jope

So. If the young people of the UK were attacked by a Hitler today would they fight back or would they wind up being lampshades and bars of soap? In the end I think they'd fight back but they'd have to change their mindset some.

Cheers.

You are saying that the EU is another Hitler?

No, I'm saying that Brits have gotten soft since the WWII era. If there's any similarity with Hitler there is this desire of the EU to take over Europe as a one state entity.

I'm very pleased with Brexit and hope there is a real determination to maintain national sovereignty and the British culture. All of the fear mongering is just that because the UK won't be cut off from trade. Who kicks out his best customer or supplier?

Cheers.

Thanks for clarifying.

For historical reasons I am reluctant to "Like This". But I had to laugh nevertheless.

...

Also, note UK pound has fallen 10% so that would make UK cars cheaper to buy.

Depends on where all the car parts are made...

Yes that's right. But the main point is that tariffs are low, and a common sense solution would point to there perobably being none at all, though quite how that will be fudged I don't know.

I'm only taking this from surface knowlwdge but I think UK is Europe's number one trading partner in Europe (possibly the world I don't know), and EU enjoys a healthy trade surplus.

One thing I can definitely say is that in business it's not a good idea to start a war with your best customer, either way. And UK certainly is not in a position to want to lose export custom either.

It all points to an amicable settlement.

The only problem with that is if they agree to a settlement that demands less obligations of the UK but the same privileges, other EU members are going to want the same.

I don't pretend to know the solution. But I imagine there will be aface saver for both parties.

EU really must reform its open border policy, it really must. And UK is not opposed to immigration per se, just wants control.

IMO, we both really need each other.

WE NEED a face saver because our European "friends" would like to give us a face SLAP thanks to that ape Farage. I predict a sticky demise for him.

It seems that he reached his goal. So, in principle no need for a UKIP anymore. How will he justify the further existence of his party, I wonder?

Andrea Leadsom stands for PM job she nails her colours to the mast, she gives Brexit hope

I hope somebody nails her to the mast

What an evil bitch, she makes Thatcher look like mother Teresa!

She stands no chance

I vote conservative (Germany, CDU). Then I read some articles about the Tory candidates. It was ... interesting. It seems that conservative parties in Germany and Britain are two different worlds. I regard myself center right but to them I am probably a disgusting communist.

So. If the young people of the UK were attacked by a Hitler today would they fight back or would they wind up being lampshades and bars of soap? In the end I think they'd fight back but they'd have to change their mindset some.

Cheers.

You are saying that the EU is another Hitler?

Of the four freedoms, the freedom of movement of persons is the most sacred, so to say. It is the freedom that actually every European citizen can experience directly and personally. There is NO way to reach a compromise. If the UK wants access to the single market the UK will leave the freedom of movement of persons untouched. There must not be any limitation at all. In short: abandon all hope (in that regard).

The Brothers Grimsby, Sacha Baron Cohen,really funny British humor,

so don't bother watching if you are German,

regards worgeordie

Yes, we are bit retarded in the humour section. I found it utterly disgusting, gave up after 30 minutes. If that's not proof...

double post

But then on the bright side I have just seen this

http://heatst.com/uk/11-countries-gearing-up-to-strike-trade-deals-with-britain/

See we don't need the EU it's only about one week

Unfortunately (I am not using the word ironically), these trade deals, if they actually materialize, may not be enough to make good for the losses. I am not an expert in economy but my understanding is that the City of London contributes decisively to the GNP. Without a deal with the EU a lot of this trade will be gone. Just a few percent less will hit the British budget hard. And many foreign banks and traders are in London because it gives them access to the whole European market, These banks and traders will have no reason to stay in the UK. Dublin or Paris or Frankfurt will suit them better (Dublin being a good candidate because of this funny little language they speak ).

Don't get me wrong. I do not hope that that will happen but I think there is good chance that it will. That being said, I always wonder why so many people on this forum wish for the EU to collapse. I understand that people feel British and want to remain independent (I do not, I regard myself as being patriotic but nevertheless I would describe myself as a European from Germany like many of my friends and colleagues would describe themselves as Europeans from France or Holland or wherever). So, that I understand but I would not want the UK to collapse or the British people to suffer. Obviously, for some people it is not enough "to win", the others also have to lose. Why is that, I wonder. My hobby-psychological diagnosis: they maybe simply a-holes.

I now come from the only native English speaking country in the EU....(just thought I'd let you know).

Alright, you're next. And once we got rid of the last native English speakers we will introduce a common language for the EU: Latin!

With permanent stays and work permits it will be a completely different issue.

