Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[fulhamster]

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Good grief.  You're really blaming the voters who voted to leave??

 

They voted to leave and (IMO), thought that the uk and eu politicians would come to amicable terms that caused the least harm to either party.  Instead, the eu decided to pursue a blocking path - and the brit. govt. have acquiesced with their 'terms' !  Suprise, suprise .

Did Brexit voters expect everything to change overnight ?

 

This will still take ages, all those career EU politicians don't want their gravy train to stop.

 

As someone said, the Kinnocks are a prime example.

[owl sees all]

10 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Coming back to the EU, if they ever leave, won't take as long.

I make you right there SB.

 

I'm all for an integrated Europe; but not this rotten model. 

[The Renegade]

Just returned from a rather large, gut busting, full English Brexit Brunch, with extra Brexit Bacon.

 

Thought it might be time to post a couple of educational videos for those that feel they were not informed that a vote to leave the EU, would also mean leaving the Single Market.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNnh-KhiLm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4

Only the truly indoctrinated fail to, read, hear or see.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Racist? what's wrong with having a black baby?

Not miserable, it's just all over the top with plenty of pathos, it's just a wedding for christs sake get over it. Fun, happiness and laughter, I get that without watching two spongers getting married.

You write this      "then the birth of a black girl with ginger hair named Diana"   and you don't think it is racist and you don't  know why I find this offensive  

[bristolboy]

The Long and Difficult Road to a U.S.-U.K. Trade Deal

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, including President Donald Trump, have spoken enthusiastically about a U.S.-U.K. free-trade deal. But a report suggests that such a deal wouldn’t be quick or easy.

http://www.cetusnews.com/news/The-Long-and-Difficult-Road-to-a-U-S--U-K--Trade-Deal-.H11BM2pAf.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-long-and-difficult-road-to-a-u-s-u-k-trade-deal-1526738400?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

[Grouse]

The truth will out

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/19/dominic-cummings-is-the-true-cowardly-face-of-the-brexiters

 

I see there will be a Channel 4 drama about this with Alan Turing in the lead role!

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The truth will out

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/19/dominic-cummings-is-the-true-cowardly-face-of-the-brexiters

 

I see there will be Sa Channel 4 drama about this with Alan Turing in the lead role!

So dominic cummings will be played by a zombie who in life was a mathematician of genius? Interesting

[The Renegade]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But a report suggests that such a deal wouldn’t be quick or easy.

 A report suggests ?

 

About as reliable as could, might or should.

 

How about relying on '' It is confirmed '' and treating anything as speculation.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Just returned from a rather large, gut busting, full English Brexit Brunch, with extra Brexit Bacon.

 

Thought it might be time to post a couple of educational videos for those that feel they were not informed that a vote to leave the EU, would also mean leaving the Single Market.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNnh-KhiLm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4

Only the truly inoctrinated fail to, read, hear or see.

Only the reading impaired post videos instead of written texts. 

[bristolboy]

Just now, The Renegade said:

 A report suggests ?

 

About as reliable as could, might or should.

 

How about relying on '' It is confirmed '' and treating anything as speculation.

Thank you for confirming my previous comment about your post. Maybe you can find someone to read that article to you.

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Only the reading impaired post videos instead of written texts. 

Do they really ?

 

I thought a better way was to '' Let a picture paint a 1000 words ''

 

The reasoning behind that was to assist  the individually challenged people who did not know a 1000 words, beyond expletives.

[Kieran00001]

7 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

How about the billions of pounds the UK tax payers give the EU when only one other country, Germany, makes a major contribution.

The EU might have been born out of a desire to end conflict, but is has been Nato that has stopped it in reality. It was originally formed as a trading area, but has gone far beyond that.

The Euro has bankrupted several southern European countries for a start.

The Irish border question can be solved, but the EU are using it to try to scupper the referendum result and continue (with UK funds) the march to a United States of Europe including the ex-soviet block. A concept that is already under pressure by several EU members.

It is a house of cards, or a skyscraper built on sand with dubious foundations...

 

 

 

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.

 

 

[soalbundy]

25 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You write this      "then the birth of a black girl with ginger hair named Diana"   and you don't think it is racist and you don't  know why I find this offensive  

No, it's possible, you obviously aren't comfortable with the idea, must be white because she's royal, whose being racist.

[The Renegade]

17 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

The aim of the EEC was never only about trade, it was first thought of by Churchill

If you are going to try and use Churchill, at least try and get it correct.

 

Churchill was for anything that would stop Germany going on yet another rampaging crusade.

 

He also said this.

 

Quote

Europe, we are with you but we are not of you.

While an advocate of a mechanism to curb Germany, he did not want the UK to be a part of that mechanism.

[bristolboy]

19 minutes 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.

