that started the entire charade in the first place - to see for yourself its woeful shortcomings, perhaps in part prompted by the arrogant attitude of "they need us more than we need them" that has more recently manifested itself in a decline of offer of certain assistance with the virus...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It was the Remoaners that blocked it in the commons, the lords and the courts.
Every dimwit in the Country knows that, bar you it seems.

[ahinton]

It was the Remoaners that blocked it in the commons, the lords and the courts.
Every dimwit in the Country knows that, bar you it seems.

"Blocked" what, precisely? Negotiations have been going on almost ever since announcement of the public opinion poll result.

Yes, of course there has been opposition from Remain supporters (not "Remoaners", since by no means everyone who favours Remain is "moaning " about anything - indeed, some are being ar more contructive in their actions), but then that's only to be expected when the result was so close; however, that's not stopped negotiations from proceeding - it's the bungling incompetence of negotiators that have mean that four years have passed without getting anywhere near completion.

Now that the virus has effectively taken over, it's all pretty much come to a halt and there seems scant evidence that mosts people care about that on either side because, as I've already said, they all have far more pressing issues to address; when the worst of that is finally over, it will take many more months for our lives to return to anything like normal - and that includes our political lives. As I also said, Brexit's barely getting a mention any longer; just ask youself why...

Oh, wait a moment; of course - I'd forgotten. Silly me! The Remain supporting fraternity bear sole responsibility for the virus and consequent lockdowns! Pity that, in so doing, they messed things up for the rest of the planet, but there you go...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You must realy moderate your alcohol consumption as that post is deluded wittering.
If the Brexit process had not been continually thwarted in the Courts, in the commons and in the Lords it would all be done, dusted and history.
We would be paying no money and sending all their illegal immigrants straight back.

[ahinton]

You must realy moderate your alcohol consumption as that post is deluded wittering.
If the Brexit process had not been continually thwarted in the Courts, in the commons and in the Lords it would all be done, dusted and history.
We would be paying no money and sending all their illegal immigrants straight back.

"Realy"? What has any kind of consumption to do with anything here? Yes, the courts have been involved from time to time but the assertion that litigation has caused the negotiations to go on for almost four years with many more months still to go if and when the virus issue is confined to history and they can resume simply does not stand up to scrutiny, any more than does UK's attempts at negotiation themselves.

If you mean that all Remain supporters and non-voters - in the courts, both houses of Parliament and everywhere else - should suddenly have abandoned their beliefs and switched to Leave, then once again you are being utterly unrealistic, for that would only have been a valid stance had every voter in UK voted for it to leave EU.

There are already laws in place to deport illegal immigrants when they can be found and proved in court to be such and, in any case, by no means all of them come from elsewhere in EU.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If I am unrealistic, then remoaners are undemocratic.

[ahinton]

Thal: whilst this forum might not necessarily be a reliable barometer for expressions of interest in the subject of this thread, have you not noticed that hardly any other members besides you and I have contributed to it this year, even from before Covid-19 struck in earnest?

As I mentioned previously, it's hardly ever talked about these days, since issues widely regarded as far more important have inevitably taken precedence and are likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If I am unrealistic, then remoaners are undemocratic.

As I know no "remoaners" or what they are, I cannot comment with authority but the fact that the entire public opinion poll shambles was itself undemocratic might imply the possibility that almost everyone in UK is undemocratic or at least prepared to turn blind eyes to non-democracy!

For example, not everyone supports same sex marriage (Jaboc Rees-Mogg for one) despite its having been legalised some years ago in UK; does that make all those who don't support it "undemocratic" merely for continuing to adhere to the views that they held before that legislation was passed?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Absurd. People who dont want same sex marriage is minute compared to the number of remoaners.

[ahinton]

Absurd. People who dont want same sex marriage is minute compared to the number of remoaners.

As I said, I cannot comment on "remoaners" as I do not know who they are and have never met any; however, the subject here is certain attitudes towards democratic practice, not numbers of citizens.

