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

[Craig B]

And if we are talking about the impending independence of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland then we are back to the 17th century.

By that time Ireland was already effectively an English possession. And in the centuries before the whole of Ireland was subjugated there existed The Pale^WP.

 

[Amazer]

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.

Look Michel H, if countries were people then the UK is the one person who always looks at the cost to himself, never the benefits... nor does it consider the cost and benefits to other countries.

The UK has been without a doubt a net contributor to the EU... a large one... but on a per capita basis it's on or near the bottom of the list of net contributors.

 

[Olmstead]

There is a certain referendum that took place, Olmstead .

Yes, and if the UK was flying high right now with a great deal or, even better, confidently striding towards a no-deal Brexit, I'd say you have a point. But since the best they could come up with in two years is "just like staying in the EU but worse", I'd say the decision wasn't a rational one.

 

[Michel H]

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?

No, of course not, Eastern Europe joined only later.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, of course not, Eastern Europe joined only later.

So if we agree the EU is not set up to transfer wealth from the rich countries to the poor ones then we can see that the idea of the rich countries being losers and the poor ones being winners must be nonsense, right?

 

[Olmstead]

No, of course not, Eastern Europe joined only later.

And why do you think they let them join? Also, who do you think held most of the cards when it came to the terms of their membership?

Who do you think is pulling the strings to create conditions that are disadvantegous to the rich countries in the EU? Slovenia?

 

[3point14]

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.

Can I introduce you to the concept of a gestalt entity.

Imagine that, but for countries.

 

[3point14]

There is a certain referendum that took place, Olmstead .

The one where about a third of the country voted for a unicorn? That one?

That non-binding referendum based on total lies and in breach of campaign finance laws all over the place?

That one?

 

[3point14]

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

I figure there are two sorts of people. The well informed and those in favour of Brexit.

It's entirely possible to go from the latter to the former, but It's pretty much impossible to remove knowledge from a brain, so there aren't going to be any people who suddenly, in the face of all evidence, decide that Brexit is a good idea after all.

 

[Information Analyst]

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

You need to show us where it was claimed that he was.

 

[Information Analyst]

Never heard of it.

That says a lot.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

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 EU takes from the rich and gives to the poor, just like Robin Hood. Strange, though. I have never heard anyone calling Robin Hood greedy for it.

Of course, the EU is nothing like Robin Hood. It can't steal from the rich. It only gets what the rich agree to give. The EU gets british tax money because the british parliament agreed that the EU should be given that money.

When we say rich country we mean a country with lots of economic activity; a country with high gross domestic product, GDP. The more economic activity a country already has, the more it will benefit from measures that make that activity easier. That's obvious, right?

So it's unsurprising that the rich countries would agree to give more to keep the single market going. If they didn't, the poorer countries might decide, possibly correctly, that they were being exploited and leave.

Germany will not leave the EU because it feels it is paying too much. It will simply negotiate lower payments. It's much more likely that one of the net recipients leaves when or if the rich pay less. If the rich countries don't agree to higher payments then leaving is the only thing the poor countries can do. If the poor countries demand more money, the rich can just say no.

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.

I think you are in a unique position to tell us how European leaders could ensure that. Your arguments are clearly the result of misinformation. What can be done about that?

 

[jimbob]

The one where about a third of the country voted for a unicorn? That one?

That non-binding referendum based on total lies and in breach of campaign finance laws all over the place?

That one?

Where about 3% of the electorate has become eligible to vote since then and that 3% is overwhelmingly remain?

See my upthread link to my MP's Brexit survey, which suggests that my constituency has moved from marginal leave to 56% remain.

 

[3point14]

Where about 3% of the electorate has become eligible to vote since then and that 3% is overwhelmingly remain?

See my upthread link to my MP's Brexit survey, which suggests that my constituency has moved from marginal leave to 56% remain.

Given the abject lies and outright criminal activity by the leave campaign, I'm stunned that anyone, anywhere - particularly previously apparently respectable media outlets, like the BBC - talks about democracy and the referendum in the same breath. It's like the entire press corps have decided en-mass to ignore the bright, white dog-**** in the middle of the huge pile of brown dog-**** that is brexit.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's amazing the fantasist vocabulary we have seen coined now. We have a 'managed no deal' being touted. Which is about as sensible as a ship's captain talking about a 'managed sinking'.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

A chaotic No-Deal Brexit would cost the EU billions too. You can't pretend that's none of their business; it's literally their business. Yet for some reason you imagine Juncker is just meddling for the LOLs. Why should he not wish to prevent EU businesses suffering losses unnecessarily?

 

[Tolls]

He's clearly meddling because he's a secret Nazi.
Probably wears an SS uniform in the privacy of his own home and all...

(just in case... )

 

[Jack by the hedge]

… 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?

Ah, but keep an open mind. So far we have no proof that he wasn't a high ranking teenage conscript. Maybe they only had vacancies for SS generals that week, or something.

 

[3point14]

Ah, but keep an open mind. So far we have no proof that he wasn't a high ranking teenage conscript. Maybe they only had vacancies for SS generals that week, or something.

You're not thinking big enough. We've not proof he wasn't The Great Cthulu in disguise on a scouting outing before he brings about the end of the world.

 

[angrysoba]

Ah, but keep an open mind. So far we have no proof that he wasn't a high ranking teenage conscript. Maybe they only had vacancies for SS generals that week, or something.

Oh almost certainly, and cackling wildly at the misfortune of his fellow Jews while drinking cognac at soirées, or so I read somewhere.