The weirdest thing about that tweet is that Banks has retweeted it himself.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
The weirdest thing about that tweet is that Banks has retweeted it himself.
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
Mainly because the EU need to decided everything on a basis of what suits 27 members, the vast majority having common land borders and needing agreement therefore on various environmental changes, whether it be simple landscaping or changing the course of rivers, providing tunnels and other large scale construction projects. Most of these would not affect the UK (or Ireland for that matter) because we are offshore islands (to the majority of Europe's land mass) and we would need to do many things different, spend in different ways, all of which would produce havoc over a seven year EU budget, basically our needs are likely to be different.
Instead of getting on with it we would be spending years arguing the toss in Brussels, which by then it could well be too late.
But every country has its own policies. French laws and goals have been solely decided by french governments, industries and NGOs. They are not decided or even discussed by the EU, your idea of the EU is totally wrong, you seem to think that it has a lot more influence than it actually has.
Are you trying to say that every larger construction project within the EU needs approval from all member states?
Again, total nonsense.
I understand why you want to leave the EU, basically because you don't have any understanding whatsoever of how it works
If you read my previous posts, the changes are in the future. I refer to changes that are attempts not to prevent climate change occurring, but combating climate changes already taking places and any changes brought about post Covid. This is all in the future and it is that future I am referring to, i.e. when the EU has achieved its stated aim of closer Union and has become the United States of Europe.
In such circumstances all member states will need to be within the same monetary union i.e. euro-zone, and the federal budget and decision making will be done through Brussels. As an off shore island the UK's needs in such matters will be significantly different, they may be combating the same problems but will take different solutions to those required in a larger land mass.
Last edited:
This makes no sense whatsoever. First whether the EU become a United states of Europe is the sole decision of member states and an individual decision, secondly countries however they are organized do not manage their territories indiscriminately for example within the UK a region that is bordered by the sea won't have the same issues than a region that is landlocked would you make the point that these two regions shouldn't be in the UK because they have different needs?
But any USE which ends up happening (I personally don't see it, though I think it is a great idea personally) would be like the USA. So large that the individual states would have a huge amount of leeway to run their states as they see fit. In so many ways, a Californian is not living the same life as someone in Alabama.
In this instance, the Netherlands for instance is totally screwed as climate change goes on and certainly far more than a country like Germany. Yet I am sure, even within the EU's framework, whether it stays as is or becomes a closer political union, they will be able to build totally different defences to cope with their very different circumstances.
Any theoretical USE would be far too large, far too culturally different, far too populous, for an attempt to run everything centrally from Brussels.
No of course not, but economies of scale come into it, also since we don't know as yet what we will actually have to do to live with actual climate change, (as opposed to preventing climate change) planning is difficult. The EU currently is able to function reasonably effectively in a 'steady state' situation, but it is not good in dealing with massive transient change, e.g. refugee problems/dispersal etc. and now agreeing rescue budgets for southern states (northern states reluctant to pay). We have seen the problems caused by HS2, the cost overruns, the planning schedules/dilemmas, the nibyism it attracts, imagine that writ large across the EU. Only by acting in concert through a USE will anything get done on the scale needed and the UK's needs will be low down the list and will get over rode and we will be stuck in a Union, with a common currency, (but not the one we had) and nowhere to go... perhaps the Scots feel a bit like this at the moment?
But it won't be a theoretical USE it will be real ,with Brussels having federal powers like Washington in the USA.
Think future, not present!
The one reason why the EU isn't good at managing those giant crises is that countries prefer to mind their own business and think within their borders. The separatists, far rights, etc. are the ones dividing this union and preventing both an adequate handling of the refugee crises and climate change and your answer is to vote those geniuses?
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense.
You are making absolutely no sense. You are essentially describing any country, region, city, neighborhood in the world. People disagree and discuss problems, that's a shocker.
Edit: And by the way the current EU isn't a state and doesn't have the tools of a state which is why things take more time, each country as an individual voice.
Thats why a USE will be needed in the future to handle major crisis, that's why a small offshore island like the UK is better off outside a USE, because even within an all singing all dancing USE, the UK will still be an off shore, entity and as the media headline read.... "Fog in the channel UK cut off from the Continent "
No it doesn't now, but it will need to have to deal with the future crisis caused from actual climate change and post Covid conditions, and in such circumstances the position of the UK as an off shore island, means it will be low down the food chain in any USE, therefore we are better keeping our own currency and doing our own thing!
Except we will keep our own currency and just say no?
You are still making no sense. You seemingly have no idea about how any country work and you just make up weak projections to support weak points.
Not if the EU is by then a USE and we are part of it, then we would have to join the euro and give up the £...which is why we will never do that, so will never be part of a United States of Europe, so will do our own thing to suit our needs!
So climate change and post Covid issues are weak projections... I wonder if Boris knows that?
Your United states of Europe are a weak projection. You are making up a scenario that no current member state want and you seemingly have no idea about how countries manage their territories.
So no need to leave the EU then.
