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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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.

This may have worked in the 18-1900s though when both our impact on the world was much less and people's mobility was less.

We are now in a global world and there are global issues. These cannot be resolved with local laws. If you want a populace to allow for itself where it works and lives then that requires a common rulebook that covers these areas. If you want to deal with environmental concerns that have global consequences then you need a common rulebook to ensure that everyone contributes to meeting those aims. If you have international scientific collaboriations then those with a common rulebook are more effective and efficient, not only because you can pool financial resources but also because people can choose to move easily to where the expertise is needed (without concerns that when that expertise is no longer needed they get turfed out of where they've settled). A customs union means that you can purchase an item from Italy (or return it for repair) without any unnessecary delays and knowledge that the goods you buy meet the same standards. I know someone that has had to send a personal mechnical item for repair back to the US. Just for the individual there is a mountain of paperwork that needs to be done. A common rulebook avoids all of this. The rules you are opposed to the EU making are there to provide a better standard for everyone. Yes the wealthiest still benefit massively and that is a global issue that needs to be tackled. However the EU have also invested in the poorest areas of the UK that would never have happened at a UK level both because of the lack of appetitie for improving areas that don't vote for you and that they don't have the ability to pool resources in the same way. The rules you want brought back to the UK no longer benefit the UK in the way that they would have done in the 1800-1900s.

https://twitter.com/foreignoffice/status/1031916634225684481

NEWS: Foreign Secretary @Jeremy_Hunt has delivered a speech at the @USIP calling on like-minded countries to defend the international rules-based system

..perhaps some sort of, I dunno, union between neighbouring countries or something ?

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1031943630590763010


six fething times and he cannot give a straight answer.

I appreciate that politics is a bit brutal at times but is the plan really to pin a bad Brexit on the Tories.

We'll just ignore those who will lose their jobs. And damn the havoc it will cause.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/heartless-tories-spend-200million-fighting-13114513

blah blah heartless tories etc etc aside

Tory ministers have spent £200million fighting to stop people getting sickness and disability benefits.

We obtained our figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) through a Freedom of Information request.

They show the DWP ran up an estimated £199million in 'direct operating costs' between 2013/14 and 2017/18 dealing with the two stages of PIP and ESA appeals.

The first stage, internal reviews called Mandatory Reconsiderations, cost the DWP an estimated £50.7m for ESA and £43.4m for PIP over five years.

The second stage, external appeal tribunals, cost the DWP an estimated £58.7m for ESA and £46.2m for PIP.

The overall cost per year of dealing with both types of PIP and ESA appeals shot up from around £32m in 2015/16 to £45m in 2016/17 and £62m in 2017/18.

The true cost will be far higher, because our figures do not count the price of running the appeal hearings themselves - which are paid for by the Ministry of Justice.

In 2016/17 alone the MOJ spent £103.1m on social security and child support tribunals - four out of five of which were either for PIP or ESA.

Once those costs are included, our analysis suggests the PIP and ESA appeal system cost taxpayers more than £100million a year.

ESA Mandatory Reconsiderations

2013/14 £3,126,636

2014/15 £14,551,932

2015/16 £9,692,386

2016/17 £10,712,461

2017/18 £12,590,885

PIP Mandatory Reconsiderations

2013/14 £292,435

2014/15 £3,882,822

2015/16 £7,500,733

2016/17 £13,900,013

2017/18 £17,847,514

ESA appeal tribunals

2013/14 £27,413,965

2014/15 £7,458,654

2015/16 £5,363,552

2016/17 £6,664,243

2017/18 £11,811,576

PIP appeal tribunals


2013/14 £147,164

2014/15 £2,799,971

still at least we're not wasting money by giving it to, err. the sick and needy who are legally entitled to it but are managing to make huge and regular payments to Atos, Capita etc etc .

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



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

MEPs are elected, and MEPs can oust the Commission (which is the usual target people usually throw the "unelected elite" at) which is itself appointed by the national governments (which are themselves elected) and then confirmed by the (elected) parliament.

Everything in Brussels is elected either directly or indirectly, except for public servants. So, again, just like everywhere else.

DINLT, on 16 Sept 1987 the UK ratified the Montreal Protocol. This was the international agreement that banned CFCs that damage the ozone layer. It is one of the most remarkably effective international treaties. It is one of only two treaties to be ratified by every UN member state, with even North Korea a signatory. And despite some recent illicit production in China, production of CFCs has ceased worldwide. The ozone layer is slowly recovering.

