puck2

12. Is inward investment into the UK reliant on EU membership? Answer – no. Inward investment into the UK continues to grow after the Brexit vote.

Inward investment continues? That's the reason why so many companies are reluctant to invest or start changing to the EU mainland (irony). Maybe tax reduction to 10 – 15% will be attractive. But the termination of „passporting“ will not enjoy the banks and financial industry. Only one example. So there will be more „outward“ investment than inward.

12. Do we need the EU to alleviating a skills shortage in the UK? Answer – no. Our current immigration laws allow people with skills to enter and work in the UK. The EU just allows a million low skilled workers to come to the UK to take low paid jobs.

The UK should not do what is normal for the USA. Cherry picking the skilled workers. The UK has profited from colonies and occupied areas. Giving something back shouldn't be impossible.

11. Do all MS obey the EU laws, or are punished for not doing so? Answer – no. The migrant crisis: We watch as the French fail to apply EU laws as the laws don't suite them at the moment. The French allow migrants to set up camp to daily try to force their way into a sovereign territory that has rejected their 'application to enter' instead of processing them as require by EU law. Other MS simply wave them through, contrary to EU law. Other MS refuse to share the burden and erect razor wire border fences. Germany has run an illegal trade surplus for many years, other countries run up illegal deficits, all ignored of course.

There are two sides of the coin in the case of migration. Law and humanity. It is right that most states don't abide by the law because of national interests and other selfish reasons. It's easy for the UK island to claim adhering to the law, on the continent not. On the other side, the UK will have a problem, if the EU adheres to the law concerning the borderline between EU and UK in Ireland. It would be nonsense and awful for the people there to follow the „law“. Law nowhere is perfect for all people. France already is the home of many Maghreb people.

However I agree that the EU cannot be the home of all refugees, migrants and specially economic migrants.

Is the DT writer able to show us why Germany has an illegal trade surplus? By which law? Assumed the UK would have a trade surplus, would it be illegal, to? Once the British have been famous for their objectivity.

10. Can we set our own financial policy in the future? Not within the EU. We will be required to join the Euro this decade by EU law. The EU wants a common financial policy and common tax rates, set by the ECB.

Again, pure speculation, not (yet) reality. Some countries oppose this idea. I guess the ECB will never be allowed to fix tax rates. Not the duty of a bank.

In general a good idea if some special and healthy conditions are fulfilled by all members. You don't want to play lottery with the state money. There must be standards or there will be crashes as in Greece. The real problem is, the ECB and the EU are soft like a pudding in this field.

Different tax rates in general is cherry picking. Starting inequality and fights within the members, just as now.

9. Is the EU an institution that treats all members fairly and equitably? Answer – no it isn’t. the Greeks remember when they couldn't access any of their money a few months ago, and this was entirely due to the ECB flexing its muscles to coerce the Greek government into doing as it was told!

Then you defend the Greek attitude of lying and not abiding by contracts? (as they did entering the EU). The Greeks lived beyond their means, before the crash and didn't want to relinquish their lives style they got used to – at the cost of the EU members. If you make contracts you have to fulfill them. Normal standard, but not for the Brexiteers, it seems.

8. Will we be able to set our own foreign policy in future? Answer - not if the EU gets its way. Military: if the EU has the army as it wants, and national armies cease to exist as the EU wants, and foreign policy is set by Brussels that may or may not reflect the needs and aspirations of UK as the EU wants, who would control this army? Who would it fight for? What happens if the UK disagrees but is voted down? What happens to the UK nuclear deterrent?

Yes, your UK policy wouldn't prevent you following into the next war i.e.in Iran, this time initiated by Trump?. The EU would NOT follow. Good idea!

The UK nuclear deterrent makes other nations so afraid that they never will start a war! Be it in East-Ukraine, Iran, Yemen, Falklands, „Kurdistan“ or maybe in the future in the Antarctic. (end of irony). I guess an EU defense minister will not have the power alone t o start a war or press the A-bottom, if available. An EU defense system would save All countries a lot of money for needless weapons and would be more respected than the national (UK) defense/war powers.

