Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[catsmate]

Citation please for your claim, 'We know for certain Joseph Juncker was not in the SS'. Show me where he denies it.

You made the clain, how about you provide supporting evidence?

 

[Darat]

Wrong. I hated both programmes and have rarely watched a full episode.

Acoording to your first sentence you claim I am wrong that you have watched them. Then in your next sentence you say have watched them...

 

[Hellbound]

Acoording to your first sentence you claim I am wrong that you have watched them. Then in your next sentence you say have watched them...

To be fair, and based on the pattern of scholarship thus far demonstrated, that's perfectly plausible. She knew they were awful without actually ever seeing them. After all, evidence isn't required to reach a conclusion

 

[Vixen]

Acoording to your first sentence you claim I am wrong that you have watched them. Then in your next sentence you say have watched them...

When it is said some one watches a series on tv, it is taken to mean they follow the series and presumably enjoy it.

Being cynical about EU leaders in no way correlates with being a little Englander bigot.

Some of us can see reality without the window dressing.

 

[Vixen]

To be fair, and based on the pattern of scholarship thus far demonstrated, that's perfectly plausible. She knew they were awful without actually ever seeing them. After all, evidence isn't required to reach a conclusion

Nonsense. You can watch a show to try to understand why it is popular. I tried watching Dad's Army and 'Allo 'Allo and very quickly decided I did not find them the slightest bit funny.

In fact, for many years I was the only person in the whole of the UK who had never seen 'The Sound of Music'.

 

[Vixen]

The Machiavellian Leader of the EU Strikes Again

Jean-Claude Juncker up to his manipulative tricks:

From Reuters:

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Wednesday that a disorderly Brexit would be an “absolute catastrophe”.

“The risks of a disorderly exit of Great Britain from the European Union are clear. It would be an absolute catastrophe,” he told reporters in Brussels.

He added that the Commission was trying to prevent this from happening. “But you need two to perform a decent tango,” he said.

This man thinks he can influence the UK's Brexit outcome. He is a master at legerdemain.

Yes, the UK Brexit is in complete and utter shambles and this wretch is enjoying stirring it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Being cynical about EU leaders in no way correlates with being a little Englander bigot.

How about thinking it's "relevant" to ask a politician born in 1954 (or even 1950) "what they did in the war"? What does that correlate with?

 

[The Moog]

Jean-Claude Juncker up to his manipulative tricks:

From Reuters:




This man thinks he can influence the UK's Brexit outcome. He is a master at legerdemain.

Yes, the UK Brexit is in complete and utter shambles and this wretch is enjoying stirring it.

Seems kind of him. If I was him I would sit by and let the country implode.

 

[Vixen]

How about thinking it's "relevant" to ask a politician born in 1954 (or even 1950) "what they did in the war"? What does that correlate with?

A statesman's background is open to probity. Why should it not be? No man is an island. It gives you an insight into what makes them tick.

Posters here are always pointing out how Rees-Mogg's background informs his behaviour as a 'toff' totally out of touch with the working class masses.

Juncker's father having been fighting for the Nazis in WWII whether conscripted or 'forced' to, informs us he and his household got to enjoy privileges that his fellow Jews did not.

It is likely he grew up with a certain attitude, conscious or unconscious. Clearly, he has no problem patronising female state leaders and making fun of the British government.

[For those whose first language is not English, as with most English words there are several meanings, also in English words are often left out if it is obvious to what or to whom you refer. Thus, a common meaning of 'fellow' is an expression of solidarity and empathy, as in 'one's fellow man'. This 'fellow man' does not have to have the same occupation as you, nor be a student if you are one, or even the same religion or race.]

So I got Juncker's d.o.b. mixed up with someone else's. Big deal.

 

[angrysoba]

A statesman's background is open to probity. Why should it not be? No man is an island. It gives you an insight into what makes them tick.

Posters here are always pointing out how Rees-Mogg's background informs his behaviour as a 'toff' totally out of touch with the working class masses.

Juncker's father having been fighting for the Nazis in WWII whether conscripted or 'forced' to, informs us he and his household got to enjoy privileges that his fellow Jews did not.

It is likely he grew up with a certain attitude, conscious or unconscious. Clearly, he has no problem patronising female state leaders and making fun of the British government.

[For those whose first language is not English, as with most English words there are several meanings, also in English words are often left out if it is obvious to what or to whom you refer. Thus, a common meaning of 'fellow' is an expression of solidarity and empathy, as in 'one's fellow man'. This 'fellow man' does not have to have the same occupation as you, nor be a student if you are one, or even the same religion or race.]

So I got Juncker's d.o.b. mixed up with someone else's. Big deal.

Holy crap! Just the same rubbish posted again and again! This is something I would expect to see posted by a Russian troll!

 

[fagin]

Bollocks. They only person calling him a nazi Jew is you. If you want to equate with 'fellow man' leave out the qualifiers.

And you seem to have made it all up.

Additionally he's making a lot less fun of the British government than most Brits with an IQ over amoeba level.

You have to laugh in the face of tragedy.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

A statesman's background is open to probity. Why should it not be? No man is an island. It gives you an insight into what makes them tick.

Posters here are always pointing out how Rees-Mogg's background informs his behaviour as a 'toff' totally out of touch with the working class masses.

Juncker's father having been fighting for the Nazis in WWII whether conscripted or 'forced' to, informs us he and his household got to enjoy privileges that his fellow Jews did not.

It is likely he grew up with a certain attitude, conscious or unconscious. Clearly, he has no problem patronising female state leaders and making fun of the British government.

[Patronising little speech, defending the indefensible but not related to my point snipped]

So I got Juncker's d.o.b. mixed up with someone else's. Big deal.