One part of the treaty is a multilateral fund in which developed countries pay developing countries to help them not to use CFCs. (CFCs are still cheaper than their alternatives, hence that illicit production I mentioned.) The UK is a net contributor to the treaty's operations.

So, when Margaret Thatcher signed this multilateral treaty and bound the UK to observe new international rules and make net payments to a foreign organisation what happened to UK sovereignty?

Did UK sovereignty increase because signing the treaty was an expression and demonstration of that sovereignty?

Did it decrease because the UK became a rule taker and budget contributor to the treaty's elected executive committee?

Did it make no difference to the UK's sovereignty? Or is it not even meaningful to talk about sovereignty in these terms?

 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.

I get a gak load more of a say in how my country runs within the EU than an Indian citizen did in the "commonwealth".
The EU doesn't ship in governors or asset strip parts of it's Empire, or use military threat to get it's way.

We were awful to our subjugated states.

@ monarda

The difference there is that we (via the PM) made that decision ourselves without being ordered to do it, and I’m sure that if we felt like going back on it we could. And the responsibility for doing it resides with the PM and so she would have to answer for it. I don’t see that with the EU. Decisions are made by people apointed by other people, and once made they’re pretty much irreversible.

If in some universe there was a sizeable amount of people who were really opposed to what Thatcher did, they could express their opposition at the voting booth, and oust her from government (or at least give them a black eye for it so to speak, like May suffered from her election), and then vote for a party who’s leader is committed to reversing it. It’s difficult but in theory it’s doable. The politician comes to their decision however they come to it, but they and their party will have to answer for it eventually.

We’re actually seeing this in action with Trump. He’s reversing the Iranian treaty and other decisions, right or wrong, because that’s what people voted him to do. He doesn’t have some organisation above him telling him no you’re not doing that because your predecessor signed an irreversible contract. I’m not expressing support for Trump, I’m just demonstrating real sovereignty in action.

The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”. And the president doing it doesn’t have to answer to us plebs, so I can’t take it out on them at the voting booth. You only have to look at Cameron’s joke of a negotiation, or Brown signing us up to the Lisbon treaty to see this in action. And had that scumbag Blair signed us up to the Euro, sure we could vote his party out of power but we’d still be stuck with the euro and all the baggage within. Don’t tell me the EU would ever allow a future PM to take us out of it. Everyone is only ever one way with the EU.

I’m sure Ketara could explain this better, if the soul destroying monotony of this thread hasn’t destroyed his will to live.

Let's not fool ourselves that the UK is a land of pure transparent liberty and the EU is an iron-fisted dictatorship with velvet gloves.

We see exactly the same sort of high-handed behaviour from our own politicians and civil servants.

There's actually less chance to stop any decisions because at least in the EU things can be halted and vetoed at various different levels of government. (Ironically, this is called a fault by Brexiteers.)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/22/respite-care-families-of-disabled-children-at-breaking-point

Here's a non Brexit issue. Of course, as was so blithely pointed out a few pages back, any sort of Brexit is going to, at le2ast, knock a few % off our GDP, so any fix for this will now be far, far further down the line.
Brexiteers moaning about how boring Brexit is, 2 years after they voted for it, and just now one day before the no deal impact reports start to appear is .... I don't even know.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/18/vulnerable-children-new-frontline-crisis-social-care

Here is another. Rotherham, Rochdale etc far more likely the recur anywhere that funding is cut away to nothing.

Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't vote to leave, the Dutch did. And now, 2 years later, with no deal still on the horizon and all parties still digging their heels in, with all our trade through Rotterdam etc threatened, Dutch dakka members who voted to leave were on here whining about how boring it all now is.
Wouldn't you be toe-curlingly embarrassed on their behalf? I would.

 Riquende wrote:

 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?

I'm glad that Soros is getting involved with Remain, because the words Soros and Black Wednesday are worth their weight in gold to the Leave side.

George, if you're reading this, keep chucking your money at Remain.

and get Blair to be your frontman. Leave will win every referendum from now until 3000 AD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Darkjim wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/22/respite-care-families-of-disabled-children-at-breaking-point

Here's a non Brexit issue. Of course, as was so blithely pointed out a few pages back, any sort of Brexit is going to, at le2ast, knock a few % off our GDP, so any fix for this will now be far, far further down the line.
Brexiteers moaning about how boring Brexit is, 2 years after they voted for it, and just now one day before the no deal impact reports start to appear is .... I don't even know.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/18/vulnerable-children-new-frontline-crisis-social-care

Here is another. Rotherham, Rochdale etc far more likely the recur anywhere that funding is cut away to nothing.

Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't vote to leave, the Dutch did. And now, 2 years later, with no deal still on the horizon and all parties still digging their heels in, with all our trade through Rotterdam etc threatened, Dutch dakka members who voted to leave were on here whining about how boring it all now is.
Wouldn't you be toe-curlingly embarrassed on their behalf? I would.

This sort of thing was happening even if we were in the EU.

As I've said to people before, what would a Remain victory look like? I'll tell you:

Vindication for that smug git Cameron. Osborne turbo charging austerity. Country going down the pan, albeit at a slower rate.

With all due respect, if anybody thinks a Remain victory would have helped us, then there's a plastic thunder hawk gunship I want to sell you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ monarda

The difference there is that we (via the PM) made that decision ourselves without being ordered to do it, and I’m sure that if we felt like going back on it we could. And the responsibility for doing it resides with the PM and so she would have to answer for it. I don’t see that with the EU. Decisions are made by people apointed by other people, and once made they’re pretty much irreversible.

If in some universe there was a sizeable amount of people who were really opposed to what Thatcher did, they could express their opposition at the voting booth, and oust her from government (or at least give them a black eye for it so to speak, like May suffered from her election), and then vote for a party who’s leader is committed to reversing it. It’s difficult but in theory it’s doable. The politician comes to their decision however they come to it, but they and their party will have to answer for it eventually.

We’re actually seeing this in action with Trump. He’s reversing the Iranian treaty and other decisions, right or wrong, because that’s what people voted him to do. He doesn’t have some organisation above him telling him no you’re not doing that because your predecessor signed an irreversible contract. I’m not expressing support for Trump, I’m just demonstrating real sovereignty in action.

The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”. And the president doing it doesn’t have to answer to us plebs, so I can’t take it out on them at the voting booth. You only have to look at Cameron’s joke of a negotiation, or Brown signing us up to the Lisbon treaty to see this in action. And had that scumbag Blair signed us up to the Euro, sure we could vote his party out of power but we’d still be stuck with the euro and all the baggage within. Don’t tell me the EU would ever allow a future PM to take us out of it. Everyone is only ever one way with the EU.

I’m sure Ketara could explain this better, if the soul destroying monotony of this thread hasn’t destroyed his will to live.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Have an exalt.

@ DINLT

I don’t get many exalts, if any, so thank you.

DiNLT; what does a Leave victory look like? How are any of these issues going to get better outside of the EU?

It's hardly fair to say that uk government underfunding will still happen under the EU when even the most positive Brexit outlooks shows an economic hit that'll make it worse.

May is the worst possible election leader for the Conservatives except for all the others available, new poll finds...

In related news, the latest returns to the Electoral Commission show that Conservative Party membership has plummetted in the last year while Labour and Lib-Dem have gone up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-membership-fees-collapse-election-brexit-theresa-may-a8502641.html

Herzlos wrote:
DiNLT; what does a Leave victory look like? How are any of these issues going to get better outside of the EU?

It's hardly fair to say that uk government underfunding will still happen under the EU when even the most positive Brexit outlooks shows an economic hit that'll make it worse.

IMO, Remain voters have overlooked this important point: that our MPs are so incompetent, even if we had Remained, the country would still be collapsing around our ears because of some crackpot scheme these fethwits cooked up.

Brexit is the jolt, the major correction, the tooth extraction that was needed to shake up this whole damn system of ours which is rotten to the core.

People are waking up to the Westminster bubble, how wretched and corrupt our politics is, how cosy the relationship is between MPs, big business and shills in the media who pretend to be journalists.

Brexit has sent them running for cover. No hiding place now, they will have to step up and govern, or be removed by those who can do the job.

Had we stayed in the EU, we were looking at nothing but managed decline, 0.5% growth per annum being celebrated as though it were a golden age of growth.

I have been on God's earth for 5 decades, and I can never in my lifetime, remember a time like these past 2 years when the nation was so involved in talking about trade and exports.

Do you remember that example some months ago I gave you? How our trade team went to Washington and got eaten alive, when normally highly trained lawyers and negotiators for the EU would have swooped to the rescue?

We forgot how to govern, to trade, we got lazy.

