|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave.
I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36718196
So it looks like the PM being chosen for us by tory politicians is the worst possible choice.
Theresa May is a woman wants to fundamentally remove human rights from citizens in this country because she had an embarrassing legal battle to deport one terrorist.
Theresa May is the woman responsible, in an age where people have finally seen the abject failure of the 'war on drugs', for increasing the depth and breadth of said war in the UK.
This is a woman who has made attacks on the right to protest after some more extreme protesters attacked some buildings and shops of tax avoiding countries.
Theresa May was found in contempt of court and accused of totally unacceptable and regrettable behaviour by a judge over her actions while attempting to stop a man being freed from a UK detention center.
Theresa May was responsible for signing a huge contract with Saudi Arabia for the UK to run their prisons. I know SA is a controversial subject with people on both sides having decent arguments, but for a liberal country like the UK to run prisons specifically in a country that gives out the death penalty for insane reasons like SA is totally unacceptable.
Did the public want Theresa May as PM? No-one has ever suggested to me that they do. Is she the best of a bad bunch? Who cares, a general election is absolutely necessary at this point. Surely.
|
On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera.
If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU?
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now.
This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US.
|
On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US.
TLDR.. you cant play the game by your own rules and expect people to play by them aswell, with the threat that if everybody dont play by your rules. you wont play with them. No one will play with you. You are left kicking the ball by yourself against a wall, while everybody plays with each other learns from each other, share with each other and get better.
Meanwhile you have a wall.
|
On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU?
That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china.
Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing).
So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money.
|
|
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money.
In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that.
|
On July 06 2016 13:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money. In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that.
He took Victor Hugo's idea of a united state of europe in a speech, he was not, at all, invested in the creation of europe as it happened, and was rather dubious on its actual form. He clearly stated that he refused to be absorbed by europe, what do you need more ?
My guess is you take what you want in history. And yes with the "it" I was clearly referring to the european union actual institutionnal existence, not the "idea" of europe that most european share and cherrish (and De Gaulle and Churchill were no exceptions).
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 06 2016 13:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 13:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money. In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that. He took Victor Hugo's idea of a united state of europe in a speech, he was not, at all, invested in the creation of europe as it happened, and was rather dubious on its actual form. He clearly stated that he refused to be absorbed by europe, what do you need more ? My guess is you take what you want in history.
Churchill thought Britain apart from Europe and wanted her and her Empire to do its own thing. However he was extremely in favor of political and economic integration and cooperation as the only way to end what appeared to be an endlessly repeating cycle of war between France and Germany as Europe struggled to reconcile the new superpower into the structure. I'm in the process of listening to his history of the Second World War which I'd highly recommend and much of the first book is dedicated to the failure of the Versailles peace and the structural causes of war in Europe, and what can be done to prevent it. The European Coal and Steel Community was in many ways his dream, the binding of the means of war of France, Germany and Benelux while Britain stands aloof. What Churchill didn't predict was the rapid fall from grace of Britain and the necessity for integration within that system as an equal partner.
In response to the edit, no, Churchill explicitly called for and was involved in designing the first institution of what became the EU. It's there in his own hand.
|
On July 06 2016 14:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 13:59 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 13:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money. In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that. He took Victor Hugo's idea of a united state of europe in a speech, he was not, at all, invested in the creation of europe as it happened, and was rather dubious on its actual form. He clearly stated that he refused to be absorbed by europe, what do you need more ? My guess is you take what you want in history. Churchill thought Britain apart from Europe and wanted her and her Empire to do its own thing. However he was extremely in favor of political and economic integration and cooperation as the only way to end what appeared to be an endlessly repeating cycle of war between France and Germany as Europe struggled to reconcile the new superpower into the structure. I'm in the process of listening to his history of the Second World War which I'd highly recommend and much of the first book is dedicated to the failure of the Versailles peace and the structural causes of war in Europe, and what can be done to prevent it. The European Coal and Steel Community was in many ways his dream, the binding of the means of war of France, Germany and Benelux while Britain stands aloof. What Churchill didn't predict was the rapid fall from grace of Britain and the necessity for integration within that system as an equal partner. In response to the edit, no, Churchill explicitly called for and was involved in designing the first institution of what became the EU. It's there in his own hand.
I don't understand : did he, at one point in his life argued for an integration of the UK in europe ? The answer is no, it's actually the opposite ; after his participation to the first discussion on the european union he decided not to be part of it.
That he wanted it for two other nation is kinda secondary.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 06 2016 15:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 14:10 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:59 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 13:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money. In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that. He took Victor Hugo's idea of a united state of europe in a speech, he was not, at all, invested in the creation of europe as it happened, and was rather dubious on its actual form. He clearly stated that he refused to be absorbed by europe, what do you need more ? My guess is you take what you want in history. Churchill thought Britain apart from Europe and wanted her and her Empire to do its own thing. However he was extremely in favor of political and economic integration and cooperation as the only way to end what appeared to be an endlessly repeating cycle of war between France and Germany as Europe struggled to reconcile the new superpower into the structure. I'm in the process of listening to his history of the Second World War which I'd highly recommend and much of the first book is dedicated to the failure of the Versailles peace and the structural causes of war in Europe, and what can be done to prevent it. The European Coal and Steel Community was in many ways his dream, the binding of the means of war of France, Germany and Benelux while Britain stands aloof. What Churchill didn't predict was the rapid fall from grace of Britain and the necessity for integration within that system as an equal partner. In response to the edit, no, Churchill explicitly called for and was involved in designing the first institution of what became the EU. It's there in his own hand. I don't understand : did he, at one point in his life argued for an integration of the UK in europe ? The answer is no, it's actually the opposite ; after hus participation to the first discussion on the european union he decided not to be part of it.