Except to become a USE we would need to vote for it, as we could just veto it?
'ever closer union' is a main aim for the EU, ever listened to Guy Verhofstadt the Belgium MEP?
We can't stay, first step toward USE is to for EU to remove the veto and to go to majority voting, otherwise current EU problems will never be solved (i.e. steady state condition has to be overcome) the EU has be able to respond to major (transient) crisis and hence will remove veto or the EU will crumble, that paves the way for USE, those who might decide not to go with the flow will do their own 'Brexit'... but we will be years ahead and still have our own currency!
First that's from the preamble of the Treaty of Rome(1957), it's not a new thing and we aren't close to a federation because member states aren't interested. Even if member states were interested, the EU is treaty based every structural changes are based on a treaty that all members have to sgin or can op out of. Thirdly your scenario is weak because it's not even a scenario, you have no idea about how a potential federation would work, you have no idea about the type of autonomy each member would have, you seemingly have no idea about how countries are managed, no idea about the concept of decentralization and your example of the HS2 shows that the UK itself isn't exactly great at dealing with north-south issues which is true for almost every remotely large countries.
So you essentially base your ideology on things you don't know or understand.
Yes that's probably true.... but if I'm right, what then?
This Matic dude should write a fantasy novel about this imaginary future.
Right about what?
......funny you should mention that!
Now who has been basing their responses on something they don't know or understand... you have not been paying attention, have you....go and sit on the naughty step
So if a string of events that only exist in your head occur and these events result in the things you think they will and they then turn out badly for the UK, then leaving the EU might have been a good idea?
If my grandmother had balls she would be my grandfather.
Now who has been basing their responses on something they don't know or understand... you have not been paying attention, have you....go and sit on the naughty step
Seriously start make sense. The UK left the EU(brexit) none of what you say is going to happen because your point includes the UK being members of a EU federation which by the way could only happen if the UK wanted it and they would be one of the main influencers as they have always been within the EU.
use
........Yes a prophet in his own land...etc.
Brexit was a good idea, but it was enacted the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, in my opinion; but it might turn out for the best after all.
A string of events don't just exist in my head;
Climate change will happen now, it is not a matter of preventing change its about dealing with it happening now and Covid is still with us, large monolithic entities like the EU with systems that are neither democratic nor effective in larger (transient) crises cannot cope, they have been set up to deal with trade issues in a 'steady state' situation, although many want them to be more political they are not. changes in voting will have to take place, majority voting has to come, even for the EU to survive as a trading block.
Once majority voting is established the every closer Union objective becomes a distinct reality, it has to happen, the real big trading blocks in the world are Political entities China, Russia, USA if the EU really does want to compete with these it also has to go 'political' as a United States of Europe.
The dilemma for the UK was do we stay in the EU protect our economy now, and accept eventually becoming part of an USE, or do we sail off on our own protect our existing status (and currency), prior to Brexit I thought the former, but now its happened and climate change is now becoming a reality that has to be dealt with as with post Covid issues, staying in a monolith like the EU that doesn't know what it is, or how to change, then the answer is obvious we do leave and the sooner the better and protect ourselves as an offshore island...something we have done for centuries!
........Yes a prophet in his own land...etc.
Brexit was a good idea, but it was enacted the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, in my opinion; but it might turn out for the best after all.
A string of events don't just exist in my head;
Climate change will happen now, it is not a matter of preventing change its about dealing with it happening now and Covid is still with us, large monolithic entities like the EU with systems that are neither democratic nor effective in larger (transient) crises cannot cope, they have been set up to deal with trade issues in a 'steady state' situation, although many want them to be more political they are not. changes in voting will have to take place, majority voting has to come, even for the EU to survive as a trading block.
Once majority voting is established the every closer Union objective becomes a distinct reality, it has to happen, the real big trading blocks in the world are Political entities China, Russia, USA if the EU really does want to compete with these it also has to go 'political' as a United States of Europe.
The dilemma for the UK was do we stay in the EU protect our economy now, and accept eventually becoming part of an USE, or do we sail off on our own protect our existing status (and currency), prior to Brexit I thought the former, but now its happened and climate change is now becoming a reality that has to be dealt with as with post Covid issues, staying in a monolith like the EU that doesn't know what it is, or how to change, then the answer is obvious we do leave and the sooner the better and protect ourselves as an offshore island...something we have done for centuries!
How will the EU prevent us from taking large measures to prevent climate change?
FFS, the not democratic malarkey. @Paul the Wolf 
Not sure I'd call what you were doing for centuries "protecting your island".
Sorry that's not the issue, its that the EU will not be able to take decisions on transient issues unless it changes its way of voting and most on here think it wont, and I agree it will become hidebound and eventually obsolete. The only way the EU could prevent us doing anything is to throw us out of the Union... but guess what we've done that already.
Read the history books.... before they get re-written!
But it doesn’t matter what the EU decides regarding climate change, we can do what we want to protect the climate.
Or is your point nothing to do with climate change and more the broader point that it will struggle to make large scale changes?
The English ones or the factual ones?