7. Laws: I want my laws made by the body I have a say in electing, not a group of unelected people in Brussels pandering to the requirements of Germany and France and voting down UK objections every time under the majority voting system. There are now more than 40,000 legal acts in the EU. There are also 15,000 Court verdicts and 62,000 international standards, all of which must be respected and obeyed by all citizens and companies in the EU.

Pandering to the requirements of Germany and France and every time? What a prejudice. Seriously answer my question: do you believe that France and Germany decide alone on the EU laws? Prejudice prevails.

Ridiculous, when you compare more than 40,000 legal acts in the EU it with them in the UK. Google 'court statistics in the UK'. UK is nearly the winner.

Standards. Do you want to export goods to the EU made with the UK measurement system? Standards save money and time. Good luck for the UK industry and bureaucracy after Brexit.

4. Would we have paid our farmers to leave fields fallow, give massive subsidies to large unproductive land owners such as the royal family, whilst importing massive amounts of food, if we had not been in the EU? Answer – of course not.

DT doesn't know anything about CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). Look at #1. Otherwise UK would be a desert within 200 years, maybe. That would be sad history (killing themselves).

5. Would UK nationals have been able to settle in other EU countries if we were not in the EU? Answer - yes, but not if you came with nothing and expected to be provided with a living for nothing, which is the situation elsewhere in the world, not just in the EU.

Like a poodle following Bush in the Iraq War, however no money problem for the UK. But for humanity - budget should be closed. Aren't there a lot of people of ME areas, Asia and Africa, coming to the UK which was active in the unlawful Iraq War and other parts in the world?

6.

Are we destroying our right of self-determination? Answer – yes we are. The Europarl contribution? The toothless body can't change a thing Brussels decides to do. "The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament's opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it".

If you want to be a part of a community/union you have to relinquish some parts of your sovereignty. A normal situation. Or you shouldn't have joint it. You lose something, but you can/will win more important things. In such a community it's not all as at home with mamma.That's the reason, why …. .

1.

Would we have been able to destroy our UK fishing industry if we had not been in the EU? Answer - yes, but we wouldn't.

CAP, an EU policy, was introduced to protect agriculture and fishery against bad maneuvers, as i.e. over fishing. The concerned got compensated by the EU. The ravenous UK fishery has been protected by the EU, not destroyed. Therefore the fisher-boats had to be reduced.

2.

Would we have been able to forge free trade agreements with any country we liked on our terms, including the EU block, if we had not been in the EU - answer yes, of course.

Yes of course, not only for cherry-picking, but to the advantage of both sides; normally not satisfying all parts of each side. Norway has to pay, but isn't able to influence the EU policy.

3.

Would we have massive immigration and have no legal ability to deny benefits to those immigrants, even though they have not contributed, if we had not been in the EU? Answer – no.

The egocentric style of the Old British Empire, take off and don't give away. In the colonial time it plundered a lot of goods and money just of some states from where the people are migrating/fleeing. Of course, moral doesn't belong anymore to politics, only money. Yes? Immigrants pay back in the second or third generation, not all. Look at the USA (and ironically at Trump from Scotland 555).

On 19.9.2017 at 3:18 PM, aright said:

It sometimes helps to remind ourselves why we voted out.

This from a letter in the DT

 

Why we should leave the EU (or what do we get in return for our EU membership fee?). In return for the £12,000 million here are a few of the things we could have done without the EU, and a few to look forward to if we don’t leave:

1. Would we have been able to destroy our UK fishing industry if we had not been in the EU? Answer - yes, but we wouldn't.
2. Would we have been able to forge free trade agreements with any country we liked on our terms, including the EU block, if we had not been in the EU - answer yes, of course.
3. Would we have massive immigration and have no legal ability to deny benefits to those immigrants, even though they have not contributed, if we had not been in the EU? Answer - no.
4. Would we have paid our farmers to leave fields fallow, give massive subsidies to large unproductive land owners such as the royal family, whilst importing massive amounts of food, if we had not been in the EU? Answer – of course not.
5. Would UK nationals have been able to settle in other EU countries if we were not in the EU? Answer - yes, but not if you came with nothing and expected to be provided with a living for nothing, which is the situation elsewhere in the world, not just in the EU.

6. Are we destroying our right of self-determination? Answer – yes we are. The Europarl contribution? The toothless body can't change a thing Brussels decides to do. "The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament's opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it". 

