Nah, don't believe you. You know why? That's the 3rd time I asked you today and you didn't mention it, and in the 2 years since Brexit that's the first time I've seen you mention it.

But, [size=110IF[/size it's true, and you studied the EU at one of our universities stuffed full of left-wing liberal agenda-driven academics, then it's no wonder you're brainwashed.

But I'll humour you. Tell me, where will the EU be in 50 years?


The EU is the representative name of the union. Or do you want me to individually mention each institution and nation every time? I'm well aware of the structure and constitution of the EU thank you.

Why on earth are you talking about it being scary? Christ alive. I'm not 'scared' of it, I simply don't agree with the ideology that drives it, nor where it's heading. I don't like their 'pillars' and I don't like the views of its leaders since inception, and I don't like the way their leaders have openly belittled and mocked the UK since we first proposed reform, I think I've mentioned this about a squillion times.

50 years - that is a long-ass time, especially with ever faster social and technological change, so I think we need to provide a range. Somewhere between ecologically distressed white ethnostate and nuclear fusion fuelled liberal-leaning leisure paradise, most likely.

Nobody knows, do they? Soldiers returning from the First World War couldn’t foresee the Cold War, the Apollo missions, or hippies and free love, and those hippies in turn probably weren’t expecting the likes of Trump and Johnson as prominent leaders of the anglosphere.

Oh God, here we go again. Where on earth do you get your news from, our fellow EU members have bent over backwards to give the UK opt outs, rebates and preferential treatment. Just because whatever media you consume leaves you misinformed, doesn't make it reality.

Just because you interpret things one way doesn’t mean it is correct. The EU have never bent over backwards to give the UK a better deal they have been pushed to concede by previous forceful leaders particularly Thatcher. The have conceded because some billions is better than no billions - the EU is not the benevolent entity you paint it out to be.

Is that the same PM who voted down May's deal (twice) and helped ensure that she resigned - so that he could put himself forward for PM.

As for people like me. Yes, I voted remain - there is no secret about that and from day on, I, along with many others, suggested that it would be impossible to keep the same benefits outside the EU that we currently "enjoy" and it's quite right for MP's to try and keep the PM and the "leave" side to their promise of a no hard border in Ireland, no contributions to the EU and most of all a free trade deal.

So far, this government, along with the previous government, havent been able to reach consensus among its cabinet or it's own MP's, never mind coming close to satisfying the rest of Parliament or the wider population.

I'll take the perceived intellectual superiority though, as right now, at least I was bright enough to know that we were being lied to and conned, something which Boris has continued to do in spades, since becoming to PM and some people couldnt spot the lies - the clue was when you saw his lips move.



You still see people on TV being interviewed that didn't know that there were 2 parts of Ireland or, different products had tariffs applied as they come into the country etc, etc, etc
However, the one absolute certainty is that NOBODY knew what they were voting for as this will only become known if/when a deal is agreed.

If he (Boris) can get remotely close to what was promised by the leave campaign, there may still be a chance of getting a deal through Parliament after the next election but, having dismissed 21 of his own MP's, there is no chance of him passing anything through Parliament for now, not even a recess for his own party conference - yet another misjudgement by the country's new leader.

Fundamentally, if the PM is prepared to break the law to get his own way, why should ANYONE try and abide to the laws that currently exist

He didn't break the law.

I think you will find that he did.
It's all a bit technical but, he broke constitutional law and not criminal law.

Look it up, it's a right riveting read.

Yes, we won a few minor reforms but others were firmly rejected. And nothing of major importance changed.

Anyway, my comment didn't refer to that. It referred to the language of the EU even when Cameron was seeking reforms. Since 2015 we've been belittled, insulted and generally treated like sh-t. Granted, they've had to listen to UKIP in the EP and watch our ludicrous Parliament, but their tone was clear even before the referendum. We are the rich, disliked but grudgingly tolerated, unsophisticated and uncouth cousins of 'true' Europe.

You should watch 'Paxman in Brussels' (it's on Youtube). It wasn't the decider for me by far, but it shone a stark light on a few truths.

And I'll try again, albeit with a short timespan: where do you see the EU in 30 years? Bearing in mind the ultimate goals of it's earliest founders...

All that, and that's the only thing you comment on?

