EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I have no interest in a strong Westminster, I have even less interest in a strong EU.

In my view the EU promotes local identities at the expense of established national identities, leading to increased calls for independence in the UK, in Spain, in Belgium. As I recall Beskar once advocated such a strategy for undermining traditional Nation-States as a means towards One World Government.

I support the UK against the EU because I consider that we are not suited to be the kind of Europeans that the EU wants. Stuck on our little Island we have diverged over the last 1,500 years from the Continent. I also support the UK against the EU because I believe that the UK is the maximum workable size for a democratic Nation-State. In my view part of the problem the US has is one of sheer scale.

---

I disagree on the EU undermining national identities by promoting regional identities. The EU promotes regional identities for its own sake. Regions then calling for undermining nation states is then a first world problem. The kind of thing some people do when they have the luxury of being bored. They have this luxury because the EU promotes prosperity (and certainly has done for the UK), and it promotes small producers, who get protection against multinationals by the EU's protection of their local identity. Brexit acts to check this luxury by checking Britain's prosperity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

1. Stuck on our little Island we have diverged over the last 1,500 years from the Continent.

2. I also support the UK against the EU because I believe that the UK is the maximum workable size for a democratic Nation-State.

---

1. I do understand all nations need to feel special. People will often pick something totally arbitrarily and point to it as proof of exceptionalism. I just can't understand that British choose the sea. Sea has never been a barrier. It's a highway. You've spread your language, culture and political system around the world over the sea. When you tried it by land the best you could do was northern France for a short time. By sea you've reached China, India, America, Australia...

Choose something that makes sense.

2. Are there any facts behind that or is that just your personal feeling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

1. I do understand all nations need to feel special. People will often pick something totally arbitrarily and point to it as proof of exceptionalism. I just can't understand that British choose the sea. Sea has never been a barrier. It's a highway. You've spread your language, culture and political system around the world over the sea. When you tried it by land the best you could do was northern France for a short time. By sea you've reached China, India, America, Australia...

Choose something that makes sense.

2. Are there any facts behind that or is that just your personal feeling?

---

The Channel has saved Britain from invasion by the main continental power in the 19th and 20th centuries, meaning the UK, barring some channel islands, has not had to experience occupation or how to cope with and avoid it. However, this reasoning is completely outdated given that no continental power will be invading Britain again. But people still hark back to that reasoning. Just as prosperity leads to people having the luxury of indulging first world problems, so the sea allows Britain to indulge island mentalities. The Americans have it to an even greater degree. However, the Americans utterly dominate their continent. We do not.

The technological advances of the 20th and 21st century have to some extent and will likely even more, render the entire island thing nonsensical both in the area of invasion and culture...

The Stukas off WW2 couldn't even reach Ireland or the West Coast of England IIRC, today you can get a RyanAir flight from Frankfurt to London for 18€ or thereabouts, takes off several times a day probably.
In the 1950s you had to pay through the roof to use one of the few undersea phone cable slots to make a call from here to London, today once I click "Post Reply", my message may even go via Hong Kong and the US (via wherever the server is located) to London in under a second so that you can read it there when you open the page... and it won't even cost me anything extra!

Of course some of this is relatively new while cultural adaptation and so on take a bit longer, but if I had to guess I would say that unless we wipe ourselves out, this sort of technology will only increase and make the borders even more meaningless as time goes on. Surely it won't change who your direct neighbors are, but the cultural interchange happens anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

There are different terms for it now?

You can't call my question for a definition of intrinsic value a non sequitur and then call my definition of intrinsic value wrong. How am I supposed to comment on your intrinsic value argument if I don't even know what you mean with the term? Wikipedia offers five pages on the term and the financial one apparently means some kind of objective value of a good, which is more or less how I understood and used the term.

If your entire point is that intrinsic value is entirely subjective (and the English think the EU has none), then bringing it up in this argument is completely pointless, because your subjective opinion clashes with the definition of intrinsic value being an objective value (according to the definition most likely applicable IMO) and your subjective opinion may just be wrong anyway or is unlikely to be accepted by me as a valid argument.