7. Laws: I want my laws made by the body I have a say in electing, not a group of unelected people in Brussels pandering to the requirements of Germany and France and voting down UK objections every time under the majority voting system. There are now more than 40,000 legal acts in the EU. There are also 15,000 Court verdicts and 62,000 international standards, all of which must be respected and obeyed by all citizens and companies in the EU.
8. Will we be able to set our own foreign policy in future? Answer - not if the EU gets its way. Military: if the EU has the army as it wants, and national armies cease to exist as the EU wants, and foreign policy is set by Brussels that may or may not reflect the needs and aspirations of UK as the EU wants, who would control this army? Who would it fight for? What happens if the UK disagrees but is voted down? What happens to the UK nuclear deterrent?

9. Is the EU an institution that treats all members fairly and equitably? Answer – no it isn’t. The Greeks remember when they couldn't access any of their money a few months ago, and this was entirely due to the ECB flexing its muscles to coerce the Greek government into doing as it was told!

10. Can we set our own financial policy in the future? Not within the EU. We will be required to join the Euro this decade by EU law. The EU wants a common financial policy and common tax rates, set by the ECB.

11. Do all MS obey the EU laws, or are punished for not doing so? Answer – no. The migrant crisis: We watch as the French fail to apply EU laws as the laws don't suite them at the moment. The French allow migrants to set up camp to daily try to force their way into a sovereign territory that has rejected their 'application to enter' instead of processing them as require by EU law. Other MS simply wave them through, contrary to EU law. Other MS refuse to share the burden and erect razor wire border fences. Germany has run an illegal trade surplus for many years, other countries run up illegal deficits, all ignored of course.

12. Do we need the EU to alleviating a skills shortage in the UK? Answer – no. Our current immigration laws allow people with skills to enter and work in the UK. The EU just allows a million low skilled workers to come to the UK to take low paid jobs.

13. Is inward investment into the UK reliant on EU membership? Answer – no. Inward investment into the UK continues to grow after the Brexit vote.

SO, WHY ARE WE A MEMBER STATE? ANYONE

Because of the 13 paragraphs let me answer step by step.

It sometimes helps to remind ourselves why we voted out.

This from a letter in the DT

DT = Daily Telegraph(?) once called „Torygraph“; „notable“ columnist: Boris Johnson, besides Trump the liar of the year.

People, who aren't able to think by themselves or don't know about details of some subjects written in paragraphs of media articles, believe all is true. Then you read the nonsense above.

Why we should leave the EU (or what do we get in return for our EU membership fee?). In return for the £12,000 million here are a few of the things we could have done without the EU, and a few to look forward to if we don’t leave:

In normal life there is no half-truth, but the Brexit friends like/d the alternative facts. Fact is – National Audit Office stated, in 2014, the UK payed €14,100m (already reduced by a rebate of €7,100m) and received ~€7,000m. That's €7,100 or ~£5,700m net. Johnson said/lied: £350m weakly; fact £109,6m weakly. But the Brexiteers believe/d in him like the Muslims in Mohamed and the Koran.

The price for leaving should remember you on a situation in a pub. You order 28 glasses of beer for 27 guests and yourself . When you leave the pub ahaed of scedule wouldn't you have to pay for your order? It's the same what the EU is demanding for (the ordered and drunken beer).

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the Independent article, I particularly laughed at the following snippet :-

 

"The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 40 per cent agree that there should be a referendum on the exit deal the Government negotiates, and should seek to remain in the EU if the public rejects the terms."

 

So 60% thought otherwise?  Must admit that I stopped reading after this.

 

I've no problem with another binding referendum - as long as all the options are made very clear long before the referendum, and one of the options is along the lines of 'deal not good enough - leave immediately under WTO terms'.  This would concentrate both UK and EU politicians' minds wonderfully on coming up with the best deal possible!

Tell me the wanted result of o a poll and you get what you want. An old wisdom.

I didn't read this article of the I.  What, if only 35% had said "don't want a new one" and 25 had said" I don't know at now???