Can'r see how, as there has been not vote to leave the EEA.

One of the cornerstones of the EEA is the free movement of persons. My understanding is that among other things the Brexit is about limiting this free movement of persons.

"many Brits had no idea what the European Union is"

If that is true, I dare to say, that it also applies to 90% of the European population. Who knows what the difference between the European Council and the Council of the Ministers is? What does the Commission actually do? What powers does the Parliament have? It is easy to get an opinion on that, particularly if it is hate, but only few have an opinion based on knowledge about the EU-institutions.

​I think that is a huge problem for the EU and we should really think of improving our education system in that regard.

If the EU want to make this a separation based on what's good for all people (which they won't), part of the separation agreement should be an easy visa system between the UK and the EU. All citizens of EU countries living in the UK (without serious criminal record) automatically get leave to remain visas and vice versa.

Listening to Radio 4 yesterday here in the UK, there's panic amongst Europeans living in Blighty. They're scared and a paranoia has set in that they're not wanted here, that they're hated. From my point of view this simply isn't the case. Yes, the UK needs immigration control, it's got twice the population density of Germany, it doesn't have sufficient housing and public services to cope with a continued mass influx. But, for those people from other EU countries already established here, life should not be made difficult (it's difficult enough thanks).

The referendum campaign and certainly the communication of any sort of immediate plan in case of Brexit was an utter disgrace on both sides, leading to the sort of extreme uncertainty we're now witnessing.

For tourists and short time visitors there will be no problem. UK and EU will probably agree to re-establish the former system where an id-card was enough to enter and and have the right to stay for a few weeks.

With permanent stays and work permits it will be a completely different issue. As a condition to have access to the single market the EU will most likely insist on free movement of laborers and the UK will fight exactly that.

Permanent visas will probably be possible but will be granted only when certain requirements are met (is your income sufficient, ever been arrested etc?).

It will be interesting...

BTW, I never understood why so many people in the UK are so vehemently against East-European immigration. First, the UK could have protected their labour-market for another seven years (like Germany did) but chose to let everybody in immediately. Secondly, the number of people who abuse the social system is not life threatening high. Individual cases may be highly irritating but they will not let the system collapse. Most of the people who came are probably employed and pay taxes. In Germany particularly the Polish have the reputation of being reliable, highly skilled and hard working. In general, we actually like them.

Just saw an advert for Fox that says Billions premieres on July 7th.

I take it that's season 2[emoji1303]

That would be great. But I cannot really believe it. Season 1 ended in April and a break of just three months between two seasons seems rather short. And it it runs on Showtime, not on Fox. But again, it would be great.

Peter Prügel? What a name. He must have had a hard time in school (Prügel=beating).

The President of the unelected executive arm of the European Union (EU) has vowed to block all right wing populists from power across the continent, shortly after acquiring the power to exert “far-reaching sanctions” on elected governments.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, promised to exclude Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ), from all EU decision-making if elected ahead of yesterday’s presidential vote.

The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/juncker-vows-to-use-new-powers-to-block-the-far-right-nq5r5tnqq

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/24/eu-vows-use-new-powers-block-elected-far-right-populists-power/

https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/juncker-vows-to-block-all-far-right-wing-populists-from-power-across-eu/

http://www.dailystormer.com/dictatorship-in-the-name-of-democracy-eu-vows-to-block-elected-populist-parties/

So who gave him that right?!

The elected President of the EU Commission, which the EU Parliament approved, obviously made a political statement. That is his right as it is anybody’s right to make statements.

If he acts on that statement, he will do that according to the rights and obligations that the treaties assign to his position. If he oversteps, member states (e.g. Austria) or EU-institutions (Council of the Ministers or EU Parliament) can take the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. On the political side, the EU parliament can vote for a motion of censure. With a respective majority the EU Parliament can force the whole Commission to resign.

The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. Recently, Poland and Hungary changed or tried to change their legislation in a way that the commission (and not only them) sees as a possible breach of the treaties. Juncker obviously made his statement in support of previous „warning shots“ in the direction of these countries.

The „Austrian case“ is a bit theoretical, as the right wing candidate did not make it. Furthermore, the Austrian President has no real power and is not involved in the EU decision making process anyway (as far as I know, anybody who knows better please correct me). That lets me believe that Juncker did not intend to act on his statement. If he had, see above regarding possible measures against him.

You can flower it up how you like, its got naff all to do with him who a country votes for and its got nothing to do with the Commission. After all we are all free countries..unless he gets his way

Indeed, free peoples can elect their governments as they choose. But the elected governments must stick to the EU treaties. If they do not, the Commission has the right and the obligation(!) to step in.