How is a larger market size not an intrinsic value of the EU? IMO it's an intrinsic value because no opinion can strip it away. The very idea of the EU is to turn several countries into one (at least in some aspects for the time being), which e.g. increases the market size. Therefore it's an intrinsic value of the EU because every outside observer should see that being able to sell stuff to 500 million people has a higher value than being able to sell stuff to 50 million people.

---

If the EU provides a larger market then the EU has value as the means to provide a larger market. Such value is not intrinsic to the EU because there are other means of achieving this goal. To have intrinsic value the EU must be an end of itself, not a means to an end.

We are speaking here philosophically, not economically.

The point is this - the British - and especially the English see the EU as a means to an end, not an end.

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

If the EU provides a larger market then the EU has value as the means to provide a larger market. Such value is not intrinsic to the EU because there are other means of achieving this goal. To have intrinsic value the EU must be an end of itself, not a means to an end.

We are speaking here philosophically, not economically.

The point is this - the British - and especially the English see the EU as a means to an end, not an end.

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

---

A significant proportion of the British people disagree with your view. The custom of centre-based British governments is to govern in the direction that their party tends towards, but without alienating the majority of the remainder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

---

But that can't really be the case, can it? The intrinsic value you referred to is diminished by the departure (at least as much as the absence) of a major party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

If the EU provides a larger market then the EU has value as the means to provide a larger market. Such value is not intrinsic to the EU because there are other means of achieving this goal. To have intrinsic value the EU must be an end of itself, not a means to an end.

We are speaking here philosophically, not economically.

The point is this - the British - and especially the English see the EU as a means to an end, not an end.

The other EU states should be happy we are leaving and let us go with a good will. Without us you'll be a step closer to your dream of a unified Europe.

---

How is that different from the UK? The UK is just a means to the end of uniting the British Isles and you weren't really happy when some people in Northern Ireland wanted to leave. The British Isles would be even more united under the EU because "southern" Ireland is included there as well, so the UK has no intrinsic value as far as I can see.

Again, if it's just about how the (some) British like to see it, then don't call it intrinsic value, because that's like calling a minority view common sense. And that you see it that way is useless to bring up because it's, uhm, common knowledge. It then just seems like there is no objective reason for you to leave, just "feelings" because you're "snowflakes". ~;)
Which is okay to an extent until you pretend it were somehow the rationally objective position to take.

Also what Monty said.

UK in a Strong Anglosphere> UK in some continental system where Germany finally is able to exert its will over the landmass.

The 5 eyes countries share a much stronger cultural base for cooperation. These relationships seems so "special" only because trust can be quickly built when you come from the same place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

UK in a Strong Anglosphere> UK in some continental system where Germany finally is able to exert its will over the landmass.

The 5 eyes countries share a much stronger cultural base for cooperation. These relationships seems so "special" only because trust can be quickly built when you come from the same place.

---

Their Queen is from Germany and they refuse to dethrone her, so what's the problem here? ~;)

Besides, if they have a problem with Germany controlling the landmass, then they can prevent that much better by being part of the EU than as an outside observer. If they're outside, they would play into our hands in this regard. That we try to make them stay anyway might also be a hint at how silly that idea seems to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

A significant proportion of the British people disagree with your view. The custom of centre-based British governments is to govern in the direction that their party tends towards, but without alienating the majority of the remainder.

---

No, I don't think they disagree with my views on the intrinsic value of the EU, they just think being in the EU is good for trade and prosperity and don't fancy risking leaving.

Me, I think the prosperity of the EU isn't worth the political hangups and the undermining of democracy.

For a lot of people who where you fall either side of that argument is a very narrow space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Their Queen is from Germany and they refuse to dethrone her, so what's the problem here? ~;)

Besides, if they have a problem with Germany controlling the landmass, then they can prevent that much better by being part of the EU than as an outside observer. If they're outside, they would play into our hands in this regard. That we try to make them stay anyway might also be a hint at how silly that idea seems to us.

---

I'd be delighted if Germany can lead that unruly mass. Britain and Germany probably can have a sensible discourse. The layers the EU add are merely self-serving bureaucrats.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

No, I don't think they disagree with my views on the intrinsic value of the EU, they just think being in the EU is good for trade and prosperity and don't fancy risking leaving.

