Brexit or no Brexit

Woody850 said:
From what I heard it wasn't an absolute majority more like a squish over the line and we musn't forget the non-voters.
Never mind I don't want to argue. I belong to the elder variant of citizen and friends of mine also in that age group disgusted me by voting for it, think of your children and grandchildren I said to them.
I must quote a text sent to me by someone viewing the outeers during the results.
"The poll was read and the faces dropped, they were unwilling to accept they had won."
Click to expand...

Yes it was close. But it was fair and one side won fair and square. There is nothing anyone can say to change or argue against that.

And this was done against the backdrop of the governments ‘project fear’ designed to frighten people into voting remain.
 
Woody850 said:
From what I heard it wasn't an absolute majority more like a squish over the line and we musn't forget the non-voters.
Never mind I don't want to argue. I belong to the elder variant of citizen and friends of mine also in that age group disgusted me by voting for it, think of your children and grandchildren I said to them.
I must quote a text sent to me by someone viewing the outeers during the results.
"The poll was read and the faces dropped, they were unwilling to accept they had won."
Click to expand...
The percentages were close 52% to 48% but the numbers differed by 1.7 million, more than most general elections where the vote is usually won by around 45% of those who vote - where significantly fewer people vote. 45% of 65% eligible to vote is only around 30% of the voters but we don’t clamour for another election, we accept the outcome.
There is no right and wrong in this particular vote, it was a protest vote and what has followed has been abysmal
 
Well, the HOC had a vote on Brexit and despite being warned about it PM May lost by the biggest majority ever by a UK government! Then Jeremy Corbyn put forward a motion of a vote of no confidence in the PM, which he lost. There go’s an old sad man who couldn’t get an election!
 
No need to get personal about Corb’s Bernhard.

Oh, you said election, sorry, you’re quite right...
 
Well, my two penneth FWIW...

Irrespective of whatever I thought at the time of the referendum, the behaviour of the European Parliament politicians has been nothing short of utterly despicable.

Even if I had voted remain back then, I sure as hell would vote leave now.

And I’d do the same if I was French, German, Italian, etc...

Europe does not need the EU.
 
Getting the Brexit Vote passed through the HOC is impossible for any PM no matter what party he or she represents because 70% of MPs want to remain . . .so impasse. It could be your MP who votes against you despite the referendum carried out on UK citizens, so find out how your MP voted and the next General Election kick them out.
 
As I remember, when the UK joined, the EU was a trade association. There was no evidence of a move to making it a "nation". There was a great deal of opposition, even to the original idea of joining, but the then PM just bullied it through. It was one of the driving forces behind our decision to emigrate, which has worked out very well.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Well, my two penneth FWIW...

Even if I had voted remain back then, I sure as hell would vote leave now.

And I’d do the same if I was French, German, Italian, etc...

Europe does not need the EU.
Click to expand...

FE, you forgot to mention the Dutch, we hate these burocrats in Bruxelles as much as you do.
 
Protesting against neoliberal globalisation is pretty futile. Once tariffs and subsidies have been removed, it is very difficult to return to the old situation. In Australia we simply seem to have accepted that our jobs have gone offshore and ignore the social consequences. Our politicians expound the theory that 'wealth trickles down'. The wealth inequalities are however becoming extreme. The people who are making money these days are the importers - I can understand why the Brits voted to leave the EU. It depends on whether the benefits of leaving are better than remaining. If you are struggling to survive, it changes your thinking.
At the time of federation in Australia, politics were mainly about free trade and protectionism. If you have free trade, the workers get cheaper goods, but if you don't have a job you cannot afford to buy any. There is one thing which is very noticeable in Australia. The opportunity shops are going gang-busters. We buy Chinese goods and recycle our old stuff (particularly clothes) through the opportunity shops. Those shops have now got more stuff than they can handle and are exporting huge amounts to places such as China etc. to be recycled into new product. I know in my house, I have loads of kids plastic toys - the waste problem is horrendous - particularly packaging waste.. There probably needs to be some form of moderation, however it should not be done on an ad hoc basis, but systematically. Whenever we have an economic problem in Australia, our government does an intervention which is usually only window-dressing. It makes it look as though our politicians are doing something.
 
One thing which happens in Australia, is we have a lot of accidental fires in waste recycling depots.
 
Seems we have 2 party leaders in charge of parties that are split into leavers and remainers so neither can come up with a solution that works within their party. Even worse we have a number of remainer MP's who are representing leave voting constituencies who insist on ignoring their electorate so ignoring parties still gets you nowhere. If a Leave party is formed before the next election and the UK has not already left a number of MP's are going out the door hopefully.
 
All trade deals - EU/Brexit, NAFTA, TPP, and so on - are corrupt.

In every case, protection or tariffs are for sale; so called "trade negotiators" front for politicians who service home unions, industries, and individual companies that are willing to provide support or otherwise pay "contributions" to buy the favoritism they seek.

Sometimes, if you or your trade or industry benefit, it's good for you but generally it's bad for everyone else.

BTW, it is not often that one can say "all" or "in every case."
 
xbacksideslider said:
All trade deals - EU/Brexit, NAFTA, TPP, and so on - are corrupt.
Click to expand...

As long as you are talking corruption, include the organization that is more corrupt than organized crime ...... THE UN!

All the organizations you mention, plus the UN, NATO, ethnic diversity, borderless society, disdain for nationalism and patriotism, dumbing down of the education system, fear of climate change, disdain for precious metals as a store of value, ridicule of politicians who are not "controlled", keeping the populace at odds with one another, and NO Brexit, are all tools of the globalists for the benefit of the globalists.

So as not to start an argument, consider all that just my opinion .....

Slick
 
It’s a good job you lot over the pond don’t have access to guns, you would be out shooting the bastards...oh wait.....:confused:
#revolution2
The little guys are still the little guys but the rich oppressors wear different clothes a red coat is now a grey suit!
 
If you believe the best system provides the most happiness for the greatest number of people, perhaps it is right that we should share in some of the misery in the world ? If we dumb-down the education system, people will question the status quo less, and concentrate more on becoming robots. The era of high quality luxury items having more value is now over, so we don't need a highly-educated - highly paid work-force to produce them. We have production lines which produce what is 'fit for purpose' - forget about attention to detail - unless you are a German.
 
frankdamp said:
As I remember, when the UK joined, the EU was a trade association. There was no evidence of a move to making it a "nation".
Click to expand...


It was when we joined, it was the Common Market. Over the years, those Euro bureaucrats mover the goalpost, and kept changing the goalposts again, and again, until what we have today is something unrecognisable from the original concept, there have been so many scandals, from the wine and butter mountain, to letting all those millions of illegal immigrants into the E.U. even forcing Germany to accept 1 million of them, -we in the UK escaped that bullet, those often repeated words “piss-up and brewery” keep springing to mind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
forcing Germany to accept 1 million of them

I think Merkle did this by inviting them to Germany and with no consultation of the other 27 members, so Germany forced the EU to take them, which is even worse than the EU doing the forcing IMHO.

we in the UK escaped that bullet

Only until they have gained an EU member citizenship, then EU free movement allows them to leave which ever country gives them citizenship and move freely to another EU member. You can argue that they may not get an EU member citizenship but in Germany historic records show that 50% of asylum seekers eventually get citizenship.
 
Bernhard said:
It was when we joined, it was the Common Market. Over the years, those Euro bureaucrats mover the goalpost, and kept changing the goalposts again, and again, until what we have today is something unrecognisable from the original concept, there have been so many scandals, from the wine and butter mountain, to letting all those millions of illegal immigrants into the E.U. even forcing Germany to accept 1 million of them, -we in the UK escaped that bullet, those often repeated words “piss-up and brewery” keep springing to mind.
Click to expand...

I think you need to correct your figures. In 2016, there were some 700 000 migrants and refugees seeking asylum in Germany. Of those, only about 250 000 were granted asylum.
https://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/flucht/218788/zahlen-zu-asyl-in-deutschland

The Dublin agreement ensures that refugees can't be "distributed" to other EU countries, as claimed by Kommando.

kommando said:
Only until they have gained an EU member citizenship, then EU free movement allows them to leave which ever country gives them citizenship and move freely to another EU member.
Click to expand...

Not true. According to directive 2004/38/EC, there are clear conditions tied to citizens wanting to stay in another EU member state. In effect these restrictions require the citizen to be able to support himself by work or funds. Only after 5 years of continuous living in the host state, the citizen gains the right of permanent residence with no conditions attached.
The right of permanent residence is lost only in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons

I think these regulations are resonable. In european history, there has always been an influx of migrants. I hope you guys agree to the principle that peoples suffering of war, repression and starvation deserve our protection and care.

-Knut
 
Last edited:
If refugees lose the right to permanent residence, are they likely to be rounded-up and deported ? These are people, not cattle. On Australian TV there are currently advertisments from a charity seeking funds to save the thousands of babies who die every day around the world. If we saved every baby, would we be helping the human race survive ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top