|
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 |
Polls already shown to be wrong by both 2015 election and the eu referendum. Cameron already said no second referendum. And yes my mistake.TTIP not TTP.
|
On July 06 2016 17:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 16:55 RoomOfMush wrote: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: [quote] 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. What part of my post was "uninformed"? It was all opinion and no facts anywhere. It is impossible to ever BE informed about that. I said its hard to do big government and it takes lots of work to do it right. What is uninformed about that?
Do you at least understand that working together (in a general sense, not as the EU) is more beneficial than working against each other? The EU might not be a good implementation of a bigger governing body, but that doesnt mean international cooperation is a bad thing.
|
|
A few years back there was a gem from the independent regarding France showing just how "strong" the EU economies are.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-is-totally-bankrupt-french-jobs-minister-michel-sapin-embarrasses-francois-hollande-with-8471077.html
'France is totally bankrupt': French jobs minister Michel Sapin embarrasses Francois Hollande with shocking statement on state of the country's economy
Unexpected news came during a radio interview yesterday and calls into further question Hollande's controversial 'tax and spend' policies
Why be in an economic union with a totally bankrupt nation? Please tell me! Even the ministers admit it!
Also i appreciate Corbyns words regarding the Chilcot enquiry
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, begins by paying tribute to those killed, and to their relatives. He met some relatives yesterday, he says.
He says the report should not have taken this long.
He says the “overwhelming weight of international legal opinion” says the invasion was illegal.
It had devastating consequences, he says, fuelling terrorism and war across the region.
By any measure the invasion and occupation of Iraq “has been for many a catastrophe”.
He says it has led a break-down in trust in politics.
While the governing class got it wrong, many people got it right. Some 1.5m people marched against the war, he says.
|
You start with "a few years back". I check my map and realise: France is still around. + French people/companies are still buying/selling stuff.
I wonder why anyone is even still answering you.
|
On July 06 2016 20:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:A few years back there was a gem from the independent regarding France showing just how "strong" the EU economies are. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-is-totally-bankrupt-french-jobs-minister-michel-sapin-embarrasses-francois-hollande-with-8471077.htmlShow nested quote + 'France is totally bankrupt': French jobs minister Michel Sapin embarrasses Francois Hollande with shocking statement on state of the country's economy
Unexpected news came during a radio interview yesterday and calls into further question Hollande's controversial 'tax and spend' policies
Why be in an economic union with a totally bankrupt nation? Please tell me! Even the ministers admit it! Also i appreciate Corbyns words regarding the Chilcot enquiry Show nested quote + Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, begins by paying tribute to those killed, and to their relatives. He met some relatives yesterday, he says.
He says the report should not have taken this long.
He says the “overwhelming weight of international legal opinion” says the invasion was illegal.
It had devastating consequences, he says, fuelling terrorism and war across the region.
By any measure the invasion and occupation of Iraq “has been for many a catastrophe”.
He says it has led a break-down in trust in politics.
While the governing class got it wrong, many people got it right. Some 1.5m people marched against the war, he says.
You are aware that by the standards applied to that statement Britain would also have been "totally bankrupt" before Austerity started to work on reducing national debt? Most of the western nations would be bankrupt if they were private persons, but they aren't so people still borrow them money. Things become dicier if like Greece the market doesn't want to borrow them more money, but that has more to do with confidence in the country than any real numbers.
So wild guess which country just tanked the "confidence rating" ?
|
On July 06 2016 21:55 Tula wrote: So wild guess which country just tanked the "confidence rating" ? Is it Hungary? I bet it is Hungary.
|
|
|
|
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates: a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices. b) Self confidence. c) Principles overriding fear.
|
On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote: To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates: a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices. b) Self confidence. c) Principles overriding fear. Extremelly well said. This is exactly how I feel.
|
In which way exactly did the eu attack your sovereignity and how does leaving it help with anything, assuming you don't want to cut off your market?
I get why people voted like this, but i also think it was shortsighted and either will harm the UK badly or the UK won't gain barely any sovereignity while losing your voice in the EU parlament/comission (like switzerland or norway).
|
shortsighted is to assume EU union won't evolve. Ex: assume EU won't get/have an army, won't have conscription, won't start proxy wars to serve EU corporation interests. ARE YOU PRO WAR!?!?!?!... (ps: Juncker asshole is probably still sore from losing the Middle East because he didn't have an army)
if i were UK right now(a ruler of), i'd make it a tax heaven and put switz out of business; move the whole Panama fiscal fiasco in London too.
|
On July 07 2016 18:04 xM(Z wrote: shortsighted is to assume EU union won't evolve. Ex: assume EU won't get/have an army, won't have conscription, won't start proxy wars to serve EU corporation interests. ARE YOU PRO WAR!?!?!?!... (ps: Juncker asshole is probably still sore from losing the Middle East because he didn't have an army)
if i were UK right now(a ruler of), i'd make it a tax heaven and put switz out of business; move the whole Panama fiscal fiasco in London too.