We will have to learn again.

Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...

Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.

tneva82 wrote:
Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...

Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.

I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...

Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.

I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.

By being out of the EU, you don't get to vote MEP's and what not, at it's most basic, that's a loss of democracy.

Why are you taking away my ability to vote?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”. And the president doing it doesn’t have to answer to us plebs, so I can’t take it out on them at the voting booth. You only have to look at Cameron’s joke of a negotiation, or Brown signing us up to the Lisbon treaty to see this in action. And had that scumbag Blair signed us up to the Euro, sure we could vote his party out of power but we’d still be stuck with the euro and all the baggage within. Don’t tell me the EU would ever allow a future PM to take us out of it.

The EU definitely works like that. The Commission is answerable to the national governments. The Commission can be sacked by a majority vote in the parliament. Furthermore, whatever the Commission puts out must be ratified by a) Parliament, b) EU Council (so, heads of state of respective countries) and in many cases also in the national parliaments themselves.

And yes, your vote can kick out the Commission. There have been Liberal, Conservative and Socialist presidents, reflecting the make up of the parliament of their time.

The much maligned CAP budget is today smaller, at constant prices, than at its peak in the late 90s (it's smaller now than in 1991, when the EU had just 12 members).

Hahaha, Brexit "a correction".

It is already impoverishing people and it hasn't happened yet.

There's no such thing as a "good" Brexit and no politician wants to say it because they're so cowardly.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ monarda

The difference there is that we (via the PM) made that decision ourselves without being ordered to do it, and I’m sure that if we felt like going back on it we could. And the responsibility for doing it resides with the PM and so she would have to answer for it. I don’t see that with the EU. Decisions are made by people apointed by other people, and once made they’re pretty much irreversible.

...

The EU doesn’t work like that. Once a decision has been, overseeing it is handed to the commission, and any attempt by us plebs to reverse it will be blocked at every turn. Sure, we could try to vote in politicians committed to changing something but all the EU will do is go “yeah but that’s against the rules that someone else signed so no”.

Except this is demonstrably false and indeed you have commented on a situation where this happened just over a month ago and credited that the decision you agreed with was made. The EU proposed a Copyright Regulation that was proposed by the commission and was rejected by the, democratically elected, MEPs. This was on the back of a lot of grass root support and petitions to MEPs and so forth. So the idea that any decision can not be reversed by 'plebs' is false. I think perhaps a better description would be that the plebs don't get involved enough to make their voices heard.

WW1 was a shock and a correction to the class division and gross inequality of the Edwardian era, as well as helping promote female suffrage, and giving the first strong shove to the European Imperial system worldwide.

That doesn't mean we had to have a huge destructive war and kill millions to achieve that progress.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...

Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.

I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.

You don't lose or gain democracy either way. We are still a democratic nation. We vote for the people to represent us at both the EU and the UK level. The EU is not some form of super dictatorship that has pulled the wool over our eyes for years. Both our PM and our own MEPs have a say in the legislation that is put forward. I'm intrigued to understand why you think that the EU is not democratic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

IMO, Remain voters have overlooked this important point: that our MPs are so incompetent, even if we had Remained, the country would still be collapsing around our ears because of some crackpot scheme these fethwits cooked up.

Brexit is the jolt, the major correction, the tooth extraction that was needed to shake up this whole damn system of ours which is rotten to the core. :soapbox

So given this statement and assuming the thinking is correct. Given that we voted very slightly to leave, exactly what tooth extraction has occurred to make things better, what major correction is ongoing that is 'going to shake up the whole damn system'?

@ Whirlwind

Normally I wouldn’t respond to you, what with you being on my ignore list and all, but I accidentally clicked on your post so what the hell.

So that time the Parliament voted it down. Yippie. But what if it hadn’t? That would have came into law, and then the efforts it would have taken to undo it would have been so high, it just wouldn’t have happen. The commission, those ratbags, would fight tooth and nail to maintain it. Had the same thing happened via our own parliament, the people responsible would have to pay for it come next election.

And I don’t think it’s settled. I’m sure they’ll try coming at it from another angle. Because the EU has this habit of ignoring votes it doesn’t like and pushing it through anyway. Like the EU constitution, that was voted down, but went through anyway as the Lisbon Treaty.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Out of EU even with better politicians is still going to be worse than current situation was so...

Well enjoy wrecked UK. You got your goal.

I value democracy over GDP. Others put economic prosperity first. That's their prerogative.

By being out of the EU, you don't get to vote MEP's and what not, at it's most basic, that's a loss of democracy.

Why are you taking away my ability to vote?

It's a sham parliament packed with misfits, place men, has beens, and UKIP members knocking lumps out of each other.

I doubt if Remain dakka members will lose sleep over Farage not being able to turn up at Brussels.

And yes, the Commons is equally as bad, but it's easier for the British public to eject British MPs than it would be for them to eject German or Danish MEPs.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ekwatts wrote:
Hahaha, Brexit "a correction".

It is already impoverishing people and it hasn't happened yet.

There's no such thing as a "good" Brexit and no politician wants to say it because they're so cowardly.

Our politicians are up to their necks in EU money: Kinnocks, Mandelson, Clegg

They're hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WW1 was a shock and a correction to the class division and gross inequality of the Edwardian era, as well as helping promote female suffrage, and giving the first strong shove to the European Imperial system worldwide.

That doesn't mean we had to have a huge destructive war and kill millions to achieve that progress.

Of course not. WW1 was a terrible catastrophe for Britain and Europe.

That being said, I think we need to look at the Longue Duree, the Annales school of thought when looking at Britain.

Since WW2, we lost an Empire, struggled to cope, stumbled into the EEC, wiped out manufacturing with Thatcher, let the spivs take over in the 1980s, witnessed our socialist Labour party lose their purpose when the Berlin Wall came down, and have spent 7 decades hanging onto America's coat-tails and spouting this special relationship bollocks.

We lost our way, but now we will have to roll up our sleeves and get stuck in. No ifs or buts.

I will concede this to Remain supporters: if we had taken Europe seriously at the begining, went all in, and moulded it with British values instead of being late to the party, history could well have been different.

Instead, we had a toxic combination of right-wing rags, hanging onto America's coat-tails, 40 years of Euro-Scepticism, and a political class that blamed Europe for their own incompetence and used it as a handy scapegoat.

The damage was done years ago, and that is one reason why I wanted out. We would never make it work.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So that time the Parliament voted it down. Yippie. But what if it hadn’t? That would have came into law, and then the efforts it would have taken to undo it would have been so high, it just wouldn’t have happen. The commission, those ratbags, would fight tooth and nail to maintain it. Had the same thing happened via our own parliament, the people responsible would have to pay for it come next election.

It's flawed to think the commissioners decided on the legislation. The legislative priorities are set by the national leaders and the commissioners are the ones to then implement these priorities. If you don't like a piece of EU legislation then you are entitled to talk to your MP so they can talk to the PM about changing it. The European Parliament appoints and scrutinises what the commission are doing (such as are they working on the priorities the national governments are setting). The Council of Ministers and the Parliament then review that legislation and determine whether it is fit for purpose. If it's not it goes back to the commission. However they still have a responsibility to action the priorities of the national leaders. Simply because a legislation is voted against doesn't change the national priorities that have been set. In some ways they are like head civil servants in our country. They are appointed by the government of the day to implement their priorities which is then taken to the UK Parliament for consideration. I'm not sure why that makes any of them 'ratbags'?

And I don’t think it’s settled. I’m sure they’ll try coming at it from another angle. Because the EU has this habit of ignoring votes it doesn’t like and pushing it through anyway. Like the EU constitution, that was voted down, but went through anyway as the Lisbon Treaty.

That's because the national governments wanted it and set it as a priority. You can't blame the commissioners for implementing this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


It's a sham parliament packed with misfits, place men, has beens, and UKIP members knocking lumps out of each other.

I doubt if Remain dakka members will lose sleep over Farage not being able to turn up at Brussels.

And yes, the Commons is equally as bad, but it's easier for the British public to eject British MPs than it would be for them to eject German or Danish MEPs.

That's not quite correct though, we only can vote against the MP that represents us. I can't vote to get rid of an SNP MP because I live in the midlands. There's hence no difference in why I or you shouldn't be allowed to get rid of a German or Danish MEP. They are not there to represent you, they are there to represent their constituents. Why should you be able to kick out an MEP or MP that is not there to represent you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Since WW2, we lost an Empire, struggled to cope, stumbled into the EEC, wiped out manufacturing with Thatcher, let the spivs take over in the 1980s, witnessed our socialist Labour party lose their purpose when the Berlin Wall came down, and have spent 7 decades hanging onto America's coat-tails and spouting this special relationship bollocks.

