holystove

this is the interview that started it all. Questions asked in French, answered by Rom in Dutch .. awkward body language.

I was thinking she is using threat of "independence" as a bargaining tool to get a soft(-er) brexit. .

Wouldnt such a thing result in richer regions voting out the poorer ones? Should the London area get a vote to throw out northren England? .. slippery slope.

I think right now they depend on "English" money to save their budget.. they can't really afford to break up the UK. EU money would only marginally help them as it won't be as much as they get from the UK right now. Also it would be a huge gamble if they can join the EU because every current member has a veto on new members.. what if a crazy eastern EU country blocks Scotland? .. their only hope is if they can quit the UK before brexit and retain the UK EU-membership, which would also be a huge gamble. Romey is right, they would be under an obligation to adopt the EURO (as is the obligation of every new member after 2002). Might not be the best time to change currency when your old currency has just dropped 20% in worth.. maybe first hope for some recovery of the pound? (unless Sturgeon is convinced the £ will become increasingly worthless). To conclude, they won't do it .

I think it's doubtful they break up UK. I'm with Liam Fox on this. He tweeted today: "Absurd to think that Scotland would vote against their economic interests on account of abstract notions such as "Sovereignty"." (fine, it might be a spoof account).

The EU has as a core principle to centralise as little as possible, and only acts when it is more effective and efficient to do so, as opposed to regions or countries acting on their own. There is much more centralisation at the country level. France, for example, is extremely centralised with Paris deciding everything (even the smalles issues) from Calais to Nice. So my point would be that a centralised government is more intrusive than the EU would be, because the EU would only regulate when it has the competence to do so, and when it is of added value that it acts. When a supranational or international organisation does act, within its competence, it is inevitable that its action is a result of compromise. So the two exist next to each other. Anyway this is only in regards to what Steve said about cultural identity and is not really that big an issue, imo, in regards to brexit. I'm just trying to understand the threat of the EU to local cultures or regional identity.

Belgian press now reporting he doesn't want to sign the new contract (against the advise of Raiola) because there is no buy-out clause.. If that is the case, it's an easy fix. Lukaku (over)values himself so he would sign if there is a 100m buy out clause (which surely noone will pay), believing 100m is his real worth and actually thinking it's a compliment of Everton to rate him so highly.

I understand what you mean. But surely international (or supranational) cooperation requires some compromise. In your example of labour laws, there was probably harmonisation needed between French, Dutch, German, UK, regulation, the end result being something with elements of different systems. The only definitive way for the EU to respect British culture is to apply all British rules on the entire continent, but obviously that wouldn't sit well with other members. I think the EU does the maximum it can to respect local culture, and as a vehicle for cooperation is a better protector of local culture than Countries, which as you have adequately described were often times arbitrarily created (Belgium being a prime example).

Yes I agree with this as well. Are the people that are in favour of Brexit still afraid it won't happen and therefor don't want any dissenting opinions? To me, another important problem with the "let's get behind it' movement is the focus on hard brexit. I'm in favour of brexit, but not a hard one. There are many different ways to brexit. I'm a clear proponent of maximum cooperation, I just wanted to get rid of the feared 'British veto'. I wonder what would happen if two brexiteers meet and one of them wants the UK out of the EU but in the Single Market, and the other one wants a hard brexit. Will they both use the argument "will of the people" to support their view?

Seen him play a few times. Imo a good buy at 7-9m, but definitely not more.

That's settled then.

I agree with almost everything you wrote, I just disagree with the conclusion regarding the EU. The EU very clearly stays away from rulemaking on anthing related to language and culture. As it is a supranational organisation, and there is no cultural homogenity within its borders, it has no competence, nor reason, to act on these matters. The principle that the EU doesn't act in these local matters is a specific constitutional principle of EU law, which illustrates its importance. (as a side note: regions are also represented in the EU in the important advisory board "Committee of the Regions", which I assume has a Cornish member). The EU is supposed to only act in the fields where there is a clear common goal among its members (free trade, environment, security, ..) and because in those fields I feel my objectives align with the Swedes, the Dutch, I don't feel (culturally) threatened when the EU does act in those fields. Now, it could be that the EU passed regulation on something it thought to be within its competence, and possibly this regulation had an impact on the cultural identity of a certain region in Europe. But of the top of my head I can't think of any. Quite to the contrary, I can think of a few examples where the EU restricted its own goal to create a fully integrated Single Market, by protecting local products such as the Cornish Pastry. Can you give an example that made you conclude the EU doesn't respect the heterogenous nature of Europe?

some good games tonight. Roma vs Lyon looks promising.

do we have any French members?

who outside of some commonwealth countries actually play cricket? sport is pretty much non-existant in most places. I think it's closer between cricket and rugby, but think even rugby has a bigger following.

