Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
Yes, just this morning she was seen on all fours scurrying around the House of Commons.

A sheep is bigger than a sheep dog and so is a pig but only one of them isn't going to end up on someone's dinner plate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guynextdoor

Antiguy

Member
Dec 6, 2017
74
45
India
Yes, just this morning she was seen on all fours scurrying around the House of Commons.

A sheep is bigger than a sheep dog and so is a pig but only one of them isn't going to end up on someone's dinner plate.

Britain has been increasing it's strength ever since Brexit happened don't you think? The socialist commie EU was never anthing other than an albatross arund UK's neck.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Bon Plan and BMD

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
I wouldn't have put it quite that way but they had some really dumb policies and the balance of payments was fundamentally unfair with only 9 of 28 members making a net contribution. Reasons for leaving were:

1. Uncontrolled immigration - uncontrolled anything tends to be stupid.
2. Why do only 30% of the members make a net contribution if it's a union?
3. Inability to make our own trade deals.
4. Judicial interference, especially with matters concerning national security.
5. Regulations costs to businesses not trading with EU.
 

bonobashi

Well-Known member
Dec 3, 2017
887
411
Yes, just this morning she was seen on all fours scurrying around the House of Commons.

A sheep is bigger than a sheep dog and so is a pig but only one of them isn't going to end up on someone's dinner plate.

Couldn't understand you.

Both are likely to end up on someone's dinner plate.
 

Antiguy

Member
Dec 6, 2017
74
45
India
@Vergennes Europhile like you need a wakeup call. Watch this movie to know wahat EU really is


I wouldn't have put it quite that way but they had some really dumb policies and the balance of payments was fundamentally unfair with only 9 of 28 members making a net contribution. Reasons for leaving were:

1. Uncontrolled immigration - uncontrolled anything tends to be stupid.
2. Why do only 30% of the members make a net contribution if it's a union?
3. Inability to make our own trade deals.
4. Judicial interference, especially with matters concerning national security.
5. Regulations costs to businesses not trading with EU.

yes, it's a big scam. Plus it's as if they didn't learn from the disaster that happened after Greece left the Drachma. Euro is basically one crisis after the other. Plus Britain always had more spirit than Europe. Making you fit with them is like asking a square peg to fit into a round hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paro

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
738
739
A Place
I wouldn't have put it quite that way but they had some really dumb policies and the balance of payments was fundamentally unfair with only 9 of 28 members making a net contribution. Reasons for leaving were:

1. Uncontrolled immigration - uncontrolled anything tends to be stupid.
2. Why do only 30% of the members make a net contribution if it's a union?
3. Inability to make our own trade deals.
4. Judicial interference, especially with matters concerning national security.
5. Regulations costs to businesses not trading with EU.
1. Immigration from outside the EU is controlled. Inside the union, it isn't.
2. Because the EU was enlarged to poor countries. Here's a quick map:

Blue: net contributors to EU budget
Yellow: net recipient to EU budget
In light blue you have the EFTA EEA members. They contribute additional funds to the EU budget, which is why they're on the map, too. (Switzerland is in the EFTA, but not the EEA, and therefore does not contribute funds.) Looking at this map, you can see that:
  • The founding members, except Luxembourg, are all net contributors. (Luxembourg's case is quite specific, since it's such a small country with such a tiny population that it's a net recipient because of the wages of people working in EU institutions based in Luxembourg, rather than through structural funds like all other yellow countries.)
  • First enlargement (1973): UK, Denmark, Ireland. We have our first current day yellow country, but it's balanced by two blue countries.
  • Second enlargement (1981): Greece. Another yellow country, but the EEC could handle it back then.
  • Third enlargement (1983): Spain and Portugal. More yellow countries.
  • Fourth enlargement (1995): Austria, Finland, Sweden. Three blue countries to balance it out a bit. (Just barely blue for Austria and Finland.) EEA created.
  • Fifth enlargement (2004): Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. That was a *censored*ing nightmare. Ten yellow countries. All with a lot of problems. The EU would be a lot better off if it hadn't happened, honestly.
  • Sixth enlargement (2007): Bulgaria and Romania. Because getting ten yellow countries wasn't enough, so here's too more.
  • Seventh enlargement (2013): Croatia. And another. It's not too bad because it's just one, but it doesn't help.
3. Yeah, that's the thing about a common market; if inside country A makes a trade deal with outside country B, then all other common market countries are affected by that trade deal negotiated just by A. Because of that it's fair and logical that trade deal should be negotiated by the entire union.
4. and 5. Common market requires common trade good and services regulations which require common justice to handle such issues.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
1. Immigration from outside the EU is controlled. Inside the union, it isn't.
2. Because the EU was enlarged to poor countries. Here's a quick map:

