Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Top Lad ARE Nige.
Trigger Warning for Europeans and Remoaners - Nasty, Lying, Spineless, Bigoted Fantasist

There. I think that's a more accurate description of Mr Toad, no?

Remember....he's happy to emigrate if Brexit is a disaster (and it's kind of looking like one)

Or you could say that we're being straight with them right from the start. Also, I think it's bare faced cheek to expect us to continue protecting them without receiving anything back in return.

And who was it who was saying that they're going to make this as difficult as possible as a warning to anyone else who's considering leaving? The EU aren't on the moral high ground here either.

Why, it's almost as if we live in an age of unparalleled communication, and threatening to give them the silent treatment isn't such a good move?

Who was it said they'll make it as difficult as possible? Why, 'Farage in a wig' Marie Le Pen I believe?

le BREXIT will be a disaster meme

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why, it's almost as if we live in an age of unparalleled communication, and threatening to give them the silent treatment isn't such a good move?

Who was it said they'll make it as difficult as possible? Why, 'Farage in a wig' Marie Le Pen I believe?

The security services are expensive to operate. We can't expect to be whipping boy to the EU and give them everything.

The utter two faced nature of pro-EU Europeans is astounding. Raging at us one minute, crying the next. Pathetic.

Who's raging and crying?

I'm putting out the lunacy of the vote to leave, and the exceptional dishonesty that lead to it (£350m to the NHS! ARRGH MIGRANTS (oh wait, they're Syrian refugees)...you know, the outright porky pies yeah? The claims about bendy bananas (false) and various other EU laws which aren't EU laws, but may have been raised at one point then laughed out and voted down by the European Parliament.

Sadly, just feeding into the general perception Leavers are lunatics with no handle on the truth, instead blinded by bigotry and nonsense.

So... you're saying that it's not in our interests to stop terrorists, because they're waaaaaaay over there. And won't come here. Nope. And wouldn't be likely to co-operate with any domestic terrorists who we might have kicking about, for example in the EU country we have a land boarder with. Who might start getting very tempted to kick off soon.

No, better to just let them get on with it. War's brewing. The mountains are fair teaming with Goblins. Well it's none of our concern what goes on beyond our borders. Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble will come to you.

Bloody Hobbits. :(

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
May's letter to the EU contained a blatant threat saying that when the UK will not get a good trade deal, the UK will not support the EU in terms of security issues (since UK has a good security service).

Quid pro quo.

"Those who would give up essential safety for a better trade deal deserve neither".

B. Franklin, paraphrased.

Who was it said they'll make it as difficult as possible? Why, 'Farage in a wig' Marie Le Pen I believe?

Ask Guy Verhofstadt.
He's one of the EU negotiators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Top Lad ARE Nige.
Trigger Warning for Europeans and Remoaners - Nasty, Lying, Spineless, Bigoted Fantasist

There. I think that's a more accurate description of Mr Toad, no?

Remember....he's happy to emigrate if Brexit is a disaster (and it's kind of looking like one)

Last sentence of NF: ''No deal for us is better than the deal with the EU''.
This is purely a lie. If there is no deal, the UK has to follow the WTO rules, and then it will get rough.

 Graphite wrote:
So... you're saying that it's not in our interests to stop terrorists, because they're waaaaaaay over there. And won't come here. Nope. And wouldn't be likely to co-operate with any domestic terrorists who we might have kicking about, for example in the EU country we have a land boarder with. Who might start getting very tempted to kick off soon.

No, better to just let them get on with it. War's brewing. The mountains are fair teaming with Goblins. Well it's none of our concern what goes on beyond our borders. Keep your nose out of trouble and no trouble will come to you.

Bloody Hobbits. :(

I will be quoting from the Europol Summery of the 2016 TESAT (Terrorism Situation and Trent Report) here. Here is the link: https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/211-terrorist-attacks-carried-out-in-eu-member-states-in-2015-new-europol-report-reveals

'The TE-SAT 2016 outlines two worrying developments: the overall threat is reinforced by the substantial numbers of returned foreign terrorist fighters that many Member States now have on their soil, and the significant rise in nationalist (xenophobic), racist and anti-Semitic sentiments across the EU, each resulting in acts of right-wing extremism.

