OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

Not what you wrote at all, you described Britain as nothing more than 'through geographic fortune able to provide a handy launch pad', what an insult.

C’mon Andy...it’s Christmas...and I don’t think he did describe things that way. The emotive ‘nothing more’ is your own embellishment...I can’t see where Swale said that. The rest is largely true.

[roger_ramjet]

Oh yes he did


Look out behind you....

But notwithstanding, those posts were demeaning to those many thousands of British people who gave their lives in WW2. It may not have been meant that way, but my reading of it concurs with AF and Adi's interpretation.

I realise Swale is pro European unification but I doubt that even he would have been in favour of the 1940s version of it - or maybe he would have been a conscie down the mines secretly hoping for an away win?

[ramAnag]

Oh yes he did


Look out behind you....

But notwithstanding, those posts were demeaning to those many thousands of British people who gave their lives in WW2. It may not have been meant that way, but my reading of it concurs with AF and Adi's interpretation.

I realise Swale is pro European unification but I doubt that even he would have been in favour of the 1940s version of it - or maybe he would have been a conscie down the mines secretly hoping for an away win?

Oh no he didn’t...he didn’t say ‘nothing more than’. The posts were only demeaning to the ‘British people who gave their lives’ if you wanted to read it that way imo.
I realise that Swale can be controversial but deliberate misinterpretation helps no one and I don’t believe he would have been demeaning or disrespectful to those who died in WW2. Neither, I very much suspect, do you.

In the words of a certain Mr. Churchill...’Wars are not won by evacuations’...and I speak as someone who had a close relative who lost the hearing in one ear and the sight in one eye at Dunkirk. Had the Nazis, for whatever reason, gone in the for the kill at Dunkirk, had we not had the protection of being an island and had the Americans not become involved things would, imo, have been very different.

No idea what it’s all got to do with Brexit anyway.

[roger_ramjet]

Until those posts I would have agreed with you

[swaledale]

Oh yes he did


Look out behind you....

But notwithstanding, those posts were demeaning to those many thousands of British people who gave their lives in WW2. It may not have been meant that way, but my reading of it concurs with AF and Adi's interpretation.

I realise Swale is pro European unification but I doubt that even he would have been in favour of the 1940s version of it - or maybe he would have been a conscie down the mines secretly hoping for an away win?

They are only demeaning to those whose jingoism misleads them to think that the UK won WW2 on its own, to those who cling on (as many a Brexit supporter does) to the quaint idea that we are still in the days of the empire when half the world was pink and we implemented our own "benevolent" rule over countries.

Lets not forget the concentration camp was an invention of the British in the Boer War or overlook that there were many in the UK population, including many in the establishment who were more than a tad sympathetic to fascism and supported Moseley.

No where did I even suggest anything detrimental to those who fought in the war, or that their contribution and those of the Poles, the Free french and many others wasn't significant.

However, for those who know their history as against those who believe in fables about the "Greatness" of Britain the geographic isolation of the Uk from the continent, strategic errors made by Hitler and the entry of the USA (plus the assistance provided before then) were ultimately what led to the defeat of Germany.

As for being pro european unification, yes in the sense that countries who work together for mutual benefit are less likely to wage war, something that has by and large worked in Europe since WW2 compared to the chaos that existed in the 50 years before it.

Not surprised that Andy who professes to believe in something for which there is far more evidence disproving much of what is stated as truth, is happy to believe non factual, patriotic bull****!

Given the aversion to facts by many, I'm not at all surprised that misinterpretation is the name of the game.

[Manofpride]

They are only demeaning to those whose jingoism misleads them to think that the UK won WW2 on its own, to those who cling on (as many a Brexit supporter does) to the quaint idea that we are still in the days of the empire when half the world was pink and we implemented our own "benevolent" rule over countries.

Lets not forget the concentration camp was an invention of the British in the Boer War or overlook that there were many in the UK population, including many in the establishment who were more than a tad sympathetic to fascism and supported Moseley.