Me, I think the prosperity of the EU isn't worth the political hangups and the undermining of democracy.

For a lot of people who where you fall either side of that argument is a very narrow space.

---

Where in practice is the EU's undermining of democracy? Where has the EU intervened to undermine British democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

UK in a Strong Anglosphere> UK in some continental system where Germany finally is able to exert its will over the landmass.

The 5 eyes countries share a much stronger cultural base for cooperation. These relationships seems so "special" only because trust can be quickly built when you come from the same place.

---

The British Isles are still next door to the European landmass, far away from the rest of the 5 eyes. Unless you're suggesting we teleport goods and produce around the Commonwealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The British Isles are still next door to the European landmass, far away from the rest of the 5 eyes. Unless you're suggesting we teleport goods and produce around the Commonwealth.

---

We could copy the Chinese and use devices that float on water!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Where in practice is the EU's undermining of democracy? Where has the EU intervened to undermine British democracy?

---

Just a couple:

EU Directives and Regulations superseding UK laws.
EU courts superseding UK courts.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

We could copy the Chinese and use devices that float on water!

~:smoking:

---

Not everything that floats on the water can be called a device.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Just a couple:

EU Directives and Regulations superseding UK laws.
EU courts superseding UK courts.

~:smoking:

---

But doesn't UK law then undermine your local law in Taplow? After all you vote for a mayor and/or city parliament and then these UK people come and dictate your foreign policy and your income taxes because their laws supersede the laws your democratically elected Taplow government came up with.

Perhaps you personally like and dislike it in different cases, but there seems to be no actual principle, just a matter of taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But doesn't UK law then undermine your local law in Taplow? After all you vote for a mayor and/or city parliament and then these UK people come and dictate your foreign policy and your income taxes because their laws supersede the laws your democratically elected Taplow government came up with.

Perhaps you personally like and dislike it in different cases, but there seems to be no actual principle, just a matter of taste.

---

Taplow was never, to the best of my knowledge, a Sovereign state. The unit of state was England - with some disjointed bits tacked on.

The principle is pretty obvious.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Just a couple:

EU Directives and Regulations superseding UK laws.
EU courts superseding UK courts.

~:smoking:

---

We're signed up to other international treaties too. If it's the principle that rankles, should we leave the UN too? Most of the human rights malarkies are traceable to the UN's workings after all, rather than specifically the EU. Most of the EU regulations relate to H&S and similar stuff, and we've had Gove vow to at least retain the EU standards at a minimum, and Grenfell wasn't the greatest advert for building a bonfire of regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We're signed up to other international treaties too. If it's the principle that rankles, should we leave the UN too? Most of the human rights malarkies are traceable to the UN's workings after all, rather than specifically the EU. Most of the EU regulations relate to H&S and similar stuff, and we've had Gove vow to at least retain the EU standards at a minimum, and Grenfell wasn't the greatest advert for building a bonfire of regulations.

---

The UN is a largely ineffective kerfuffle on which we have a veto.

The EU is increasingly looking like a reenactment society for the Holy Roman Empire circa 1500 with all the contradictions and inefficiencies there-in.

Now, show me an Emperor, tell me we're re-taking Constantinople and I'll talk about the individual worth of my miserable life against the Glory of Rome because Rome is a dream I can believe in. Holy Roman Empire, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The UN is a largely ineffective kerfuffle on which we have a veto.

The EU is increasingly looking like a reenactment society for the Holy Roman Empire circa 1500 with all the contradictions and inefficiencies there-in.

Now, show me an Emperor, tell me we're re-taking Constantinople and I'll talk about the individual worth of my miserable life against the Glory of Rome because Rome is a dream I can believe in. Holy Roman Empire, not so much.

---

Two mutually contradicting arguments. Without going into a flight of historical fancy, the EU provides much that is decidedly not inefficient. Such as regulations that ministers have promised not to abandon. Such as directing investment to regions that Westminster is neglecting. And that's without going into arguments about the single market, which is the single biggest benefit of the lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The EU is increasingly looking like a reenactment society for the Holy Roman Empire circa 1500 with all the contradictions and inefficiencies there-in.

