https://www.dw.com/en/eu-post-to-pr...fe-called-disgusting-reprehensible/a-50378215 Read it. In fairness most within the EU have condemned it. Remarkable though that it sounds very like the sort of thing that was said pre Brexit, by leavers like Farage. So, it seems leavers are more aligned with this than not..
We have constantly mentioned the insular EU and breaking out to a more worldly democratic position, you just haven't listened as you are blinkered and fooled by the likes of Barnie, really quite amazing
Interesting take, in that you actually set out your reasons for landing on the Remain side of the debate rather than rely solely on emotional arguments. I will comment, for no real reason at all as I have no expectation of making you re-examine your position. At least you examined it in the first place. Sensible attitude. It should be pointed out that most folk who have genuinely considered the Brexit issue realise that there is no Golden Path, only a Lesser Of Two Evils. You have stated the case somewhat mildly here. Masterly understated, I would say. The question is often raised: What need does a Trading Bloc have for a President, an anthem, control of an armed forces and a decent (indecent?) chunk of the sovereignty of its constituent nations? In the case of the latter-most, I refer to control of immigration laws, taxation law, budgetary spending, internal investment and other matters normally in the preserve of sovereign nations. I could simplify this by asking, Is the purpose of the EU simply to facilitate trade and provide financial assistance to(some) constituent members, or is easy trade and financial "help" merely an inducement in order to attract (or lock in) countries to join, or who have already joined, the EU? What some see as a laudable effort to bring European countries closer together, others might view as a cynical attempt to "trap the unwary" into an anti-democratic superstate. How do we know which it is? There isn't one answer, it depends upon your fundamental attitude to personal liberty/responsibility, democracy, the role of government. This is at the heart of the disagreement between Leavers and Remainers, although no one says so explicitly. Is "democracy" a 'valued-added' commodity? Or a sine qua non of civilised society? At what point is the deficit too great to be supportable? Consider the new EC President and how she was chosen. Is this a satisfactory situation for those who believe in democracy? There is no "perfect form of government", in the real world, there is only "least worst". How do you minimise the harm that government brings about? In practical terms, how do you reduce the scope of government for acting malfeasantly/inappropriately/ corruptly? "Greater controls"? Or reducing the scope and power of government to a minimum? I challenge anyone to put forward an argument that the EU government is as small and limited as it could possibly be and that there are any meaningful controls over its behaviours. The US has not been a suitable horse to hitch our wagon to for quite some time. I hesitate to suggest the last time it may have been - the Reagan administration is a possibility - but absolutely guaranteed, no POTUS after Reagan was fit for purpose. No candidate who stood against any of these POTUSs was fit for purpose, either. Besides- concentrating on the current unsuitable individual is a distraction and ignores the readily discernible truth that the alternative, who was expected to win, would have been worse. At least in terms of body count , corruption and political "dirty tricks". Given the choices - Russia, China, USA and EU (not Europe, the EU) - there would appear to be no one suitable to be the UK's "protector". In terms of pecking order, for what it's worth, we both seem to agree that Russia and China are unsuitable "partners" (I say partners, but in the context of your point, "masters" would be more appropriate a term). The choice of following the US and the EU, Hobson's though it is, would seem to me to be one of, Who would interfere with the domestic affairs of the UK the least? Who would afford the UK the maximum control over its own destiny? I would argue that the US would interfere less as it would not seek to align the UK's laws with its own, except within the narrow band of trade. Tax rates, immigration, judicial matters, control of armed forces, are all more likely to be left undisturbed. Compare this to the situation of remaining in, or aligned to, the EU. Obviously, matters of sovereignty and self-determination may not be the main issue for some folk. What I see as showstoppers in being tied to the EU may be of little import to folk who possess very different priorities. It is possible to be European and not a member of the EU. I am semi-reliably informed that Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU - can they still be considered European? As for this self-hatred that grips an awful lot of British folk these days ... I won't ask where it comes from, because it doesn't matter. What matters is, there is a Happy Place that exists between the land of "British and Proud of It, Piss Off Johnny Foreigner" and the position where you throw yourself on the altar of ethnic guilt, desperate to divest yourself of your own nationality. I too love the "European" way of life - although to be strictly accurate, there isn't such a thing. Northern Spaniards differ from Southern Spaniards differ from French folk differ from Germans, etc. Even Switzerland as a nation has distinct flavours based upon the ethnicity of its inhabitants. "European-ness" is not a single quality. My visits to France and Spain have at times left me pining for the way of life of some of those folk I met and became friends with. My deep disquiet, my fear, is that the EU, rather than consolidating and promoting the idea of being "European", is destroying it. Even if the UK does manage to genuinely leave the EU, I will never forgive that organisation for what it appears to be doing to countries I have loved. Even worse though, is the infiltration of the EU machinery into every part of UK government, media and administration - to the extent that we have elected officials and senior civil servants who act on behalf of the EU and against the expressed wish of the electorate. This infiltration started so long ago and was so all-encompassing that it is difficult to see how extrication will be managed through the use of normal constitutional processes. We have already witnessed the lengths Remain will go to to frustrate the 2016 Ref result and these clearly have surpassed "political norms" (regardless whether you believe that "the end justifies the means").