Good riddance. Hopefully once we leave the EU, Scotland will leave too!

Agreed!

Once we've left the EU, Scotland can leave the UK, and good riddance .

(That is what you meant, isn't it? )

I am not British, so I read it this way:

Good riddance. Hopefully once we leave the EU, Scotland will leave the EU too!

Sounds appropriately desperate.

I hope so. Its nothing more than a dictatorship with unelected officials calling the shots.

Yes it is....agreed...and for those who think not....Junker said that countries need to be careful who they vote in to power (democratically i might add) because if the EU doesn't like them they won't deal with that country anymore....Ummmmm, is that not dictating

That sounds ... interesting. So, what exactly did Juncker allegedly say and to whom?

The "dictatorial" EU-Commission is indeed not elected but only approved (or rejected) by the European Parliament. IMHO that would be one of the most important reform steps the EU should take. The parliament should elect all commissioners and not only the president of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commissioners are appointed by their governments, which are democratically elected. So, a minimum level of democratic principles is met.

Again, if anybody wants to see a dictatorship, just look at Thailand.

The President of the unelected executive arm of the European Union (EU) has vowed to block all right wing populists from power across the continent, shortly after acquiring the power to exert “far-reaching sanctions” on elected governments.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, promised to exclude Norbert Hofer, the leader of Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ), from all EU decision-making if elected ahead of yesterday’s presidential vote.

The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/juncker-vows-to-use-new-powers-to-block-the-far-right-nq5r5tnqq

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/24/eu-vows-use-new-powers-block-elected-far-right-populists-power/

https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/juncker-vows-to-block-all-far-right-wing-populists-from-power-across-eu/

http://www.dailystormer.com/dictatorship-in-the-name-of-democracy-eu-vows-to-block-elected-populist-parties/

So who gave him that right?!

The elected President of the EU Commission, which the EU Parliament approved, obviously made a political statement. That is his right as it is anybody’s right to make statements.

If he acts on that statement, he will do that according to the rights and obligations that the treaties assign to his position. If he oversteps, member states (e.g. Austria) or EU-institutions (Council of the Ministers or EU Parliament) can take the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. On the political side, the EU parliament can vote for a motion of censure. With a respective majority the EU Parliament can force the whole Commission to resign.

The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. Recently, Poland and Hungary changed or tried to change their legislation in a way that the commission (and not only them) sees as a possible breach of the treaties. Juncker obviously made his statement in support of previous „warning shots“ in the direction of these countries.

The „Austrian case“ is a bit theoretical, as the right wing candidate did not make it. Furthermore, the Austrian President has no real power and is not involved in the EU decision making process anyway (as far as I know, anybody who knows better please correct me). That lets me believe that Juncker did not intend to act on his statement. If he had, see above regarding possible measures against him.

That sounds ... interesting. So, what exactly did Juncker allegedly say and to whom?

The "dictatorial" EU-Commission is indeed not elected but only approved (or rejected) by the European Parliament. IMHO that would be one of the most important reform steps the EU should take. The parliament should elect all commissioners and not only the president of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commissioners are appointed by their governments, which are democratically elected. So, a minimum level of democratic principles is met.

Again, if anybody wants to see a dictatorship, just look at Thailand.

Are you for real ? You think Thailand is a dictatorship ?

Take a trip to certain parts of Africa, you will discover what a dictatorship actually is.

I regard your post as one of the many highlights on this forum. Thailand is not a dictatorship because it is worse in Africa? Simply great.

I do not really care how you view it. That was not my point.

Thailand is a Dictatorship in all but name only. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Are there free and fair elections in Thailand? Can a parliament or a court remove the PM from office? Is the PM's term limited or can he rule as long as it pleases him? Is the PM under the law? Are the PM's powers limitedly by laws?

While in Thailand all these questions unfortunately must be answered with "no", the EU would pass any dictatorship test easily. Anyway, I am not a last-word-fetishist. So, you are, off course, free to explain why Thailand is not a dictatorship. But I would not answer anymore. We definitely have no common ground to continue a rational discussion.

Yes it is....agreed...and for those who think not....Junker said that countries need to be careful who they vote in to power (democratically i might add) because if the EU doesn't like them they won't deal with that country anymore....Ummmmm, is that not dictating

That sounds ... interesting. So, what exactly did Juncker allegedly say and to whom?

The "dictatorial" EU-Commission is indeed not elected but only approved (or rejected) by the European Parliament. IMHO that would be one of the most important reform steps the EU should take. The parliament should elect all commissioners and not only the president of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commissioners are appointed by their governments, which are democratically elected. So, a minimum level of democratic principles is met.