I bet you've got a great posting history in the Daily Mail and Daily Express echo chambers.

We already had, and have, a favourable deal in the first place.

Honestly, you Brexiteers never cease to amaze. You think you're being insulted because you read some propaganda in the hard right press and decide it's worth destroying our economy for. What a total and utter snowflake.

They'll probably continue to tweak rules so that trade becomes even more barrier free, continue to do trade deals with other large blocs. But here's the problem with conspiracy-ridden Brexiteers: you just paranoidly assume this monolithic monster is out to destroy Britondom on some pre-determined plan. You just can't see that the EU is a collection of member states behind which sit the governments and behind which sit the people. Everything depends on how politics moves.

Over the past 20 years, pushed ironically enough by Britain, the EU has become rather right wing in lots of ways with the application of British-style free markets into lots of areas which probably aren't appropriate. Hence for example other countries have split up their railways into track owning and operational entities, just like us, because it lets companies from across Europe to be able to freely bid on operations.

But there's now a general move to the left in politics amongst younger people so the EU will probably reflect that a bit more. It won't change the fundamentals, which are a trading bloc where goods can move quickly and easily for mutual benefit to all members, because, you know, that's a foundation stone upon which our and their prosperity is built and it would be insane to fundamentally tamper with, or leave, it. But it may instead focus on, for example, more help for the poorest areas or encouraging greater collaboration on climate change etc. But forgive me if I guess what your views on the last two topics are.

Quote ="King Street Cat"All that, and that's the only thing you comment on? I bet you've got a great posting history in the Daily Mail and Daily Express echo chambers.'" as said before, I don't read any right wing media, I just see the facts as they are. And wrencat1873, I am aware of the differences in legality, summed up quite well by Channel 4. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -explained

Quote ="King Street Cat"All that, and that's the only thing you comment on? I bet you've got a great posting history in the Daily Mail and Daily Express echo chambers.'" as said before, I don't read any right wing media, I just see the facts as they are. And wrencat1873, I am aware of the differences in legality, summed up quite well by Channel 4. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -explained

I think we might find his inability to keep his nob in his pants led him to commit a criminal offence while mayor.

I doubt that very much what is for certain his use/misuse will pale into insignificance when compared to the antics of Livinstone.

What I don’t understand is if being a member of the EU is great why don’t the EU teach us a short sharp lesson. Let us go with no deal and then we will surely encounter the Armageddon you so confidently predict and we will then coming running back with our tails between our legs on a deal much more preferable to the EU?

Always a negative to break a deal up on bad terms. A lot of people are not happy with comments like Tusk’s hell etc and if we do leave there will need to be another vote to go back in?

Could it be the EU really needs our money and that is the bottom line here

*Bangs head on desk*

You still think the EU is some monster. They aren't interested in "teaching us a lesson" FFS. They will collaterally be affected by our chaos, especially the Republic of Ireland, whose interests have been paramount from their position throughout this mess.

And honestly, your whataboutism is staggering. Brexiteers come up with all sorts of pseudo-racist, mostly outlandish, generally tremendously unpleasant comments about EU and EU leaders but as soon as Tusk makes a little joke or makes a very reasonable prediction of the likely future you are into full on snowflake mode and crying like Robert Hicks has just ruled out a try without checking with the video ref. It's unbelievable, staggering hypocrisy.

As for "the money". You really think EU leaders are hooked up to British money like a drip. It's just such a total misunderstanding of the situation, of how politics works and of how small an amount of money it is in the overall scheme of things that I don't think there's much hope for you.

So why are they so keen for us to stay - something you have yet to address - and yes you are not the only one banging their head on the desk - your complete adoration for the EU has blinded you views your comments and most of your logic which simply doesn’t add up. As you say there is simply no hope for you

Nope, it failed because the Tories couldn't get their house in order.

They had a majority in the house, thanks to the D.U.P. bribe, they shouldn't have to rely on the opposition to get it over the line.

Why should opposition M.P's. who were given no input into said deal, bail out a fractured Government?

Well as I mentioned they would receive be collateral damage, especially ROI, from our departure. There is going to be economic harm on all sides from Britain leaving, especially without a deal. But the intransigent approach of the current government has made negotiating very difficult.

