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

[GlennB]

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.

You still have this wrong. Perhaps what you have in mind is "his Jewish fellows"?

(English is most certainly my first language, and the B household has a combined 40+ years experience in teaching English. MrsB has 35 of those and instantly agreed with my view on this, fwiw. In fact she butted in with "Jewish fellows" before I'd even said it)

eta: Of course "fellow man" is correct, but that's because 'man' here is the class that includes all humans. Clever of you to illustrate your point with an example that's bound to be correct.

 

[Degeneve]

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.

Juncker and his household enjoyed exactly the same "privileges" as all Luxembourgish citizen who were not jews, i.e. leaving in an occupied country and being forced to enroll in the Wehrmacht if you were an 18-30 y.o. man. Forced enrollment in the Wehrmacht was a "privilege" than citizens of other occupied countries, e.g. France, did not enjoy. But they had to deal with the "Service du travail obligatoire" (i.e. Compulsory Work Service) instead.

In fact there were no "privileges" but only people, i.e. the Jews, considered as non-citizens or even animals by the Nazis. This has nothing to do with "privileges" granted to non-Jews. Maybe you should open and read a couple of books over the status and the story of the Jews in occupied Europe.

 

[Pixel42]

You still have this wrong.

I can just about excuse the first incorrect use of this phrase as a genuine mistake, though it's a very surprising one given how well known and understood the meaning of 'fellow' is when used as an adjective. Deliberately continuing to make the mistake even after it has been pointed out, however, is not excusable. It's disgraceful, and Vixen should be thoroughly ashamed of herself.

 

[3point14]

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'.

You really, really weren't.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

We know that he was in the Wermacht. This excludes the possibility of also being in the SS.

Dave

 

[GnaGnaMan]

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, make your case then.
Are the transfers disproportionate or is brexit what you call "economic terrorism"?
If they are disproportionate, why did the UK sign off on them?

 

[Wudang]

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.

Please take English advice from native speakers. "fellow jews" means he was a jew.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I can just about excuse the first incorrect use of this phrase as a genuine mistake, though it's a very surprising one given how well known and understood the meaning of 'fellow' is when used as an adjective. Deliberately continuing to make the mistake even after it has been pointed out, however, is not excusable. It's disgraceful, and Vixen should be thoroughly ashamed of herself.

But it is entirely in keeping with precedent.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Indeed, the correct phrase would be 'Jewish compatriots' but even still I struggle to see the point being made. Should he have refused conscription and been shot to show solidarity with his Jewish bretheren? I'm not sure how this would have helped anyone, least of all the Jews in Luxembourg.

Joseph Juncker was born in 1924 according to a website I found. Which would have made him 16 when the Germans invaded. Presumably 18 when he was conscripted?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

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.

These.

 

[Mid]

Indeed, the correct phrase would be 'Jewish compatriots' but even still I struggle to see the point being made. Should he have refused conscription and been shot to show solidarity with his Jewish bretheren? I'm not sure how this would have helped anyone, least of all the Jews in Luxembourg.

...snip...

Maybe Vixen is imagining some sort of "I'm Spartacus" moment where the 18 year old Joseph Junker's refusal to be conscripted and his then execution encourages a mass conscription strike movement across Germany of everyone refusing to serve in the military.

The fact that such a thing wouldn't have happened or be possible; let alone as far a I know a conscription strike having ever actually worked (or taken place on a significantly large scale) shouldn't stop us condemning Junker's dad for doing something we all would certainly say we'd do from the safety of behind our computer screens.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Maybe Vixen is imagining some sort of "I'm Spartacus" moment where the 18 year old Joseph Junker's refusal to be conscripted and his then execution encourages a mass conscription strike movement across Germany of everyone refusing to serve in the military.

The fact that such a thing wouldn't have happened or be possible; let alone as far a I know a conscription strike having ever actually worked (or taken place on a significantly large scale) shouldn't stop us condemning Junker's dad for doing something we all would certainly say we'd do from the safety of behind our computer screens.

100%

The vast majority of us, even those amoung us who have lived through pretty horrible experiences, have been fortunate not to live through such times, or indeed be born in the places where these things happen to this day. Sadly, we who've been luckiest don't always appreciate just how lucky we’ve been.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The idea that the UK should get back what it puts in would render the EU rather pointless. Why send the money to the EU only to have it sent back? Much more sensible to simply spend the money yourself.

It's equivalent of arguing that every taxpayer should get back what they put in. In fact its worse than that because at least taxpayers can receive services like policing or schooling equivalent to their contribution. The EU doesn't provide such things.

But the argument also misses the bigger picture that being part of the EU is hugely beneficial to the UK economy and that the contributions we make are in part simply sharing some small portion of that benefit with other members. It acknowledges that a rising tide raises all boats and shows that we are important players in the team.

Small mindedness rules with the Brexiteers though. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[Michel H]

...
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.

I agree with you on this, Lukraak_Sisser.

However, (in my opinion), if the EU finally understood it should be less greedy with the UK, then I think the current long-running crisis in EU-UK relations could perhaps be solved in a very satisfactory way, see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ (already posted).

If, in the EU, rich countries appear as losers and poor counties appear as winners, then the EU will be a magnet to all poor countries while the rich ones will perhaps flee away (including Germany, once it feels it has corrected its image problem). Perhaps, on this forum, you could use your "people's power" to defend such a viewpoint, but this is far from being the case, as far as I can judge.

The point is: if countries were people, they should all have a smile on their face, without some contries feeling they are being taken advantage of, and European leaders should ensure that.

 

[Michel H]

The idea that the UK should get back what it puts in would render the EU rather pointless. Why send the money to the EU only to have it sent back? Much more sensible to simply spend the money yourself.

It's equivalent of arguing that every taxpayer should get back what they put in. In fact its worse than that because at least taxpayers can receive services like policing or schooling equivalent to their contribution. The EU doesn't provide such things.

But the argument also misses the bigger picture that being part of the EU is hugely beneficial to the UK economy and that the contributions we make are in part simply sharing some small portion of that benefit with other members. It acknowledges that a rising tide raises all boats and shows that we are important players in the team.

Small mindedness rules with the Brexiteers though. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The 52 percent who voted Leave in 2016 have apparently not been convinced.

 

[Olmstead]

If, in the EU, rich countries appear as losers and poor counties appear as winners, then the EU will be a magnet to all poor countries while the rich ones will perhaps flee away (including Germany, once it feels it has corrected its image problem).

Why do you consider the rich countries in the EU to be the losers? If that were the case, Brexiters would have a point, and the UK would actually be better off on its own. In fact, I believe the only reason the EU exists at all is because the rich countries consider it a net gain. It's not like its their little charity organisation.

 

[Michel H]

Why do you consider the rich countries in the EU to be the losers? If that were the case, Brexiters would have a point, and the UK would actually be better off on its own. In fact, I believe the only reason the EU exists at all is because the rich countries consider it a net gain. It's not like its their little charity organisation.

There is a certain referendum that took place, Olmstead .

 

[Tolls]

The 52 percent who voted Leave in 2016 have apparently not been convinced.

2 and a half years ago they weren't.

After the shower of **** we have been experiencing since then?
Well...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The 52 percent who voted Leave in 2016 have apparently not been convinced.

Indeed. But they may well be about to be convinced. Too late to do anything about it but ignorance is difficult to overcome.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There is a certain referendum that took place, Olmstead .

The referendum result is irrelevant to the question you were asked. Do you think the rich EU countries formed the EU for the benefit of Eastern Europe?