A101 wrote:

They are not doing anything more than what free enterprise does within the confines of the business, if the project does not represent VfM then they should be cut, just because a project looks good on paper and is underperforming does not mean you just throw more money at it, Government still has to work to the same principles of free enterprise, if a project is costing the taxpayer a billion £ and only returns a million in productivity or benifits should it not be stop as it’s wasteful

Do you actually work in a free enterprise? If so, you would have known that it's just like a government and the civil service (especially large companies). Many projects exist despite having a low ROI and/or fail consistently to deliver (either because it's a project of the CEO, nobody gains from terminating the project personally or that it gains some good PR from the stakeholders). Moreover, it also invests in projects which don't make money short term, but are either needed to support other projects with a high ROI and/or are foreseen to make money longer term. The only reason you do cancel them is because you need money and you've lowered the budget.

flyguy89 wrote:

The EU is probably one of the largest and least democratic governing institutions in the world. Yeah, you can say he's gotten to "participate" as a member of the European parliament, but the EU parliament itself is essentially powerless and toothless...so you have the veneer of democracy with nothing ultimately behind it.

I don't really know but I have understood it so that EU is designed to lack some level of power on purpose so that member states could have more power and EU could not decide stuff that member states would not like. So I find the complaints of EU lacking power a little bit strange in a discussion about brexit which fundamentally claimed that EU had too much power and one certain member state called UK had too little.

I think every ideology is such that maximizing it leads to a disaster. Democracy is sure one of the best ideologies out there but it only means that the level of democracy should be quite high but once it is over the required bar then other issues should be that start to steer the design further and people should discuss with straight terms for example which system works and which does not.

One of the systems which does not work is first-past-the-post voting system and as a result the current chaos in UK decision making. If I look at governments around the world and think which ones I would really hate if they would have power over me then UK would be quite high. I would happily let pretty much any other European country or EU rule over me except UK or Italy which are the two that do not work at all.

Therefore I find it very strange to look at people which seem to prefer the chaos in UK to have power to rule over them and disparage some other system based on some tiny little details on whether EU parliament members can propose new laws or not. I don't know what is the situation there and I couldn't care less about such tiniest little theoretical things when the big picture shows massive issues.

I reckon UK businesses will not be pleased to learn that some rumours suggest that Boris is going for the "power play" option by installing full customs checks after December 31st.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/johnson-to-impose-full-customs-checks-on-goods-from-eu-report

I wonder how many CEOs would like such a move.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... ssion=true

Did any of this appear in any Manifestos at last years Euro Elections?

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1236415/Brexit-news-EU-meat-tax-sustainability-charge-meat-prices-climate-change-EU-Green-Deal/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Did any of this appear in any Manifestos at last years Euro Elections?

a. why do you care? You are out. (or part of your anyhow)
b. the Green deal was adopted by the EU Parlaiment, thus is democraticly elected.

So what is the problem?

Dutchy wrote:

zkojq wrote:

EU Commission building in Brussels last night.

This is not the smart thing to do. The matter will pop-up when it comes.

I don't know if this was done "officially" or by someone with a projector.

However it's in response to Scotland asking to keep the lights on for them.

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1236415/Brexit-news-EU-meat-tax-sustainability-charge-meat-prices-climate-change-EU-Green-Deal/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Did any of this appear in any Manifestos at last years Euro Elections?

No longer hiding the true cost of environmentally damaging food production was indeed in various party programs for years, with varying degrees of urgency, and it was one point among many which I considered for my own vote.

What surprises you about that, and what does that have to do with Brexit?

Only: "The EU" will do nothing without the democratically elected national governments and the democratically elected European Parliament being on board.

You had voted for your own country throwing away its veto in the EU on matters like that, so you have absolutely no standing whatsoever in feigning offended innocence here!

Aesma wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

zkojq wrote:

EU Commission building in Brussels last night.

This is not the smart thing to do. The matter will pop-up when it comes.

I don't know if this was done "officially" or by someone with a projector.

However it's in response to Scotland asking to keep the lights on for them.

Without any authorization projecting protest slogans and images onto official buildings at night is pretty much a tradition at this point, so this is almost certainly some scots demonstrating their own position, not the EU Commission.