Blue: net contributors to EU budget
Yellow: net recipient to EU budget
In light blue you have the EFTA EEA members. They contribute additional funds to the EU budget, which is why they're on the map, too. (Switzerland is in the EFTA, but not the EEA, and therefore does not contribute funds.) Looking at this map, you can see that:
  • The founding members, except Luxembourg, are all net contributors. (Luxembourg's case is quite specific, since it's such a small country with such a tiny population that it's a net recipient because of the wages of people working in EU institutions based in Luxembourg, rather than through structural funds like all other yellow countries.)
  • First enlargement (1973): UK, Denmark, Ireland. We have our first current day yellow country, but it's balanced by two blue countries.
  • Second enlargement (1981): Greece. Another yellow country, but the EEC could handle it back then.
  • Third enlargement (1983): Spain and Portugal. More yellow countries.
  • Fourth enlargement (1995): Austria, Finland, Sweden. Three blue countries to balance it out a bit. (Just barely blue for Austria and Finland.) EEA created.
  • Fifth enlargement (2004): Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. That was a *censored*ing nightmare. Ten yellow countries. All with a lot of problems. The EU would be a lot better off if it hadn't happened, honestly.
  • Sixth enlargement (2007): Bulgaria and Romania. Because getting ten yellow countries wasn't enough, so here's too more.
  • Seventh enlargement (2013): Croatia. And another. It's not too bad because it's just one, but it doesn't help.
3. Yeah, that's the thing about a common market; if inside country A makes a trade deal with outside country B, then all other common market countries are affected by that trade deal negotiated just by A. Because of that it's fair and logical that trade deal should be negotiated by the entire union.
4. and 5. Common market requires common trade good and services regulations which require common justice to handle such issues.
1. Well it kind of is but even uncontrolled immigration from inside the EU is problematic. Our EU emigration tends to be high wage. high tax, our EU immigration tends to be low wage, low wage, which drags our tax revenue per capita down and makes it impossible to fund public services sufficiently. And even if the funding was sufficient, the rate of influx is so great that planning expansion would be impossible. Other countries in the EU just haven't been affected as badly.

Additionally, you don't really have control over non-EU immigration either. Case in point - Germany invite in half of ISIS, EU then forces redistribution among member states. Case in point two - Country A gives non-EU immigrant X citizenship, they are now an EU citizen and can move to country B, so country B could not control this non-EU immigration into their country.

2. Yes, but why expand it to countries a) who can't pay their way and b) don't have prisons that meet the requirements of the ECHR/ECJ? Why should we socialise them whilst at the same time struggling to fund our public services due to 1 above, which comes from them. The yellow countries screwed things up.

Founding members - Belgium is no longer a net contributor.

Fifth enlargement was when it went badly wrong and Sixth enlargement made it completely stupid altogether.

3. Not really because the union is now made up of completely different economies with completely different interests. Trying to negotiate a trade deal to satisfy both say Germany and Romania is ludicrous.

4 and 5. Yes but why does it need to affect small businesses who have zero foreign trade outside the UK?
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
Why not? But you compared sheep and pigs with sheepdogs, so I was talking about the same, sheep and pigs, so 'both', not 'all three'.
I said, "only one of them isn't going to end up on someone's dinner plate." But seen as you have no aversion to eating dogs obviously the cultural divide has caused confusion.

As for sheepdogs, there is a particular regiment in the Indian Army that just has to move into a neighbourhood for all the dogs there to mysteriously disappear.
Chinese must have been closely monitoring them.
 

bonobashi

Well-Known member
Dec 3, 2017
887
411
I said, "only one of them isn't going to end up on someone's dinner plate." But seen as you have no aversion to eating dogs obviously the cultural divide has caused confusion.


Chinese must have been closely monitoring them.