 

 

I agree with everything you said except about the Euro. It was a terrible mistake and never made any economic sense. That said, you would think from the way Brexiters go on about it. that the UK was no longer using the pound.

[bristolboy]

36 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Do they really ?

 

I thought a better way was to '' Let a picture paint a 1000 words ''

 

 

That's because a picture is fast. Video is slow.

[The Renegade]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That's because a picture is fast. Video is slow.

Outstanding comment.

 

Please do not try and explain it to me, I might be humbled by your superior levels of intelligence 

[Kieran00001]

6 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

If you are going to try and use Churchill, at least try and get it correct.

 

Churchill was for anything that would stop Germany going on yet another rampaging crusade.

 

He also said this.

 

While an advocate of a mechanism to curb Germany, he did not want the UK to be a part of that mechanism.

 

Really, then why did he say, `Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family’.?

 

Why did he say, ‘We must endeavour by patience and faithful service to prepare for the day when there will be an effective world government resting on the main groupings of mankind.’?

 

Why did he say,  ‘Empire and Commonwealth’, ‘the English speaking world’ and a ‘United Europe. We are the only country which has a great part in every one of them. We stand, in fact, at the very point of junction, and here in this Island at the centre of the seaways and perhaps of the airways also, we have the opportunity of joining them all together.’ 

 

At the time, Churchill did not imagine that we would lose the last of our empire, he assumed that would continue, he said, "The British Government have rightly stated that they cannot commit this country to entering any European Union without the agreement of the other members of the British Commonwealth. We all agree with that statement. But no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe.’  However, later on, once we had lost our empire, he supported us joining the EEC.

 

 

 

 

 

[soalbundy]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I agree with everything you said except about the Euro. It was a terrible mistake and never made any economic sense. That said, you would think from the way Brexiters go on about it. that the UK was no longer using the pound.

The Euro got rid of exchange rate problems and currency speculation but it possibly shouldn't have been allowed for all countries to adopt it straight away, it should have been a prize and reward for good financial governance to aspire to, it was adopted by all to early but I am no financial expert, just my thoughts on the matter.

[Kieran00001]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I agree with everything you said except about the Euro. It was a terrible mistake and never made any economic sense. That said, you would think from the way Brexiters go on about it. that the UK was no longer using the pound.

 

It makes some sense, it enables transactions to be free from charges and easier to complete, it aids trade.  However it has not gone well, it all happened so fast and without any safety measures, it has been a disaster for many, but it could have been done differently, gradually and only when each nation was definitely ready, but I expect there were some who did not want that, who pushed for the rapid rolling out as they saw ways to profit from the turmoil it would cause.

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family’.?

Because the UK is a Country in Europe

 

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

‘We must endeavour by patience and faithful service to prepare for the day when there will be an effective world government resting on the main groupings of mankind.’

What has a World Government got to do with the EU ?

 

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

‘Empire and Commonwealth’, ‘the English speaking world’ and a ‘United Europe.

Because at the time the UK had a Commonwealth and after 2 World Wars, started by Germany, a United Europe was a preferred option.

 

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

However, later on, once we had lost our empire, he supported us joining the EEC.

Is the EEC the EU ?

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Because the UK is a Country in Europe

 

What has a World Government got to do with the EU ?

 

Because at the time the UK had a Commonwealth and after 2 World Wars, started by Germany, a United Europe was a preferred option.

 

Is the EEC the EU ?

 

There is a large difference between the "European family" and all of Europe, he had no interest in supporting the half of Europe that was communist, just those in the "family".

 

It is clear in what I posted what role he saw the EU having in a world government.

 

Of course a united Europe was a preferred choice, and it still is for the same reason, lest you forgot?

 

The EU was planned from the beginning, so yes, the EEC is the EU, it is it's direct forefather.

 

I note that you had no comeback to this quote, "no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe.’  Is that because it makes perfectly clear that Churchill did want the UK to join the United Europe?

 

 

[The Renegade]

3 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The Euro got rid of exchange rate problems and currency speculation but it possibly shouldn't have been allowed for all countries to adopt it straight away, it should have been a prize and reward for good financial governance to aspire to, it was adopted by all to early but I am no financial expert, just my thoughts on the matter.

And instead created other exchange rate problems. Too high for some, too low for others.

 

I would also suggest that you read into the EU's Target 2 banking. This is what it is supposed to be.

 

Quote

TARGET2 is a payment system owned and operated by the Eurosystem. It is the leading European platform for processing large-value payments and is used by both central banks and commercial banks to process payments in euro in real time.

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me/html/target2.en.html

 

What it has become is an unofficial, off book lending system. The German Bundesbank is now owed just short of €1 Trillion, Italy being the largest single debtor to the tune of €400 billion.

 

https://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/fuse-is-lit-target2-imbalances-hit-crisis-levels-an-email-exchange-with-the-ecb-over-target2-201702270841

 

This is the sort of stuff that is going on in the EU and the man in the street has virtually no idea.

