8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

No, I suspect you're the one who doesn't understand how the EU has inadvertently formented strife on a scale not seen since before WW2.

Would that be on the island of Formentera?

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

It’s about democracy and sovereignty,more so than money. But to realise that,you must be able to think and question what you are being fed.

 

 

Plus take directions from the tabloids. 

7 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Would that be on the island of Formentera?

 

Dunno. But I do know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones .

38 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

There have been massive improvements in material quality of life for the masses in Thailand (and many other second and third world countries) in the last fifteen years. I'm sure we can credit the EU with that also.

 

Only if you want to say that those that have failed outside of the EU did so because of it, see how that works?  I am not saying that the EU has worked miracles for everyone, I am merely countering the claim that the EU is a failure, a claim that so far has gone without a single scrap of evidence, now do you have any or do we have to accept that the claim is baseless propaganda?

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

Well that's nicely put.

 

Incidentally it's AfD not AEG - I have no fear of panzer dishwashers!

 

But yes, the immigration issue is a big deal and being anti Muslim I welcome that. 

 

All these areas including Malmo and Duisburg and some Paris suburbs need sorting out and I see that happening. Not sure if we will do the same with Rochdale and Rotherham!

Thanks for that.....on review, I agree, it was nicely put.

"I see that happening" Have you advised EU governments on how to do it because they seem to be at a loss as to what to do.

As for Rochdale and Rotherham they have 6.5% unemployment as compared to 21% in the Paris suburbs. It's a chalk and cheese comparison, or is it donkeys and carts....I'm not sure.   Next time you go to Paris can I recommend you stay at an inner suburb like Clichy-sous-Bois. When you want to leave the hotel to go for an evening meal tell us what reception say to you. When I stay in London I stay in Whitechapel........mainly immigrant Muslim. I freely walk about in the evening ...no problem.

As for AfD vs AEG what did you say about pedantry in post 382?

Anyway I forgive you but I do have an excuse.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Only if you want to say that those that have failed outside of the EU did so because of it, see how that works?  I am not saying that the EU has worked miracles for everyone, I am merely countering the claim that the EU is a failure, a claim that so far has gone without a single scrap of evidence, now do you have any or do we have to accept that the claim is baseless propaganda?

The EU has been a failure for those countries that are pouring  bundles of cash into it to bolster poor countries that have different rules for their citizens....The UK has shown they are pissed off with it..

53 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The EU offers economic dependence fronted by bribes of easy trade and handouts. It's short-termism of the worst kind, which has accelerated the decline of every country involved except Germany (which milks all the other Eurozone countries through the Euro, further accelerating their decline). One can see how well this is keepeng countries stable, with middle ground politics, by the rise of the far right to an extent not seen since before the second world war.

 

Of the 14 longest standing EU countries, Denmark have seen the greatest gains at 500 Euro per person per year, Germany second at 450 Euro per person, then Austria and Finland at 200 Euro and then Sweden and Belgium at 180 Euro.  Even at the bottom end we see gains for Italy at 80 Euro, Spain and Greece at 70 Euro and Portugal at 20 Euro.  Every single country original member has seen net gains. 

 

If you can provide some evidence for this "accelerated decline" then lets have it, but I think you are just making things up.

2 minutes ago, transam said:

The EU has been a failure for those countries that are pouring  bundles of cash into it to bolster poor countries that have different rules for their citizens....The UK has shown they are pissed off with it..

 

No it hasn't been a failure, it has been a success, without this redistribution of wealth we would see far greater migrations of people, refugees from within Europe.

 

The Visegrad group?  The only country there that has not done extremely well out of the EU is Hungary, Poland, Czech and Slovakia are booming, what are you thinking?  The majority of countries have done very well, all have seen real improvement, to call the EU a failure because some countries have done worse than others is ridiculous, even the ones which have ended up with a debt problem have seen massive life improvements for their poor, unless someone actually has some evidence to the contrary then I think we shall have to conclude that actually it has been a success.

Clarification, I stated the EU refused to reform not a failure.

V4, Financial aspect improvement, you mean they can’t afford to leave being heavily reliant?

The immigration issues, a couple of countries independently adopted its own deterrent & also refusing Merkel’s refugee quota? Result warning & threats from the EU.

 

The Mediterranean immigration issue, despite maritime taxi service the EU fails to grasps this serious problem leading to certain countries again taking its individual actions, much to the EU’s disapproval, see the trend.

 

Lastly, the last point & result from the recent Germany elections, Bundestag now has AfD, despite controversial it is now a part of which Merkel can no longer ignore.

 

Summary, I don’t hate the EU however the EU primarily thrives on success when not faced with serious challenges so please don’t emphasis the EU is harmonious success without including a balanced perspective.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No it hasn't been a failure, it has been a success, without this redistribution of wealth we would see far greater migrations of people, refugees from within Europe.