41 minutes ago, rixalex said:

There was propaganda from both sides before the last referendum, and if there is a second one (or a third, or a fourth...), it will be no different. There will still be lies and mistruths propagated aplenty from both sides. There will never be this magical propaganda-free referendum with only the pure facts spoken, that you seem to believe in. It will always be up to the public to sift through all the nonsense and come to their own decision. It's what you did i presume? Why do you think that people who voted out weren't capable of doing that too? It's a touch arrogant don't you think? Have you ever considered for a moment that maybe it was you who was duped into voting the wrong way?

 

I agree with you that there would be propaganda actions from both sides. But the situation nowadays is very different.

I guess , in June last year the majority of the voters have not been informed enough about the negative consequences of Brexit (what happens now) re. the positive effects of the EU.

It's shown day by day that the Brexiteers didn't have any concrete and reliable ideas for the Brexit procedure, except cherry picking. Imagine all EU members would think like this. Then the Brexiteer-friends in this forum nearly would would die if Germany - as the money contributor #1 - would aks for most of the cherries. This union is built for many senseful reasons, not only for money. A long list I cannot write here.

BTW, in the following TV thread you can read about one of the positive reasons for a remaining, if you are open for the real facts. And the positive list is very long, believe or not.

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1002886-british-expats-face-cliff-edge-in-pensions-and-insurance-after-brexit/

29 minutes ago, the guest said:

Democracy must be upheld, the people voted, and decision must be carried !

What a strange logic. Voting a second time, is this undemocratic ?????

Is it undemocratic when the Scots will have a second voting about leaving the UK?

EU and Brexit is a very serious subject concerning the future. It's not like betting if Arsenal or Chelsea will win.  In many states you would need a qualified majority for such an important issue. Qualified means not 50% of the votes cast, but at least 50% - or more - of the eligible voters. That's democracy, too.

46 minutes ago, rixalex said:

There was propaganda from both sides before the last referendum, and if there is a second one (or a third, or a fourth...), it will be no different. There will still be lies and mistruths propagated aplenty from both sides. There will never be this magical propaganda-free referendum with only the pure facts spoken, that you seem to believe in. It will always be up to the public to sift through all the nonsense and come to their own decision. It's what you did i presume? Why do you think that people who voted out weren't capable of doing that too? It's a touch arrogant don't you think? Have you ever considered for a moment that maybe it was you who was duped into voting the wrong way?

 

I agree with you that there would be propaganda actions from both sides. But the situation nowadays is very different.

I guess  in June last year, the majority of the voters have not been informed enough about the negative consequences of Brexit (what happens now) re. the positive effects of the EU.

It's shown day by day that the Brexiteers didn't have any concrete and reliable ideas for the Brexit procedure, except cherry picking. Imagine all EU members would think like this. Then the Brexiteer-friends in this forum nearly would would die, if Germany - as the money contributor #1 - would ask for most of the cherries. This union is built for many senseful reasons, not only for money. A long list I cannot write here.

BTW, in the following TV thread you can read about one of the positive reasons for a remaining, if you are open for the real facts. And the positive list is very long, believe or not.

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1002886-british-expats-face-cliff-edge-in-pensions-and-insurance-after-brexit/

2 minutes ago, Kenegg said:

Are you from the UK? we don't have soccer clubs it's called football.

We want out of the EU it's called OUT... I can sit down with you and give loads of reasons why I voted out IF you would listen...

Would you like to repeat Johnson's bla-bla, re. partly alternative facts?

Another point of view.

Why are the Brexeteers so afraid of a second voting ? It's not a voting about a soccer club. It's too important for UK's future.

If they win again, it's confirmed by the majority of the voters. All okay.

But if they lose - what they are afraid of - it is confirmed that they have been deceived by some blockheads,  as Johnson for example. It would be a correction by the MAJORITY, who now  know more about the real problems and  about the former propaganda for Brexit. The last election already showed this tendency.

There are Brexeteers who endlessly complained about EU bureaucracy .

EU laws made it possible that --->

<....> Currently a UK business are able to provide a range of financial services anywhere in the EU, and in the wider European Economic Area (EEA), while being based in the UK and regulated by UK authorities. This is because businesses offering financial services have ‘passporting’ rights which allow them to offer financial services to the rest of the EEA (28 EU members plus Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein) while only having to follow one set of regulations.<....>

<…...> Though financial services are likely, after the initial shock of uncertainty, to continue to grow and be a significant part of the UK economy, the reduced access, and the moving of some services will mean that compared to remaining in the EEA (whether or not we stay in the EU) to contribution of financial services to the UK economy will be smaller.