Appreciate the sentiment Rubes but to me it's not about that. It's wrong to think about the EU in terms of Statism. The EU is the supranational level, a country is a national level, then you have regions, communities, neighbourhoods etc. I think the EU is useful because I think it is the right level to act on issues such as human rights, environment, economic cooperation, security, etc .. Ideally some of those issues would even be decided at a global level instead of just European, but obviously the world is nowhere near ready for that. At the other end of the spectrum, it is me and my neighbour who get to decide what type of hedge will divide our yard . I don't get why the level 'country' is so important to some people as it is just another level of pooled sovereignty where institutions have the competence to act in certain areas. Now I do understand how some people think it is too soon to transfer competences from one level to another (for example from country to EU) but that's why on major transfers of compentences in the EU, every country has a veto or at the very least an 'opt-out' possibility. (The reason I am pro-brexit is because the UK is using this option too much but if supranational cooperation is not your thing that's OK.) Cornish-Steve said earlier in this thread that he identifies with being Cornish and will never swear allegiance to a flag. I couldn't agree more with such a sentiment. So as far as US of E goes, I don't see that ever happening, because who would want that. The concept of the nation state is of the 20th century, not this one. And yes, the fact that puts me on exactly the other side to Wilders and Le Pen, only further convinces me, and, no, Wilders and Le Pen will not gain power in their country. (Wilders is polling at 14% with noone willing to join him in a coalition, Le Pen is set to loose by about 20% in the 2nd round of voting in France).

Childish name calling..... You didnt call him a loser but you did call him a supporter of a failed, corrupted, nazi dictatorship. Anyway, I do wonder about these benefits of brexit we're supposed to be seeing. Would those few companies you mentioned not have invested in the UK without brexit? Arent they saying they invest because they dont fear brexit..

surely brexit is as much about EU as it is about UK and a successful brexit will be beneficial to both parties, so people from other member states do have a stake in it. should the Trump thread be closed as well? if someone happens to be born in Monaco, is that person only allowed to have an opinion on prince Albert and nothing else?

Rusty, that article is about an EU employee who was dismissed because he desribed the EU in a way that a court of law found to be "aggressive, derogatory and insulting". Nothing is stopping him from continuing to express that sentiment as a private citizen. Surely you can't go from that to nazi germany If I used the same logic, what should I deduce from the fact that Liam Fox demands that government contractors first express their love for Brexit before being granted a contract? (http://www.cityam.com/260125/liam-fox-facing-questions-over-demands-government)... Regarding the EU, I truely believe you are very opinionated on an issue you know very little about, but I respect your passion.

what?

Every country in the EU has an economy that has benefited from the single market. Belgium has a very open economy so I would assume we, indeed, aren't about to shoot ourselves in the foot by leaving it. I understand British euroscepticism and it's why I was hoping for Leave to win. I have only replied to his statements I thought to be factually incorrect. Can you be a Euroscpetic without comparing the EU to Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, ..?

I have in my replies to you never posted anything that I didn't think was factually correct. I haven't critized your preference for brexit, as that is an opinion which you have every right to have. I have disagreed with your assessment of the value of foreigners, of how you describe the EU, etc.. and backed that up with actual facts. I'm actually quite shocked you would describe yourself as open minded.. maybe re-read some of your own posts? I don't think you have presented other facts/analysis, other than conversations with people you know, which could form the basis of a discussion on a certain issue. Yes but it's a 45 billion that wasn't there in the first place. If only he had forecast he would have needed 400 billion, then he now would have had an extra 200 billion to spend... I don't see how any rational human being would want the UK to fail post-brexit. I certainly don't. But that doesn't mean everyone has to just agree with the current path to brexit this government has chosen. I'm also still convinced that if May keeps her current hard stance, brexit will a failure.

Peter H has already explained the rape thing based on stats rather than based on the opinion of some people he knows (even if he can point to as much as three swedish families as a sample size) .. About the "westmonster" (which is a UKIP website by the way) article: In the Autumn Statement last November borrowing was projected to be over 230 billion £ between 2016-2017 and 2020-2021. That figure has now been adjusted to a number 45 billion £ lower. That however does not mean you have an extra 45 billion to spend, it just means you have to borrow less. Also, Sweden has the highest tax compliance rate in Europe and that article about reintroducing national service says nothing about it being because of immigrants, nothing.

Alright I'm sorry I misjudged your mood when I read you describing the EU as "a liberal elitist dictatorship, top heavy with gravy training failed domestic politicians" that is also "manipulative, self serving, unethical, impractical idealism, political correctness gone mad" and is responsible for letting in "foreign workers whose only contribution to Boston has been to get it installed as the per capita murder capital of UK." That does sound like a very happy person. I tried to point out that EU immigration has been beneficial to the UK but have been refuted by your anecdotal evidence about Lincolnshire. One more try though: the commission is right now made up of the former time prime ministers of Luxembourg, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, the former minister of foreign affairs for The Netherlands and Italy, former minister of finance of France, etc.. not really failed domestic politicians. The only thing I might agree with is "impractical idealism" but I don't necessarily consider that to be a negative.

You can be against something without hating it. I'm sorry foreigners are murdering the good people of Lincolnshire. Why are all brexiteers so angry?