Airliners.net

JJJ wrote:

Because it's like that by design

JJJ wrote:

It's a much more far reaching project

JJJ wrote:

That's why every time the UK asked for exemptions, rebates and all kinds of opt-outs Brussels shook their collective heads in a "they just don't get it don't they?" gesture.

speedbored wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Because it's like that by design

Maybe. But designs can be changed. Unfortunately, I think that far too many EU bureaucrats and politicians care more about the design than the impact that single-mindedly sticking to it will have on the people they are supposed to serve.

speedbored wrote:

JJJ wrote:

It's a much more far reaching project

We know. That's why we dislike it so much.

speedbored wrote:

JJJ wrote:

That's why every time the UK asked for exemptions, rebates and all kinds of opt-outs Brussels shook their collective heads in a "they just don't get it don't they?" gesture.

Oh we get it alright. We just don't want it. All of those exemptions, etc. were to allow us to keep just a little bit closer to what it was that we actually signed up for when we joined - long before the "design" or "far reaching political project" that you talk about even existed.

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was an organisation of 6 European countries set up after World War II to regulate their industrial production under a centralised authority. It was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The ECSC was the first international organisation to be based on the principles of supranationalism,[2] and started the process of formal integration which ultimately led to the European Union.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Apparently this was written by a Macron adviser. Any thoughts folks?

http://bruegel.org/2016/08/europe-after ... rtnership/

Olddog wrote:

None found that. It's just a clickbait article for the campaign. When EU has a real number, they will publish it.

OA260 wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Apparently this was written by a Macron adviser. Any thoughts folks?

http://bruegel.org/2016/08/europe-after ... rtnership/

Interesting read for sure.

Dutchy wrote:

Really?:

Dutchy wrote:

The EU is a direct descendent of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), it was the goal in order never to have such a devastating war again. When the UK joined on 1 January 1973 it was already 22years old. So what do you mean?

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Really?:

Yes, really.

Dutchy wrote:

The EU is a direct descendent of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), it was the goal in order never to have such a devastating war again. When the UK joined on 1 January 1973 it was already 22years old. So what do you mean?

No, it is not a direct descendent of the ECSC - it is a direct descendent of the EEC, into which the ECSC was merged.

What the UK joined was the European Economic Community.

speedbored wrote:

Pihero wrote:

The UK has contributed Zilch to helping Greece

I never claimed that we did but you are wrong, we have, and continue to, contribute to Greece as it is a net beneficiary of the EU. You might also want to check who contributes to the IMF funds that Greece has also been helped out with.

speedbored wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It was simply a lie, and the "smart" electorate bought it.

Actually, no it was not. If you look at what the leave campaign actually said about the £350m figure, it was correct.

Pihero wrote:

Yes, that was your claim. Remember : "
"What we are not happy to pay is the cost of the political union, nor that of propping up the failing economies of other EU members "
Otherwise what would you be unhappy to pay for ?

Dutchy wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

tommy1808 wrote:

I am still waiting for your explaination how 350 Million Pound per week towards the NHS have been factually correct.

speedbored wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I am still waiting for your explaination how 350 Million Pound per week towards the NHS have been factually correct.

Then you are in for a long wait. I have already told you that that was never the claim made by the leave campaign - it was a remain campaign/media misrepresentation. It is not possible to explain something that has never existed.

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

Which agrees with what I am saying.

tommy1808 wrote:

That is interesting. I guess we have a miracle on our hand, because apparently this bus just materialized out of nowhere...

speedbored wrote:

This is just normal political campaigning by selective presentation of facts - something that almost everyone in the UK understands. Nowhere on that bus does it say we could spend the whole £350m on the NHS.

The leave campaign has not, in any official advertising, broadcasts or literature that I have seen, ever claimed that if we left the EU, we could spend an extra £350m per week on the NHS. It is not the leave campaign's fault that what they have said is seemingly only misunderstood by people on the losing side of the argument.

speedbored wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

That is interesting. I guess we have a miracle on our hand, because apparently this bus just materialized out of nowhere...

What is said on the bus is correct - we do send the EU ~£350m a week.

Yes, they have rounded the number up a little. Yes, we get some of it back. But the claim itself is NOT wrong. This is just normal political campaigning by selective presentation of facts - something that almost everyone in the UK understands. Nowhere on that bus does it say we could spend the whole £350m on the NHS.

The leave campaign has not, in any official advertising, broadcasts or literature that I have seen, ever claimed that if we left the EU, we could spend an extra £350m per week on the NHS. It is not the leave campaign's fault that what they have said is seemingly only misunderstood by people on the losing side of the argument.

tommy1808 wrote:

speedbored wrote:

This is just normal political campaigning by selective presentation of facts - something that almost everyone in the UK understands. Nowhere on that bus does it say we could spend the whole £350m on the NHS.

The leave campaign has not, in any official advertising, broadcasts or literature that I have seen, ever claimed that if we left the EU, we could spend an extra £350m per week on the NHS. It is not the leave campaign's fault that what they have said is seemingly only misunderstood by people on the losing side of the argument.

No, they just made advertisement implying you can. Saying "We send 350 Million to the EU every weeks" makes no sense at all in any other context then creating the impression you do pay 350 million to the EU."LEts fund the NHS instead" makes no sense in any other way but sending that money to the NHS.

If the leave campaign didn´t expect the readers to read it that way, there is no point having that bus. And we all know that is EXACTLY how it was understood, since Ms May had to address exactly that, deliberately created, "misunderstanding", even still this year, so the smart electorate apparently hasn´t gotten the message even now.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/t ... d-10124021

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was an organisation of 6 European countries set up after World War II to regulate their industrial production under a centralised authority. It was formally established in 1951 by the Treaty of Paris, signed by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The ECSC was the first international organisation to be based on the principles of supranationalism,[2] and started the process of formal integration which ultimately led to the European Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... _Community

The EU is a direct descendent of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), it was the goal in order never to have such a devastating war again. When the UK joined on 1 January 1973 it was already 22years old. So what do you mean?

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

Which agrees with what I am saying.

Dutchy wrote:

They implied it even the leave campaign, after the referendum, said so themselves, no need to deny it.

Dutchy wrote:

In reality, the leave campaign didn't have a clue what could happen and most probably will happen and most importantly what consequences it would have, also on the financial side. Like I said before, even if it cost only 1% economic growth, it will cost the British economy 22b a year. Financially speaking it is a terrible mistake and they should never have advertised it like that, that is misleading at best.

Dutchy wrote:

It was an emotional decision any way you look at it.

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It was an emotional decision any way you look at it.

Yes, because anyone who voted leave is far too stupid to make a rational decision. Continuing to insult the intelligence of the other side achieves nothing other than to severely undermine your own arguments.

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

They implied it even the leave campaign, after the referendum, said so themselves, no need to deny it.

I'm not denying it but there is a HUGE difference between implying something and stating it as fact.

Dutchy wrote:

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It was an emotional decision any way you look at it.

Yes, because anyone who voted leave is far too stupid to make a rational decision. Continuing to insult the intelligence of the other side achieves nothing other than to severely undermine your own arguments.

Gee, don't get worked up here. What are the real ration arguments? Educate me.......

What hopes Britain to get out of this?

Pihero wrote:

speedbored wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

Which agrees with what I am saying.

No. It certainly does not :

Pihero wrote:

the preambule, IIRC, of the Rome Treaty says, very specifically : The signatories agreed to:lay the foundations of an ‘ever closer union’ among the peoples of Europe ...Yep ! YOU SIGNED IT !

Pihero wrote:

As ever, you're being disingenuous... again

speedbored wrote:

I totally understand the hostility being directed at the UK at the moment by many people in the EU, and why they are all getting so emotional about it - after all, the UK leaving is quite likely to lead to the eventual breakup of their beloved EU (at least in its current form).

speedbored wrote:

This is one of the biggest problems with the EU - in order to get agreement for just about any treaty or law to pass, it always has to be vague enough to suit multiple different (and often contradictory) interpretations.

Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

JJJ wrote:

Again, read up a bit of history on why the UK did not join the original 6 countries. Nothing has changed since then.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

But we've been a net contributor for nearly the entire time bar one year in the 1970s IIRC.