(The Commission would definitely not do this kind of thing at this stage – maybe when Scotland will have its independence and it will be close to finishing its new accession talks, but certainly not now!)

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1236415/Brexit-news-EU-meat-tax-sustainability-charge-meat-prices-climate-change-EU-Green-Deal/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Did any of this appear in any Manifestos at last years Euro Elections?

a. why do you care? You are out. (or part of your anyhow)
b. the Green deal was adopted by the EU Parlaiment, thus is democraticly elected.

So what is the problem?

Were voters asked about the Green New Deal? Was it mentioned in any Manifestos?

Did voters ever get a say in whether to implement or not?

Various parties all over Europe had included environmental goals in their manifestos, and the collective is coming up with this Green new deal. When elections are proportional, the game plan is always figured out after the election, depending on the result. Just like when Cameron had to make a deal with the Libdems.

BTW BoJo also included plenty of "green stuff" in his manifesto, I expect he will not even try to pretend to apply any of it though, how's that for democracy ?

Aesma wrote:

Various parties all over Europe had included environmental goals in their manifestos, and the collective is coming up with this Green new deal. When elections are proportional, the game plan is always figured out after the election, depending on the result. Just like when Cameron had to make a deal with the Libdems.

BTW BoJo also included plenty of "green stuff" in his manifesto, I expect he will not even try to pretend to apply any of it though, how's that for democracy ?

Which parties? The biggest ones?

Yeah right.

Aesma wrote:

Public departements aren't anything like enterprises, they're there to spend money on the public, not to get it from them (aside from the one getting the taxes, obviously).

No one claimed they have to make money but they have to provide VfM

Aesma wrote:

Underperforming projects are not the ones that will be cut, because they're the ones outsourced to Tory donors, so those will stay, you can bet on it.

Privatisation has been a fact of life since the late 70’s, the nomenclature changed to PFI and the PPP but as Alan Milburn Ex Labour Health Secretary once said “It’s PFI or bust” so it’s not just a phenomenon of Conservative Government

The problem had gotten out of control when the banks start to stop lending money for PFI and the state began finacing the loans which increased risk to the taxpayers but had the benefit to government of keeping the project off the books and it happens under Governments of both persuasion’s

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1236415/Brexit-news-EU-meat-tax-sustainability-charge-meat-prices-climate-change-EU-Green-Deal/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Did any of this appear in any Manifestos at last years Euro Elections?

Many answered already, but if you want to discuss EU politics just open a topic about it, this discussion is off topic here.

Out of curiosity, what is the situation now as regards immigration, both in the EU and UK? I have a friend coming over from the UK next week and he was wondering how it will affect him. I'm thinking that the EU immigration desks will simply be changed to "EU, EEA & UK", certainly during the transition period, but probably beyond that too. Also, will I now have to bring my full passport when entering the UK instead of my EU card passport?

Braybuddy wrote:

Out of curiosity, what is the situation now as regards immigration, both in the EU and UK? I have a friend coming over from the UK next week and he was wondering how it will affect him. I'm thinking that the EU immigration desks will simply be changed to "EU, EEA & UK", certainly during the transition period, but probably beyond that too. Also, will I now have to bring my full passport when entering the UK instead of my EU card passport?

British people are allowed to use the "EU" lane till December 31st or later if agreed between the UK and the EU.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10871288/ ... checks-eu/

Taking back full control of the border! Johnson delivers, awesome.

Dutchy wrote:

zkojq wrote:

EU Commission building in Brussels last night.

This is not the smart thing to do. The matter will pop-up when it comes.

I also doubt the EU should want it, we should be a more critical of new entrants. EU support in Scotland isn’t very high either compared with mainland Europe. Also Scotland has nice historical cities and nature but the cities are some of the most depressing in Europe with one of the highest suicide and drug abuse rates in Western Europe. I doubt we should give people from such areas the opportunity to work in Europe. At least where I’m from (Amsterdam) Scottish people aren’t known for their social behavior, but rather for continuing the alcohol and drug abuse they’re familiar with at home.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1236415/Brexit-news-EU-meat-tax-sustainability-charge-meat-prices-climate-change-EU-Green-Deal/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Did any of this appear in any Manifestos at last years Euro Elections?

a. why do you care? You are out. (or part of your anyhow)
b. the Green deal was adopted by the EU Parlaiment, thus is democraticly elected.