As I also pointed out, the public opinion poll was in itself an undemocratic exercise to be carried out in and by a purportedly Parliamentary democracy whose procedures are long established but which were ignored on that occasion, so references to matters undemocratic have no rightful place here in any case.

A further point is that your persistent referral to this "Country" (which is actually four of them) carefully ignores the fact that those who continue to favour Remain (as well as those who now favour it but didn't at the time of the poll) do so because of a belief that it would best serve UK's interests; should they be blamed for that? and should they be accused of undemocratic conduct because of it?

Best,

Alistair

[goldentone]

Alistair, once Britain's departure from the EU is final, I, and perhaps Thal, will vote for your accession to Commissioner of the EU. 

[ahinton]

Alistair, once Britain's departure from the EU is final, I, and perhaps Thal, will vote for your accession to Commissioner of the EU. 

I wouldn't waste your time or your vote, for several reasons (although it's good to see someone else contributing to this thread!).

For one thing, I would not want, nor have I the experience or qualifications for, such a post.

For another, I already have quite enough to do, very little of which is affected by the lockdown.

For another, even were that not the case, I would not wish to occupy such a position without UK as an EU member state.

Lastly, the "finality" of UK's departure from EU remains what the egregious Donald Rumsfeld might have called an "unknown unknown"; until negotiations can continue between UK and EU, no further progress (or rather regress) can be made and details of their resumption are uncertain.

Arguments such as Thal's about the last of these simply do not hold water, since "the people" - i.e. the UK electorate - were not asked for their views on the many issues to be negotiated and, as with any other contract (especially one as complex and long-standing as that of UK's EU membership), it cannot simply be declared null and void without the many tens of thousands of hours of negotiation which have to date yielded little material success.

Incidentally, although I cannot and would not presume to speak for any other Remain supporter, I have personally managed to find ways around problems arising from UK's cessation of EU membership should it ever happen, so will be "business as usual" for me.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Now here's news of a hopefully forthcoming court case that will do nothing to halt Brexit negotiations!...


"Thank you for signing our petition for UK Citizens to retain EU Citizenship and Rights, regardless of the outcome of any Brexit negotiations. Since January over 140,000 people have stood together with you to sign our petition and fight for our rights as EU Citizens.

Now, we're taking this campaign further, and are filing a case in the General Court of the EU - the aim of which is to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule that EU Citizenship is a permanent status.

If you can, please help us raise the funds we need to take the case all the way through to its conclusion in the CJEU. Our case must be filed with the Court by 24th April at the latest:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/eu-citizenship-is-a-permanent-status

 

We don’t know the full extent of the legal costs that will be required, and our lawyers are currently working pro-bono on this case.

We are immensely grateful to everyone who has already contributed to our campaign so far - your support means a lot to us - and I believe that together we can do this.

Joshua Silver

Professor of Physics,
University of Oxford
EUCitizenship.org.uk"

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

A pointless exercise. Why would you want it anyway.
By the time this stupidity has been arranged, the Court hearing it with have no authority.
Twats

[thalbergmad]

Arguments such as Thal's about the last of these simply do not hold water, since "the people" - i.e. the UK electorate - were not asked for their views on the many issues to be negotiated and, as with any other contract (especially one as complex and long-standing as that of UK's EU membership), it cannot simply be declared null and void without the many tens of thousands of hours of negotiation which have to date yielded little material success.

The proposition put to the electorate was simple and only needed to be simple.
If you had done it, it would have been 400 pages of wind.

[ahinton]

The proposition put to the electorate was simple and only needed to be simple.
If you had done it, it would have been 400 pages of wind.

On the contrary - I wouldn't have done it at all; I would either have done nothing about it or raised it as a piece of potential legislation to be debated and voted on in both houses of Parliament - that's what's called Parliamentary democracy and it's worked successfully for almost all other legislation for generations.

