George FmplesdaCosteedback

On 5/26/2018 at 1:34 PM, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

This is an amazing speech by Peter Shore, one of Labour’s finest ever politicians. Watch the squirming traitor Ted Heath in the background, the man that had just been told by Geoffrey Rippon, "If we want to enter the EEC (as it was then known) we will have to sacrifice Britain's  fishermen”

 

Ironic that it took a labour politician to expose the potentially disastrous consequences for the British people of joining the EEC (EU)

 

The birth of fear mongering 

Many thanks for that, I haven't seen it for 30+ years.

Superb speech.

Corbyn has been a Eurosceptic for 35 years, but he wants power and will do anything to get it.

On 5/26/2018 at 3:04 PM, tebee said:

How many Brexiteers does it take to change a lightbulb?

 

Two. One to promise a brighter future and the second to screw it up

How many votes does it take to make a democratic decision?

How much does it cost to change a light bulb in the EU parliaments? (And move it to Strasbourg?)

How many saboteur remoaners does it take to derail a negotiation?

On 5/22/2018 at 7:35 AM, Kieran00001 said:

In what way was the last referendum a greater mandate than the 1975 one?  And obviously it was not a once only vote, it is already the second time we have voted on basically the exact same thing.  

We joined the EEC in '73 under the misapprehension it was a free trade association, not at all what the EU has become, and voted to stay in '75 under the same delusion.

The "small print" in the Treaty of Rome seemed to be completely hidden from the electorate at the time.

Your comments about German intentions are laughable, check the history books, or read some!

The next expansion of the EU will be of more economically challenged countries from mostly the ex-soviet block, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia (and maybe trans-Asia Turkey).

You have so many holes in your argument it has sunk as far as I am concerned.

Have the last word by reply if you wish.

It will not change the fact the EU is not democratic and works more like the House of Lords than The Commons.

Romania or Poland seem to have plenty of houses available if you want to live in the EU.

Best of luck.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:20 AM, aright said:

Point well made.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot.

Suppose in the Scottish referendum the peoples vote for independence was 52-48% in favour and then the MP's in Westminster said sorry but we are not in favour of Scotland leaving the Union and neither are the BBC etc etc.. The process is extremely complex and there's a border to consider and we have to satisfy the 48% who voted against 

the motion...…..so no sorry you can't have the independence you voted for.

Riots on the streets I would have thought.

 

Would be interesting if it happened.

Please don't forget the Scottish economy is propped up by huge amounts of money from England.

Independence for Scotland from the UK is something the Scots would have to consider very carefully if they get another referendum, since they would not be guaranteed immediate entry into the EU and the EU's subsidies schemes.

Consideration for those who don't want independence from the EU is being given liberally in the negotiations, however the fact remains to actually leave the EU it is not possible to stay in the CU or SM.

The trade deal is the crux of the whole thing, but the sabotage by the remain voters of the UK's negotiating position is playing into the EU's hand and lessening the chance of a deal that will be beneficial to the whole of the UK and still acceptable by the EU at the end of the day.

19 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

The reason that those countries have gotten into debt is mostly because of how they spent their loans, they were development loans and they have mostly spent them on vanity projects.  And when I say the EU has paid their interest, I mean the EU, the budget from the EU countries, obviously there is no other money, obviously it comes from EU taxpayers pockets.

 

I don't deny that referendum, I deny that it is what the British people want today, the result was very close two years ago and all polls indicate that it is no longer what the people want, democracy is not based on a single vote years before, it is based on the will of the people, and that has changed since the referendum.

The referendum was a far greater mandate than any UK general election in living memory. It was debated and agreed in parliament how it would be conducted and it was a once only vote. The PM then went to the EU get a "reform" of the UK-EU deal and came back with a "handbrake" attached to nothing.

What we should be doing is getting behind the decision, not denying it as you are by asking for another vote. The polls have been wrong for the last 5-6 years, why insist on them being correct now?

The negotiations are being sabotaged by all those in the minority.

The EU has to get an equitable deal for its own workers and industries, so why undermine the position.

Do you think Estonia, Latvia and Albania are going to take up the loss of trade with the UK when they join shortly?

I agree the southern "states" mostly spent the money unwisely, but now they cannot service the debt. What do you suggest? Have every taxpayer in the Euro Zone give then more money to waste, or see them regain the ability of making their economies work by getting back control of their currency?

I say again, Churchill would never have approved of what is happening now. It is starting a revolt even by new members with the lack of democratic practice and diktats that "must be obeyed" being issued by appointed "Presidents".

Gordon "No more Boom and Bust" Brown was voted the worst UK PM of all time, and he was.

Even Chamberlain (unwittingly) gave the UK time to rearm in the face of the German onslaught in western Europe, but the real intention of democratically elected Hitler was expansion east into Russian territory...

Anything sound familiar?

I am really not on TV to educate you, so I will sign off now and have a beer.

?

16 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

It would be better to look things up than just post your imagination. 

 

The UK is the third largest contributor, Germany and France pay more than the UK, and Italy is less than 1% behind us, so actually there are 4 countries that make substantial contributions, not two as you claimed.

 

The "reality" is that every EU member country has seen the longest period of peace since in history since joining, the same cannot be said for their NATO membership, and that is because while EU membership is based on trade and bilateral agreement, NATO membership is based on arms spending, a display of might is enough to prevent the Russians invading but it is not enough to prevent squabbles amongst us.  Take Greece for example, when they wanted to invade Cyprus they simply removed their NATO signature, went to war, then later signed again, NATO did nothing at all to prevent that war, and there are other examples.