So what is the problem?

Were voters asked about the Green New Deal? Was it mentioned in any Manifestos?

Did voters ever get a say in whether to implement or not?

You do understand that the EU (and quite a few democracies) don't work with an absolute majority so there is a coalition, so no party can and will do everything written in an election program. Furthermore, things are moving along and you need to adapt to your surroundings, so elect a party on their beliefs and convictions a.k. their world view, not what is written down in a Manifesto. The Green Deal is the end of a process, an integrated plan which takes into account various treaties, the election pledges

To answer your question, yes the voters had a say which course the EU is going to take. So you are trying to bash the EU again without knowledge about their workings.

Jetty wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

This is not the smart thing to do. The matter will pop-up when it comes.

I also doubt the EU should want it, we should be a more critical of new entrants. EU support in Scotland isn’t very high either compared with mainland Europe. Also Scotland has nice historical cities and nature but the cities are some of the most depressing in Europe with one of the highest suicide and drug abuse rates in Western Europe. I doubt we should give people from such areas the opportunity to work in Europe. At least where I’m from (Amsterdam) Scottish people aren’t known for their social behavior, but rather for continuing the alcohol and drug abuse they’re familiar with at home.

Don't know where this comes from, but I certainly don't see this. People flog to Amsterdam to do a lot of things, drugs and alcohol, among it, Femke Halsema wants to do something about it and she should, anyhow that is not the point.

Scottish could move to Amsterdam or anywhere within the EU for that matter if they wished, so what would be different if Scotland would rejoin? So I do not get your line you are taking here. However, I do concur with the EU being more critical of new entrants, Scotland was part of the family, so they could re-enter if they wish, provided they obey all the rules of course, no special status, but that goes without saying.

Dutchy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

This is not the smart thing to do. The matter will pop-up when it comes.

I also doubt the EU should want it, we should be a more critical of new entrants. EU support in Scotland isn’t very high either compared with mainland Europe. Also Scotland has nice historical cities and nature but the cities are some of the most depressing in Europe with one of the highest suicide and drug abuse rates in Western Europe. I doubt we should give people from such areas the opportunity to work in Europe. At least where I’m from (Amsterdam) Scottish people aren’t known for their social behavior, but rather for continuing the alcohol and drug abuse they’re familiar with at home.

Don't know where this comes from, but I certainly don't see this. People flog to Amsterdam to do a lot of things, drugs and alcohol, among it, Femke Halsema wants to do something about it and she should, anyhow that is not the point.

The bad social state of Scotland is well documented: highest suicide rate in Western Europe and by far the highest amount of drug overdoses and alcohol abuse. There's a reason why Trainspotting was staged in Scotland and they don't seem to adjust this behavior when abroad, at least that's what I see with my own eyes.

Scotland - highest suicide rate in the UK: https://www.scotsman.com/health/scotlan ... -1-4996407

As Scotland’s ‘Trainspotting’ Generation Ages, the Dead Pile Up: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/worl ... eaths.html

Scotland out of step with European levels of alcohol related harm: http://www.ias.org.uk/What-we-do/Alcoho ... -harm.aspx

Scottish could move to Amsterdam or anywhere within the EU for that matter if they wished, so what would be different if Scotland would rejoin? So I do not get your line you are taking here. However, I do concur with the EU being more critical of new entrants, Scotland was part of the family, so they could re-enter if they wish, provided they obey all the rules of course, no special status, but that goes without saying.

Not much would be different, but freedom of movement for the Scottish would undo the advantage of the UK leaving the EU. EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

Jetty wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scottish could move to Amsterdam or anywhere within the EU for that matter if they wished, so what would be different if Scotland would rejoin? So I do not get your line you are taking here. However, I do concur with the EU being more critical of new entrants, Scotland was part of the family, so they could re-enter if they wish, provided they obey all the rules of course, no special status, but that goes without saying.