Tell that to  UK pensioners that now will have to work another 3 years...

 

Tell that to UK  folk that KNOW about the influx of poor Europeans walking the UK streets working cash in hand, and the UK gov doesn't have the staff to combat it..

 

Tell UK folk the NHS must take care of folk being let into the UK that paid sod all into it and must wait, and wait, and wait....

 

But you will say..."Oh my shares are doing great"....Ordinary folk don't give a stuff about shares, they want the taxes they pay to take care of them, not given to the likes of Greece where tax paying is a dirty word for all...

22 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Of the 14 longest standing EU countries, Denmark have seen the greatest gains at 500 Euro per person per year, Germany second at 450 Euro per person, then Austria and Finland at 200 Euro and then Sweden and Belgium at 180 Euro.  Even at the bottom end we see gains for Italy at 80 Euro, Spain and Greece at 70 Euro and Portugal at 20 Euro.  Every single country original member has seen net gains. 

 

If you can provide some evidence for this "accelerated decline" then lets have it, but I think you are just making things up.

 

Firstly, we were discussing your claim that the EU has, per se, made Europe a safer, more stable place.

 

Secondly, you put 'accelerated decline' in quotes. Naughty. It wasn't a phrase I used.

 

Thirdly, you claim that countries (many of which have obscene levels of unemployment) are moving forward because of the EU. I would suggest (as per my Thailand post) that it's a part of a worldwide trend, and that the EU merely adds a bit of window dressing (often with snowflake schemes which end up as white elephants or fail completely).

35 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No it hasn't been a failure, it has been a success, without this redistribution of wealth we would see far greater migrations of people, refugees from within Europe.

How can a bloated bureaucracy, staffed with elites, armed with intrusive regulatory power and insulated from citizen accountability be a success? 

I think it is more than likely the UK will leave with a 'no deal' apart from contributing to security issues across Britain and Europe. The WEEK came up with this: In 2016, Britain paid in £13.1bn, but it also received £4.5bn worth of spending, says Full Fact, "so the UK's net contribution was £8.5bn".

 

While these figures are subject to scrutiny, I doubt that the divorce figures being bandied about are even remotely in this ball-park, and as such the negotiations are more than likely to ground to a halt, without reaching any trade agreement. What this could mean, in practice, given the shortage of preparation time, is that there could be massive disruption to goods and services entering and leaving British and European ports.

 

Following that, another 2-3 years to implement any trading agreement, and as over 50% of the UK's trade are with the EU, I would expect less than the current favourable terms. For the UK, that means shortage of goods in supermarkets, inflation and loss of jobs as the fall-out. Oh, and say goodbye to the cheap EU holidays, plus overloading the NHS and local council accommodation with UK pensioners returning from the EU.

 

But never mind, worse things happen at sea... 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Dunno. But I do know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones .

Good advice Sir. Stones might well damage the apples and pears or is it dogs and donkeys.......I'm never sure.

20 minutes ago, aright said:

How can a bloated bureaucracy, staffed with elites, armed with intrusive regulatory power and insulated from citizen accountability be a success? 

I quite agree - and it's the same the world over that political power is morally corrupt - but look at the bigger picture, i.e. trade with the EU countries that has to be beneficial and cheaper than from elsewhere for the UK citizens. 

1 hour ago, transam said:

Tell that to  UK pensioners that now will have to work another 3 years...

 

Tell that to UK  folk that KNOW about the influx of poor Europeans walking the UK streets working cash in hand, and the UK gov doesn't have the staff to combat it..

 

Tell UK folk the NHS must take care of folk being let into the UK that paid sod all into it and must wait, and wait, and wait....

 

But you will say..."Oh my shares are doing great"....Ordinary folk don't give a stuff about shares, they want the taxes they pay to take care of them, not given to the likes of Greece where tax paying is a dirty word for all...

 

You are off your rocker if you think any of that would be any different if we had not been in the EU.  Pensions would have been later just the same, the NHS would have been stripped bare just the same, the civil servants would have been laid off just the same, the only thing perhaps and different, and probably not, is the number of European immigrants, but as your concern is those working cash in hand you can pretty much guarantee that the number would have been the same as they are illegal workers anyway.  If these are your gripes then your gripes are with the Tory party not the EU.

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Firstly, we were discussing your claim that the EU has, per se, made Europe a safer, more stable place.

 

Secondly, you put 'accelerated decline' in quotes. Naughty. It wasn't a phrase I used.

 

Thirdly, you claim that countries (many of which have obscene levels of unemployment) are moving forward because of the EU. I would suggest (as per my Thailand post) that it's a part of a worldwide trend, and that the EU merely adds a bit of window dressing (often with snowflake schemes which end up as white elephants or fail completely).