The report brings to light the fact that a significant percentage of all foreign terrorist travellers in Syria/Iraq are now female.

On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence to date that terrorist travellers systematically use the flow of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed. The investigations into the 13 November Paris attacks revealed however that two of the attackers had entered the EU through Greece as part of the large influx of refugees from Syria.'

Conclusions to draw from this: There is a risk from insurgents travelling from OUTSIDE the EU. They are using Refugee streams in limited cases - refugee's by nature are protected by UN, not EU laws. The existence of the EU fails to have any impact on refugees attempting to travel. They would be seeking access to the region regardless.
One of the biggest concerns comes from Xenophobia as a future risk...

Now what has not helped the situation, unlike in previous refugee crisis (Break down of USSR, Yugoslavia breakdown) which have had similar levels of refugees travelling to Europe, the governments themselves have been very unwilling to actually come together through the EE council and come to a practical solution. If you look into the range of work surrounding Sweden's issues of struggling to process the arriving refugees, the main issue is no other state has provided any kind of assistance. Like many political crisis, of governments actually sat down and worked out a logical solution rather then pandering to the media of one orientation or anther, solutions could quite easily be found.

Ok. So mainland Europe ends up brimming with terrorists, from whatever source. Not helping to catch them helps us because.....?

 Graphite wrote:
Ok. So mainland Europe ends up brimming with terrorists, from whatever source. Not helping to catch them helps us because.....?

Much as disagree with many things on Europe mantianing links between the security services and defending against enemy attack is pretty vital, combined they rperesent a massive wealth of resources and information. secondly we even if leave are still NATO allies and should mantain our comitment to that. .

 Graphite wrote:
Ok. So mainland Europe ends up brimming with terrorists, from whatever source. Not helping to catch them helps us because.....?

We'll still help, it's just an empty threat. A badly phrased, poorly timed, sign of desperation, empty threat.

If I wanted guarantee the uk joining the European Union in 10-15 years time, this pretty much what I'd do:

1) hold a referendum on membership
2) lose it badly, greatly cheering the nationalist parts of my government and getting them out of the woodwork
3) let said elements get a crap deal for the country
4) watch economic decline and subsequent drop in support for nationalism/nationalist political figures
5) ride back into power on wave of public support and rejoin the EU

Bit simplified, but it could work

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
A "mere" 42 years ago, this is what was.
Sort of interesting how things have changed.

Well no gak. The EU has changed, it is no longer what it was when we joined. Hell, it didn't even exist back then.

Lots of people who wanted to join the EEC back in the 70s don't like the ways in which it changed and morphed into the EU. They voted for one thing, which they liked, but it changed over time into another thing, which they do not like. I dont like the ways the EU has changed and I was only born in 1991.

There's no double think there, its not a U Turn. Its a response to changing circumstances, and deciding that you no longer like the organisation that you once eager to join.

That was the days of the common market. For the record, I think the common market was a good idea. Then they went too far. Back then people were told that it was only a trading bloc and would not involve giving up any political control. So that was a lie.

Incidentally, old Ted Heath was given the Charlemagne Prize for helping the UK join up. That came with a big cash prize. Sorry, did I say big cash prize? I meant bribe.

That's my issue with the EU too.


Free trade is nice. Everyone likes free trade.

The majority of the EUs powers come from a case back in the 60s called Van Der Loos, which was a case over free trade.

But it has morphed into something that it wasnt designed to be, and as a result it has turned into a massive mess of a system. Tying together the economies of 28 vastly different states was going to be a bad idea, the fact that they ignored basic background checks on the stability of several economies (Greece being a prime example) shows they can't be trusted with economies and yet they want greater integration over the budgets. (As per the Five Presidents Report)

I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.

A little correction:

We did not join a Superstate.

We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.

Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?