 

Gave you a couple of starting points, the rest is up to you ( as they say )

[The Renegade]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

I note that you had no comeback to this quote, "no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe.’  Is that because it makes perfectly clear that Churchill did want the UK to join the United Europe?

If you cannot see or understand the difference between a United Europe and the current EU, I could explain it, but I cannot make you understand it.

 

In the years after the WW2, when Churchill spoke about a United Europe, he was talking about a free from war United Europe, not a Political and Monetary United Europe.

[Kieran00001]

7 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

If you cannot see or understand the difference between a United Europe and the current EU, I could explain it, but I cannot make you understand it.

 

In the years after the WW2, when Churchill spoke about a United Europe, he was talking about a free from war United Europe, not a Political and Monetary United Europe.

 

I don't think you have the first idea of the difference, you would not attempt to use it against Churchill's idea otherwise as it makes no sense at all considering all that was discussed.

 

The idea of a European single currency began in the League of Nations, a large part of Europe had only just lost their single currency, the Latin Monetary Union, and that idea was still fresh and they discussed making one for all the League.  By the time we joined the EEC, they had been discussing the Euro for 6 years already, it was really no surprise to Churchill who was in full support of our accession.  As for political unions, I can't make you understand what a political union means, but it was always the intention of the EEC and of course the later EU.

[The Renegade]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

If you cannot see or understand the difference between a United Europe and the current EU, I could explain it, but I cannot make you understand it.

 

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

I don't think you have the first idea of the difference

OK, let's start with the basics. 

 

When you work out the difference between Europe and the EU, come back and perhaps we might be able to have a discussion.

 

Until that time, there is no point in any further dialogue.

 

Goodbye

 

 

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, The Renegade said:

That nails it.

 

Cameron being a wet blanket has caused this, which is ironic, considering he is a staunch remainer.

 

It's 09.50 and I am now heading off for a Brexit Brunch, with extra Brexit bacon.

 

I will check in later for a remainer induced Brexit chuckle.

D you have ReadyBrex or Weetabrex first??

[Kieran00001]

Just now, The Renegade said:

 

OK, let's start with the basics. 

 

When you work out the difference between Europe and the EU, come back and perhaps we might be able to have a discussion.

 

Until that time, there is no point in any further dialogue.

 

Goodbye

 

 

 

The difference is the countries that he saw as being a possibility to unite together, he did not see those that were under the control of Russia as being a possibility and he was right at the time, he saw that for the countries that the allies had control of, the countries who did unite in a political and monetary union.  He was a founding father of the EU, that is very clear indeed and if you can't see that then we can't discuss anything because at the moment you are clutching at straws and trying to pretend that his words were less than they were in relation to the moves that were made to uniting Europe through the creation of the common market that then led to the creation of the EEC that evolved into the EU.

 

And by the way, if he really didn't see his United States of Europe as being a political union he had a very strange way of saying that.  He said, "The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important."  If that is not a political union then what is it?  Of course he spoke of a political union, and of course he knew about the coming single currency, it is all well documented, unfortunately for you it does not support your agenda and so you are pretending that it all happened afterwards without his knowledge at the time, just lies, place and simple.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

Others think May is trying to force the EU's hand  running the talks to the wire in the hope (or expectation) that the EU will cave in and give UK traders unrestricted access to Member State markets, with no political strings attached, relying on the oft' repeated Tory mantra that "they need us more then we need them".

 

I'm not sure she has the political nounce to try that, but  this would seem be a very high risk strategy, betting the farm on one wild spin of the wheel is never good.  Now we have run out of time when it comes to providing the infrastructure required to make a hard border work and she is taking a huge risk because there is no fall back on which she can usefully rely. We seem to be constantly expecting the EU to throw away it's principles for monetary gain, maybe we should not be in such a rush to see our standards in others.  

 

I'm sure she has nounce in abundance . The EU should ditch their so-called "principles" and start again, anyway. 

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The difference is the countries that he saw as being a possibility to unite together, he did not see those that were under the control of Russia as being a possibility and he was right at the time, he saw that for the countries that the allies had control of, the countries who did unite in a political and monetary union.  He was a founding father of the EU, that is very clear indeed and if you can't see that then we can't discuss anything because at the moment you are clutching at straws and trying to pretend that his words were less than they were in relation to the moves that were made to uniting Europe through the creation of the common market that then led to the creation of the EEC that evolved into the EU.

 

And by the way, if he really didn't see his United States of Europe as being a political union he had a very strange way of saying that.  He said, "The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important."  If that is not a political union then what is it?  Of course he spoke of a political union, and of course he knew about the coming single currency, it is all well documented, unfortunately for you it does not support your agenda and so you are pretending that it all happened afterwards without his knowledge at the time, just lies, place and simple.