 

My comment regarding the EU making Europe safer was in response to a claim that it has failed.

 

I put parenthesis around the words, nothing naughty about that.

 

Check out the same countries unemployment before the EU before using their current levels against the EU.

39 minutes ago, aright said:

Good advice Sir. Stones might well damage the apples and pears or is it dogs and donkeys.......I'm never sure.

 

One thing I do know is that some posters get their Alan Whickers in twist over nothing at times.

58 minutes ago, aright said:

How can a bloated bureaucracy, staffed with elites, armed with intrusive regulatory power and insulated from citizen accountability be a success? 

 

By being a bastion for world peace, equality, human rights and the environment.

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You are off your rocker if you think any of that would be any different if we had not been in the EU.  Pensions would have been later just the same, the NHS would have been stripped bare just the same, the civil servants would have been laid off just the same, the only thing perhaps and different, and probably not, is the number of European immigrants, but as your concern is those working cash in hand you can pretty much guarantee that the number would have been the same as they are illegal workers anyway.  If these are your gripes then your gripes are with the Tory party not the EU.

 

The above post is just a mass of contradictions and errors. The NHS would be less overloaded if there were less people using it. Pensions are a moot point, but ways to fund them better could be found if there was less going out of the kitty (and out of the country) to migrants. Migrants working illegally wouldn't be able to saunter into the country waving their passports if we didn't have freedom of movement.

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

By being a bastion for world peace, equality, human rights and the environment.

My post 495 is probably more realistic. Politicians, in general, are in it for themselves - a gravy train of unaccountability. Just look at May's cabinet, which is full of back-stabbing male bastards. Amber Rudd is the only one with any common sense, and I hope she gets the PM job and sacks the rest.   

14 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

My comment regarding the EU making Europe safer was in response to a claim that it has failed.

 

I put parenthesis around the words, nothing naughty about that.

 

Check out the same countries unemployment before the EU before using their current levels against the EU.

 

You put your phrase in quotes. If you're not quoting someone, but want to highlight something, put it in bold or italics or use a type of parenthisis that makes clear you're not quoting anybody.

 

I just checked Spain and Portugal, and both of their unemployment rates have gone up whilst in the EU (with the sharpest rises in youth unemployment, which has to be the most worrying trend).

3 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The above post is just a mass of contradictions and errors. The NHS would be less overloaded if there were less people using it. Pensions are a moot point, but ways to fund them better could be found if there was less going out of the kitty (and out of the country) to migrants. Migrants working illegally wouldn't be able to saunter into the country waving their passports if we didn't have freedom of movement.

What you miss is that the average low-grade working Brit is lazy and won't lift a finger as he/she relies on State benefits. If we leave the EU the migrants would return/are returning to their countries and the NHS would be decimated, as they have made it quite clear that there will be a drastic reduction of nurses. That's a fact.

 

Get real and stop sniping - you're behaving like a troll, which is unlike you Khun Han. 

44 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No it hasn't been a failure, it has been a success, without this redistribution of wealth we would see far greater migrations of people, refugees from within Europe.

 

My 2017 status/success rating by EU nation. Any negative observation gets a :

 

• Austria (1995) rising nationalism evident after recent election / intends to defy EU immigration quota demands. 
• Belgium (1958) slowly emerging nationalism 
• Bulgaria (2007) happy with net cash benefits (for now)
• Croatia (2013) happy with net cash benefits (for now)
• Cyprus (2004) steals money from private bank accounts after Euro driven bankruptcy 
• Czech Republic (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now)
• Denmark (1973) rising nationalism 
• Estonia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now) 
• Finland (1995) rising nationalism 
• France (1958) gross debt/rising nationalism and high unemployment. Had to vote twice / (EU constitution then Lisbon).
• Germany (1958) Ringmaster, the economic power  but rising nationalism after 'open door' policy.
• Greece (1981) rising nationalism, gross debt, unemployment. Voted against bailout terms in 2015 but needs another soon!! 
• Hungary (2004) rising nationalism / defied EU immigration demands.
• Ireland (1973) high debt and had to vote twice (Lisbon then Lisbon!!).
• Italy (1958) gross debt with rising nationalism and unemployment. 
• Latvia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Lithuania (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Luxembourg (1958) nice tax haven.
• Malta (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Netherlands (1958) had to vote twice (EU constitution then Lisbon) / rising nationalism.
• Poland (2004) rising nationalism / defied EU immigration demands.
• Portugal (1986) gross debt and unemployment.
• Romania (2007) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Slovakia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Slovenia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Spain (1986) gross debt and unemployment.
• Sweden (1995) slowly emerging nationalism, big problem with economic migrant influx. 
• United Kingdom (1973) rising nationalism, second highest net contributor and voted to leave.

