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

[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

[roger_ramjet]

With the "before profit" tag he wont need a Chancellor

[MadAmster]

With the "before profit" tag he wont need a Chancellor

I disagree roger. Of course we will need a chancellor. There will still be the NHS and the Social Services that need funding. Also the Armed Forces, local council workers, Roads etc etc etc. The money to fund that will have to come from somewhere. That somewhere will be taxes in their various forms, both local and national. The books will need to be balanced and someone will have to put together the budget.................. the Chancellor.

I might even try to get each country to renege on its national debt. Set it back to zero and then try to stay budget neutral. That would really upset the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Kochs among others

[roger_ramjet]

And vast swathes of oil rich Arabs and indeed the Chinese government may be upset too.

Bit if I were to be Chancellor I would cut spending on armed forces to zero. More than ever they are an anachronism in the nuclear and cyber era.

[Andy_Faber]

And vast swathes of oil rich Arabs and indeed the Chinese government may be upset too.

Bit if I were to be Chancellor I would cut spending on armed forces to zero. More than ever they are an anachronism in the nuclear and cyber era.

I feel uneasy about defence spend but I disagree on the last point and I think if Kim is ever overthrown it will be by a quick incisive and very focussed action, and none better than UK special forces at that from what I've seen

[swaledale]

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.

I am in agreement with your principles. regrettably it is but a pipe dream, human nature is such that those who see themselves as the "victims" of the elite, capitalism or globalisation mostly change tune when they become the beneficiaries! It has always been thus and no sign that it will change, lets face it if people wanted a party like that then the greens at least offer a version of it, but sadly the "whats in it for me" view prevails.

Your comment about NATO is a classic error - NATO was formed in order to provide a defence against the Soviet block which was the biggest threat.

The EEC was born out of a wish to for a peaceful future within europe, which has been achieved, one only has to compare the decades of turmoil pre WW2 to see how that has been maintained.

Of course nothing lasts for ever and there are signs that eastern european states like Poland and Hungary are leaning further to the right and eroding democratic principles, so yes there are tensions and no doubt much infighting, but the demise of the Eu is not yet in sight and doubt that it will be anytime soon, however a much changed EU where the UK has no influence is very likley.

[ramAnag]

I disagree roger. Of course we will need a chancellor. There will still be the NHS and the Social Services that need funding. Also the Armed Forces, local council workers, Roads etc etc etc. The money to fund that will have to come from somewhere. That somewhere will be taxes in their various forms, both local and national. The books will need to be balanced and someone will have to put together the budget.................. the Chancellor.

I might even try to get each country to renege on its national debt. Set it back to zero and then try to stay budget neutral. That would really upset the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Kochs among others

Oops! Fall outs already between ‘Tony’ Amster and ‘Gordon’ Ramjet.

Maybe a Cabinet is forming...’Amster - PM, Ramjet - Chancellor (best at counting), KCG - Deputy Leader, (because he knows a lot but keeps a low profile), MoP - Home Secretary (longevity...but only if he stops the Farage references), Chief Secretary to the Treasury - Manx.
I’ll do Education ‘cos it’s all I really know about and I like arguing with Roger.
Andy Faber...Housing and Homelessness, Adi...Culture Secretary, Mista...Minister of Sport, Foreign Secretary...Rom...’cos he lives there, Chief Whip...Swale (who else?) Pensions...OTR and Mactm (so much experience), Defence...Ram59, Foreign Aid...anyone but Ram59, Secretary of State for Exiting EU...no longer required (sorry Ram59 ).

Still a few posts to fill...but it’s your Party, MA...and you can cry if you want to.

[roger_ramjet]

We won't need a Foreign Aid Minister as there wont be much budget for that. I also fear for the lack of women and the ethnicity mix in your cabinet.

[roger_ramjet]

I feel uneasy about defence spend but I disagree on the last point and I think if Kim is ever overthrown it will be by a quick incisive and very focussed action, and none better than UK special forces at that from what I've seen

Donald's mates in Mossad will sort that out for him now he has given them Jerusalem 😁

[ramAnag]

We won't need a Foreign Aid Minister as there wont be much budget for that. I also fear for the lack of women and the ethnicity mix in your cabinet.

I shall be speaking to the PM about the Foreign Aid matter, Mr. Chancellor...would suggest at least 0.75% of GNI which you’ll be able to afford following your defence cuts. I already have the support of the Chief Whip.

I recognise the shortage of ladies which clearly needs addressing. Perhaps Mrs. Ramjet might have a role to play and, as the name suggests, Mrs. Mangara does originate from the ‘dark continent’.

[swaledale]

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.

In point of fact it was the Americans who saved europe from the Nazi's, with a little help from the Russians, albeit we Brits were through geographic fortune able to provide a handy launch pad!

No thats your interpretation rather than what i wrote! If you bothered to look at the context and werent so eager to see an insult then you'd have understood that!

Thats the problem with believing the crap thats been drip fed, a cold hard look at the facts is transposed into a supposed insult, but hey ho I expect nothing less.

[MadAmster]

In point of fact it was the Americans who saved europe from the Nazi's, with a little help from the Russians, albeit we Brits were through geographic fortune able to provide a handy launch pad!

No thats your interpretation rather than what i wrote! If you bothered to look at the context and werent so eager to see an insult then you'd have understood that!

Thats the problem with believing the crap thats been drip fed, a cold hard look at the facts is transposed into a supposed insult, but hey ho I expect nothing less.

As ever, the truth is somewhere in between. Keeping the Germans at bay, aided by our moat, was indeed a deciding factor that kept us out of Hitler's grasp. The US joined in from 1942. They declared war on December 7th 1941 but it was 42 before they got any troops into the UK. The same is true in the Western Desert where UK and other forces were locked in huge battles with Rommel's Panzers. Some of us may be guilty of playing down US involvement in our choice of words. Others may be playing down UK involvement in theirs.