woolley

Regulars
  • Content count

    18,019
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    291

woolley last won the day on July 12

woolley had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10,916 Excellent

3 Followers

About woolley

  • Rank
    MF Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

23,405 profile views
  1. Damn. From the title I thought it was going to be all about me.
  2. To be fair though. There are a couple you heard nothing from for months and when at length you did finally hear something, you quickly realised that the earlier silence was well judged.
  3. This would be why you frequent MF?
  4. You should try a Rodan speech.
  5. @ PK: Well we'll see. It's possible that the EU will survive as a genuine trade bloc without the ulterior motives which I wouldn't have too much of a problem with, so long as it knows its place and remains subordinate to the constituent nations. That's what it should have been in the first place without the ambitions of statehood, the "government", the massive budget, the flag, the currency, the court etc. There are some people at the centre who are in denial about the future, but I think there are others who see which way the wind's blowing and are pragmatic enough to salvage what is worthwhile. Business will find a way in any case, and it will not ignore the fifth largest economy on the planet. At least your 1980s Germans were warned about historical resentment from the Greeks. If they go there now they have to run the gauntlet of freshly created Greek hatred about EU constraints over their economy and the destitution they are suffering because of it. At the same time the Germans themselves are sick of funding the bail outs. Anyone who spends time in Greece knows that all is not well with the EU. I think some of the problem is the idea that has been pushed at every opportunity that the UK is "leaving Europe" and this engenders a sense of loss in some people. The EU is not Europe. Britain can never leave Europe. It will continue to be semi-detached from it as it always has been. Maybe it would have been easier if the organisation had a different name that wasn't so emotive. Had it still been called the "Common Market" or something equally abstract, then I doubt that many of those of tiny attention span would be quite so animated. Anyway. That's me on this for a while. People start throwing things at the wall if I overdo it.
  6. Good Morning PK. Well I lived through most of that time, travelled widely and I don't remember a general clamouring for, or people marching in the streets carrying banners supporting the establishment of a United States of Europe. As I said, it's a top down imposition by an elite who think they know what is good for you. What really clinches it is that they could not come out and say they were fashioning "Euroland" because they knew that people wouldn't wear it. Instead it has been done largely on the pretext of doing something else. Let us dispense with the notion that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years. War weariness, the cold war, nuclear weapons and common NATO membership of the major players has done that. The EU is actually dangerous because of the internal pressures and resentment it breeds such as those growing between the centre and Greece and the centre and Hungary, Poland etc. These are not going away and the clock is ticking.
  7. @ Pongo: For me it's entirely a sovereignty and accountability issue. Totally that. The EU is a top down supra-nationally imposed quasi-state organisation dreamed up after WW2 by idealists first as a common market and then as a creeping progression towards a super-state. Nobody asked for "ever closer union". Nobody wanted it. It was imposed from above by the type of people who know better than you because you're too stupid to know what's good for you. It is for this reason that it has been a running sore in British politics virtually from the outset, attacked by patriots from throughout the political spectrum because of its illegitimacy of purpose. What then is the EU for? There is nothing that the EU does that could not be arranged perfectly well by the independent states that comprise it on a bilateral or multilateral basis. We don't need a European Parliament - it's a joke anyway, and we don't need the EU Commission or the 4 presidents and army of bureaucrats that suck on the teat. We certainly don't need an EU Court to tell our Courts what they can and can't do. In short, no foreign body should exercise sovereignty "pooled" or otherwise sitting above national institutions. It is a matter of national self-respect for all European countries. For matters of common interest we can set up joint boards that can hammer out proposals but with the members always under the authority of their own national governments. We can also have free trade between independent European nations - or we could, if it was not for the EU blocking it if you are not in the club, or dare to leave. The EU is the impediment to free trade unless you accept all of the onerous conditions and costs that go with membership. What does Brexit mean? Well, really anything that slams the brakes on "ever closer union" and reverses it as far as Britain is concerned. Anything that means we never end up in a superstate with ever more remote figures setting the agenda. Anything that frees the country from the dead hand of "one size fits all" rules. So long as Britain is legally outside and no longer a member state then the rest can go do whatever they like and it will be interesting to see for how long they can hold it together, single currency et al.
  8. There is a world of difference between "cutting short the negotiations" and a year zero approach. The "long transitional period" is code for "play for time until we can overturn the whole thing".
  9. Currency will be volatile bacause of uncertainty. Markets don't like uncertainty and that is why UK should cut short the "negotiations" and just get out. Long term, the problem will be to try to keep sterling from soaring too high. Correct, but a different issue entirely - globalisation.
  10. Totally factual, Woody. Buried in the minutiae of events but that is preceisely the way it was. Whether through incompetence or design the lawyers cocked it. I have experience of Government lawyers so it was not a surprise.
  11. It's a matter of opinion, and there are all shades of opinion out there. The fact that a Court finds in a certain way does not establish an undeniable truth. There have been too many miscarriages of justice for anyone to believe that it does. The law can indeed be an ass. As you say, Parliament did not overturn the result, but such was the hope and intention of the protagonists. That it did not was a crushing disappointment to Miller and crew.
  12. If you think the EU is a movement for a fairer world for all, PK, you are seriously deluded. Do you not look at the effects of the single market and the single currency in countries to the south? The government had a good case over Article 50 because Parliament had authorised the referendum. There should have been no cause to run it past Parliament once more. It was a Remain exercise of attempted frustration of the referendum result. The judges were almost all EU retainers. How on Earth can you be sure that the EU case for the divorce bill was meticulously researched? I know they have bureaucrats aplenty but it will simply be a wish list. They just want the UK to continue to pay for the largesse and the UK should politely decline.
  13. Indeed I do!
  14. For the first time ever there is unity between the 27. Reason: The ones doing the paying such as Germany and Holland don't want to make up the huge hole in the budget that Britain will leave and the rest who receive the handouts don't want to take less. They all want the UK to carry on paying. When the UK stops paying the rest will be fighting like dogs in the street.
  15. They'll probably end up owing the UK considering all the money that's gone into that black hole in the past 40 years.