You said-:

Truth is, world war history is still relatively recent so what you did in the war is a relevant question in determining a politician's motivation and psyche.

(Again my highlight) That's not getting a birthdate mixed up, that's a deliberate conflation of his actions with those of his father. Actions, which I would point out are a disgusting slur that you have been completely unable to back up. Refering to someone as an SS Officer without a shred of evidence is about as low as you can get, you should be ashamed.

As for Rees Mogg, I haven't noticed a single derogatory directed at his family, at his words, actions and affectations, certainly and I hold that is fair game.

I'll remind you that you once posted this, in this very thread-:

I am almost never wrong. If I am mistaken about something I put up my hand immediately.

Just for once why not try and make that the truth

 

[P.J. Denyer]

This is what the world has come down to. Those who value the truth and those who think that lying is ok.

It's from a different thread, on a different subject, but it seems perfectly appropriate here. This is what got us to this point, thirty years of lies and false aspersions. I'm English, British and proud of both but I'm ashamed to be even loosely associated with a lot of the anti-EU rhetoric, including some in this thread, and I can quite see why some Europeans will be glad to see the back of us.

 

[Michel H]

It's from a different thread, on a different subject, but it seems perfectly appropriate here. This is what got us to this point, thirty years of lies and false aspersions. I'm English, British and proud of both but I'm ashamed to be even loosely associated with a lot of the anti-EU rhetoric, including some in this thread, and I can quite see why some Europeans will be glad to see the back of us.

I disagree with you, Denyer. I find very little anti-EU rhetoric in this thread (some by Vixen, who should perhaps get credit for it, although some people have pointed out that she may not be the most reliable poster).

I think that the many proponents of the EU in this thread (which is fine) should address more often the question: what is the EU doing with the British money it gets? Providing a real, proportionate service to the British people, to the taxpayers who give the money? Then there should be no problem (or should have been). Financing the Common Agricultural Policy mostly in France and Spain (Margaret Thatcher was already saying "I want my money back" way before Brexit), and economic development in Eastern European states? Then, there can be a problem, if these money transfers are disproportionate.

But I note that these problems are mostly ignored by the EU proponents of this thread. This is unfortunate, because they are probably essential to understand why more than fifty percents of Britons chose Leave in 2016. Understanding them may also be important to find a solution to the current difficulties.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is almost like watching the American "State's Rights" argument happening in a substantially different situation.

 

[Darat]

When it is said some one watches a series on tv, it is taken to mean they follow the series and presumably enjoy it.



Being cynical about EU leaders in no way correlates with being a little Englander bigot.



Some of us can see reality without the window dressing.

Simple way to clear this up.

Have you watched any Dad's Army or 'Allo' allo?

 

[Darat]

Nonsense. You can watch a show to try to understand why it is popular. I tried watching Dad's Army and 'Allo 'Allo and very quickly decided I did not find them the slightest bit funny.



In fact, for many years I was the only person in the whole of the UK who had never seen 'The Sound of Music'.

Not getting your joke?

 

[Michel H]

Not getting your joke?

Perhaps she meant that what she is saying should be taken "with a grain of salt", not too literally.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I disagree with you, Denyer. I find very little anti-EU rhetoric in this thread (some by Vixen, who should perhaps get credit for it, although some people have pointed out that she may not be the most reliable poster).

I think that the many proponents of the EU in this thread (which is fine) should address more often the question: what is the EU doing with the British money it gets? Providing a real, proportionate service to the British people, to the taxpayers who give the money? Then there should be no problem (or should have been). Financing the Common Agricultural Policy mostly in France and Spain (Margaret Thatcher was already saying "I want my money back" way before Brexit), and economic development in Eastern European states? Then, there can be a problem, if these money transfers are disproportionate.

But I note that these problems are mostly ignored by the EU proponents of this thread. This is unfortunate, because they are probably essential to understand why more than fifty percents of Britons chose Leave in 2016. Understanding them may also be important to find a solution to the current difficulties.

What if "Financing the Common Agricultural Policy mostly in France and Spain" is "a real, proportionate service to the British people" in terms of reliably available food at a lower price than would be available without a Common Agricultural Policy?

We get the same kind of thing in the states. People rail against "handouts" and insist on ending food stamps and unemployment. When you look at economic activity created through government spending, they are literally the most stimulative ones that exist. If food stamps were ended, grocery store chains would start declaring bankruptcy, followed by midwestern farmers.

Basic issue: people are just really awful at seeing how helping someone else ends up helping themselves in the long run.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I disagree with you, Denyer. I find very little anti-EU rhetoric in this thread (some by Vixen, who should perhaps get credit for it, although some people have pointed out that she may not be the most reliable poster).

I think that the many proponents of the EU in this thread (which is fine) should address more often the question: what is the EU doing with the British money it gets? Providing a real, proportionate service to the British people, to the taxpayers who give the money? Then there should be no problem (or should have been). Financing the Common Agricultural Policy mostly in France and Spain (Margaret Thatcher was already saying "I want my money back" way before Brexit), and economic development in Eastern European states? Then, there can be a problem, if these money transfers are disproportionate.

But I note that these problems are mostly ignored by the EU proponents of this thread. This is unfortunate, because they are probably essential to understand why more than fifty percents of Britons chose Leave in 2016. Understanding them may also be important to find a solution to the current difficulties.

Well, one thing should be clear now. By being part of the EU and ensuring all nations are at least reasonably stable, and helping each other in times of need, we can as a single entity ensure FAR better trade deals and international agreements than a single nation can, thus making sure we are all better off.
Case in point, all forecasts indicate that the damage brexit will do to the UK's economy far outstrips its current contribution to the EU because as it turned out the UK does not have a very strong negotiating position.