 = 12 or 43%

 = 16 or 57%

 

It looks like as long as you are in control or getting free money, I suppose you could call the EU a success!

 

deleted

10 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

What you miss is that the average low-grade working Brit is lazy and won't lift a finger as he/she relies on State benefits. If we leave the EU the migrants would return/are returning to their countries and the NHS would be decimated, as they have made it quite clear that there will be a drastic reduction of nurses. That's a fact.

 

Get real and stop sniping - you're behaving like a troll, which is unlike you Khun Han. 

Whilst the UK has a quite large underclass of lazy never-do-wells, your projection of the average Brit as falling into that category is pure nonsense.

 

Stephen, your entire contribution to this thread consists of negative speculation presented as plain fact, and a bizarre and sustained attempt to re-interpret democracy. And you accuse me of trolling?

 

26 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The above post is just a mass of contradictions and errors. The NHS would be less overloaded if there were less people using it. Pensions are a moot point, but ways to fund them better could be found if there was less going out of the kitty (and out of the country) to migrants. Migrants working illegally wouldn't be able to saunter into the country waving their passports if we didn't have freedom of movement.

 

The burdon on the NHS from EU migrants is nill, they contribute more than they take, they do actually tend to be younger people, the reason the NHS is screwed is because the Tory party are dismantling it.  Pensions will likely suffer more through leaving, there's is not going to be a saving, the 300 million is far less than we stand to lose from trade.

migrants working illegally would simply be entering as tourists, do you really think we would have not been letting in European tourists?

16 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

Whilst the UK has a quite large underclass of lazy never-do-wells, your projection of the average Brit as falling into that category is pure nonsense.

 

Stephen, your entire contribution to this thread consists of negative speculation presented as plain fact, and a bizarre and sustained attempt to re-interpret democracy. And you accuse me of trolling?

 

'...negative speculation presented as plain fact' Thank goodness you don't!

20 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You put your phrase in quotes. If you're not quoting someone, but want to highlight something, put it in bold or italics or use a type of parenthisis that makes clear you're not quoting anybody.

 

I just checked Spain and Portugal, and both of their unemployment rates have gone up whilst in the EU (with the sharpest rises in youth unemployment, which has to be the most worrying trend).

 

Well, neither of them are doing well at all, but is that all down to the EU, at one point Spain had the lowest unemployment in living history, that was just before the global financial crisis, they have not recovered since despite help and advice from the EU, but then they did choose to blow their loans which were obviously intended for investment in industry instead on making new parks, so what really do they expect to happen for them?  As I said earlier, the EU cannot force them to spend their EU and IMF loans sensibly, perhaps they should have more control but it seems many think they should have less.

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

My 2017 status/success rating by EU nation. Any negative observation gets a :

 

• Austria (1995) rising nationalism evident after recent election / intends to defy EU immigration quota demands. 
• Belgium (1958) slowly emerging nationalism 
• Bulgaria (2007) happy with net cash benefits (for now)
• Croatia (2013) happy with net cash benefits (for now)
• Cyprus (2004) steals money from private bank accounts after Euro driven bankruptcy 
• Czech Republic (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now)
• Denmark (1973) rising nationalism 
• Estonia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now) 
• Finland (1995) rising nationalism 
• France (1958) gross debt/rising nationalism and high unemployment. Had to vote twice / (EU constitution then Lisbon).
• Germany (1958) Ringmaster, the economic power  but rising nationalism after 'open door' policy.
• Greece (1981) rising nationalism, gross debt, unemployment. Voted against bailout terms in 2015 but needs another soon!! 
• Hungary (2004) rising nationalism / defied EU immigration demands.
• Ireland (1973) high debt and had to vote twice (Lisbon then Lisbon!!).
• Italy (1958) gross debt with rising nationalism and unemployment. 
• Latvia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Lithuania (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Luxembourg (1958) nice tax haven.
• Malta (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Netherlands (1958) had to vote twice (EU constitution then Lisbon) / rising nationalism.
• Poland (2004) rising nationalism / defied EU immigration demands.
• Portugal (1986) gross debt and unemployment.
• Romania (2007) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Slovakia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Slovenia (2004) happy with net cash benefits (for now).
• Spain (1986) gross debt and unemployment.
• Sweden (1995) slowly emerging nationalism, big problem with economic migrant influx. 
• United Kingdom (1973) rising nationalism, second highest net contributor and voted to leave.

 = 12 or 43%

 = 16 or 57%

 

It looks like as long as you are in control or getting free money, I suppose you could call the EU a success!

 

 

Giving some an unhappy face due to a minority being unhappy does not really say much about the general situations, I appreciate that rising nationalism is a terrible thing, and sure not everyone is happy but things have improved for most, so that does not constitute a faliure in my opinion.