No where did I even suggest anything detrimental to those who fought in the war, or that their contribution and those of the Poles, the Free french and many others wasn't significant.

However, for those who know their history as against those who believe in fables about the "Greatness" of Britain the geographic isolation of the Uk from the continent, strategic errors made by Hitler and the entry of the USA (plus the assistance provided before then) were ultimately what led to the defeat of Germany.

As for being pro european unification, yes in the sense that countries who work together for mutual benefit are less likely to wage war, something that has by and large worked in Europe since WW2 compared to the chaos that existed in the 50 years before it.

Not surprised that Andy who professes to believe in something for which there is far more evidence disproving much of what is stated as truth, is happy to believe non factual, patriotic bull****!

Given the aversion to facts by many, I'm not at all surprised that misinterpretation is the name of the game.

Great post, Agreed with everything you said there except for the (to those who cling on (as many a Brexit supporter does) you forgot to put in IMO.

[MadAmster]

The EU. The quintessential goal of the elite since the late 40s, early 50s. This has always been the aim, despite them denying it from day one. Typical political lies and and they were swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

IMO, the expectations of the government/populace "cooperation" is so vastly different in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal to those in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK etc, that it can't work as a US of E. That would entail the same level of the same taxes over all 28 (as it is today) countries. Greece still doesn't have policies in place to track income. They all vastly minimise their income on their tax returns and pay very little tax as a result. Moving to a Northern European system would lead to riots and revolt. The former eastern bloc countries have a different outlook on it to the north and south lands. Good luck standardising taxes EU.

EU responsible for 70 years of peace? The EU is 25 years old. How can it have kept peace for 70? Oh, I hear you say, before that we had the common market aka the EEC. That was a glorified free trade area agreement. Peace has been kept for the past 70 years because of NATO. The common thread through all of those years. Or would some have us believe that the original Common Market with 6 members kept the peace and not NATO?

I voted no in the 70s because a US of E was always the end game. I was convinced of it back then and that was the reason I voted as I did. Today, I am still against the idea of a US of E and would have voted leave had I had a vote in the referendum. As for the referendum itself, I would have liked to see a third option, stay in and work tirelessly to return the EU to the 1991 situation of the EEC, a purely free trade agreement with no political shenannigans attached. Given the chance, that is the option that would have got my vote.

I am currently looking to either join a political party, or maybe even start one with the aims of ......

a) reverting to the EEC
b) reversing globalisation to help create jobs
c) curtail the banks
d) massively alter the gambling aspects of the financial markets

.... and yes, I do realise I will have to do that pan-European and globally rather than starting with the Netherlands and I also realise that that is a huge irony considering my stance on the EU. Needs must.

It is my opinion that, given a referendum where the populace of all of the 28 were given a choice between the EU and the EEC, I think that the UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and more would vote EEC. There have been large movements in all of those countries against having "too much Brussels". After the Brexit vote, the Commissions answer to this is actually MORE Brussels. It wil all end in tears.

[roger_ramjet]

Very well put and I will be your party deputy leader if you like. A non federalist trade area in Europe is what we want rather than this bloated farce that we are quitting.

Your point on tax harmonisation is spot on. Philosophically its decades away - generations away in fact. Without that a US of E is a pipedream but one which the current EU bureaucracy seem intent on forcing together come what may.

[ramAnag]

The EU. The quintessential goal of the elite since the late 40s, early 50s. This has always been the aim, despite them denying it from day one. Typical political lies and and they were swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

IMO, the expectations of the government/populace "cooperation" is so vastly different in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal to those in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK etc, that it can't work as a US of E. That would entail the same level of the same taxes over all 28 (as it is today) countries. Greece still doesn't have policies in place to track income. They all vastly minimise their income on their tax returns and pay very little tax as a result. Moving to a Northern European system would lead to riots and revolt. The former eastern bloc countries have a different outlook on it to the north and south lands. Good luck standardising taxes EU.