---

#NotmyKaiser #HabsburgProtest #Recount1486

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Taplow was never, to the best of my knowledge, a Sovereign state. The unit of state was England - with some disjointed bits tacked on.

The principle is pretty obvious.

~:smoking:

---

So would Taplow have been in Wessex or Essex then? Either way England/UK, French noblemen and a German Royal family now make laws that supersede the laws of whatever the old sovereign kingdom was. And it's not even like the UK was forced into the EU. It's not even forced to stay, although there are consequences. Just stop making up myths about how unprecedentedly terrible and undemocratic the EU supposedly is and how unfair it is to the glorious Democratic Peoples' English Empire or whatever. :drama2:

Even apart from the sovereignty issues it seems really weird to think that smaller countries nowadays were better off alone. To say it in the words of a wise old democrat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rupert Murdoch

When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.

---

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/co...-a3189151.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Just a couple:

EU Directives and Regulations superseding UK laws.
EU courts superseding UK courts.

~:smoking:

---

You agreed to this by democratic process. Your government shaped the details for your own country, and for others through the overall direction of the institution. You could provision to leave at any time.

Now you have decided to leave, keeping, per Pannonian, a substantial part of the substructure.

So has democracy already been irrevocably undermined, or did you have some hypothetical future scenario in mind that would differ from what came before?

Maybe EU membership is a form of lotophagy that saps the democratic will and values of individual Britons the more they partake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Two mutually contradicting arguments. Without going into a flight of historical fancy, the EU provides much that is decidedly not inefficient. Such as regulations that ministers have promised not to abandon. Such as directing investment to regions that Westminster is neglecting. And that's without going into arguments about the single market, which is the single biggest benefit of the lot.

---

the Parliament sits and debates in one city, but votes in another.

THOSE sorts of inefficiencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So would Taplow have been in Wessex or Essex then? Either way England/UK, French noblemen and a German Royal family now make laws that supersede the laws of whatever the old sovereign kingdom was. And it's not even like the UK was forced into the EU. It's not even forced to stay, although there are consequences. Just stop making up myths about how unprecedentedly terrible and undemocratic the EU supposedly is and how unfair it is to the glorious Democratic Peoples' English Empire or whatever. :drama2:

Even apart from the sovereignty issues it seems really weird to think that smaller countries nowadays were better off alone. To say it in the words of a wise old democrat:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/co...-a3189151.html

---

Consequences?

Like being completely shut out of Europe's markets unless we agree to EU legal oversight on the people living here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

the Parliament sits and debates in one city, but votes in another.

THOSE sorts of inefficiencies.

---

You want to wreck the UK economy because of that? That's just one step up from voting out because of bendy bananas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Consequences?

Like being completely shut out of Europe's markets unless we agree to EU legal oversight on the people living here.

---

Completely shut out? Sounds overly dramatic. The US are not in the EU but hardly shut out of the market, even Russia and Turkey sell their stuff inside the EU. You can negotiate market access either way, other countries have done so, too. What you probably can't get is a complete exception with conditions that are not available to other countries either, but then again why would you?

The other free trade deals have been discussed or alluded to have conditions of "freedom of movement" attached (India, Australia) or are rather one-sided (USA).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Completely shut out? Sounds overly dramatic. The US are not in the EU but hardly shut out of the market, even Russia and Turkey sell their stuff inside the EU. You can negotiate market access either way, other countries have done so, too. What you probably can't get is a complete exception with conditions that are not available to other countries either, but then again why would you?

---

Because trade outside of the eurozone can't be restricted anymore, tadaa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Because trade outside of the eurozone can't be restricted anymore, tadaa

---

It means we'll be subject to tariffs on all trade, rather than just those outside the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It means we'll be subject to tariffs on all trade, rather than just those outside the EU.

---

Nah, relieved from tarrifs outside the eurozone. The EU is currently just being a jerk to intimidate other states that have kinda had it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nah, relieved from tarrifs outside the eurozone. The EU is currently just being a jerk to intimidate other states that have kinda had it

---

Do you have access to information that our cabinet ministers don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Do you have access to information that our cabinet ministers don't?

