The EU debate - Part III

The more they are in denial, and assume the public are stupid instead of realising that their ideology has been seen to be flawed, the quicker a better, more open, inclusive and equal society can be created.

 

I'm not claiming that at all, and it's closed minds like yours and the numpties that have replied to you in kind that mean it's pointless trying to elaborate on here.

You haven't actually said what your version of the background to the EU is.

 

What are you actually claiming, then?

 

The comments about war were similar to Cameron's claim, and rather than being a main reason, it was a vehicle to push a scheme to unite the major industries, such as steel and coal and federalise Europe, that had been pushed in one form or another since the 20's by Monnet.

 

That the background to the EU is worth looking into with an open mind, and that the approach of some posters on this forum mean it's pointless trying to discuss it on here.

 

Made it a bit more realistic for you

 

Not very good on your part, I dont see flashing text, try again.

 

I sir, do not flash my text for strangers on the Internet

 

Harold Macmillan, backed by the USA first pushed their NWO dreams so as to preempt the perceived threats of a power play by a coalition of German/French nationalists. De Gaulle sussed them out and vetoed the UK from joining the EEC and we had to wait for Heath to con us into signing up.

The EU is not a democratic institution by any stretch of the imagination, nor was it ever intended to be. Look at how many democratically elected European leaders the EU elite has ousted so far? Maggie Thatcher's being their largest scalp to date.

If anyone is truly interested to know the truth about the EU's conception, start by looking at Jean Monnet.

 

I've said consistently that whilst I believe the EU works well as a trading partnership, and it follows that many laws have to be standardized over the community, the current status of the single currency is not workable over any length of time.

Neither would I support complete political union. An idea which is currently a dead duck. There is close to zero appetite for it amongst the people of Europe.

 

The EU elite ousted Thatcher??...

WTF are you babbling about??...

More loopy conspiracy theories!...

 

We argree on a lot. We'd probably find a lot more agreement if there was a conversation rather than a series of challenges and rebuttals.

The opinions of the people of Europe conflict with the goals of the EU. The EU don't change their goals, only the presentation and timing.

It's one of the reasons I say that a remain vote would have emboldened them, and the timings would change. If they don't wake up to the reality, or get their presentation and timing wrong, the EU is in big difficulties.

The US vote and other global factors such as Asia, mean that we are in a good position to take advantage of the many deals that are there to be done.

 

I would only add before I get on with my Sunday that I still believe the vote to leave was the wrong decision at the wrong time.

The EU leaders are not completely blind or stupid. A narrow remain vote would have sent clear warning to them that there was major dissent, and to tread carefully. We would also have still had a seat at the table to help bring about the changes that I believe are not only necessary, but inevitable.

The US vote was the result of the democrats fielding an unsuitable, unbelievable, untrustworthy candidate.

Trump bullshitted his way to the presidency. Any half way competent, believable opponent would have seen him soundly defeated.

 

That's what the EU do. They're a group of left-wing militia who march into parliaments and try to drag away all the great right-wing leaders.

Nothing to do with being ousted by her own MPs.

 

The EU leaders have gone through the stages of grief, with denial and anger etc, and are starting to realise that they need to do something. My bet is that the something will be to readjust the message, when wisdom would suggest it's time to reassess the goal.

A narrow vote to remain, would be a vote to remain, I don't think they'd take on board the meaning and implications of the ratio.

The choice of US democrat candidate highlighted the lack of understanding of people waking up to the con that is their ideology, and that Clinton is the poster girl for. Her choice meant that Trump was the ideal opposition to her.

The media are big losers in all this too, because they have been shown to be almost canvassing on behalf of one side, ignoring their deceit and changes in policy, yet trying to accuse Trump of things that Clinton is far, far more guilty of.

 

I see Dull's already been busy on this rainy Sunday morning.

 

Stan's Sunday morning paper round up.

The Daily Kustard is reporting bat **** nonsense designed to scare old ladies and dimwitted simpletons

What is Merkel trying to tell May as she uses ‘SECRET ILLUMINATI SIGN' at key world talks?

 

The Daily Saxton is reporting that Nigel Farage will once again look for a constituency that has enough ****s in one place to vote him into Parliament. A spokesman for Paddy Power said "if you think we'd take any bets on it being Hull then you're an even bigger **** than Farage".

Nigel Farage makes new comeback bid: Acting Ukip leader rips up pledge to quit frontline politics as he vows to forge new alliance with Donald Trump and fight for a Commons seat

 

please log in to view this image

 

You are beginning to sound like Stan.

Go read up on the subject rather than make dumb, vacuous comments.