Not much would be different, but freedom of movement for the Scottish would undo the advantage of the UK leaving the EU.

I see no real advantage of the UK leaving, it is bad for the EU and the UK.

Jetty wrote:

EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

EU is also about solidarity, Helping area's to get to a better standard of living. Which in turn helps the richer area's as well because it is a better market to do business in.

Dutchy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

EU is also about solidarity, Helping area's to get to a better standard of living. Which in turn helps the richer area's as well because it is a better market to do business in.

Solidarity within reason: otherwise you could do away with other criteria as well. Even before entry to the EU there are subsidies available to potential candidates to get a country up to reasonable standards, Scotland could make use of those.

Someone gave me a page per day calendar with 'this day in history' and for Jan. 31, it was about the execution of Guy Fawkes in 1606 for his attempt to do a mass murder of Parliament. Funny coincidence as the UK may have executed itself from the EU.
So far, I don't see much change reported from this first stage of Brexit, perhaps it may take a few weeks of months for it to hit.

ltbewr wrote:

Someone gave me a page per day calendar with 'this day in history' and for Jan. 31, it was about the execution of Guy Fawkes in 1606 for his attempt to do a mass murder of Parliament. Funny coincidence as the UK may have executed itself from the EU.
So far, I don't see much change reported from this first stage of Brexit, perhaps it may take a few weeks of months for it to hit.

No change yet, the UK is in the transition period, so still, all rules are in place. Real change will come after the 31rd of December this year.

Jetty wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

EU is also about solidarity, Helping area's to get to a better standard of living. Which in turn helps the richer area's as well because it is a better market to do business in.

Solidarity within reason: otherwise you could do away with other criteria as well. Even before entry to the EU there are subsidies available to potential candidates to get a country up to reasonable standards, Scotland could make use of those.

In general, Scottish are leaning more to the left then Westminster, so if they get independent, you probably will see the shift to more social development. I did not look at the numbers, but I can't believe it would be less economically developed then, let's say Romania or Bulgaria or even Slovenia or Poland.

I would say an independent Scotland can return to the EU, anytime they wish. As can the UK.......

Dutchy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

EU is also about solidarity, Helping area's to get to a better standard of living. Which in turn helps the richer area's as well because it is a better market to do business in.

Solidarity within reason: otherwise you could do away with other criteria as well. Even before entry to the EU there are subsidies available to potential candidates to get a country up to reasonable standards, Scotland could make use of those.

In general, Scottish are leaning more to the left then Westminster, so if they get independent, you probably will see the shift to more social development. I did not look at the numbers, but I can't believe it would be less economically developed then, let's say Romania or Bulgaria or even Slovenia or Poland.

Not economically indeed, but if you look at many social issues they rank as one of the worst in Europe. There's more to life and being in a multilateral union than economics imo.

LJ wrote:

British people are allowed to use the "EU" lane till December 31st or later if agreed between the UK and the EU.

Has nothing been agreed on this yet? Anyone on here been travelling between the UK and EU in the last couple of days who can shed some light on the situation? Also, what is the situation with the passport card?

Dutchy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Scottish could move to Amsterdam or anywhere within the EU for that matter if they wished, so what would be different if Scotland would rejoin? So I do not get your line you are taking here. However, I do concur with the EU being more critical of new entrants, Scotland was part of the family, so they could re-enter if they wish, provided they obey all the rules of course, no special status, but that goes without saying.

Not much would be different, but freedom of movement for the Scottish would undo the advantage of the UK leaving the EU.

I see no real advantage of the UK leaving, it is bad for the EU and the UK.

Jetty wrote:

EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

EU is also about solidarity, Helping area's to get to a better standard of living. Which in turn helps the richer area's as well because it is a better market to do business in.

Jokes and trolling aside dutchy, and no disrespect, it is difficult to understand the mood, feelings and opinion of a country without living in it.

As everyone in the Netherlands likes the EU, but i don’t understand really as I don’t live there.

Dutchy wrote:

Jetty wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

EU is also about solidarity, Helping area's to get to a better standard of living. Which in turn helps the richer area's as well because it is a better market to do business in.