I have trouble parsing this post. Can you elaborate please?
|
which part? During an interview on 8 March, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that the EU needed its own military, in order to deal with the Russian threat, as well as to restore the bloc’s standing around the world.
Not everyone agrees. Germany and France support Juncker’s idea, while Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia insist that NATO should remain the guarantor of security on the European continent. The EurActiv network reports. http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/uk-central-europe-frown-at-juncker-s-european-army/ they will make an army eventually.
|
Yes, EU army is on the cards. Remove national armies and replace with an EU army makes it far harder for countries to leave the EU. This is also why they are calling for all countries within the EU that do not currently use the Euro to start using it, to make it harder for them to leave.
|
On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote: To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK [want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates: a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices. b) Self confidence. c) Principles overriding fear. Is it though? I don't think Britain is an outlier because your people care more about 'sovereignty' than other EU members. But it might have something to do with the fact that British people rank dead last in knowing even the most basic things about what the EU is and does: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_publ_en.pdf
And it definitely has something to do with the fact that no other member's media publishes as many lies about the EU, with no loss in circulation regardless of how many hundreds of claims are undeniably proven lies: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/daily-chart-15
Or how about the myriad of stories like this of people thinking this vote was about muslim immigration? When according to the last Eurobarometer the UK has 48% positive / 46% negative opinion of EU migrants, but 39% positive / 55% negative opinion of non-EU migrants? http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_anx_en.pdf
But worst of all is that all the leave arguments were things that can only happen if you leave EEA, not just EU. But this referendum was only about EU and that will be used by your political class to keep you in EEA. There will never be a referendum to leave EEA. Why are we even talking about muh sovereignty and migration when at best this will get you a pass to some fishing and agricultural regulations.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't legitimate reasons to leave the EU, but I don't think you're even convincing yourself that this was an informed vote rather than an emotional vote, let alone convince others..
|
On July 07 2016 19:16 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote: To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK [want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates: a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices. b) Self confidence. c) Principles overriding fear. Is it though? I don't think Britain is an outlier because your people care more about 'sovereignty' than other EU members. But it might have something to do with the fact that British people rank dead last in knowing even the most basic things about what the EU is and does: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_publ_en.pdfAnd it definitely has something to do with the fact that no other member's media publishes as many lies about the EU, with no loss in circulation regardless of how many hundreds of claims are undeniably proven lies: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/daily-chart-15Or how about the myriad of stories like this of people thinking this vote was about muslim immigration? When according to the last Eurobarometer the UK has 48% positive / 46% negative opinion of EU migrants, but 39% positive / 55% negative opinion of non-EU migrants? http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb83/eb83_anx_en.pdfBut worst of all is that all the leave arguments were things that can only happen if you leave EEA, not just EU. But this referendum was only about EU and that will be used by your political class to keep you in EEA. There will never be a referendum to leave EEA. Why are we even talking about muh sovereignty and migration when at best this will get you a pass to some fishing and agricultural regulations. I'm not suggesting that there aren't legitimate reasons to leave the EU, but I don't think you're even convincing yourself that this was an informed vote rather than an emotional vote, let alone convince others.. Really most anti brexit arguments have been stupid to a point ... Another posters asked me "do you believe it's positive to work with others ?" like it's really relevant to the subject, and now your argument is "You are dumb and uninformed". Yeah most basic citizens do not understand the complicated mess that is the EU and is uninformed on it. And why is it so ? It has a lot to do with how the EU is structured, with all those acronyms for every new plan / institution and whatelse, even the separation of powers in the european union is unclear, as powers are shared between institutions rather than split like in all other state. This administrative mess is also a serious grievance towards the EU, and the lack of information / simple understading of the EU is also a reason to vote against it.
PS : I have a little news for you, people were also uninformed on the EU when they voted for it.
|
the lack of information / simple understading of the EU is also a reason to vote against it.
No. That is a reason get off your backside and learn about it.
"I don't know about something, therefore I am against it."
Has it really come to this.
|
|
|
|