The Chinese guard their dogs when these guys land up. They don't like sharing their food.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
Kindly remind us the state of the UK before it joined the EEC.
Kindly remind us why it had to spend 1945-1975 paying down a debt of 240% of GDP. Oh that's right, the EEC wouldn't have even existed if it weren't for that expenditure. So feel free to criticise us for giving the EU the opportunity to exist in the first place.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
Interactive chart: EU expenditure and revenue - Budget 2014-2020
Official statistics from 2016 has them net contributors to the height of 1.1614 billion euros. That corresponds to about 100 € per capita, which is to say, 2/3 of the per capita net contribution of Germany.
Not it isn't, the EU likes to put things on separate graphs to confuse people. So you can understand why the UK people are pissed off. Our public services are being overwhelmed by a third of a million EU immigrants every year and elderly care being cut, all whilst we subsidise wealthy nations like Belgium (Mr. verhoftstadt's country) and Luxembourg (Mr. Juncker's Country) and yeah Poland (Mr. Tusk's country) gets a lot too. It's unreasonable and it's correct on principle that we leave.

https://inews.co.uk/explainers/charts/much-uk-pays-eu-much-get-back/



Published November 16, 2012

The State of the European Union - Views of the World



EU budget: what you need to know

EU1.png
 
Last edited:

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
In 2016, the UK paid £10.8bn net.
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7886/CBP-7886.pdf
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
6,431
1,482
Additionally, you don't really have control over non-EU immigration either. Case in point - Germany invite in half of ISIS, EU then forces redistribution among member states. Case in point two - Country A gives non-EU immigrant X citizenship, they are now an EU citizen and can move to country B, so country B could not control this non-EU immigration into their country.
@A Person case in point.

EU takes Czechs, Hungary, Poland to court over refugees

EU takes Czechs, Hungary, Poland to court over refugees
  • By LORNE COOK AND PABLO GORONDI, ASSOCIATED PRESS
BRUSSELS — Dec 7, 2017, 9:01 AM ET
The Associated Press

Nigerian returnees from Libya disembark from a plane upon arrival at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria, Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2017. Hundreds of Nigerians arrived in Lagos on Tuesday, having been repatriated from Libya by the African Union (AU) amid outrage over recent footage that showed migrants being auctioned off as slaves. (AP Photo/Sunday Alamba)more +
The European Union announced Thursday that it is taking the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to court for failing to accommodate their fair share of refugees under a plan agreed to by the 28-country bloc two years ago.

EU nations agreed in Sept. 2015 to relocate 160,000 refugees from Italy and Greece as the countries buckled under the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants that year.

Under the plan, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were supposed to take in a combined 10,000 people. But Hungary and Poland have taken none at all, while the Czech Republic has accepted 12. The EU's executive Commission sought reasons why but was given no satisfactory explanations.

The Commission said Thursday that the three "remain in breach of their legal obligations" and "have given no indication that they will contribute to the implementation of the relocation decision."

Their cases are being referred to Europe's top tribunal, the Court of Justice.

The refugee relocation plan was adopted in a legally-binding vote by a majority of EU member states, but not the three refusing to take part.

The plan never worked well. As of last week, only around 32,000 refugees had been relocated in all.

The dispute has highlighted the deep divisions among Europeans over how best to handle the migrant wave, which saw more than 1 million people enter Europe in 2015, mostly from Turkey to the Greek islands and across the Mediterranean to Italy. It has also undermined trust among EU partners.

The Commission's second in command, Vice-President Frans Timmermans, said he did his utmost to avoid legal action and that the three could still do something about it as a few thousand people in the Greek islands remain eligible to be distributed.

"Going to court is always the instrument of last resort. That's not what we want," he said. "We hope we still find a way out through an act of participation by these three countries."

But Poland is intransigent. Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said the government was not changing its policy on migrants.

"Nothing has changed. Our position is clear: we do not agree with the solution that the European Union proposed two years ago," he told reporters Thursday.

However, the Czech Republic seemed more conciliatory, with newly appointed Prime Minister Andrej Babis told the local CTK news agency that he wants to negotiate with the Commission to get the legal action lifted.

In a separate move, the Commission also referred Hungary to the Court of Justice over two other laws, one on higher education and the other on non-governmental institutions.

In both cases, Hungary has failed to address EU concerns about the laws or amend the legislation to bring it in line with EU standards.

At the core of both laws are the Hungarian government's efforts to curtail the influence of Hungarian-American financier George Soros in Hungary.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban considers Soros a key political foe, mainly because of their diverging views on migration.

The law on nonprofits compels civic groups getting more than around $27,000 a year in funding from abroad to register themselves with a court and identify themselves as being "foreign-funded" on their websites and all publications. Many NGOs hit by the new law are partially funded by Soros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picard578