Solidarity within reason: otherwise you could do away with other criteria as well. Even before entry to the EU there are subsidies available to potential candidates to get a country up to reasonable standards, Scotland could make use of those.

In general, Scottish are leaning more to the left then Westminster, so if they get independent, you probably will see the shift to more social development. I did not look at the numbers, but I can't believe it would be less economically developed then, let's say Romania or Bulgaria or even Slovenia or Poland.

I would say an independent Scotland can return to the EU, anytime they wish. As can the UK.......

They probably could, except they’d have to except the Euro and Schengen which they won’t be able too without a hard border with England. The irish/uk border will only be able to work as long as Ireland stay out of Schengen. You will also annoy Spain letting Scotland in as it will increase independence support for Catalonia.

I wonder what the mood between EU leaders is. Should they of given us our concessions?

Scotland is a non topic. Westminster will not allow a new referendum and the EU will not recognize an illegal one.

Arion640 wrote:

I wonder what the mood between EU leaders is. Should they of given us our concessions?

The mood seems rather the opposite: the UK is the ultimate proof that concessions are not effective. Like when you try to educate a spoiled brat.

Braybuddy wrote:

LJ wrote:

British people are allowed to use the "EU" lane till December 31st or later if agreed between the UK and the EU.

Has nothing been agreed on this yet? Anyone on here been travelling between the UK and EU in the last couple of days who can shed some light on the situation? Also, what is the situation with the passport card?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51194363

Note, the transition period leaves much "as is", thus I reckon the BBC is correct on this one. The same for EHIC and many other EU programs.

Olddog wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I wonder what the mood between EU leaders is. Should they of given us our concessions?

The mood seems rather the opposite: the UK is the ultimate proof that concessions are not effective. Like when you try to educate a spoiled brat.

You’ll never know what the bureaucrats think.

LJ wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

LJ wrote:

British people are allowed to use the "EU" lane till December 31st or later if agreed between the UK and the EU.

Has nothing been agreed on this yet? Anyone on here been travelling between the UK and EU in the last couple of days who can shed some light on the situation? Also, what is the situation with the passport card?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51194363

Note, the transition period leaves much "as is", thus I reckon the BBC is correct on this one. The same for EHIC and many other EU programs.

Thanks for that.

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I wonder what the mood between EU leaders is. Should they of given us our concessions?

The mood seems rather the opposite: the UK is the ultimate proof that concessions are not effective. Like when you try to educate a spoiled brat.

You’ll never know what the bureaucrats think.

You seriously need to wake up from that absurd propaganda nonsense: European "bureaucrats" are simply the analog to the UK civil service (just much less numerous!) plus appointed and confirmed cabinet positions (in the Commission) who are accountable to the Council and to the Parliament. They have no major decision powers on their own without backing by elected politicians, contrary to what you seem to believe.

Actual major decisions are made by the elected national leaders in the Council and in the elected Parliament, not by those imaginary "bureaucrats" you seem to be so fascinated with but which actually don't exist the way you think they do.

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The mood seems rather the opposite: the UK is the ultimate proof that concessions are not effective. Like when you try to educate a spoiled brat.

You’ll never know what the bureaucrats think.

You seriously need to wake up from that absurd propaganda nonsense: European "bureaucrats" are simply the analog to the UK civil service (just much less numerous!) plus appointed and confirmed cabinet positions (in the Commission) who are accountable to the Council and to the Parliament. They have no major decision powers on their own without backing by elected politicians, contrary to what you seem to believe.

Actual major decisions are made by the elected national leaders in the Council and in the elected Parliament, not by those imaginary "bureaucrats" you seem to be so fascinated with but which actually don't exist the way you think they do.

Sorry to disappoint you Klaus. But they do exist. Everyone knows it.

JJJ wrote:

Big business increasingly angry at Brexit platitudes.

Boss of FTSE packaging giant DS Smith urges the Government: Don't paper over Brexit cracks
The man behind Amazon delivery boxes is nervous about Britain's future relationship with the EU
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ont-paper/

It’s not often you see the boss of a FTSE 100 firm doing an impression of the trade secretary as an open-mouthed goldfish.