 

The aim of the EEC was never only about trade, it was first thought of by Churchill and the idea was to prevent another European war, the means with which they set about to achieve this was through dependence on each other, one way of achieving dependence was to encourage trade.  Here are the aims of the common market as laid out in the 1975 referendum pamphlet.

The aims of the Common Market are:

To bring together the peoples of Europe.

To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

To promote growth and boost world trade.

To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

To help maintain peace and freedom.

 

The Euro hasn't bankrupted anywhere, there are countries that have taken out loans and are struggling with the payments, however the EU has paid their interest for them, they did that to prevent them from going bankrupt.  And no one forced them to take out those development loans and spend them on vanity projects while siphoning away their taxes into Swiss banks, they did it all by themselves.

 

The Irish borders issue must be solved, that is all they are saying, we can't avoid this issue, and it matters greatly for the EU as it has the potential to spark off another conflict, but then I guess you imagine NATO getting involved if the troubles start again, keep dreaming, it will be the Eu who resolve the issue.

 

The move toward a United States of Europe has always been the intention, it was the intention when Churchill thought of the idea, it was the intention in the 1975 referendum and so it really shouldn't come as a shock to you, it is the best way to being the peoples of Europe together to live in peace.

 

The EU is looking pretty solid actually, economic growth has been very slow but is now at a 10 year high and predicted by several measures to be entering a Golden Era, no one is going to be leaving once the economy picks up.  Meanwhile the UK has slowed to a stop and is predicted to fall again to the lowest growth in the EU, leaving will put us further behind and will serve as a model reason to remain for the other states where discontent has been growing.

 

 

You are full of misleading rubbish not facts.

More financial predictions? They have proved completely wrong so far. Ask me how Gordon Brown didn't see "Boom and Bust" was on the horizon when the US banks were already in trouble with sub-prime mortgages while he was Chancellor and also sold off the UK gold reserve at rock bottom price.

Where do you get this nonsense from?

I will not spend an hour or more looking up things you clearly ignore in favour of propaganda.

Churchill was indeed for a peaceful Europe having been in both the World Wars of the 20th century, but he would never have supported the expansionist, bureaucratic and barely democratic EU as it is today.

His vision was for an economic collaboration that would stop the expansionist ideals of its members and consequently lose any reason for war. (I left out the history lesson)

As for figures for EU contributions: since they were eventually forced to have an audit the figures you quote are complete and utter misinformation. I am talking about NET figures (ie: after the refunds and subsidies).

So, what do you suggest is the reason that caused Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal into bankruptcy? The EU doesn't pay the interest on the loans, the members and all the taxpayers do.

Please continue to deny the democratic decision taken in 2016 by UK citizens. It seems that is what you approve of. John McDonnall said, "It is my job to create a socialist state in the UK", but they all know re-nationalization of industry cannot happen unless we leave the EU. Another hypocritical idiot like the rest of the Labour Party's 30 year Euro-sceptic leader and shadow cabinet.

I want my children and grandchildren to live in a self determining democratic country, not be serfs of a bureaucratic dictatorship...

57 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Democracy did not stop when the referendum result came in, but a lot of people seem to think that it did. If you hate Brexit before the vote you are not betraying democracy by also hating it after the vote. We need another vote on the terms when they are known, either in the form of an election or another referendum. That is also democracy. Even if it displeases you.

Not a matter if pleasure. The referendum was debated in Parliament, and it was a once only vote.

The recent local elections produced some very close results, but do they continue to deny a democratic decision?

No!

On 5/18/2018 at 7:08 AM, soalbundy said:

Members of the EU aren't on WTO tariffs they are an island apart amongst themselves, if the UK leaves they can go back to WTO tariffs before EU. The UK doesn't import goods from the EU out of the goodness of its heart, they need or want those goods. My brothers firm in London imports two articulated lorries of vegetables from France each day, some cheaper than British produce some more expensive but that doesn't matter because he charges the restaurants that he sells to a, as he puts it,  ridiculously expensive price, they demand French produce and he supplies it, for a price.

Good luck to your brother, but the Irish border is a different matter.

On 5/18/2018 at 8:40 AM, tebee said:

I suspect you mean Schengen there  rather than China ( It's OK I'm dyslexic myself) - but this illustrates the problem. Although not in the CU Norway and Switzerland  are in both the Single Market and Schengen Area.

 

Unless you are suggesting the the UK joins these, you can't use the EU border there as an example.

Sorry, being lazy on the spell check produced the China mistake.

I didn't intend this as an example, just a suggestion that there are other ways to deal with this if the EU looks beyond the "punishment option".

The article shows the EEA (check who is in what) members can be accommodated, and a trade agreement is paramount to solve the problem.

The German car industry, the French (subsidised) farmers and Italian washing machine companies etc don't want tariffs any more than the UK.

I am in favour of the UK rejoining Efta, but nothing more.

May has not ruled out a subscription fee for SM access don't forget, but will not accept the ECJ, free movement rules and diktats from Brussels.

The EU are renowned for the brinkmanship ploy leaving everything to the last minute. So it needs steady nerves and a hard and consolidated stand to get a satisfactory deal, not the Labour Party and rich Lords trying to sabotage what was a resounding and decisive decision to leave the EU two years ago.