That said, what was instead ducked and put to the electorate needn't have been anything like 400 pages long but, in being short and simple, it would have to be recognised that many issues would pertain in the event that the vote went the way that it did and these would have to be negotiated by the UK government of the day without further reference to the electorate; as such, that electorate was not consulted about those negotiations and what it wanted them to produce.

No one, however they voted, did so in order to risk being worse off.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

A pointless exercise. Why would you want it anyway.
By the time this stupidity has been arranged, the Court hearing it with have no authority.
Twats

I already have it and wish to retain it.

You have no idea how long that court will have authority; it might be permananent but it will at least be until the transition period is over, whenever that might be, if ever. Even if its authority has gone by the time the case is heard, it could (and almost certainly would) instead be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, as citizenship is a fundamental human rights issue.

That said, consider a situation in which the boot would be on the other foot, so to speak. You seem to believe there to be far more support throughout EU for a federalist United States of Europe than is likely the case.

Imagine, however, that this is indeed the norm and that, as a consequence, EU would pass legislation to annul the citizenship of each of its member states. That would mean that you and I would continue to be EU citizens but no longer UK ones.

You would be against that. So would I, at least to the extent that I would wish to retain the choice to remain an UK citizen.

In such circumstances, would you not lend moral support to a court case to ensure that UK citizenship rights were retained? I certainly would!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Nobody who voted leave thinks they will be worse off. There is nothing thus far to suggest they will be.
Why is this EU citizenship so important to you. Clearly being British means nothing.

[ahinton]

Nobody who voted leave thinks they will be worse off. There is nothing thus far to suggest they will be.

You have asked all of them and received their written answers, have you? And on top of that they've all answered in the same way? That's quite an achievement in itself, for all that it strains credibility!

Why is this EU citizenship so important to you. Clearly being British means nothing.

This isn't just "about" me; it's "about" almost 68m other UK (not British, please - why exclude Northern Ireland while it's still a part of UK?). Do you seriously consider that I would advocate or support litigation with a view to establishing entitlement to retain EU citizenship just for me? Such a notion would be absurd!

But you didn't answer my question; what would you do were your UK citizenship to be under threat of annulment by EU (not that it will be, of course!)? And what would be your moral and legal right to preserve and maintain it?

But let me at least answer yours. EU citizenship and the continuation of a much improved EU is vital to me and to us all if we are to have any say in a world where little nations on their own have equally little power.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No one, however they voted, did so in order to risk being worse off

Wow, you have questioned everyone. I appear to have questioned only those who voted leave. Clearly, you are even more absurd than me.
I am not interested in 68 million others. I am interested in why EU citizenship is so important to you.
Less than 3000 words would be nice.

[ahinton]

Wow, you have questioned everyone.

I have not and do not pretend to have done so; I rely instead on the logic that voters would no more knowingly vote to be worse off than turkeys would vote for Christmas.

I appear to have questioned only those who voted leave.

But how many of them? And even if Remain voters were/are such anathema to you thata you'd decline to question them, why did you question no one who abstained from voting or was of voting age but barred from doing so?

Clearly, you are even more absurd than me.

I could not say, not least because I have no idea how absurd you may or may not be.

I am not interested in 68 million others.

That tells a lot about you yet, if true, why are you not interested in those among them who voted for UK to leave EU?

I am interested in why EU citizenship is so important to you.

And I am still interested in your answer to my question but, in the meantime, my answer to yours is as provided earlier, i.e. broadly the same as for most other UK citizens who wish to retain EU their citizenship, namely

"EU citizenship and the continuation of a much improved EU is vital to me and to us all if we are to have any say in a world where little nations on their own have equally little power".

I would add to that only that EU would likely be a worse place without UK as a member state; UK has contributed far more to it over the years than money.

Less than 3000 words would be nice.

3,000 words exceeds the number in my answer above by 2,962; will that do for you?

Best,

Alistair