But it’s a measure of the exasperation Miles Roberts, chief executive of DS Smith, feels about the Government’s lack of clarity on Britain’s future trading relationship with the EU.

“We said to Liz Truss, ‘The opportunities, please, where are they?’ She said, ‘There are lots.’ I said, ‘Fantastic, please, where? Please, because we want to invest.’

“‘Yes, there are lots,’ she said. ‘What do you mean by lots?’

“‘Many.’” Cue his take on the goldfish.

So it seems that speaking to high-level officials in the Government is no different to discussing with Brexiteers on an anonymous internet forum. Lots of slogans, no substance.

I was particularly intrigued by his revelation that his company has only spent £30 million since 2016 in the U.K. on CAPEX and acquisitions out of a total £4.5 BILLION and he foresees that to shrink further now.

It matches my own company’s investment decision, as we have both a U.K. division and a Netherlands division that services the entire European market. We recently invested $58 million into our growing operations there. We invested 100% of it in the Netherlands specifically because of the Brexit problem.

At our leadership meeting last week there was talk of now right sizing our operations in the U.K. and Europe, which mean 500 jobs now in the U.K. will be slashed by 320 employees and the Netherlands to staff up by about that many, taking the Netherlands up over 1000 employees.

ltbewr wrote:

Someone gave me a page per day calendar with 'this day in history' and for Jan. 31, it was about the execution of Guy Fawkes in 1606 for his attempt to do a mass murder of Parliament. Funny coincidence as the UK may have executed itself from the EU.

Indeed.

So far, I don't see much change reported from this first stage of Brexit, perhaps it may take a few weeks of months for it to hit.

There are a few more asterisks to "nothing much changes", though:

a) The EU can only ask other third countries to treat the UK as if it was still an EU member during the transition phase in 2020, but it actually can't decide that because the EU has made its treaties only on behalf of its actual members and cannot randomly add any third countries to its scope (which is what the UK is now, too).

So some of those other third countries might not go along with that and slap tariffs on UK exports even now and the EU won't enforce its request in any major way: The UK is mostly on its own in this.

I would expect that most will indeed accomodate the UK (not least because as long as the UK also continues to satisfy all the same EU regulations the other country really doesn't run any additional risk either), but that is still not assured but dependent on sheer goodwill on the part of the other third country.

b) If the UK government should choose to violate the terms of the transition phase agreement by violating EU rules and regulations it remains bound to throughout 2020, there could be repercussions and penalties up to premature termination of the transition phase and all the EU benefits connected to it.

Unfortunately that possibility isn't entirely academic given the hostile grandstanding this government is so fond of.

So probably there won't be any major changes during 2020, but that is actually not a given – the ice isn't particularly thick Boris is skating on now...!

Arion640 wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you Klaus. But they do exist. Everyone knows it.

Unelected european bureaucrats have no major decision powers any more than UK ones do.

You've been lied to about that, but it seems you're clinging to that lie because without it your Brexit vote looks just like what it is: A severe, self-harming mistake.

Arion640 wrote:

As everyone in the Netherlands likes the EU, but i don’t understand really as I don’t live there.

Sure. Just as Geert Wilders about that while you're at it!

Your oversimplifications continue to serve you badly.

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you Klaus. But they do exist. Everyone knows it.

Unelected european bureaucrats have no major decision powers any more than UK ones do.

You've been lied to about that, but it seems you're clinging to that lie because without it your Brexit vote looks just like what it is: A severe, self-harming mistake.

President of the EU commission - not elected by the people!

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you Klaus. But they do exist. Everyone knows it.

Unelected european bureaucrats have no major decision powers any more than UK ones do.

You've been lied to about that, but it seems you're clinging to that lie because without it your Brexit vote looks just like what it is: A severe, self-harming mistake.

That’s fine Klaus, we understand Europe have brain washed you. One day, you too will be liberated.

Arion640 wrote:

They probably could, except they’d have to except the Euro and Schengen which they won’t be able too without a hard border with England.

The Euro has nothing to do with a hard border. The Republic of Ireland has had it all along and there still wasn't a hard border with Northern Ireland and its British Pound. And there are still a few other EU member countries without the Euro and they don't have hard borders either.

