Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

How will you vote in the EU referendum ?


  • Total voters
    74
Status
Not open for further replies.
You patently haven't got a clue about the issue being discussed, but as per, have waded in with an ill informed, ignorant and facile retort on the subject at hand.

You're a bell end

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

Hilarious

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

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

All of your accusations of bigotry are lies.

Stop trying to justify yourself, it's pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
This is really just a repeat of the ignore the experts claim from Gove.
It's lack of imagination that enables someone to be oblivious to risk in a given scenario. It goes hand in hand with experience in the assessment and making the safest choices.
I'd far rather identify the risks and work out solutions in advance than pretend they don't exist. My risk assessment on the day of the referendum has earnt me hundreds of pounds already and saved me plenty on foreign trips.

I don't believe only the past is possible and I don't believe others who voice concern do either. That no country has ever left the EU highlights that this has never been done in the past so you are making a false assumption about those who disagree with you.
There are real hurdles to overcome and it is surely in all our interests that the best deals are achieved as we leave the EU. WTO is not the best deal by a very long way.
Today I heard that the UK will initially seek EEA access with a handbrake clause on immigration under article 112 of the EEA agreement. I guessing that is just one of many avenues being explored
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.
 
If you have a look at the video I posted, the former Greek finance minister is pretty much saying ignore the experts within the EU, because they're not experts and having taken over control of a countries economy, they force them into decisions that they know are wrong, and also that are undemocratic. He mentions Ireland, that they changed from a model economy to a basket case needing a bail out.

His words also suggest that the rules as written are largely ignored, with no Country, including France and Germany, complying with the agreements for the eurozone.

In the interest of balance, on another video, he did say that if you're not in the EU, do not join, but if you're already in, you're better of staying in to reform it as the federal nature of the EU and the neoliberals that run it, will make it as difficult as possible if we leave.

He made quite a few very interesting revelations, one being that the group that make all the decisions, don't officially exist.

I also looked at some clips of paper work that Heath kept quiet about, and presumably so has every leader since, that proves they all knew that he signed the documents claiming it was just a common market, knowing that it was a stated aim to remove power and control from sovereign nations, to be passed to an unelected, uncountable central federation, which no UK politician has the authority to sign up to.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fez and DMD
You'd think with them all being so hard working and cheap to run, Poland would be booming.

A fair few of the Poles round here are pissed off, because the Romanians have come in and undercut them so taken 'their' jobs. I guess we all have our price.
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.
 
I can keep an open mind about the rest of what you posted but when I come to this bit, it just sounds like X-files. I cannot see the leader of any country, especially the UK, 30 years after such a terrible worldwide conflict, signing up to anything they knowingly believed was some master plan to give up national sovereignty. If ppl think Theresa May is not going to give up on our interests on Brexit renogiations, being as indifferent to the whole situation as she is, I really can't believe how the same ppl can argue any leader would do what you're suggesting here.
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
If you have a look at the video I posted, the former Greek finance minister is pretty much saying ignore the experts within the EU, because they're not experts and having taken over control of a countries economy, they force them into decisions that they know are wrong, and also that are undemocratic. He mentions Ireland, that they changed from a model economy to a basket case needing a bail out.

His words also suggest that the rules as written are largely ignored, with no Country, including France and Germany, complying with the agreements for the eurozone.

In the interest of balance, on another video, he did say that if you're not in the EU, do not join, but if you're already in, you're better of staying in to reform it as the federal nature of the EU and the neoliberals that run it, will make it as difficult as possible if we leave.

He made quite a few very interesting revelations, one being that the group that make all the decisions, don't officially exist.

I also looked at some clips of paper work that Heath kept quiet about, and presumably so has every leader since, that proves they all knew that he signed the documents claiming it was just a common market, knowing that it was a stated aim to remove power and control from sovereign nations, to be passed to an unelected, uncountable central federation, which no UK politician has the authority to sign up to.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Might be worthwhile reading the whole sentence including the opener, before commenting. Save yourself looking like a fool. :)
 
I can keep an open mind about the rest of what you posted but when I come to this bit, it just sounds like X-files. I cannot see the leader of any country, especially the UK, 30 years after such a terrible worldwide conflict, signing up to anything they knowingly believed was some master plan to give up national sovereignty. If ppl think Theresa May is not going to give up on our interests on Brexit renogiations, being as indifferent to the whole situation as she is, I really can't believe how the same ppl can argue any leader would do what you're suggesting here.

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”.
 
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.

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.
 
It is you UKIP dick

It's the most progressive economy in Europe and the only one that didn't dip into recession in 08.

If you had the vaguest clue about what you were talking about, and weren't such a small minded UKIP dogma swallowing bigot, then you might understand the context of the hard working Poles who came over here in the mid 2000's in search of a better life, but are now flocking back home to escape the kind of small minded racists who begrudge them a living in the UK.


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. <ok>

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. <ok>
 
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.
 
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. <ok>

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. <ok>
Probably over the top in fairness, so I'll concede as well. I was battered last night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.