But he strongly believed that there should be a European Union.
|
Pound going lower and lower. PtD below 1.30 for the first time since the vote? PtE to 1.17, parity soon? 
Is this a reaction to the Theresa May vote or has that nothing at all to do with it?
|
On July 06 2016 15:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 15:08 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 14:10 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:59 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 13:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money. In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that. He took Victor Hugo's idea of a united state of europe in a speech, he was not, at all, invested in the creation of europe as it happened, and was rather dubious on its actual form. He clearly stated that he refused to be absorbed by europe, what do you need more ? My guess is you take what you want in history. Churchill thought Britain apart from Europe and wanted her and her Empire to do its own thing. However he was extremely in favor of political and economic integration and cooperation as the only way to end what appeared to be an endlessly repeating cycle of war between France and Germany as Europe struggled to reconcile the new superpower into the structure. I'm in the process of listening to his history of the Second World War which I'd highly recommend and much of the first book is dedicated to the failure of the Versailles peace and the structural causes of war in Europe, and what can be done to prevent it. The European Coal and Steel Community was in many ways his dream, the binding of the means of war of France, Germany and Benelux while Britain stands aloof. What Churchill didn't predict was the rapid fall from grace of Britain and the necessity for integration within that system as an equal partner. In response to the edit, no, Churchill explicitly called for and was involved in designing the first institution of what became the EU. It's there in his own hand. I don't understand : did he, at one point in his life argued for an integration of the UK in europe ? The answer is no, it's actually the opposite ; after hus participation to the first discussion on the european union he decided not to be part of it. But he strongly believed that there should be a European Union.
Likz De Gaulle ("europe from atlantic to oural")... Or Hugo for that matter. It doesn't mean anything "a european union" - he never invested his country in this european union, and De Gaulle viewed this european union - not the dream of a partial unification of european people - as an administrative mess.
|
On July 06 2016 15:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 15:14 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 15:08 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 14:10 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:59 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 13:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money. In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that. He took Victor Hugo's idea of a united state of europe in a speech, he was not, at all, invested in the creation of europe as it happened, and was rather dubious on its actual form. He clearly stated that he refused to be absorbed by europe, what do you need more ? My guess is you take what you want in history. Churchill thought Britain apart from Europe and wanted her and her Empire to do its own thing. However he was extremely in favor of political and economic integration and cooperation as the only way to end what appeared to be an endlessly repeating cycle of war between France and Germany as Europe struggled to reconcile the new superpower into the structure. I'm in the process of listening to his history of the Second World War which I'd highly recommend and much of the first book is dedicated to the failure of the Versailles peace and the structural causes of war in Europe, and what can be done to prevent it. The European Coal and Steel Community was in many ways his dream, the binding of the means of war of France, Germany and Benelux while Britain stands aloof. What Churchill didn't predict was the rapid fall from grace of Britain and the necessity for integration within that system as an equal partner. In response to the edit, no, Churchill explicitly called for and was involved in designing the first institution of what became the EU. It's there in his own hand. I don't understand : did he, at one point in his life argued for an integration of the UK in europe ? The answer is no, it's actually the opposite ; after hus participation to the first discussion on the european union he decided not to be part of it. But he strongly believed that there should be a European Union. Likz De Gaulle ("europe from atlantic to oural")... Or Hugo for that matter. It doesn't mean anything "a european union" - he never invested his country in this european union, and De Gaulle viewed this european union - not the dream of a partial unification of european people - as an administrative mess.
Because its not easy to do big governments. It takes time, trial and error. If you (as a country) are not happy with how the EU works you need to work on it to improve it. Leaving it does not help anyone.
Just because something is not perfect does not mean it can not improve. You need to work, work, work instead of cry, cry, cry.
|
On July 06 2016 12:32 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US. TLDR.. you cant play the game by your own rules and expect people to play by them aswell, with the threat that if everybody dont play by your rules. you wont play with them. No one will play with you. You are left kicking the ball by yourself against a wall, while everybody plays with each other learns from each other, share with each other and get better. Meanwhile you have a wall.
Well said guys. + Show Spoiler +(Kwark if you are not working in Reg Affairs then you know these stuffs too well lol)
I mentioned about regulations in this thread before the brexit vote and I am seriously wondering what is going to happen to many of the regulated products (fair enough most high valued products would have multinational licences anyway but still).