The border issue has to do with rule and regulation conformity or divergence, and England will have its hands full with its own borders in that respect.

The irish/uk border will only be able to work as long as Ireland stay out of Schengen.

Boris has ditched Theresa May's red lines and erected a border across the Irish Sea, so that's already done and the intra-irish border is less of a problem any more.

You will also annoy Spain letting Scotland in as it will increase independence support for Catalonia.

Spain continues to have a veto against accession of an independent Catalonia. The UK has just thrown away its own veto, so the path is now clear for an independent Scotland's accession to start.

seahawk wrote:

President of the EU commission - not elected by the people!

He/she is elected by the elected national leaders in the Council and needs to be confirmed by the elected Parliament.

And by the way: He/she indeed doesn't have any major decision powers!

Most european national leaders are also not elected directly by the people but indirectly by their respective parliaments, but they still have full democratic legitimacy and accountability that way.

The President of the European Commission is effectively on the same level as an appointed cabinet minister, just that he/she is appointed jointly by all heads of national member governments, not just by one head of government alone.

There is still a full path of legitimacy and accountability through the elected heads of governments, and they are the ones who actually make the main decisions in the European Union – the Commission President then executes those decisions and can never act outside his/her mandate given by the Council.

Arion640 wrote:

That’s fine Klaus, we understand Europe have brain washed you. One day, you too will be liberated.

I have verifiable facts on my side. Your claims keep crumbling on contact with the facts.

Unfortunately for you this is not an arbitrary matter of opinions but a matter of hard and verifiable facts.

And with the way back now cut off, brexiters are switching to full 1930s mode, consistent with their rethoric all along:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ak-english

No surprise there, but at least some of us still know where this kind of thing tends to end up...!

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The mood seems rather the opposite: the UK is the ultimate proof that concessions are not effective. Like when you try to educate a spoiled brat.

You’ll never know what the bureaucrats think.

You seriously need to wake up from that absurd propaganda nonsense: European "bureaucrats" are simply the analog to the UK civil service (just much less numerous!) plus appointed and confirmed cabinet positions (in the Commission) who are accountable to the Council and to the Parliament. They have no major decision powers on their own without backing by elected politicians, contrary to what you seem to believe.

Actual major decisions are made by the elected national leaders in the Council and in the elected Parliament, not by those imaginary "bureaucrats" you seem to be so fascinated with but which actually don't exist the way you think they do.

Yes and civil servants don't really care one way or the other what happens, they have a job they do it.

My company builds stuff. Buildings, roads, bridges, tunnels. I work in IT, managing the phones and videoconferencing systems. Whether the company builds this or that, get that contract instead of that one, doesn't change my job at all.

Aesma wrote:

Yes and civil servants don't really care one way or the other what happens, they have a job they do it.

Of course making any public service anywhere working correctly and in the interests of its community will always remain important, but that necessity is the same anywhere and not special for the EU.

By the way: The size of the EU bureaucracy is massively overestimated by most people – it's actually just about as much as that of any larger european city, not even close to the absurd misrepresentations of an allegedly super-sized monster sucking the continent dry and suffocating everything. In reality it's actually quite lean and efficient.

To the Scotland issue:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -to-rejoin

Tusk: EU would be enthusiastic if Scotland applied to rejoin

[...]

Alyn Smith, the SNP MP and former MEP who championed Scotland’s case in Brussels, said Tusk’s remarks proved “Scotland would be welcomed back into the EU with open arms as an independent country. What senior Europeans are saying in public is what they have been saying in private for some time.”

No surprise there, and there won't be a veto. Even Spain has made that clear some time ago already.

Klaus wrote:

And with the way back now cut off, brexiters are switching to full 1930s mode, consistent with their rethoric all along:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ak-english

No surprise there, but at least some of us still know where this kind of thing tends to end up...!

Racism is not confined to the UK, that incident was report to the police as a hate crime and is being investigated accordingly as such. It would be helpful if you produce all the facts of the matter not just selective reporting to brand all pro leave supporters as racist. Yes and we are well awere of history in which I imagine you are referring too and the master race.