Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Brexit And The Lion
With reference to TTT’s EU comment in the Large Saucer of Milk thread (https:/
This ridiculous relationship where the Commission appears to run the show was widely exploited by the Brexiteers (quite understandably) which led to a marginal vote in favour of the cowardly route of running away. What the equally cowardly Cameron should have done was use the vote as a lever(threat to leave) on the EU to mend their ways - such a threat I feel would have been effective as was implied by the panic in that organisation after we left and other countries were beginning to think of taking the same route. Ultimately they all decided to stay in what is arguably the World’s most powerful trading bloc, for very good reason. I believe that a more determined leader (e.g. Mrs Thatcher) would have taken the courageous route and sorted out the EU to our satisfaction while retaining all the market advantages (my only doubt being a possible weak sense of diplomacy on her part when seeking agreement from France, Germany, and Italy.)
With this Commission/Parliament anomaly, perhaps TTT’s rather ubiquitous EUSSR reference has some justification after all (my apologies to TTT for earlier criticism on this point) . And the Brexiteers’ jingoistic stampede to get out was, although foolhardy, understandable.
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Canary, I am grateful for your nosegays but I must refute your brickbats. Leaving the EUSSR was not running away it was recognising that the bloc had run it's course and we got out for autonomy. You very ably point out the attitude that will innevitably cause the collapse of the EUSSR. UK has as usual shown the way that other nations will innevitably follow.
What the equally cowardly Cameron should have done was use the vote as a lever(threat to leave) on the EU to mend their ways –
Why? The question was to remain or leave. It was to remain or threaten to leave. As Tora says, we were not “running away.” We were simply quitting an organisation that no longer suited us (if indeed it ever did).
I feel would have been effective as was implied by the panic in that organisation after we left and other countries were beginning to think of taking the same route.
I didn’t sense any panic. The EU quelled any prospect of mass rebellion by making our departure as cumbersome as possible.
…a more determined leader (e.g. Mrs Thatcher) would have taken the courageous route and sorted out the EU to our satisfaction…
There was never any prospect of the UK (or any other member)“sorting out” the EU to the satisfaction of those who wanted to leave. Its most important pillars – the Single Market, Customs Union and freedom of movement – are inviable and not for negotiation. And they were the main features which caused so many to want to quit. Mr Cameron tried to get a few changes. He asked for next to nothing and came away with slightly less than that. As an aside, it would never have been sorted out to my personal satisfaction as I had wanted us to leave since 1992, whatever the circumstances or whatever “concessions” were made to kindly allow the UK to run its own affairs.
With this Commission/Parliament anomaly, perhaps TTT’s rather ubiquitous EUSSR reference has some justification…
Glad you’ve seen the light.
And the Brexiteers’ jingoistic stampede to get out was, although foolhardy, understandable.
There’s nothing “jingoistic” about wanting your country to retain its autonomy. When you speak to people from “normal” countries (who know little about the EU) they are absolutely gobsmacked when they learn of its powers over national governments.
As usual, the Brexiteers use falsehoods to advance their undying faith in the religion that Brexit is for them.
Nothing prevents EU member states from banning animals in circuses; the link below shows the current state of play in many European countries, with some (bans) due to come into force within the next few years.
The UK has banned the export of live animals for slaughter (again, claimed as a Brexit benefit), but again there is nothing to stop EU member States from doing so; currently there is a campaign in Ireland to introduce such a ban. It would make no sense for such a ban within mainland Europe, where the nearest slaughterhouse might be just across the border in another country.
Nothing prevents EU member states from banning animals in circuses;
Indeed not - and thereby hangs the tale which illustrates perfectly why Hymie has completely missed the point.
The particular topic which has caused Canary's sudden enlightenment is neither a particularly pertinent example nor a very important one. However....
If the EU had decreed that animals must be banned from circuses, then member nations would not be able to override that decree. Similarly if they had ruled that member nations must not ban them, then they would not be able to do so. The fact is, it has chosen not to become involved.
The issue that has raised Canary's hackles is not whether or not tigers should be banned from performing in circuses. It is that the EU's so-called "Parliament" - comprised of people whom the electorate of 450m people choose and which the EU portrays as a demonstration of its democratic foundations - has no power whatsoever. For here is a measure which MEPs - the representatives of 450m people - want enacted but the Commission (27 people) says "Non" (or "Nein"). So that's that then.
And that (rather than whether or not tigers can perform in circuses) is one of the (many) reasons why so many people voted to leave the EU.