If we were going bankrupt, shouldn't we have been a net receiver?

JJJ wrote:

What's vague about this? This was signed in 1957:

Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

speedbored wrote:

JJJ wrote:

What's vague about this? This was signed in 1957:

Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

OK, I'll bite with one final reply:
Again, you post something that just proves my point.

A whole list of rules (I agree they are not particularly vague, though there is a major flaw in (a) - you don't actually have to enter employment), along with the "make it all vague again" get-out clause of "subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy". i.e. "here are some rules" but feel free to pick and choose which ones you think should apply to you as a matter of "public policy". Vagueness and loopholes everywhere.

Have fun.

seahawk wrote:

It does not matter what the political class wanted

All of those exemptions, etc. were to allow us to keep just a little bit closer to what it was that we actually signed up for when we joined - long before the "design" or "far reaching political project" that you talk about even existed.

seahawk wrote:

It does not matter what the political class wanted, as the voter has spoken and the voter chose freedom. It does not matter what effects the Brexit will have, as most Brits are willing to pay every price and bear every burden to be free and sovereign again. I think many people in Europe feel the same way.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It does not matter what the political class wanted, as the voter has spoken and the voter chose freedom. It does not matter what effects the Brexit will have, as most Brits are willing to pay every price and bear every burden to be free and sovereign again. I think many people in Europe feel the same way.

Chose freedom from what? Brussels? So as a Brit you are ruled by London, is that worse or better than Brussels? I find this such a bogus argument. Nobody is free to do whatever it likes. Like I said before if the directive isn't democratically adopted in Brussels than it will be about the same legislation in London. What have you gained as an individual? Are you more sovereign?

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It does not matter what the political class wanted, as the voter has spoken and the voter chose freedom. It does not matter what effects the Brexit will have, as most Brits are willing to pay every price and bear every burden to be free and sovereign again. I think many people in Europe feel the same way.

Chose freedom from what? Brussels? So as a Brit you are ruled by London, is that worse or better than Brussels? I find this such a bogus argument. Nobody is free to do whatever it likes. Like I said before if the directive isn't democratically adopted in Brussels than it will be about the same legislation in London. What have you gained as an individual? Are you more sovereign?

LAH1 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It does not matter what the political class wanted, as the voter has spoken and the voter chose freedom. It does not matter what effects the Brexit will have, as most Brits are willing to pay every price and bear every burden to be free and sovereign again. I think many people in Europe feel the same way.

Chose freedom from what? Brussels? So as a Brit you are ruled by London, is that worse or better than Brussels? I find this such a bogus argument. Nobody is free to do whatever it likes. Like I said before if the directive isn't democratically adopted in Brussels than it will be about the same legislation in London. What have you gained as an individual? Are you more sovereign?

I think you only see it as a bogus argument because you don't see it from a UK perspective. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Brexit, whatever the outcome for the EU or the UK it's how the voters perceive it. Sovereignty obviously means something different over here and probably more than it does to a European who has lived with borders on some/many and different countries.

You may think it's worse and make statements about "little Englanders" et al - which don't really do anything for your arguments - but there it is. Some many millions do see it that way. They may well be wrong but we'll just have to wait and see. Please remember that just because you don't agree doesn't make you right and us wrong or vice versa. At the moment all is an opinion, the facts will make themselves known in time.

Dutchy wrote:

LAH1 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Chose freedom from what? Brussels? So as a Brit you are ruled by London, is that worse or better than Brussels? I find this such a bogus argument. Nobody is free to do whatever it likes. Like I said before if the directive isn't democratically adopted in Brussels than it will be about the same legislation in London. What have you gained as an individual? Are you more sovereign?

I think you only see it as a bogus argument because you don't see it from a UK perspective. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Brexit, whatever the outcome for the EU or the UK it's how the voters perceive it. Sovereignty obviously means something different over here and probably more than it does to a European who has lived with borders on some/many and different countries.

You may think it's worse and make statements about "little Englanders" et al - which don't really do anything for your arguments - but there it is. Some many millions do see it that way. They may well be wrong but we'll just have to wait and see. Please remember that just because you don't agree doesn't make you right and us wrong or vice versa. At the moment all is an opinion, the facts will make themselves known in time.

