Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions
- Thread starter Vergennes
- Start date
All their discussion happen behind closed doors, there is no transparency. The Lisbon Treaty was conducted more like a conspiracy than an agreement. They live in a deluded world of absolutes. You can't even block EU immigration if the immigrant in question is a terrorist or convicted paedophile. There's simply too much that needs changing to even try. The payment system - how the hell was that even worked out? Why does the UK pay so much on net whereas Belgium and Luxembourg receive money? There's too much to fix.
You thought unity was a bad idea in 1947, and this is really more like that. We have nothing in common with the people dictating rules to us.
The tories have made everyone who's actually working (rich and poor) richer and made people on welfare poorer if that's what you mean.
Brexit isn't a shit idea. The only problem is the Remainers. Not content with having lost the referendum they're determined to win the argument by forcing a version of Brexit that is actually worse than being in the EU.
The current suggestion actually isn't the Norway model because we would still have control over immigration and be able to make our own trade deals, and set our own international tariffs. What I object to is having to pay those tariffs to the EU. They export far more goods to us than we export to them, why are we paying to protect their jobs.
If you're still saying it's racist you're a dipshit. Not all immigration is bad, but not all immigration is good either. However, allowing a foreign entity with no real accountability to your people to tell you what to do on such matters and other matters can only be bad.
It's rubbish.
The idea of uniting Europe is extremely old. The Catholic Church preached for it throughout the Middle Age, so that Christendom could resist the Muslim invasions and free the Holy Land, that's how you got the various Crusades.
The more modern idea of a political, rather than religious, union can be traced to various figures since the Enlightenment. For example, English Quaker and founder of Pennsylvania William Penn, ca. 1693, or French abbot Castel de Saint-Pierre, ca. 1713.
In the twentieth century, an instrumental figure was Aristide Briand who wrote in 1929 a memorandum on the foundation of a Federal European Union. One can also mention Italian resistant Altiero Spinelli, and of course Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi.
Claiming the idea comes from the Nazis is a pretty transparent attempt at rewriting history to invert the roles.
Hardly any. The EU is complicated, it's the national leaders that make most of the rules but the weighting is based on population. Over the years the national leaders conspired in an anti-constitutional fashion, none more so than the signing of the Lisbon Treaty. This is why it has problems with Hungary, Poland, Italy and the UK now. If things were done properly with referendums for each treaty that altered national constitutions, it wouldn't have reached this mess. The Indian people agreed to unite and it worked. The European people didn't agree, neither in the case of EU nor its predecessors the USSR and Third Reich.
Now there's irony.
And you don't find it at all strange how it sprung up immediately after WWII? And why is so much done behind closed doors, and so many national powers surrendered without referendum, if it's supposed to be a union?
:lol: I don't know whether EU was created by the Nazis or the Illuminati or the Martians but someone from a country which still celebrates it's colonial empire talking about that is so damn funny...
No different to other countries like India celebrating their empires. But the fact is that I rarely bring it up, it's usually you or someone else. Territorial acquisition was part of the early world, it's how countries were formed. We were invaded, you were invaded, you invaded. All I say is that we don't have any special or unique guilt.
Last edited:
You don't seem to understand what net importer means. Net importer means UK is taking loans and other liabilities from other countries to fund its spending. Ultimately, all the liabilities go to the net exporting countries like GCC countries, China, Australia etc whose actual resources like petroleum of GCC countries, Coal and iron of China or minerals of Australia that is being depleted in return for paper currency in the form of foreign exchange reserves.
Why do you think any country should loan UK with their export products? How is it beneficial for any country to have excess manufacturing r production which is exported to countries at a loan? By what means is UK going to repay the loans in the future? Even if Germany or any country stops the sales with UK, they will only be saving their resources from being exported to UK in the form of loans which gave Germany nothing back. There is no loss for exporting countries as they will only lose the surplus foreign exchange which is being stored in their central bank reserves
And what happens when I mention Indian empires? Somehow those medieval empires were civilised. Don't be a hypocrite all your life.
Umm no. What it means is that there are more jobs associated with EU exports to the UK than there are with UK exports to the EU. Companies have shareholders, so they will want to maintain their sales. However, with WTO tariffs UK exports will be no more expensive than in June 2016, whereas EU exports will be very expensive. So, in order to continue selling their goods in the UK, they will have to move manufacturing over here, or local manufacturers will ramp up production and jobs to fill the vacuum. And if they do sell we collect huge amounts of money in tariffs. Jobs, mean more employed people paying tax and NI.
If it was all excess production, nobody would be bothered about job losses. And no, it is not the UK buying these imports, it is the UK consumer. They may purchase with or without credit, either way, the seller gets their money instantaneously. And if you buy a product from country X, you pay in the currency of country X. Additionally, UK cars are RHD and EU cars are LHD, so nope, exports are definitely not excess production otherwise the steering would be on the wrong side. Equally labels are language specific. The only other exchanges of money currently is that we give the EU money on net each year for no reason, just so that more of their jobs than ours are protected.
Minerals are sold on the global market, and ultimately paid for by the people who buy products made from them, or people who use them, like car drivers. Those minerals used directly by the state, e.g. fuel for armed services, are paid for via tax, which takes us back to jobs.
Last edited: