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.

@ DINLT

They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.

I don't have anything against sovereignty.

But sovereignty is useless if you can't do anything with it because your economy has collapsed, for example. Voting to do good things is useless if you cannot actually make those good things happen.

Because Sovereignty is a fallacy and an illusion. You'd be willing to throw away decades of incredible hard work and gain for something that would throw us right back to the beginning and make everyone suffer for an illusion. And everyone would have to work bloody harder than that just to try and pull ourselves back into the position we threw away 5 minutes before.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.

There will always be a role for technocrats, but yeah, I've always been suspicious of them since they warned us the country would collapse if we didn't join the Euro...

I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:

1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.

2. German re-unification.

West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.

Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.

As for the EU, their priority should be trade, and new trading opportunities, not foreign affairs, battle groups, messing around in Ukraine, or this bollcoks about ever closer union.

I will maintain until my dying breath that if it were purely trade, with Greece and Italy able to devaule their own currency if they ever got into trouble, we would never have heard about Brexit.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this should be relabelled the 'Brexit thread' instead of UK politics. I wander off for three months, drop in every now and again to mention contemporary stuff, but almost a hundred pages later, the automatic default is still on it. And it's pretty....well, boring to be honest.

I mean, you can sum up the vast majority of discussion in this thread as:

1. I don't like Brexit.
2. I think Brexit was a bad idea.
3. Here's some economic damage Brexit is going to cause.
4. Aren't all those Brexiteers awfully silly people?
5. Can't we rerun it?
6. Yes dear fellow who posted one of the above five, I completely agree with you.

Which is all well and good, and I get that it's still contemporary affairs, and that moaning is cathartic. But blimey, it ain't half like a broken record a year on! The gig economy is ever-increasing to the detriment of those engaged in it, there's pandemonium in the rail franchises, the Labour anti-semitism merry-go-round is neverending, G4S just got stripped of yet another prison, and many, many other things of political interest are going on!

It's a fair point to say that many other political issues are not being fully covered, but when the fall out of Brexit is looking more and more like a total catastrophe, complaining about anything else feels like putting a works service request in for your broken air conditioning whilst the whole building is on fire.

Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?

 Henry wrote:

Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?

Do you honestly believe that there will be sufficient public disturbance to warrant deploying the army, along with re-instituting rationing? Or is that just an over-exaggerated rhetorical flourish?

Twenty odd years t'internet has been going for most us. I can order my dinner and christmas presents in my pants, pick up a Russian bride while streaming bad eighties cartoons, download the plans to the starship Enterprise (every version!) and set up a pukka deal with this bloke from Nigeria that is going to make me a fortune if I just send him 10k.

Two things I can't seem to get right on the net....

...sarcasm and hyperbole.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Can I ask Remain supporters a serious question: what have you got against sovereignty?
For two years, it's been a stick to attack Leave with, and not just on Dakka, but across Remain suporting media in general.
No offence to you lot, but your attacks often come across as...well...illiberal...

There you go missing the thrust of the point. Yet again.

I have no issue with 'sovereignty'. I have issues with the idea that somehow we are 'gaining' sovereignty.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The ability of the people to have a say in the make up of insutitions that affect them the most: government, courts, police etc etc
Is the most fundamental thing in our Democracy. In my book, it trumps everything else.
It's why we had a civil war, the Chartists, the suffragettes, the Independent Labour Party etc etc

Red herring. Can you point to a time when as part of the hated eu, we lost the right to vote or have elections, or for 'the people' to have their say in the make-up of their government.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Is business and economy important? Of course, but it's not the be all and end all.

'Sovereignty ain't all that, and a packet of crisps on its own either.

Try to pay your bills or fill your belly with 'sovereignty'. Go on. I'm waiting.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You forget that pre-EU, every hard won right had to be wrestled from the money men. If it were up to business, we'd all be doing 12 hour shifts down coal mines for 1p an hour.

So, you are saying that on our own, it was a struggle to get even the most basic of rights that we take for granted today? Yes, you're really selling this idea of us on our own.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Now this is the part where somebody comes along and say, when do I get to vote for the Queen of the Lords?
If it were up to me, they would be scrapped, but ask yourself this: what's easier?
One country changing itself, or one country wanting to change the EU, but needing 27 other nations and 500 million people to do so?

Red herring. Both are beyond the grasp of the individual, shy of some culture shift. All it takes is one person with money at the top to say 'no' and it doesn't happen. And all brexit has done is hand the country over to those vultures who will pick its carcass clean and leave us with a shadow.

Future War Cultist wrote:@ DINLT
They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.

Ah yes, 'we've had enough of experts'. Let's see how well this goes, eh? I mean. we're doing that right now, and the future ain't looking too bright. I put my faith in facts, data, analysis and rational thought. Not 'feels'.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.

There will always be a role for technocrats, but yeah, I've always been suspicious of them since they warned us the country would collapse if we didn't join the Euro...

I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:

1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.

2. German re-unification.

West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.

Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.

As for the EU, their priority should be trade, and new trading opportunities, not foreign affairs, battle groups, messing around in Ukraine, or this bollcoks about ever closer union.

I will maintain until my dying breath that if it were purely trade, with Greece and Italy able to devaule their own currency if they ever got into trouble, we would never have heard about Brexit.

Seriously? Germany is your problem now?
Sorry but have you any idea what is going on there?

Wait let me answer that, no you don't.
If you look at EU decisions it was mostly germany that backed up british demands in the economic crisis and other things in the EU until very recently and that is only the case in regards to immigration.

East Germany is a economic BURDEN for germany. There are far more unemployed people there. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36651/umfrage/arbeitslosenquote-in-deutschland-nach-bundeslaendern/ A solid 2% more on average, in some cases double or tripple the average if you compare the diffrent states.
In fact talk to any Wessie or Ossie and you will see that the reunification very much did not properly happen. There are less jobs in east germany, public schooling is worse, life expectancy is worse and year after year the german government pumps money in there taken from west and southern german states, which make up the bulk of the economy.

"West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.

Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean. "

No what you really meant to say that you can't deal with someone that has more influence then you respectively is bigger then you.

Writing in a hurry but I’m with you Ketara. This thread goes round and round in fething tedious circles. I kick myself every time I post in here, continuing the merry go round of gak. I don’t want to, but the GW and media related threads I’m following aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not leaving while that DCM is still outstanding. feth I regret paying that.

I don't know why I picked up a stars and stripes on that post, I'm a Brit. Maybe it's because I'm in France at the moment, on roaming data...

And no, sovereignty doesn't matter a damn to me compared to prosperity. I'd rather integrate fully with the EU and take on the euro than go through Brexit. That said, I really don't see that France, Germany etc have lost anything significant on the sovereignty front with their membership.

Britain has not been Britain forever. We used to be Wessex, Mercia and Northumberland. Before that we were individual tribes. Maybe the people of Wessex didn't want to be unified with Mercia, at this point who knows? But it's worked out.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Can I ask Remain supporters a serious question: what have you got against sovereignty?

For two years, it's been a stick to attack Leave with, and not just on Dakka, but across Remain suporting media in general.

No offence to you lot, but your attacks often come across as...well...illiberal...

The ability of the people to have a say in the make up of insutitions that affect them the most: government, courts, police etc etc

We also have a say in how the EU is made up, directly through the EU elections and indirectly in our MPs and PM who make decisions on whether to approve EU regulations or not.

The issue is that you confuse the definition of sovereignty with an idealistic view that the UK parliament can make all the rules and not have to consider any wider oversight. The definition of sovereignty is (according to the Oxford dictionary):-

"The authority of a state to govern itself or another state" or "A self governing state". The EU however can be considered a "state". So the question really is whether you believe that a larger state (the EU) can implement systems and govern that make the population of that state (the EU) better off overall and hopefully for most. You can hence still support sovereignty it's just a different state supported. Your principle seems to be that a state can only be an individual country, but some here, including myself, think that a global system of democracy that distributes wealth/social equality/environmental concerns in a more equitable way would provide a better world where we can move forward as a species. Hence why the thinking that really you aren't referring to sovereignty but rather nationalism. You could easily take the argument further. I could state that I think Northamptonshire should make more rules and take them away from the UK parliament. If you opposed that view then I could just argue you are against sovereignty as it would be better for Northamptonshire to be its own state (which it is to an extent). Obviously this argument on sovereignty falls apart then because you can increasingly consider smaller elements as a state (until you get to a 'state of me'). Supporting a global state would allow wider rules to help combat such issues as climate change which at a nationalistic level are failing terribly. What your question really is, is "what have we against nationalism".

Regardless sovereignty doesn't really exist in the way you view it. We are bound by volumes worth of international law whether we are in the EU or not. The only way to avoid that would be to move the whole of the UK to somewhere in space in an isolated dome with no contact with anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

Which is all well and good, and I get that it's still contemporary affairs, and that moaning is cathartic. But blimey, it ain't half like a broken record a year on! The gig economy is ever-increasing to the detriment of those engaged in it, there's pandemonium in the rail franchises, the Labour anti-semitism merry-go-round is neverending, G4S just got stripped of yet another prison, and many, many other things of political interest are going on!

Well, you don't have to read or contribute. And to be fair the above items have been discussed so I'm not sure why this is being mentioned


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Henry wrote:

Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?

Do you honestly believe that there will be sufficient public disturbance to warrant deploying the army, along with re-instituting rationing? Or is that just an over-exaggerated rhetorical flourish?

That largely depends on how badly things get messed up. A population that is triggered can act in irrational ways. But we will have the guidance from the government shortly as what they expect. A couple of days ago we tried to work out the potential impacts on local authorities and what would happen in a no deal scenario. The general conclusion was the social care (like old age homes) would collapse first. They are already on a shoestring budget for those where a local authority pays for the care. An increase in prices, fuel etc would probably make the businesses unviable, it would become too expensive for Council's to run and then it was anyone's guess.

Back to point though the real issue is we don't really know where the trigger pressure points are (you only have to look at Graylings approach to transport). For example lets say we go hard Wrexit and customs is delayed by 60 minutes per vehicle. That generates significant delays to trucks and the government actions "Kent, the lorry park". With increasing vehicle stacking everyone starts getting stuck in traffic. The ability to transport goods becomes more limited and the extra delays mean more fuel wasted. However there are less vehicles available to transport fuel (all tied up in queues or other work). Petrol stations near Kent start running out of fuel as the lorries simply can't get to the stations quick enough. Panic buying sets in as people top up to try and ensure they can get to work in the Kent region. To combat this other lorries from elsewhere in the country get dragged in to try and provide supplies. That introduces shortages elsewhere as other vehicles get bogged down. With little fuel being transported, lorries can no longer refuel. Refrigeration units switch off, food starts to spoil, the situation escalates. Now this is just one example scenario that could feasibly happen if the trigger points aren't suitably managed. I think all our concern should be that the government isn't really listening and is producing things that it thinks will be a problem. The issue with that approach is you can miss the underground item that no one thinks about but is critical to lubricating the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.

I don't think anyone has ever talked about getting rid of democracy. However democracy is failing when you consistently put in place politicians that ignore facts and will just lie or exaggerate to get what they want. The experts are there to guide and advise as to the impacts of decisions and the politicians should take that information into account act in a rational and open manner. When you close your ears and eyes to the experts that are trying to advise of the impacts and plough on regardless you have the 'democracy' of populism which just then becomes a vote on who tells the populace what they want to hear the most (rather than what they *need* to hear)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ DINLT

They aren’t interested in that. A lot of Remainers are technocrats who would rather have the decisions be made by “experts” without the little people interfering in their designs. They won’t undrstand your point and there’s absolutely no point in talking to them.

There will always be a role for technocrats, but yeah, I've always been suspicious of them since they warned us the country would collapse if we didn't join the Euro...

I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:

1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.

2. German re-unification.

West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.

Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.

So if Germany (roughly 1/5 of EU economy) is too big for Europe how do you propose the UK to fit in EFTA where the UK would be 2.5 the size of all the other members combined?

Back to your first issue, again, the EEC was about a common European project way beyond the economy from day one. Listen to the speeches and negotiations leading to the treaties of Brussels, then Paris and then Rome. The EU is like that by design, right or wrong.

That's why the UK founded EFTA, an exclusively free trade association which lost the race to attract new members and ultimately the UK themselves.

 Ketara wrote:


I mean, you can sum up the vast majority of discussion in this thread as:

1. I don't like Brexit.
2. I think Brexit was a bad idea.
3. Here's some economic damage Brexit is going to cause.
4. Aren't all those Brexiteers awfully silly people?
5. Can't we rerun it?
6. Yes dear fellow who posted one of the above five, I completely agree with you.

It's the event of the century in Europe, one that will be studied in history books for many more centuries to come.

Most importantly, it's still on a stage where it can be stopped dead with minimal damage. So of course people who were either against it from day one or have changed their minds will be proselytising about it.

Maybe it's just because I'm from the US and we don't have the couple thousand year history behind us, but I don't really get the Leave side in this.

I mean isn't it better to be part of an economic bloc, especially as other economic blocs and ever-growing corporations are shaking things up (generally for the worse). It seems like there's a lot more leverage that way.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Because Sovereignty is a fallacy and an illusion. You'd be willing to throw away decades of incredible hard work and gain for something that would throw us right back to the beginning and make everyone suffer for an illusion. And everyone would have to work bloody harder than that just to try and pull ourselves back into the position we threw away 5 minutes before.

Over a thousand years of history would disagree with you, bro.


And if you think this is the case, then I would challenge you to build a house right on the national boundary of two nations that are not the EU. Then, we'll see what happens.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this should be relabelled the 'Brexit thread' instead of UK politics. I wander off for three months, drop in every now and again to mention contemporary stuff, but almost a hundred pages later, the automatic default is still on it. And it's pretty....well, boring to be honest.

I mean, you can sum up the vast majority of discussion in this thread as:

1. I don't like Brexit.
2. I think Brexit was a bad idea.
3. Here's some economic damage Brexit is going to cause.
4. Aren't all those Brexiteers awfully silly people?
5. Can't we rerun it?
6. Yes dear fellow who posted one of the above five, I completely agree with you.

Which is all well and good, and I get that it's still contemporary affairs, and that moaning is cathartic. But blimey, it ain't half like a broken record a year on! The gig economy is ever-increasing to the detriment of those engaged in it, there's pandemonium in the rail franchises, the Labour anti-semitism merry-go-round is neverending, G4S just got stripped of yet another prison, and many, many other things of political interest are going on!

I agree with you on points 1-6, but damn it, I like re-hashing Brexit arguments.

This is a reply I wanted to say to you earlier, but I forgot, so here it is:

Mogg is a rare breed, he's Conservative that actually believes in Conservative values, unlike the other non-Tories who make up the Blue Blairite Party.

Blairism and the middle ground poisoned British politics for 20 years IMO, and if Cameron was a Tory, my name is Edmund Burke. Cameron was only ever a watered down Blair.

Corbyn has the same problem: he's a socilalist in a party that despises socialism and the working classes.

A Corbyn Vs. Mogg General Election would give us a genuine ideological choice, not this middle ground bollocks, and we haven't had that choice since Thatcher Vs. Foot in 1983. My first proper General Election. God, I feel old...

But grab a violin and let me remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we had proper political debate, and MPs didn't treat the public like idiots and yes, it's true, MPs used to wander the streets and talk to ordinary voters.

Seriously, it's true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:
Maybe it's just because I'm from the US and we don't have the couple thousand year history behind us, but I don't really get the Leave side in this.

I mean isn't it better to be part of an economic bloc, especially as other economic blocs and ever-growing corporations are shaking things up (generally for the worse). It seems like there's a lot more leverage that way.

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

As a piece of propaganda, yeah it's easy to fool people with "them foreigners are stealing from you!". We have plenty of that rhetoric here too, but it's just that - rhetoric.

 ScarletRose wrote:

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I don't have anything against sovereignty.

But sovereignty is useless if you can't do anything with it because your economy has collapsed, for example. Voting to do good things is useless if you cannot actually make those good things happen.

I would say this to whirlwind as well: Yes, 'true' sovereignty, the 100% version, probably went out the window in 1945, and yes, only North Korea would fit the true sovereignty bill, and even they have to rely on China for help.

Yes, we all have to take rules from somebody in the modern world, and some make sense e.g helping to save the environment. No argument with that.

And I appreciate the irony of people who moan about EU rules, but are ready to fall in behind WTO rules without question.

But that doesn't mean we should not retain as much as we can, and always give ourselves room to manouvere and give the ordinary people as much of a say as we possibly can.

Yeah, the ironic thing is that Britain has probably more sovereignty in the EU than it would have outside of it. Outside of the EU, Britain is just a plaything for the great economic powers of the world.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:

1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.

2. German re-unification.

West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.

Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.

I like that idea if only because East Germany used to have some good music and an all-around very interesting, distinct culture that has unfortunately been lost now. However, I don't think you would have been able to convince many East Germans at the time of that idea. They had enough of being divided to vote (in East Germany's only free election ever) to dissolve their own country entirely. But who knows, maybe with all the Ostalgie nowadays we can convince some people to put the Berlin Wall back up?

For point 1 however, you can not have trade without politics. Politics and trade are inseparably intertwined.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.

Well, as soon as the word 'technocrat' gets thrown around as part of some conspiracy gak I know when it's safe to ignore posts. Thanks.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.

Explain how that works please, since the average person on the streets of Paris and Berlin has exactly the same amount of votes (1) as a member of the elite, and a democrat similarly has exactly the same amount of votes as a technocrat? Meanwhile, big multinationals don't get votes at all, and the EU seems at many times downright hostile to multinationals?

@ Jouso

As a general reply, of course I don't underestimate the importance of business and economy, and I readily acknowledge that for all its faults, capitalism has lifted millions from poverty, saved lives, and gave us prosperity.

I feel that along the way, the balance between democracy and big business has been lost.

Every time there's a news story, I get sick and tired of people asking how will the markets react? What about Economic uncertainty? And all those puffed up gak bags from the CBI or other big business banging on about business business business, as though it were the be all and end all of everything.

I get sick and tired about lobbyists working behind the scenes and gaining access to politicians that ordinary people could only dream off, and often it's not always for the common good. It's not unique to the EU, Britain is up to its neck in dodgy cash and dodgier donors,

but I'm always uncormfotable with the undue influence business sometimes has on government and democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah, the ironic thing is that Britain has probably more sovereignty in the EU than it would have outside of it. Outside of the EU, Britain is just a plaything for the great economic powers of the world.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I think the two biggest blunder that were made were:

1. Moving the EEC/EU away from trade and into the politics.

2. German re-unification.

West Germany was roughly the same size as Britain and France in economic terms, and they balanced each other out. East Germany could have rode alone as a new democracy, seperate, but welcomed back into the family as a new nation, another Austria if you will.

Germany has always been too big for Europe, and in many ways, often accidently, they seem to imbalance what could have been a more 'equal' EU, if you see what I mean.

I like that idea if only because East Germany used to have some good music and an all-around very interesting, distinct culture that has unfortunately been lost now. However, I don't think you would have been able to convince many East Germans at the time of that idea. They had enough of being divided to vote (in East Germany's only free election ever) to dissolve their own country entirely. But who knows, maybe with all the Ostalgie nowadays we can convince some people to put the Berlin Wall back up?

For point 1 however, you can not have trade without politics. Politics and trade are inseparably intertwined.

Hang on a minute here. Who's side are you on? I thought that Russians like you wanted Brexit, so you could break up the EU and leave it ripe for the T-34s to roll back into Eastern Europe? Wasn't that Putin's plan?

And yes, I do have a strange nostalgia for East Germany as well. Everything made sense in the Cold War. You always knew where you stood.

 Ketara wrote:

 Henry wrote:

Who cares about G4S if we're heading for the glorious sovereignty that is ration books and martial law?

Do you honestly believe that there will be sufficient public disturbance to warrant deploying the army, along with re-instituting rationing? Or is that just an over-exaggerated rhetorical flourish?

It's actually a good point that Brexit has absorbed the energies and talents (such as they are) of the government and civil service to the detriment of many other aspects of national life such as Grenfell and Universal Credit. That's actually not surprising considering it is the deepest crisis since WW2, but the supine attitude of Corbyn must be blamed for some of this.