I, indeed, don't get it. I hope some from Britain whom voted for leave could explain this to me. A feeling of being sovereign British again could be a reason, but the follow-up question is, what does that mean? I am honestly interested in the answer because I don't get it.
Here in the Netherlands, we have Wilders and his followers. I engaged quite a lot into conversations with PVV-voters, because I want to understand what is driving them to reach such a different conclusion than me. Many of them were seeing the same problems as I did, but either wanted to give a signal, were disillusioned etc. Not many were true racist or really wanted to close the borders and kick out the Moroccans and Turks.

So we created a site to do the same in Britain for the elections. Just to move outside your political bubble and engage into a conversation with someone whom doesn't vote like you. Much better to do that, than this reaction on reaction thing on a forum, or your follow your own bubble with the facebook feed or twitter feed. Join us at https://myvotegoes2.com and share it with your British friends

LAH1 wrote:

I will. Thanks for the link.
As some have said previously, there was also a feeling of Londoncentric UK doing well whilst many living in the rest of the country felt left out. Voting was also aimed at the Banking system which many thought had let them down whilst profiteering. One theory is that it was a kick in the goolies for those who seemed to have forgotten that there was life outside of the city.

It might be that the vote actually kicks the voters back but that is in the future. It's a very difficult concept to put into words. Having your own destiny perhaps, not relying on being told what to do. Yes, I know. It doesn't all make sense when you spell it out. It's what feelings are all about though, things you can't easily put into words. The same sort of argument goes with Royalty. Everyone get emotional and crying when there's a wedding or visit or death but generally gets on with their lives without thinking about them for the rest of the time. But, ask nearly anyone (nearly anyone!) and they will say they love the Royal Family. Go deeper and it becomes very difficult to give an answer that is either cogent or rational. It just is what it is.
I am personally torn by Brexit as is my family. I have one son who does work with our PM as well as in Brussels and Madrid and here both in high value engineering and security. I can see both sides of the coin.
As I said, not an easy answer and I don't think I have explained at all well.

Olddog wrote:

LAH1 wrote:

I will. Thanks for the link.
As some have said previously, there was also a feeling of Londoncentric UK doing well whilst many living in the rest of the country felt left out. Voting was also aimed at the Banking system which many thought had let them down whilst profiteering. One theory is that it was a kick in the goolies for those who seemed to have forgotten that there was life outside of the city.

It might be that the vote actually kicks the voters back but that is in the future. It's a very difficult concept to put into words. Having your own destiny perhaps, not relying on being told what to do. Yes, I know. It doesn't all make sense when you spell it out. It's what feelings are all about though, things you can't easily put into words. The same sort of argument goes with Royalty. Everyone get emotional and crying when there's a wedding or visit or death but generally gets on with their lives without thinking about them for the rest of the time. But, ask nearly anyone (nearly anyone!) and they will say they love the Royal Family. Go deeper and it becomes very difficult to give an answer that is either cogent or rational. It just is what it is.
I am personally torn by Brexit as is my family. I have one son who does work with our PM as well as in Brussels and Madrid and here both in high value engineering and security. I can see both sides of the coin.
As I said, not an easy answer and I don't think I have explained at all well.

But most of the problem you seem to describe is due to the fact that rich become richer and the poor.... Don't you think that is mainly due to your tax code and the way the UK build its internal budget ?

speedbored wrote:

In reality, you will find that the majority of the UK electorate DO NOT CARE about the financial consequences. As I have said many many times, money was not the primary driver for the leave vote.

speedbored wrote:

I think you'll find that most of us have a very good grasp of those - that is why we voted to leave.

Of course they do care. If the pound devaluates 20% and the UK GDP decreases with 10%, the purchasing power will will drop dramatically for the average UK household. Many people will then see Brexit as a mistake.

LTenEleven wrote:

Of course they do care. If the pound devaluates 20% and the UK GDP decreases with 10%, the purchasing power will will drop dramatically for the average UK household. Many people will then see Brexit as a mistake.

The DM and other newspapers have already printed plenty of articles about how much more expensive holidays are getting. Think your average reader will make a link with Brexit?