The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2

[kurt535]

loafer123]Perhaps EEA plus a cap on EU migration [at current levels said:

each year would be the quickest easiest deal ever done?

what are you smoking??? two hopes, one is dead....

[jonnyb]

Einion Yrth said:

jonnyb said:

True, but don't then berate the EU for doing nothing in the Balkans. Personaly I think the EU should be allowed to defend its own borders with its own forces. So why not an EU army?

Just so long as I don't have to be a part of it they can fill their boots. I'd advise against it, but just so long as I'm not party to it, that's fine.

What's your problem with it? Your 90% there with NATO anyway.

[Northern Munkee]

jonnyb said:

don4l said:

Zod said:

sidicks said:

Zod said:

don't agree. The majority of Leave voters (not all here, please note, before you get upset) voted for £350m per week for the NHS and restrictions on immigration, both of which have now been discounted by various Leave campaigners. For such voters, the niceties of being in or out of the EEA or EFTA or relying on WTO rules are not a concern.

Not true

You told us that 3.3m people would lose their jobs if we Brexited. Than turned out to be balderdash.


You told us that the EU had kept the peace in Europe, whereas, as we saw in the former Yugoslavia, it was NATO that kept the peace. The useless EU did nothing at all.

2 points.

First, it's day 4 after the referendum. Who knows how meny jobs will be lost because of this. But jobs will be lost, and hardship caused.

Second, do you know any European history? Do you understand that we have been at each other's throats for the best part of 2000 years, if not more? Do you understand what a privilege it is not to have to pick up a weapon and fight for what you believe in? To be able to see your kids grow up in peace? And I don't mean the minor "wars" we have fought all over the globe since '45, but a full on European war? The European project has made peace on the continent a reality for 70 years. I, for one, hope it continues in that vain for at least another 70.
As for NATO and the Balkans, it one of the reasons the EU now wants an army, and it's a reason I agree with.

Edited by jonnyb on Monday 27th June 20:44

Here's an interesting read from a Left POV. Don't agree all of it, but a lot rings true.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/22/the-left-an...

And oh how I wish I could find another source for this other than the Express doing the rounds tonight... http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-r...

[donutsina911]

jonnyb said:

What's your problem with it? Your 90% there with NATO anyway.

US contributes around a quarter of NATO expenditure and significantly more than this in activity and operations. Your 90% is fiction.

[Phud]

jonnyb said:

What's your problem with it? Your 90% there with NATO anyway.

No far from it, NATO has a very different approach to the action it takes than the EU political have taken to theirs. One part that scares me to the core is the political intent in the Eu.

So second to this, as a NATO country you are expected to use 2%of your GDP, how are you going to fund the EU army, navy and air-force? Who will troops swear allegiance too?
Are you goign to include nuclear weapons and who controls these?

[Einion Yrth]

jonnyb said:

Einion Yrth said:

jonnyb said:

True, but don't then berate the EU for doing nothing in the Balkans. Personaly I think the EU should be allowed to defend its own borders with its own forces. So why not an EU army?

Just so long as I don't have to be a part of it they can fill their boots. I'd advise against it, but just so long as I'm not party to it, that's fine.

What's your problem with it? Your 90% there with NATO anyway.

The UK is a NATO signatory. NATO is not a European army, it's a collection of armed states with a mutual protection agreement, some of these states are not European, and apart from some necessary restrictions the forces remain under the command of their own nation, which nation is not "Europe".

Hope that helps.

[With these feet]

jonnyb said:

True, but don't then berate the EU for doing nothing in the Balkans. Personaly I think the EU should be allowed to defend its own borders with its own forces. So why not an EU army?

Because the likes of Junckers having an army at their disposal sounds like a terrible idea. NATO is there to assist in attacks on member states. Even out of the EU, the UK would still contribute. I can however see it wheeled out to suppress unrest in member states, but I will be called a nutter to suggest that.

[silent ninja]

Sterling hitting 31 year low and in all manner of businesses getting battered to put it mildly. We're in for some pain when this trickles down shortly

[epom]

Football team being loyal to the voters at least.

[skahigh]

Northern Munkee said:

And oh how I wish I could find another source for this other than the Express doing the rounds tonight... http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-r...

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-27/...