---

I think he means you can just sell your stuff via free trade agreement to markets like India, China or Somalia that either don't want it or can't afford it. Or where you just can't compete with the local producers due to distances and wage differences. Of course it will be glorious anyway. :2thumbsup:

What does the UK sell to the EU anyway? Wool and longbows? Surely the people of Tibet are dying to get both without the tariffs attached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Do you have access to information that our cabinet ministers don't?

---

I do I guess, all exta-tarrifs on trading outside of the EU-zone will just vanish. Europe won't diaapear if you leave the EU either. You don't understand what you have going for you and how strong your position is. Not just economically but also ideogicall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I do I guess, all exta-tarrifs on trading outside of the EU-zone will just vanish. Europe won't diaapear if you leave the EU either. You don't understand what you have going for you and how strong your position is. Not just economically but also ideogicall

---

Why would these tariffs vanish? How does ideology positively affect our economic position? You're making all these things up, aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why would these tariffs vanish? How does ideology positively affect our economic position? You're making all these things up, aren't you?

---

No you have established trade-deals with the commonwealth that are actually hindered by the EU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No you have established trade-deals with the commonwealth that are actually hindered by the EU

---

Have you told David Davis this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Have you told David Davis this?

---

Don't know who he is, maybe you should

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't know who he is, maybe you should

---

He's the bloke in charge of Brexit talks. Associated with this, he's also talking about getting other trade deals done, among them with countries that you say we already have deals with. If you're right, perhaps you should let him know we don't need to do these deals as we already have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

He's the bloke in charge of Brexit talks. Associated with this, he's also talking about getting other trade deals done, among them with countries that you say we already have deals with. If you're right, perhaps you should let him know we don't need to do these deals as we already have them.

---

They already exist in the eurone as well, they have really absolutly nothing on you, and that scares them. In the end you are just messing with their hobby's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

They already exist in the eurone as well, they have really absolutly nothing on you, and that scares them. In the end you are just messing with their hobby's

---

Just about everything you've written on Brexit has not been substantiated by any kind of evidence, but in most cases is actually contradicted by all available evidence. In the last case your claim that we already have agreements when our government is currently recruiting negotiators to make these agreements. There was an article by Simon Kuper on how Brexit was hatched by debaters who were skilled in winning debates, and who now expected their rhetoric to similarly effect the real world but who were finding how the real world operates otherwise. All your BS about Brexit runs along those lines.

https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/con...s-commonwealth

Quote:

---

The Commonwealth gives preferential trade access to its member countries, including the UK.

Commonwealth countries are also part of several regional trade groups, including:

the North American Free Trade Agreement
Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which have a trade and aid agreement with the EU
the African Union
the Association of South East Asian Nations
the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation
the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas
The EU and the UK have trade agreements with most of these organisations.

---

You'd almost think the current trade treaties that Britain has with the Commonwealth nations are there because the EU made them and once Brexit is done the EU will still have them and the UK may need to renegotiate depending on what the "preferntial treatment" in the first quoted line means.

http://thecommonwealth.org/media/new...th-post-brexit

Quote:

---

“We already know there’s a Commonwealth advantage in trading between member states”, said the Secretariat’s head of international trade policy, Dr Mohammad Razzaque. “Where the UK is already a significant trading partner, Commonwealth members can mobilise pro-active policy support to relatively easily expand trade further. In some cases, bilateral trading arrangements could also be the way forward.”

---

This doesn't exactly sound as though full free trade were already in place post-Brexit. Otherwise there would be nothing to expand.
Further looking into the paper linked shows this:

Quote:

---

Analysis presented in Commonwealth Trade Review 2015 shows that, even in the absence of any coordinated policy measures (i.e. not considering the option of establishing new trading blocs), there was the potential of additional exports of $156 billion, or 34 per cent of current intraCommonwealth exports. Of this, more than US$35 billion comprised potential exports from the UK.6