A report by PwC estimated that cost of relocating services alone could have a -0.4 per cent impact on UK GDP by 2030 and the barriers to trade cause by the loss of passporting rights could reduce the contribution of financial services by between 0.6 and 2.2 percent. This is turn could mean between 70,000 and 100,000 less jobs in the short run, and 10,000 to 30,000 less jobs by 2030.<....>

from:

http://www.eu-facts.org.uk/arguments-by-topic/will-uk-financial-services-suffer-from-losing-passporting-rights-after-brexit/

4 hours ago, tomwct said:

Love it! It reminds people that they made the right choice when they elected Trump! Making America Great Again One Day At A Time!

Watch these videos – just to the end – and you'll get a real perception how he will „forget“ America again. He isn't still able to remember what he had to do ….. after a few minutes. Be happy if such a brain-disabled man doesn't make America „great“ again.

We have a lot of parrots on TVF. They verbatim repeat the propaganda of this man with his multiple lapses of memory, proven by following videos. And there are more examples that his brain is disrupted. I.e. must repeat primitive words and half sentences instantly.

Press on the URLs.

https://youtu.be/C4uR1yBx1Y8

https://youtu.be/sF5TGQgQJeA

On 15.9.2017 at 3:22 PM, RawboneFunksta said:

Trump does not want war . . . he even worked to make a better understanding with Russia. Now if Hillary had won we'd be invading someone already . . . 

In dead earnest, do you believe that she would destroy what Obama has cemented .

On 15.9.2017 at 1:42 PM, puck2 said:

May I correct 10)

 

Extreme religion has an inhuman influence on the government in Iran. in SA, too. So, why condemn only one corrupt power (Iran) and support the other one (SA)?

23 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

One is working towards nuclear weapons, the other isn't??

Please, show us some facts, not unverified stories.

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

<----->On 14 July 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 and EU, a comprehensive agreement based on the April 2015 framework, was announced.[...] Just before the final deadline on 18 April 2017, the Trump administration certified that Iran had continued to comply with the framework agreement.<---->

A typical mentally ill Trump (google: Zoe Logren) confirmed that Iran complied with the international agreement. Next moment he „weighs more aggressive U.S. Strategy on Iran. But he doesn't mind the inhumane, aggressive actions of his dear Saudi Arabian friends in Yemen.

Missile defense.

One question I didn't read and learn about:

Even if the missiles are shot down by defense missiles, be it over S.Korea, Japan or the USA, what would happen if an N.Korean rocket carries a nuclear weapon? Destroying the the area under it where it has been shot down? Maybe a military secret?

If yes, that would be a reason to be very cautious to blast such a missile. Therefore I would understand that the concerned states abstain from shooting down.

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Try to pull over a drunk driver without causing any problems.  Perhaps the comparison is apt?

Missing the problem again.

The problem is, how to eliminate a diver surrounded by bombs (being drunken or not).

21 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Kinda like letting a drunk drive a car hoping an accident will never happen.  Odds are, one will happen eventually.

Your comparison is far away of reality, completely wrong.

You cannot compare Kim with a drunken driver. He is driving a vehicle fraught with explosives. When you fire at it you are in an extreme danger to be shot yourself. That's the real picture.

May I correct 10)

Extreme religion has an inhuman influence on the government in Iran. in SA, too. So, why condemn only one corrupt power (Iran) and support the other one (SA)?

The government is going to cure the symptoms of the (airport) disease, but not the disease itself.

The airport disease is the understaffed counters. If the immigration doesn't want to employ more officers in order to reduce the long queues it should think about different ways for Thailand's „security“. In this case the word security is an euphemism for „TAT-statistics“. Then let the TAT pay for more occupied counters in the airports.

BTW, don't we pay 700 THB for an airport-service, now-a-days included in the ticket price (so you don't see and buy it anymore by yourself)? I guess this fee will go to the AOT. Let AOT pay the money for more Immi-officers and counters. Problem solved, we would think. But it costs …...money, !