But moreover they view us as obvious trading partners, fellow democracies, keepers of the European peace and neighbours who by any sense would be, and are, part of the same trading bloc. We also bring more scale to the EU which helps us project on a world stage beyond what we could do alone or incrementally what they will be able to do without us.

We have been behind most of the EU's strategic decisions in the past couple of decades, from having a twin track approach in certain areas to embedding free market ideology at the heart of the EU to, most of all, EU expansion which was triumphed by Thatcher and Major. In other words, Britain is one of the leaders so of course they are sad to see us go.


I'm not in thrall to the EU. I just understand how the modern world works, which is a series of huge trading blocs. Being outside one, least of all being outside one on WTO terms which is preposterous and hugely damaging economically.

The UK has prospered so much since it entered and has steered the EU in a positive way for our country. There are things which can be done better, much as there are in any democracy and any bureaucracy, but chucking it all away for totally spurious reasons is the height of irresponsibility. And every reason I've seen has been spurious, from the money on the bus to foreign workers taking benefits to lies about EU regulations right down to "Tusk was rude about us".

I just don't understand where some people get the "love in" with Europe. I voted remain because I thought it better for us at the time, seeing how the EU has behaved has made me reconsider that. The EU are desparate for our money, it greases the wheels of the gravy train!

Trying not to cover the same ground as ‘99 too much, this question leads to different answers depending on your view of the EU, and so for those of us with a less negative or even borderline positive attitude to it, this isn’t a powerful point.

Framing it along the lines of ‘Given that the EU is a malign adversary that wishes to grind the UK beneath its Federalist jackboot, surely they’d chuck us out with no deal if that was really so bad.’ hits the problem that many of us find that characterisation of the EU a bit ridiculous.

For me the EU’s key objectives in managing Brexit from their side are:

1. Protect the interests of the remaining members, by minimising disruption
2. Be fair to other nations outside the EU by ensuring the new relationship is consistent with what has been done elsewhere, based on how close the UK decides that new relationship should be
3. Maintain as positive a relationship with the UK as possible to allow partnerships where desired by both parties in the future, smoothing the way for a trade deal of some sort etc.
4. Linking back to points 1 and 3, offer a deal to the UK that doesn’t damage it unnecessarily, but which is (a little, but clearly) worse than membership of the EU to discourage other members from following its path - not as punishment, but to protect its own integrity.

Based on those assumptions, I find it very easy to understand the EU’s position.

Which EU actions have surprised or disappointed you?

There have been a couple of presentational things, but in terms of the deal offered, surely that was utterly predictable in light of the UK’s position to almost everybody... except David Davis perhaps.

I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.

Quote ="Lilfatman"I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.'" I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Quote ="Lilfatman"I have mentioned a few times that one of the EUs first requirement when we joined was we had to destroy a number of orchards. I would think that was to protect the French fruit farmers.It struck me at the time how vindictive.'" I’ve done a quick search, and it sounds like incentives were put in place across all member countries to grub up orchards to avoid over production. Is that what you’re referring to? It doesn’t sound like a plan deserving of unquestioning support, and there may well have been negative consequences. But it wasn’t a requirement, it applied to/was available to all member countries (except where the UK uniquely adopted a different definition, according to the Guardian, see below), and doesn’t seem to have been in any way vindictive. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/br ... -the-chop/ https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 32706.html https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... redspecies https://www.sustainweb.org/orchards/project_background/

Sigh.
[url=https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/british-apple-trees-facing-the-chop/Euromyths: British apple trees facing the chop[/url

I take your points - I disagree that we have been at the forefront off EU development and progress - our influence has been inconsequential Blair took office. I think quite the reverse we have adopted far more of the EU dictats than us influencing the decisions made in Brussels. This is the crux of the matter - we have no influence and have to accept we are at the mercy of the EU law/decision makers.

How would you say the EU have pushed things on economically in the past 10 years - what great moves have they made that justifies the huge cost of its being? How is the trade deal with the US going?

I agree about the UK being demanding - it is exactly what I would expect. Why would we want to stay in the single market and the customs union with the even limited influence we have and the financial cost of doing so.

Finally how is that a host of countries not in the EU and smaller/bigger than the UK can quite happily survive trading with the EU on WTO terms without suffering the economic Armegedon you are suggesting the UK will experience outside of the EU?