---

Doesn't say how much the UK could export with more treaties, but without more there is a potential of around 35 billion US Dollars (keep in mind this is a/the Commonwealth website). Now a simple Google search reveals that the UK currently exports around 220 billion British Pounds worth of goods and services to the EU (https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/), which is around 287 billion US Dollars according to our friend google. That leaves a difference of ~ 251 billion US Dollars in exports. Now they can still export to the EU but the tariffs will likely decrease the volume and also make imports from the EU more expensive if replacement suppliers cannot be found quickly. Consider also that the increase in Commonwealth trade is just as much possible without Brexit as the number refers to currently unrealized potential trade. I don't really see the monetary advantage of Brexit here. :shrug: The EU membership fee in 2015 after the rebate was 12.9 billion GBP according to the Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/ho...ld-it-pay-for/).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't really see the monetary advantage of Brexit here.

---

You forget, the plan for Brexit is that the UK will drop all trade barriers, having free trade with everywhere without any custom arrangements and sell all the corporations off to global internationals, and also becom an overseas tax haven.

The rich get richer and Britannia Rules the Waves (or something like that, apparently)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You forget, the plan for Brexit is that the UK will drop all trade barriers, having free trade with everywhere without any custom arrangements and sell all the corporations off to global internationals, and also becom an overseas tax haven.

The rich get richer and Britannia Rules the Waves (or something like that, apparently)

---

...Whereas the EU is trying to destroy all European nations in to one amorphous mass of cattle who are only given the vote over matters they will vote the "right" way. The rich get richer (in this case lots of supra-state officials).

Or something like that, apparently.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

...Whereas the EU is trying to destroy all European nations in to one amorphous mass of cattle who are only given the vote over matters they will vote the "right" way. The rich get richer (in this case lots of supra-state officials).

Or something like that, apparently.

~:smoking:

---

Unfounded, drivel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You forget, the plan for Brexit is that the UK will drop all trade barriers, having free trade with everywhere without any custom arrangements and sell all the corporations off to global internationals, and also becom an overseas tax haven.

The rich get richer and Britannia Rules the Waves (or something like that, apparently)

---

You really need a band playing if you are going for that much platitudinous in a couple of brief sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

...Whereas the EU is trying to destroy all European nations in to one amorphous mass of cattle who are only given the vote over matters they will vote the "right" way. The rich get richer (in this case lots of supra-state officials).

Or something like that, apparently.

~:smoking:

---

Four legs good, two legs bad. But the apparatchik need those perks after their strenuous days of leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Unfounded, drivel.

---

Reality, obvious

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Unfounded, drivel.

---

Who says Germans don't get sarcasm...?

~:smoking:

It's funny how people apply completely different principles to politicians.

Corporations pay their CEOs and managers millions every month so they can "get the best". Meanwhile people complain that politicians, who get a lot less every month, are "too rich", "not good enough" and "too susceptible to bribery". Well, according to capitalist principles, perhaps you're still not paying them enough to get the best, most upstanding candidates for the job?

And concerning influences of the rich, look at politics before politicians got paid anything or the current US cabinet, where politics were/are basically a pastime for rich people to further their own agenda because noone else could afford or would want the job for that kind of money.
Of course one could also argue about whether higher payment = more skill is actually applicable in all or most cases, but let's not stray too far from the topic.

As for the sarcasm part, I don't see the big difference between that post and earlier rory posts in this topic. Or as I'm always told, it's your own fault for not making it obvious enough/being bad at it/you just say it now because you don't want to admit being wrong. :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Who says Germans don't get sarcasm...?

~:smoking:

---

The ones with a sense of humour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You really need a band playing if you are going for that much platitudinous in a couple of brief sentences.

---

Our government runs on platitudinous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You really need a band playing if you are going for that much platitudinous in a couple of brief sentences.

---

If you want to see platitudes, see the recent UK election. Newspapers ran counts of how many times the words "strong" and "stable" appeared in any given speech. It got too much even for the UK voters, who were just bright enough to recognise that a campaign was based around cliches and hiding the leader as much as possible.

Shouldn't just look at the economics, the EU is tbe Call of Chultu of politics. What the EU wants is destroying nation-states

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What the EU wants is destroying nation-states

---

A very noble goal in itself.