What's the deal with hating on the superstate? It works for the US, it works for Russia (though perhaps works isn't the right term there) and generally speaking it worked for the Empire.

Does it not make long term sense to bring people closer together? Not so long ago Wales, Scotland and England were all separate states that made war on one another. Then a 'superstate' or union was formed and the wars stopped...

Why would this be a bad thing for Europe (and that includes us)?

We did indeed.

And the process of writing bills is the same as in the U.K....

 Vaktathi wrote:
Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?

You don't get it, do you?

Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?

You don't get it, do you?

Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.

I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.

Yeah, the UK got special treatment for decades. The EU could not have been more accommodating... and we could not have been more ungrateful.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Did the UK not have directly elected EU representatives that voted on these matters?

You don't get it, do you?

Yes, we have directly elected representatives. And I don't want those elected Representatives to exist, because I don't want my country to be a member of the union in which they represent us.

I get your personal position on the matter, but the idea that the UK got suckered into surrendering its national independence without any consent or input through elections and elected officials is a wee bit silly. You dont like the super state? Ok, there are some good reasons for that. But the idea that the people of the UK were completely deprived of electoral input on the growth, direction, evolution and current form of the EU is hard to accept, particularly with the substantial exceptions and op outs the UK got.

Can you point to any British government that campaigned and was elected on specific manifesto pledges promising to sign the Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Treaty of Rome and all the other treaties that founded the EU etc? When was the British electorate ever consulted and asked "Do you wish to be a part of a European political union?" (Besides 2016 of course).

No, those governments campaigned on domestic issues, and then went ahead and used their prerogative as elected representatives to sign all those treaties despite never consulting the electorate on them. The British public was indifferent to and ignorant of the nascent EU, because it simply wasn't a prominent political issue at the time.

Getting elected because of your promises to carry out A, B and C does not mean you have democratic approval and input to do X, Y and Z

The Manifesto's of the parties that won the 1987, 92 and 97 GE's all had stuff about the EU, in the same sort of vagueness you get for anything else.

Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?

 Optio wrote:
Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?

There is no single moment for me, it's been the cumulative drip drip of events and developments over the last 2 decades.

Our politicians have known for years the public haven't liked the direction of the EU, but when every major party is broadly going along with the same direction the public don't have much alternative. That's why treaties were signed away from the cameras, like Brown did with Lisbon treaty. If they're all so proud of the EU and the agreements made, why is there this constant impression of obfuscation and avoidance when it comes to the decisions made?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.

A little correction:

We did not join a Superstate.

We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.

I know, I was writing from a mobile so I shortened my way of saying it and it didn't come across entirely correct.


As for why it doesn't work like the US? You've have 250 years to make that system work and it works reasonably well. You have a system in place to give each state a say without being based on population. Under the EU model it uses Population. Imagine the annoyance the middle of the US was have if it was basically controlled by the massive population centres at both coasts.

Also, the EU is a good place for politicians to get cushy jobs once they leave politics on a national level. It is beneficial to them to keep the EU around because it increases the job market. But at no point was joining any of the treaties ever put on a national level to the extent that they should have been. The Lisbon Treaty was huge, but I don't remember anyone taking about it here.

 Optio wrote:
Question of curiosity, when did people sit down and actually decide they supported or disliked the EU?
When did it first occur to people they should have an actual opinion on this?
At what point was it an issue to be discussed?

I sat down a month before the election, crunched a lot of figures, read a lot of history, and grudgingly drew an opinion. That opinion was that I wished the EU and our own government had done their own jobs well enough I wasn't sat there having to do those things. As a taxpayer, I pay them to take care of this stuff in a semi-competent fashion, y'know?

I mean really, all they had to do was go on lubricating trade and throwing each other expensive champagne diplomatic dinners like all Western governments do. Not that challenging.

Instead they decided to do a load of continual obfuscation and extension of powers to the point where it was obvious what they were driving at. And they didn't even have the decency to do it competently so it would look like things would turn out alright. So I voted out. I resent the feckers for putting me in that spot though, because I didn't want to.