As a whole though, I just cant help but to think that what the big picture all these brexit/eu politics is missing is that, Europe as a whole has been on the decline in everything in the past decades (not much space for development or countries have been failing at develop more), and with Brexit happened, I don't see how Europe can rise for years to come. US/China would look for what advantages they can take on UK/EU, they are not going to go 'oh you are UK we like you, we will give you a better deal than we give EU that's is like 10+ other major countries/markets'. Either way I can already see that UK will end up paying a lot more for making deals.
Not saying that staying in current state of EU Europe will rise but the instability caused by Brexit is literally shitting the face on every one country in EU, some get less shit on, some get more, time will tell. Somehow it would be funny if all these benefit Ireland as an end result, second Celtic Tiger era woaw.
|
On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU?
Personally i think it is because of the TPP.
A breakup of the EU would mean having to renegotiate the TPP with all former member nations.
Whether you think TPP is a good thing for regular citizens is another thing, It's certainly beneficial for big business and large multinationals.
|
On July 06 2016 16:55 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 15:53 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 15:14 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 15:08 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 14:10 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:59 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 13:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2016 13:45 WhiteDog wrote:On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:
[quote]
I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? That's laughable, the two french at the source of the european union (Monnet and Schuman) were paid by american secret services... The european union is, in some way, the result of an american desire to see peace in europe. That's even more laughable considering modern US care less and less about europe, and has been switching its focus from us to south america and china. Meanwhile biggest european leaders - De Gaulle, Churchill - didn't care about europe. De Gaulle famously called it "the machin" (the thing). So apparently the housing market is crumbling in england because everybody is taking back its money. In 1940 the Churchill government proposed a full political integration of Britain and France. He was very pro European integration although he didn't necessarily see Britain as being a part of it. Presenting Churchill as opposed to Europe is absurd, he was extremely interested in Europe and the European project. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that. He took Victor Hugo's idea of a united state of europe in a speech, he was not, at all, invested in the creation of europe as it happened, and was rather dubious on its actual form. He clearly stated that he refused to be absorbed by europe, what do you need more ? My guess is you take what you want in history. Churchill thought Britain apart from Europe and wanted her and her Empire to do its own thing. However he was extremely in favor of political and economic integration and cooperation as the only way to end what appeared to be an endlessly repeating cycle of war between France and Germany as Europe struggled to reconcile the new superpower into the structure. I'm in the process of listening to his history of the Second World War which I'd highly recommend and much of the first book is dedicated to the failure of the Versailles peace and the structural causes of war in Europe, and what can be done to prevent it. The European Coal and Steel Community was in many ways his dream, the binding of the means of war of France, Germany and Benelux while Britain stands aloof. What Churchill didn't predict was the rapid fall from grace of Britain and the necessity for integration within that system as an equal partner. In response to the edit, no, Churchill explicitly called for and was involved in designing the first institution of what became the EU. It's there in his own hand. I don't understand : did he, at one point in his life argued for an integration of the UK in europe ? The answer is no, it's actually the opposite ; after hus participation to the first discussion on the european union he decided not to be part of it. But he strongly believed that there should be a European Union. Likz De Gaulle ("europe from atlantic to oural")... Or Hugo for that matter. It doesn't mean anything "a european union" - he never invested his country in this european union, and De Gaulle viewed this european union - not the dream of a partial unification of european people - as an administrative mess. Because its not easy to do big governments. It takes time, trial and error. If you (as a country) are not happy with how the EU works you need to work on it to improve it. Leaving it does not help anyone. Just because something is not perfect does not mean it can not improve. You need to work, work, work instead of cry, cry, cry.
Load of uninformed crap. Or maybe you see De Gaulle and Churchill as whiners. They didn't invest their countries in the EU for sovereignty reasons, nothing else.
Also, the inhability to actually change europe is one of the main argument for the brexit in my opinion. People have been saying this fot 30 years.
|
On July 06 2016 17:11 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 10:21 forsooth wrote:On July 06 2016 07:22 Shield wrote:On July 06 2016 07:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2016 07:04 Shield wrote:
So, now that some of the negative sides of Brexit are clear, do you think their politicians will forget about Brexit? You say you have to respect what the nation says, but some people didn't know what they really voted for. Also, the government in Greece completely ignored their last referendum, and they are the guys who discovered democracy as far as I know. I'm pretty sure all the Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for and it's the Remain voters who have no idea what they REALLY voted for. They voted for Remain then the next day they flooded the Google with such trivial questions like "What is the EU?" If they knew what the EU was they would have voted Leave. I was about to say you can now enjoy the state of sterling, sovereignty (whatever that means by voting for Brexit) and £350 million to NHS, but then I noticed you're probably American. You probably don't know what United States of America means anyway. No, this isn't a way to hint EU superstate. It's about unity of Europe, something that US doesn't really want because it's harder to control united Europe. Divide et Impera. If the US wants the EU to fall apart, why did the Obama administration make a point of campaigning to keep the UK in the EU? Personally i think it is because of the TPP. A breakup of the EU would mean having to renegotiate the TPP with all former member nations. Whether you think TPP is a good thing for regular citizens is another thing, It's certainly beneficial for big business and large multinationals.
I assume you mean TTIP. The TPP is the trade agreement with Asia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