We lost our way, but now we will have to roll up our sleeves and get stuck in. No ifs or buts.

Your still not explaining what this means? Roll up our sleeves and get stuck into what? A tar pit? You keep on stating that it will 'bring changes' but where is the evidence for this. We have had two years now since the vote; have we swept away the old and brought in the new that's providing us some 'enlightened' future. If not now when are these mystical polticians going to arrive; are they silently hiding as MPs waiting to take over. These comments sound very familiar to the "Drain the Swamp" that Trump used and look how that turned out. You don't like Blair, Clegg, Cameron, old Labour, New Labour, UKIP, Tories, Greens, LDs, Rudd, Mogg, Bozo, May and so forth. The only thing you seem to say is that we should only have hard left and hard right politicians as anything otherwise just is the 'same' whereas its simply not as black and white as this and that shades of grey do matter.

I will concede this to Remain supporters: if we had taken Europe seriously at the begining, went all in, and moulded it with British values instead of being late to the party, history could well have been different.

Barring things like the ECHR of course, which the UK pretty much wrote and the EU accepted pretty much fully.

I suppose it’s really Juncker who I’m calling the ratbag. The guy who worked so hard to get his native Luxembourg sweet tax arrangements with big multinationals who now has the cheek, the audacity, to go around telling other countries they have to end theirs. Right or wrong, it’s rank hypocrisy. And that’s the least of my problems with that drunk.

I think it's another situation which can be addressed by staying in the EU and using our power and influence to set things to rights, or by leaving and hoping that the rest of the EU will deal with it.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

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).

Are you suggesting that the EU is like the Russian Federation? It is not. Yes, elites have influence, but that is the same in the UK as in the EU, and leaving the EU won't change anything. In fact, the British elite are the main ones who will profit from Brexit, while the common people will suffer, as usual. Also, their influence is a lot more limited than you might think. Unlike in Russia, in the EU you can't use money to directly influence anything. You can't just bribe someone. The only way for elites and business to influence things in the EU is through lobbying, which is of dubious usefulness since it depends entirely on how charismatic and how good the arguments your lobbyists can come up with are. The other way is of course the media. Most people are stupid enough to believe whatever their favourite media tells them, which means that if you own that media, you can control what people will vote for.
But again, this is true for all countries in the world, and the EU, being controlled by the countries that it consists of, isn't more susceptible to it than its individual members are.

Also, I guess some citation is needed for that last part. What kind of insane policies do you mean?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

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.

I thought it was the elites and multinationals that were the problem? Now it is the politicians? And for what it is worth, the politicians in the EU are every bit as accountable as those in Spain and the UK. If you don't like a European politician or party then don't vote for them. It works exactly the same way as with national politicians. Politicians in Brussels, I've met a few, aren't any more arrogant or elitist than politicians you find in EU member states (in fact they usually are the exact same people, since most EU politicians are relegated national politicians), and they are quite a bit less arrogant and elitist than the politicians you find in Westminster, which to me as a continental European are the very dictionary definition of arrogant and elitist. The only thing that is different is that people are simply too lazy and disinterested to even bother learning how the EU works and which parties and politicians there are and what they stand for. And then they blame "the EU" for things they are actually responsible for themselves. Now that is arrogance.
And no, keeping big money out is easier to do in a multinational organisation, since big money is multinational as well, meaning that a multinational organisation like the EU has more tools and resources to keep big businesses in check.

To your credit, you guys do make me question my decision every day. I don’t like admitting that, and I’ll probably regret admitting that. So, well done I guess.

@ whirlwind. It was a long winded way of saying we need to stand on our own two feet and not hide behind the EU's coat tails.

I'm selling more stuff abroad, so I'm doing my bit to help Britain's balance of payments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
To your credit, you guys do make me question my decision every day. I don’t like admitting that, and I’ll probably regret admitting that. So, well done I guess.

You're not selling out on me are you?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:



IMO, Remain voters have overlooked this important point: that our MPs are so incompetent, even if we had Remained, the country would still be collapsing around our ears because of some crackpot scheme these fethwits cooked up.

Brexit is the jolt, the major correction, the tooth extraction that was needed to shake up this whole damn system of ours which is rotten to the core.

On the contrary; one of the main reasons I voted remain was exactly because it provides a series of checks against bad MPs. They can only do so much damage whilst answering to the ecj and echr.

What shakeup do you actually see happening by handing more power to the corrupt and taking more money from the poor?