EU responsible for 70 years of peace? The EU is 25 years old. How can it have kept peace for 70? Oh, I hear you say, before that we had the common market aka the EEC. That was a glorified free trade area agreement. Peace has been kept for the past 70 years because of NATO. The common thread through all of those years. Or would some have us believe that the original Common Market with 6 members kept the peace and not NATO?

I voted no in the 70s because a US of E was always the end game. I was convinced of it back then and that was the reason I voted as I did. Today, I am still against the idea of a US of E and would have voted leave had I had a vote in the referendum. As for the referendum itself, I would have liked to see a third option, stay in and work tirelessly to return the EU to the 1991 situation of the EEC, a purely free trade agreement with no political shenannigans attached. Given the chance, that is the option that would have got my vote.

I am currently looking to either join a political party, or maybe even start one with the aims of ......

a) reverting to the EEC
b) reversing globalisation to help create jobs
c) curtail the banks
d) massively alter the gambling aspects of the financial markets

.... and yes, I do realise I will have to do that pan-European and globally rather than starting with the Netherlands and I also realise that that is a huge irony considering my stance on the EU. Needs must.

It is my opinion that, given a referendum where the populace of all of the 28 were given a choice between the EU and the EEC, I think that the UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and more would vote EEC. There have been large movements in all of those countries against having "too much Brussels". After the Brexit vote, the Commissions answer to this is actually MORE Brussels. It wil all end in tears.

Well there’s the most ‘game changing’ post of this not inconsiderable thread.

The irony is not confined to you MA...I am, no surprise, wholly opposed to Brexit, largely because of the motives, lies and ‘personalities’ behind it, but I do find myself in total agreement with three of your four points and at least partial agreement with the first one.
I’m not sure I wholly accept your description of the difference between outlooks in Northern and Southern Europe, I have never felt my national identity to be threatened by the EU and I do want to be part of a ‘united Europe’...however your suggestion of a ‘third option’ (way) makes a great deal of sense to me and the notion of a political party such as you describe does appeal.

Congratulations anyway...there have been approaching 3000 posts on this thread since that horrible morning in June 2016 and, for me, this is the most positive and thought provoking one.

P.S. What’s the party going to be called?

P.P.S. Assuming this Party is quickly elected to power, Roger would make a better Chancellor...so I’ll be your Deputy. There you go...sorted!

[MadAmster]

Well there’s the most ‘game changing’ post of this not inconsiderable thread.

The irony is not confined to you MA...I am, no surprise, wholly opposed to Brexit, largely because of the motives, lies and ‘personalities’ behind it, but I do find myself in total agreement with three of your four points and at least partial agreement with the first one.
I’m not sure I wholly accept your description of the difference between outlooks in Northern and Southern Europe, I have never felt my national identity to be threatened by the EU and I do want to be part of a ‘united Europe’...however your suggestion of a ‘third option’ (way) makes a great deal of sense to me and the notion of a political party such as you describe does appeal.

Congratulations anyway...there have been approaching 3000 posts on this thread since that horrible morning in June 2016 and, for me, this is the most positive and thought provoking one.

P.S. What’s the party going to be called?

P.P.S. Assuming this Party is quickly elected to power, Roger would make a better Chancellor...so I’ll be your Deputy. There you go...sorted!

The name game? I'll cover that first. As I will be starting the party, should I do so, here in the Netherlands it may well be something like "Mens en Planeet Eerst". That is "People and Planet First" to you although I am toying with the idea of adding "before profit" to it and removing "First". Once I have got that established, I would like to think that like minded sensibles from all 28 countries will follow my lead. Have MEPs voted in across the entire EU and then vote to return to the EEC. The Commissioners ain't gonna like it but stuff them. They have an agenda they want to force through come hell or high water. In me they might just find some hellish high water they can't handle.

I had toyed with Democratic Logical Front but it seems somebody has already laid claim to the Acronym