Again, if anybody wants to see a dictatorship, just look at Thailand.

Are you for real ? You think Thailand is a dictatorship ?

Take a trip to certain parts of Africa, you will discover what a dictatorship actually is.

I regard your post as one of the many highlights on this forum. Thailand is not a dictatorship because it is worse in Africa? Simply great.

If we leave,then the E.U will eventually disintegrate

0

I hope so. Its nothing more than a dictatorship with unelected officials calling the shots.

Yes it is....agreed...and for those who think not....Junker said that countries need to be careful who they vote in to power (democratically i might add) because if the EU doesn't like them they won't deal with that country anymore....Ummmmm, is that not dictating

That sounds ... interesting. So, what exactly did Juncker allegedly say and to whom?

The "dictatorial" EU-Commission is indeed not elected but only approved (or rejected) by the European Parliament. IMHO that would be one of the most important reform steps the EU should take. The parliament should elect all commissioners and not only the president of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commissioners are appointed by their governments, which are democratically elected. So, a minimum level of democratic principles is met.

Again, if anybody wants to see a dictatorship, just look at Thailand.

Once Britain pulls out expect Germany to go next.

If Germany goes then it's lights out. Though, I would expect the Netherlands to kick up first.

It will be a domino effect across the biggest EU players if UK does Brexit.

There is a solid majority pro-EU in Germany. Political parties that want to leave the Union never had and never will have a chance (even the AfD=Alternative for Germany got their votes from the refugee situation and not from their anti-EU stance). Germany leaving the EU is EU-haters' wishful thinking and nothing else.

If the UK actually leaves, other states will watch carefully how the UK develops on its own. And as we all know, that development can be anything from success to total failure. In case of the latter all exit phantasies in other member states will experience a little crash and the door for deeper integration will be wide open. BTW, deeper integration means deeper political integration. So, all states can afford that. Economical strength is not a requirement.

On a sidenote: a recent survey found that 86% of the Germans would like the UK to remain in the EU (I am one of them). Not that it matters what Germans think, but maybe, just maybe, there is more to consider then just "screw you, we're better of without you".

A united states of europe is Germany's dream not the UK's, so you go your way we'll go ours.

Hm, at least one great British Politician found the idea of a United States of Europe not bad at all: Winston Churchill in his Zurich speech in 1946 ("Let Europe arise!").

Before anybody start shouting at me, I know that he probably did not see the UK as a part of these united states.

And because it is somehow funny: I remember the predictions for the referendum in 1975 ("the British will never stay, still thinking they have an empire bla bla") and then 67% voted "yes". So, be prepared for surprises.

And whatever the result, I think Thursday evening will be more exciting than a football match England-Germany (which we usually win ).

Once Britain pulls out expect Germany to go next.

If Germany goes then it's lights out. Though, I would expect the Netherlands to kick up first.

It will be a domino effect across the biggest EU players if UK does Brexit.

There is a solid majority pro-EU in Germany. Political parties that want to leave the Union never had and never will have a chance (even the AfD=Alternative for Germany got their votes from the refugee situation and not from their anti-EU stance). Germany leaving the EU is EU-haters' wishful thinking and nothing else.

If the UK actually leaves, other states will watch carefully how the UK develops on its own. And as we all know, that development can be anything from success to total failure. In case of the latter all exit phantasies in other member states will experience a little crash and the door for deeper integration will be wide open. BTW, deeper integration means deeper political integration. So, all states can afford that. Economical strength is not a requirement.

On a sidenote: a recent survey found that 86% of the Germans would like the UK to remain in the EU (I am one of them). Not that it matters what Germans think, but maybe, just maybe, there is more to consider then just "screw you, we're better of without you".

I imagine many EU citizens would like to be free of dictatorial Brussels, but few of them will ever get the chance to have a say due to their own dictatorial governments.

It has taken 35 years push and the rise of UKIP (in 2015 they polled 4m which was three times the total vote for the SNP in Scotland) to get this vote.

Cameron never realised the promise of a referendum would actually get him a majority government when he made the promise in 2014.

A vote for remain will be much more than any "status quo" as the EU will push on towards the undemocratic federal states of Europe and the middle east that the bureaucrats want.

Schäuble already said that if it comes to just a narrow win of the remain-side, the EU cannot move on with the deeper integration of the Union.

As he is a committed European who would not abandon his ideals easily, I think he wants to open a road that gives those member states wanting a deeper integration the opportunity to do so and leave the other states behind (just speculating).

Regarding the "dictatorial Brussels": have a look at Thailand, it gives you an idea how dictatorship looks like.