Britain and the EU

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Europe isn't in agreement about Europe.........

The UK isn't in agreement about the UK. It's a normal state of affairs rather than being indicative of something sinister.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

The UK isn't in agreement about the UK. It's a normal state of affairs rather than being indicative of something sinister.

At least in the UK politicians are elected by the electorate. The SNP complain about Westminster incessantly. So direct rule from Brussels doesn't seem any more palatable. As that's the end game. Tax, pensions, welfare etc will be standardised.

Mistermeaner

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At least in the UK politicians are elected by the electorate. The SNP complain about Westminster incessantly. So direct rule from Brussels doesn't seem any more palatable. As that's the end game. Tax, pensions, welfare etc will be standardised.

I guess one the stop migration is to make everywhere the same then there's no point going anywhere

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

At least in the UK politicians are elected by the electorate. The SNP complain about Westminster incessantly. So direct rule from Brussels doesn't seem any more palatable. As that's the end game. Tax, pensions, welfare etc will be standardised.

The EU democratic deficit? Plenty of decisions in the UK are made by people appointed by politicians. Not an eyelid is batted.

Direct rule from Brussels will never happen. I don't know if this is something you're truly fearful of or just something you're trying to scare other people about.

wotsthat

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I guess one the stop migration is to make everywhere the same then there's no point going anywhere

I like having the right to go anywhere thanks.

I can't imagine anything more depressing than having to spend my life living with a bunch of little Englanders. Once the problems of their miserable lives hadn't been resolved by stopping immigrants we'd just move on to phase 2 of the blame game.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The debate will progress as soon as you allow it to.

You debate ahead - I'm not in charge of it.

I might dip out for a bit anyway. There isn't a date, we don't know the terms or results of any negotiation so it's all a bit premature. I might pop back after a few more pages of immigration, immigration, Norway, bendy bananas, immigration, pretend concern about repatriation of unspecified powers, and immigration. Did I mention immigration and immigration?

Sapphire

wotsthat wrote: »

You debate ahead - I'm not in charge of it.

I might dip out for a bit anyway. There isn't a date, we don't know the terms or results of any negotiation so it's all a bit premature. I might pop back after a few more pages of immigration, immigration, Norway, bendy bananas, immigration, pretend concern about repatriation of unspecified powers, and immigration. Did I mention immigration and immigration?

I'm afraid none of your 'arguments' in any way convinces me to want to stay in Europe.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I never said it was. I specifically stated, to which you have twisted, that the bridge loan was used. They utilised the EFSM to do it. ...

You said "We had "concrete" promises that our money would not be used to bailout the Euro countries. What did those promises amount to? Worth less than bogg roll."

But our money was not used to bailout the Euro countries.

What actually happened was that a good old fashioned compromise was reached. The essence of the deal was that Greece borrowed more money from the EFSM than it actually needed to repay the ECB and the IMF, and that the cash surplus was stuffed into escrow.

A mechanism has been designed so as to ensure that non-euro area member states do not carry any risk. Under the decision, the exposure of non-euro area member states will be fully guaranteed by liquid collateral under legally binding arrangements. If Greece were unable repay the loan in accordance with its terms, any liabilities incurred by non-euro area member states would be immediately reimbursed.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/07/17-efsm-bridge-loan-greece/

Thus rather than being "bogg roll", the EU actually delivered on its promise.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

You said "We had "concrete" promises that our money would not be used to bailout the Euro countries. What did those promises amount to? Worth less than bogg roll."

But our money was not used to bailout the Euro countries.

What actually happened was that a good old fashioned compromise was reached. The essence of the deal was that Greece borrowed more money from the EFSM than it actually needed to repay the ECB and the IMF, and that the cash surplus was stuffed into escrow.

A mechanism has been designed so as to ensure that non-euro area member states do not carry any risk. Under the decision, the exposure of non-euro area member states will be fully guaranteed by liquid collateral under legally binding arrangements. If Greece were unable repay the loan in accordance with its terms, any liabilities incurred by non-euro area member states would be immediately reimbursed.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/07/17-efsm-bridge-loan-greece/

Thus rather than being "bogg roll", the EU actually delivered on its promise.

why was such a compromise needed?
why did the euro countries not simply bail out Greece?

one would assume that if greece did default then a new compromise would be reached that did involve non-euro member states contributing : but by then everyone would have forgotten the original promise

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Direct rule from Brussels will never happen. I don't know if this is something you're truly fearful of or just something you're trying to scare other people about.

Recently published by the European Commission.

Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union

Report by: Jean-Claude Juncker

in close cooperation with
Donald Tusk
Jeroen Dijsselbloem
Mario Draghi
and Martin Schulz

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/economic-monetary-union/docs/5-presidents-report_en.pdf