To return to the main theme, a leading Labour Brexiteer has warned that a referendum would be a gross offence against democracy and should not be held as it would result in serious civil disturbances.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-eu-new-vote-barry-gardiner-labour-jeremy-corbyn-a8500646.html

FWIW.

I'm going to stockpile some food and fuel. Nothing that won't get used in the end if things are all fine. Cans and lavatory paper last for ages, after all. I like baked beans.

I hope I've got enough whisky and gin.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.

Same can be said for every modern country, with the same accuracy.

I've never particularly regretted my decision to leave the UK as soon as I possibly could, but the current state of affairs does make me extremely glad I did when I did. I'm largely of the belief that a populace gets the government it deserves and I'm firmly of the belief that the British populace entirely deserves everything that is happening and will happen.

This is what happens when turkeys vote for christmas, when oysters blindly follow walrus.

The schadenfreude (guilty pleasure, for Leave voters) is incredible. It's amusing beyond description to watch it all fall apart and see you fight over crumbs.

ScarletRose wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.

Well, as soon as the word 'technocrat' gets thrown around as part of some conspiracy gak I know when it's safe to ignore posts. Thanks.

As far as I'm concerned, "conspiracy theorist" is one of those words/phrases that get's thrown around when one cannot refute somebody's point, or want to avoid it altogether. Much like "racist", "nazi", or "Russian bot".


If you think what I said is some sort of "conspiracy theory", then you have either lived in a box your entire life, have no understanding of how the world works, or both.


But feel free to ignore my posts. No skin off my back.

Iron_Captain wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.

Explain how that works please, since the average person on the streets of Paris and Berlin has exactly the same amount of votes (1) as a member of the elite, and a democrat similarly has exactly the same amount of votes as a technocrat? Meanwhile, big multinationals don't get votes at all, and the EU seems at many times downright hostile to multinationals?

You're a Russian national, and you have to ask this question? I'm sure you remember the decade after the fall of the U.S.S.R., with the rise of the oligarchs, and former communist party members suddenly changing stripes to maintain their power and influence, and getting rich in the process? The same asshats that Putin either took down or forced to toe the line after his rise to power?


The elites are the movers and shakers. Their influence isn't limited to mere votes. That's for the little sheeple. Their power comes from money and influence. And they don't have to be career politcians, or in power over a nation-state. People like George Soros have far more (and farther reaching) influence than the majority of career politcians in individual countries. Plus, big multi-national corporations and high finance groups are in far better standing in the EU than most believe, to the point where they have influence on policies (even policies that seem to be politically or socially insane by rational standards; they are driven purely by economic motives and the bottom line).

jouso wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

Maybe it was better for the 13 colonies to stay with Britain, to be part of something bigger...

Can you see where I'm going with this?

No, because the EU has representation for all the countries in it. It's a really spurious analogy.

No, EU representation is for the elites and technocrats of the member-nations, and the big multinationals (business and finance). Not the average joe on the streets of Paris or Berlin.

Same can be said for every modern country, with the same accuracy.

Sadly enough, this is all too true. But keeping the Big Money and weasels like Soros on their toes is easier in a single nation-state, with a shared history and identity, than in big,forced multi-national alliances and wannabe "super states".


In Spain, you can hold your country's politicans accountable to a point. The arrogant, elitist turds in Brussels are a whole different story.

As far as I'm concerned, "conspiracy theorist" is one of those words/phrases that get's thrown around when one cannot refute somebody's point, or want to avoid it altogether. Much like "racist", "nazi", or "Russian bot".

Oh man, right-wing defense bingo time.

If a bum is on the street corner shouting "fight me!" it's not a sign of anything if I don't take them up on fighting them.

If you think what I said is some sort of "conspiracy theory", then you have either lived in a box your entire life, have no understanding of how the world works, or both.

It's not a conspiracy you just don't know THE TRUTH!

I guess I should be happy my point was proven.

But feel free to ignore my posts. No skin off my back.

Ok.

 ScarletRose wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, "conspiracy theorist" is one of those words/phrases that get's thrown around when one cannot refute somebody's point, or want to avoid it altogether. Much like "racist", "nazi", or "Russian bot".

Oh man, right-wing defense bingo time.

Did you see how quickly George Soros' name was reached for as well?