The two preceding posts represent the core of the divide in thinking on the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The two preceding posts represent the core of the divide in thinking on the EU.

---

It's not from one side only though. You also have the Westminster government willingly destroying regions in order to neutralise them politically. Eg. The Thatcher government's policy for Liverpool was to direct it towards "managed decline" in order to punish it for its far left tendencies. During the EU era, the city benefited from EU investment that matched any private financing with an equal amount from the EU, thus bypassing the intentions of Westminster. Far from a managed decline, the city modernised.

In the above case, which degree of sovereignty was right? The regional level, the national level, or the supra-national level?

Regional Investment policy was one of the best ones the EU had. Instead of disparity between areas, it sort to provide investment and develop them instead. The biggest problem for the UK is what will happen without it, especially as UK government will most likely not fund what being invested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Regional Investment policy was one of the best ones the EU had. Instead of disparity between areas, it sort to provide investment and develop them instead. The biggest problem for the UK is what will happen without it, especially as UK government will most likely not fund what being invested.

---

As a net-payer you get less back that's all, what's being done with your money is up to yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

As a net-payer you get less back that's all, what's being done with your money is up to yourself

---

A very simplistic view, given that investment in the other EU countries can yield net positive results such as higher educated workers or higher exports due to an increase in purchasing power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

A very simplistic view, given that investment in the other EU countries can yield net positive results such as higher educated workers or higher exports due to an increase in purchasing power.

---

It's very simplistic to think that the eurozone is the world and surroundings. It's a useless burocracy and nothing more

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's very simplistic to think that the eurozone is the world and surroundings. It's a useless burocracy and nothing more

---

So is the Dutch government, Amersfoort should keep its money and invest it in Amersfoort. Why should you pay for gay pride parades in Amsterdam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

A very simplistic view, given that investment in the other EU countries can yield net positive results such as higher educated workers or higher exports due to an increase in purchasing power.

---

So... if money is given away for free to Europeans they hopefully will purchase things (and not from the rest of the world) and be more educated (ignoring equally educated people from the rest of the planet).

It very much sounds like desperately justifying giving away money so that things might be better at some point in the far future.

If the idea was a positive return on money spent, there are better places to invest than Eastern Europe.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... if money is given away for free to Europeans they hopefully will purchase things (and not from the rest of the world) and be more educated (ignoring equally educated people from the rest of the planet).

It very much sounds like desperately justifying giving away money so that things might be better at some point in the far future.

If the idea was a positive return on money spent, there are better places to invest than Eastern Europe.

~:smoking:

---

So should the economic argument be the primary consideration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... if money is given away for free to Europeans they hopefully will purchase things (and not from the rest of the world) and be more educated (ignoring equally educated people from the rest of the planet).

It very much sounds like desperately justifying giving away money so that things might be better at some point in the far future.

If the idea was a positive return on money spent, there are better places to invest than Eastern Europe.

~:smoking:

---

Positive returns aren't just of a monetary nature. And why don't Londoners invest their money in Dubai rather than some poor northern English city if monetary return is all that counts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So is the Dutch government, Amersfoort should keep its money and invest it in Amersfoort. Why should you pay for gay pride parades in Amsterdam?

---

Well the gay pride was here in Amersfoort two weeks ago, I don't care. My issues with government go a lot deeper. Polticians just have the habit of making themselve nesecary. I don't think they are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So should the economic argument be the primary consideration?

---

What is the primary consideration - belief that unification of Europe is "good"?

Is it to prevent the continent fighting any more wars? Quite a good idea, that. Good luck to you all - it's working a treat! Seems Russia didn't read the memo - and I thought we had NATO for this one.

Free trade? That precedes the EU of course.
Unified laws and caps on debt ratios? Great idea. Any idea when France etc are going to y'know, follow them?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What is the primary consideration - belief that unification of Europe is "good"?

Is it to prevent the continent fighting any more wars? Quite a good idea, that. Good luck to you all - it's working a treat! Seems Russia didn't read the memo - and I thought we had NATO for this one.

Free trade? That precedes the EU of course.
Unified laws and caps on debt ratios? Great idea. Any idea when France etc are going to y'know, follow them?