a pile a poo interspersed with the emotive bollox we are supposed to ignore. away and play the sims man. you may be able to create what yer after there.
In an ideal world the eu would have behaved as it promised in 2016 when it said, for the U.k. to leave and populism to be on the rise in the eu, something needs to change and we need to look at ourselves. They didn't, they chose instead to be combative rather then heal from within I have no doubt in my mind that after we have left, populism will continue to rise in the eu as will the very far right. I hope the eu do something other than just ignore it for the sake of expansionism. I have my doubts given how quick the european media seem to have now fogotten about the brazillian rain forests in order to get the eu-south american deal done. It's not that we should never again belong to the eu, but the eu is going through a phase which is the logical direction they need to go through when the politicians stop listening to the people. We need to take a step back, let them go on that path but be there when inevitably, it will need a strong friend, as we always have been.
we haven't always been a strong friends. we had been at war almost continually up until the end of ww2. British, Spanish, French and German empires constantly vying for position. Britain had been nobody's friend for free. they where asking for favours from the nastier elements of the smaller Partys leading up to 2014 to say anything negative about our rejoining after our vote. in particular the right wing Spanish party de popular. what has Britain done or said as payback? as I have said before on here. the EU would do well to get well rid of the "UK". if we where not clumped in with you, I would be advising you to leave. the less influence we have, the more corrupt we have become.
hmm. But back to Yellowhammer. A yellowhammer is a small bird. Its call is said to sound a bit like “a little bit of bread and no cheese”, which is a very accurate description of the diet we’ll all have following a no deal Brexit. According to legend, the bird was supposed to be a messenger from Satan. Its tongue was held to bear a drop of the Devil’s blood, and the markings on its eggs were said to be a message from Hell. So it’s all very appropriate for a no deal Brexit. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/11/a-drop-of-satans-blood/
no, that looks like a young andrea leadsom. brw, she aint getting capitol letters in her name. cos she is a cvnt.
Then perhaps you need some honesty fin by letting me show you Scotlands position through your own posts we haven't always been a strong friends. we had been at war almost continually up until the end of 1703. Scotland has been nobody's friend for free. the problem the scottish government has had is that it gets confused, it's like a dyslexic playing scrabble, the word is devolution, the snp says it spells independence Then the snp says, we are one of 4 nations we should be treated equally. Lets look at that, as part of the U.K the snp has the opportunity to have 59 mp's in westminster if it wins all the scottish mp's seats If it joins the eu, based on countries with a similar population, scotland will have 13 mep's, 13 and you can't get anymore whilst germany has 99 mep's, france 72, italy 72. how long do you think it will be before the snp government would say to the eu council, hey we are an equal partner in the eu, why haven't we got 99 mep's representation? be honest now.
aye, 13 MEP;s in a PR Gov. (I know you don't know what that actually means in practice) those 13 along with the others in the same group it will work with will debate, lobby and come to a consensus about, hmm, 10% of laws and protections we live by. I have no real issue with that. mostly because I don't think the priorities of the majority of the electorate in another sovereign EU member is any different to mine. stop with the lies noob. partys in the EU don't vote by nation. but in groups.
no. only some omission. 85% of our legislation and pretty much all fiscal leavers are controlled in Westminster a FPTP democracy where the winner takes all and at a 11 to 1 majority of seats. I know you where going to get round to mentioning it. but got sidelined. it's cool. these things happen.
Thanks, In the spirit of cooperation, I am sure you forgot as long as you try to use the british pound if independent, you have no control over your fiscal future, probably the same with the euro too I like this new Entente Cordiale way forward
