Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by FrenchTart, Sep 11, 2016.
No GE reset of the Parliamentary arithmetic then...
Much as politicians and the Bank of England take decisions all the time focusing on the few and not the many? No political or financial system is fair to all your just throwing in some arbitrary national boundaries!
now that would be a strange day at the office, it’s a good time to be the next Lib Dem leader fingers crossed they get someone charismatic and under retirement age!
Does Brexit remove UK citizen's ability to receive free/subsidised healthcare in Europe?
Does Brexit remove UK citizen's ability to work overseas in Europe without any issue?
Does Brexit remove UK citizen's ability to access huge EU funding pots to stimulate and revive damaged and ignored areas of the country that Westminister are keen to let rot?
I can go on all day. Keep your ignorant head buried if you will, but at least wake up and take ownership of the damage that Brexit has, and will do. There is no happy ending here, unless we later rejoin (if we leave).
Just another dumb soundbite from the hard of thinking.
I was agreeing with @MrJack's post above mine who replied to
You came to the wrong conclusion. My history of posts in this forum show I am a staunch Remainer.
Quite a few posters mis-reading Ron’s post.
In the case of a No Deal? Yes.
With a deal? Harder to predict but EHIC would certainly still be valid during the transition period.
The government has said it would like to continue EHIC even after we’ve left.
Define ‘issue’. Obviously we wouldn’t have access to visa-free work but it’s not as though we wouldn’t be able to live and work in the EU. I say this as someone who has a high likelihood of living and working in Germany.
Please don’t misconstrue my above comments as in any way being pro-Brexit. I’m simply pointing out that I wouldn’t use those two particular points as the worst things about Brexit.
As @Caracus2k pointed out earlier, there is a tendency towards the hysterical at times in this thread and sometimes a bit of balance is useful.
I apologise, but it certainly didn’t read that way!
My points still stand for advocates of Leave though
Might help if you alluded to what your on about?
Joining th EU is voluntary. For new members commiting to join the Euro isnt so no contradiction.
Accepting the Euro is now a condition of joining the EU - just like the other rules - and joining the EU is voluntary so all conditions included in joining the EU are voluntary. Conditions of joining cannot be imposed, because joining cannot be imposed.
For every country that is using, or will be using, the Euro, agreeing to join the Euro is voluntary. The EU has not (and, in fact, cannot) imposed the Euro on anyone. Your initial statement was objectively wrong.
You are being rather ridiculous.
You seemingly agree with my point now that collective policies for differing groups means that thoose policies may beneficial to some and not others.
This should be self evident.
The question is will policies written for over 500 million people (EU) or a bit over 66 million (UK) result in more or less people likely to be negatively affected?
Compund this with a situation where the individual counties sometimes have monetary union but crucially don't have full economic union then you have a recipe for some really quite stark differences from sharing a commom currency.
The UK can somewhat better manage regional differences a there is much more economic integration with the UK then the EU than the EU
Its like banging nails in with your forehead around here.....
Conditions can and are imposed as a requirement of joining the EU.
This doesn't mean any country is forced to join the EU.
I suspect the mains reason the EU isn't 'pushing' the euro angle on current states commited but not in is the issues that the currency has already caused.
You seem to have lost the thread, let's go back to your original, entirely false, claim: @Caracus2k said "One example is the imposition of the Euro on most of the EU". This is entirely untrue - no country has had the Euro imposed on it - because once again with feeling: every country that uses, or will use, the Euro has chosen to adopt it.
Joining conditions are agreed, not imposed.
You really need to take you argument up with the EU directly because they don't agree with you.
Unless the word 'required' means something different to you then the rest of the English speaking world?
As above is suspect the only reason the EU isn't pushing the matter is the issues the Euro and irrevocably handing over monetary control to the ECB has already caused some member states.
"The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to Member States to develop their own strategies for meeting the condition for euro adoption. The Treaty does not specify a particular timetable for joining the euro area, but leaves it to Member States to develop their own strategies for meeting the condition for euro adoption. "
You said "One example is the imposition of the Euro on most of the EU". Do you even understand what the word "imposition" means? Because your latest post is a complete non sequitur.
given that you seem to struggle with the far simpler word 'required' I don't think you should really be pontificating on big boy/girl words like 'imposition'
Let's try this one more time, because you really seem to be struggling.
Your bizarre non sequitur in post #81783 implies you've failed to follow the simple argument in my posts. So, to help you out, I'll clear up your apparent difficulty: I have not said that new states are not required to join the Euro. Okay, are you able to understand that? Please confirm so we can avoid wasting more time on basic reading comprehension.
Now, you said "One example is the imposition of the Euro on most of the EU". I'm sorry to keep repeating the claim we're discussing, but you seem unable to focus on your actual claim.
In order for something to be an imposition, the body it is being imposed on must not be choosing to do the thing imposed. In this case the parties are the EU and some country now in the EU, and the thing being imposed is the Euro. In order for it to be the case that it is not an imposition (i.e. that your claim is false), all that is required is that the country chose to join the Euro. For the initial members of the Euro this was trivially true, they all agreed to join. For new members, they are now required to join as a condition of entry to the EU, but - and here's the thing - joining the EU is entirely voluntary so joining the Euro is also entirely voluntary as they can choose not to join the Euro by choosing to join the EU.
Was that too much for you to understand? Which part of this simple chain of reasoning is it that you are struggling with?
This is exactly why Brexit has not happened, simply criticising the EU continually often based on false premises means you never get round to the real world detailed Brexit plan which explains the benefits and how to mitigate the costs of Brexit for a clearly defined version of brexit which both the UK and EU agree to.
This is the main thing stopping brexit, never actually discussing brexit.
You're the sort of person who would buy a phone for £40 and then moan that they forced a £40 per month contract on you, aren't you.
If you think the word imposition is a big bog/girl word then that probably tells people all they need to know.
Separate names with a comma.