Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

The mere fact that you've asked that question, simply proves my point.

Hilarious

What 'lies' btw? In your own time...

 

Go back to the beginning of this conversation and you will find plenty.

As I said, I will return to it.

You set yourself up to be some sort of authority on here, which is really amusing when everyone knows you're a thick **** who dwells on the Internet to lie and create argument. To be fair, you do work hard at it, though.

 

Hit a nerve, how? You're making stuff up again you thick ****.

 

No it doesn't, it just means I asked you a question.

All of your accusations of bigotry are lies.

Stop trying to justify yourself, it's pathetic.

 

Who said that? Why should the UK leave the EU and then accept uncontrolled immigration in the medium term? It's just not going to happen. This is what I mean about people not understanding.

 

This is why, if the "united states of europe" concept had been done in a way that emphasised democracy, it might have worked. As it is it was, the bureaucrats hijacked the organisation to make it all about them getting as much as they can out of it. The people running the show know that they will be able to make themselves rich before most of the the short term national politicians realise what is going on. There's also plenty on the remain side who, if Corbyn had been honest and campaigned to come out, would have voted to leave because they are followers rather than independent thinkers and doers.

 

Too many Poles like drinking too much. We make it clear to them that, while having the odd drink is fine, drinking to excess means they have to live somewhere else. Now we have some fantastic tenants.

 

You just made that bit up haven't you.
Theresa May is not "indifferent" to anything - but then you have to have judgement to know that.

 

I don't need to be on the booze to handle a total ****er, like you.

You're a pig ignorant, thick headed know it all. You actually know **** all

Piss off and bore the arse of somebody else, Barmpot!...

 

It's you that doesn't understand, you dozy old fool! You seriously think that the whole of the EU is going to bend like a sapling for Thatcher Lite, or her amateur bully boy?

 

I think your response shows a lack of imagination
A handbrake would involve negotiating a maximum level of free movement that if exceeded would allow the UK to put restrictions in place until numbers fell back below the agreed level.

 

I did watch the video and he is exactly right to say that German loans were a political exercise to support their own banks, the eurozone model is flawed and the IMF are hypocrites.
However he is also only one side of the argument and the vast majority of the discussion was about the eurozone financial model and not the EU. As far as I can see it was countries ignoring the financial controls the eurozone imposed that put them in trouble. If the eurozone is to work then finances must be more closely linked to prevent some countries borrowing on the basis that Germany is underwriting the debt and then Germany refusing to pay which is effectively what happened in PIGS.

Ireland is a interesting example to use, the reason we had a large influx of Irish in the 70s was their economy was screwed.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that the EEC was a stepping stone to further integration or that the Eurozone was screwed by countries wanting their cake and eating it.

 

After 10,392 posts, are Insufferable yid in Spain & Tobes theTwattish Tantrum Thrower really still stamping their feet and bawling about us winning the Brexit vote?

Happy days

 

Might be worthwhile reading the whole sentence including the opener, before commenting. Save yourself looking like a fool.

 

This country quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom by membership of the European Union … as a once sovereign power, we have said we want to be bound by Community law.

Judge Bruce Morgan, judgement in Sunderland metrication case April 9, 2001

In 1969, the Council of Ministers had commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Pierre Werner, to draw up a plan to move the Common Market forward to full economic and monetary union.

A briefing note to Mr. Heath from Con O’Neill, the senior civil servant responsible for Europe, explained that, if implemented, Werner’s proposals would have enormous political repercussions. They envisaged“a process of fundamental political importance, implying progressive development towards a political union”. The long-term objectives of economic and monetary union, it was made clear to Mr Heath, “are very far-reaching indeed”, going “well beyond the full establishment of a Common Market”. The Werner plan could lead to,

“the ultimate creation of a European federal state, with a single currency. All the basic instruments of national economic management (fiscal, monetary, incomes and regional policies) would ultimately be handed over to the central federal authorities. The Werner report suggests that this radical transformation of present Communities should be accomplished within a decade”. (PRO/FCO 30/789)

When Geoffrey Rippon, the minister in charge of our negotiations, went to see M. Werner on October 27, the minutes of their discussion show that Rippon went out of his way to congratulate him on his report, which he said “well stated our common objectives”. Privately, Her Majesty’s Government had no objection to the political union Werner was proposing. (PRO/CAB 164/771)

When these documents were released 30 years later, this was confirmed by a retired Foreign Office official Sir Crispin Tickell, who had played an intimate part in Britain’s Common Market negotiations as Geoffrey Rippon’s private secretary and was present at the meeting with Werner. In a BBC interview Tickell frankly admitted that, although worries over Britain’s loss of sovereignty had been“very much present in the mind of the negotiators”, the line had been “the less they came out in the open the better”.

 

He did offer reasons as to why countries ignored the Eurozone and inherent financial controls, including the model being based on the gold standard that caused the 1930's depression. He also talked of why some were made to fail and why others were not.

 

I just checked, because I hadn't previously, and on the subject of Poland and its economy, you're quite right, it is doing very well, and I didn't have a clue.

I chucked a flippant remark in for a cheap laugh, and ****ed up.

Hey ho.

I think the rest of your post makes you look like a nob though.

 

Why is all this very old news about plans for a federal Europe being regurgitated?? In yet another desperate attempt to be proved right, I strongly suspect!

Yes, a federal Europe was the original plan. A plan none other than Churchill himself proposed and supported. That, however, was long, long ago. The world was a very different place.

In the real world of today, even arch federalist, Juncker, has conceded there is no appetite for it.

It is a plan conceived by politicians who, in their arrogance, just assumed public compliance. They were wrong then, they're wrong now.

I'm firmly convinced that any attempt to introduce federalism into Europe would be heavily defeated in most of the major constituent countries.

 

Probably over the top in fairness, so I'll concede as well. I was battered last night.