~:smoking:

---

No more wars, but creeping up on the rather docile Russians who aren't interested in war why would tney be. Our real enemies are already here, not a blow but a creeping poisson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What is the primary consideration - belief that unification of Europe is "good"?

Is it to prevent the continent fighting any more wars? Quite a good idea, that. Good luck to you all - it's working a treat! Seems Russia didn't read the memo - and I thought we had NATO for this one.

Free trade? That precedes the EU of course.
Unified laws and caps on debt ratios? Great idea. Any idea when France etc are going to y'know, follow them?

~:smoking:

---

You do have some power over the policies of European states in your capacity as one of the leading members of the EU, diminished when membership is renounced. Not all investments are made with immediate, or financial, returns in mind.

But the most important takeaway is that the UK will be back, sooner or later, whether for the EU or something else. The imperative to participate is always present, so these episodes will recur. What will you say then?

Kidding me, the UK gets out just in time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What is the primary consideration - belief that unification of Europe is "good"?

Is it to prevent the continent fighting any more wars? Quite a good idea, that. Good luck to you all - it's working a treat! Seems Russia didn't read the memo - and I thought we had NATO for this one.

Free trade? That precedes the EU of course.
Unified laws and caps on debt ratios? Great idea. Any idea when France etc are going to y'know, follow them?

~:smoking:

---

Apart from use in rhetorical arguments, what positive changes will there be when the UK leaves the EU? Ministers have promised we'll keep the regulations at a minimum. Immigration will not drop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Apart from use in rhetorical arguments, what positive changes will there be when the UK leaves the EU? Ministers have promised we'll keep the regulations at a minimum. Immigration will not drop.

---

Yeah and someone once told he she loved me, maybe sbe even did for a whi,e

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yeah and someone once told he she loved me, maybe sbe even did for a whi,e

---

Did someone tell you it'll be great to live in the extra-EU UK? When are you planning to move over here? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is, and live in a country that you promised would be great outside the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Apart from use in rhetorical arguments, what positive changes will there be when the UK leaves the EU? Ministers have promised we'll keep the regulations at a minimum. Immigration will not drop.

---

If one could predict the future, one could become very rich very quickly.

What positive changes were there when we joined the EU? Apart from all that money going elsewhere which will definitely help us in the long term.

Regulations tend to increase in or out of the EU. Immigration probably will not drop. If we're lucky there might be more store on the quality that is let in - but I'm not holding my breath. What change ever happens with guaranteed improvements?

I hold no illusions that the UK will somehow be important again and regain the standing of the 1880's. With luck we can become more like Iceland that does its own thing rather than wastes vast sums of resource in throwing its weight around the world. The UK might have some remaining "soft power" but that's it. We should act accordingly.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Did someone tell you it'll be great to live in the extra-EU UK? When are you planning to move over here? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is, and live in a country that you promised would be great outside the EU?

---

I do not know what's going to happen, should I really care? I don't, I am just looking at thngs unfolding, you aren't very important to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I do not know what's going to happen, should I really care? I don't, I am just looking at thngs unfolding, you aren't very important to me

---

You seem very keen to cheerlead the British into leaving the EU and saying that it's all going to be great, all the while whilst living within the EU and not looking to live outside it. Just like the neolibs who in the 1990s urged the Russians to subscribe to their theories and saying that all the pain will be worth it, whilst living elsewhere and not having to face the consequences of the actions they urged. I despised the neolibs.

Don't be surprised. People generally lack empathy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You want to wreck the UK economy because of that? That's just one step up from voting out because of bendy bananas.

---

Do you understand WHY we STILL have two EU Parliaments?

Why is the EU Parliament the only one in the world that can't decide where it sits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Do you understand WHY we STILL have two EU Parliaments?

Why is the EU Parliament the only one in the world that can't decide where it sits?

---

If the issue is that there are two EU Parliaments, shouldn't the solution be to put them both in the same location? Why is this single inefficiency sufficient reason to leave the EU altogether? It's a bit like Scots thinking that the House of Lords is redundant, and thus leaving the UK because of this inefficiency. There's an argument to be made about improving efficiency, but to leave because of this?