I don't think they can afford to veto. The EU economy is in such a desperate mess and The EU27 countries made a profit of £95 BILLION selling goods to the UK last year
https://twitter.com/BrugesGroup/stat...45460379934722
13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"
https://twitter.com/mxg87/status/1186368373309001735
But I guess you just forget about any UK downsides to leaving as long as you find garbage on the internet supporting YOUR way of thinking.
Also : ''LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s chaotic exit from the European Union has cost the economy about 600 million pounds per week since the 2016 referendum, Goldman Sachs said on Monday in a report that underscores how Brexit uncertainty has dented investment.''
But lets just ignore that and find more posts on the internet about how the EU needs the UK
When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
Originally Posted by George CarlinOriginally Posted by Douglas Adams
You think that the likes of Farage or the ERG would just let something like that go without a fight or even a comment?
But assuming the government of the time did somehow manage to revoke legislation that blocks closer EU integration without public consent - what exactly do you think would happen to them at the next election?
It simply doesn't make sense. I mean what's in it for them?
The EU "constitution" was another clusterfuck which, like Brexit, should never have been put up for a public vote.
I've had lengthy discussions with constitutional lawyers and MEPs back in the days who admitted the text was way to complicated and exhaustive for a constitution.
I'm glad they went down the treaty route in the end.
- - - Updated - - -
Incredible ... Germany's GDP alone is 4000 billions. The 27 will come begging on both knees.
edit: and here we go : https://publications.parliament.uk/p...0007/20007.pdf
Let's see how you take back control ...
- - - Updated - - -
The people of the RoI ?
France also rejected it in a referendum. The answer was to address the concerns that seemed genuine, and then pass it as a treaty because clearly people didn't understand what it was about. Nobody felt the need to pass an EU 2011 act afterwards, besides the UK.
- - - Updated - - -
This should be a youtube channel
Last edited by Demolitia; 2019-10-21 at 08:39 PM.
Did you want to try again?In the meeting of the European Council (the meeting of the heads of government of all twenty-seven European Union member states) in Brussels on 11–12 December 2008, Taoiseach Brian Cowen presented the concerns of the Irish people relating to taxation policy, family, social and ethical issues, and Ireland's policy of neutrality. Effectively Ireland's position was renegotiated, and the revised package was approved by the electorate in 2009.
Yeah, the EU certainly stepped up in rebuilding after the IRA bomb in '96 with their £21 million after Westminster barely coughed up £450k.
All this stuff about an EU army is irrelevant though, we could just veto it, as France probably would as well, I can't see them wanting to hand over their nuclear deterrent.
You have to love the absurdity, Boris Johnson trying all he can to avoid a customs union amendment, when his lies about leaving the EU not requiring us to leave the customs union were integral to the Leave victory xD
I dunno, a few countries have pretty based leaders who don't worship the almighty dollar. Plus it'd be pretty trivial for BoJo to, say, bribe Orban to veto it and then cut tariffs to particular goods that just so happen to be made in Hungary .
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. There's a reason I don't care much for pro- or anti- Brexit arguments about economic statistics - because they're all bunkum. Oftentimes, the revisions to GDP figures etc are larger than the difference between the economy being in recession and not being in recession. In this case, we've got a suspect source using a computer model to predict all this. Garbage in, garbage out.
Having said all that... has Brexit hurt the UK economy a bit? Yeah, probably. Big deal. There are more important things than muh GDP.
Oh they'd raise hell, but I doubt it'd be enough.
Cosy sinecures as EU apparatchiks, peers, or - if they're in safe seats - a return to Parliament?
Well you got one bit right - it's certainly hella too long for a constitution.
The EU, obviously.
Ve know vat eez gut vor you, you zilly plebe, jah, stop zinking for yourzelves...
Still not tired of winning.
You phrase this like it's something that's going to stop. Even if we leave and their goods get taxed they will still be cheaper than importing from the US/Canada, and cheaper than making the goods in the UK. That "£95 BILLION" may take a little hit but it isn't going anywhere, it's not in any danger (like our EU/global exports are).
Have you even vaguely looked at the original text for the constitution? It's 484 pages. Can you realistically expect the average human to even look past the first 10 pages of "having regards to"
The first search on google the day after the referendum was "What is the EU" Why would this be hella too long.
The EU obviously? If anything the EU has been behind Ireland during the all process.
You can joke all you want about ze french, but ze brits have even less of an excuse. At least we read ze text. You relied on ze Sun.
You have wormz in your brain.
Don't need to. If a constitution is that long, it's not fit for purpose.
Then burn them and start over. If the Founding Fathers can put together a constitution for a republic with (including all the amendments) 4,400 words, why the dickens does the EU need 70,000 words - and such dreadful language? Even the UN managed to get in at under 9,000 words.
Well, we know the reason obviously - to dissuade ordinary people from reading or understanding it. "Oh it's all so complicated, what's on the telly?" is a great result if you're an EU apparatchik trying to get this through by hook or by crook.
Now sure, the EU Constitution has a lot more in it... but that's kind of the problem, no? Constitutions are generally meant to be the bare bones of the state. Worst case, you just say something like "piracy shall be defined and dealt with as per the Piracy Act 1698" or whatever and move on. I mean, you would if you were going about this honestly, of course.
So... we agree? My point was that the Irish being pushed to voting until they "get it right" was due to the EU.
Germans not French .
Still not tired of winning.
My professor was part of the team that drafted the "constitution". He said no such thing, obviously. He gave us the reason for it not being a constitution is largely a political one, that the people of the EU weren't ready to accept anything like a European state at this time. It wasn't too complicated or exhaustive, it was merely too ambitious. Way too ambitious.
- - - Updated - - -
France is the major player pushing for a EU defense force and more military cooperation than NATO offers. You've got your perspective backwards. Read the news outside England, otherwise you'll continue to be on the wrong track.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
Because nothing says "voting until you get it right" like being asked what your issues are after a no vote, having those specific issues targeted and addressed by re-negotiation that is tailored to you, and then magically voting yes a second time, since your reasons for voting before no longer apply.
We'll just disagree again then. The french constitution is 40 pages of guiding principles and core values for the nation. The German one is 50 pages long. The US constitution is about the same.
The EU is 500 pages long, and includes provisions on social protection, tourism, border checks and more fun stuff.
I understand the text was needed, but it should not have been called a constitution, and never have been put up for a public vote.