Edited by skahigh on Monday 27th June 22:09

[b2hbm]

skahigh said:

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-27/...

I saw the same article on Radio Poland which I expect is the same source as the Express

http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-s...

But the bloomberg link has more detail including stuff about common refugee/immigration standards and the basis for an EU military force. That scheme clearly hasn't been thought up since Friday morning and had it been leaked before the referendum then I suspect the 4% margin would have been a bit larger.

[CrutyRammers]

jonnyb said:

2 points.

First, it's day 4 after the referendum. Who knows how meny jobs will be lost because of this. But jobs will be lost, and hardship caused.

Second, do you know any European history? Do you understand that we have been at each other's throats for the best part of 2000 years, if not more? Do you understand what a privilege it is not to have to pick up a weapon and fight for what you believe in? To be able to see your kids grow up in peace?

Indeed. And we should be very, very proud that we have all progressed to a point where a country can withdraw from a supranational wannabe empire purely through a democratic vote, without bloodshed. It's not happened many times in history.
A few points off GDP, for a bit, is a much lesser price than our forebears have had to pay over the years.

[anonymous-user]

minimoog said:

So you disagree with the view that in registering what is in effect an anti-Tory protest vote, the 'poor' (for want of a better word) have been unable to grasp the significance of what they are doing?

Voting for BJ, Gove and Farage and not Cameron, Osborne and Corbyn is 'in effect an anti-Tory protest vote'? Who are you trying to kid?

[Mr GrimNasty]

b2hbm said:

skahigh said:

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-27/...

I saw the same article on Radio Poland which I expect is the same source as the Express

http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/258994,New-EU-s...

But the bloomberg link has more detail including stuff about common refugee/immigration standards and the basis for an EU military force. That scheme clearly hasn't been thought up since Friday morning and had it been leaked before the referendum then I suspect the 4% margin would have been a bit larger.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640078/It-s-not-just-plot-let-1-5-million-Turks-DANIEL-HANNAN-outlines-ten-bombshells-EU-s-keeping-secret-ve-voted.html

PS. If you go back through all these threads you will see the usual suspects ridiculing these ideas, especially the ones that have now been pretty much confirmed just days after the referendum!

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 27th June 23:10

[minimoog]

fblm said:

minimoog said:

So you disagree with the view that in registering what is in effect an anti-Tory protest vote, the 'poor' (for want of a better word) have been unable to grasp the significance of what they are doing?

Voting for BJ, Gove and Farage and not Cameron, Osborne and Corbyn is 'in effect an anti-Tory protest vote'? Who are you trying to kid?

It's one theory, widely aired over the last few days, on why some people might have voted the way they did.

said:

Some new research by the labour market economists Brian Bell and Stephen Machin, seen by The Independent, suggests the Leave vote tended to be bigger in areas of the country where wage growth has been weakest since 1997. This would seem to support the popular theory that this was essentially a giant protest vote against the political class by people who feel economically “left behind” in modern Britain.

Admittedly I'm becoming more sceptical of it as a theory, but at least it's not playing the racist card

[turbobloke]

minimoog said:

fblm said:

minimoog said:

So you disagree with the view that in registering what is in effect an anti-Tory protest vote, the 'poor' (for want of a better word) have been unable to grasp the significance of what they are doing?

Voting for BJ, Gove and Farage and not Cameron, Osborne and Corbyn is 'in effect an anti-Tory protest vote'? Who are you trying to kid?

It's one theory, widely aired over the last few days, on why some people might have voted the way they did.

And it's wrong, just another piece of dreck from the social media encyclopedia of dreck. See fblm's post for two prominernt Tories that the Leave crowd allegedly voted for in this self-contradictory excuse theory.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 28th June 08:10

[zygalski]

People keep criticising Remain voters for being overly negative in the days since the vote. Let me attempt to redress the balance.
We still have a AA credit rating. 2 our of 3 ain't bad.
The pound was lower in value 32 years ago.
The $3 trillion currently wiped off the value of global shares since the referendum is less than $4 trillion.
We'll soon have £350m per week to spend on the NHS.
erm....
Boris for PM?

[NRS]

zygalski said:

People keep criticising Remain voters for being overly negative in the days since the vote. Let me attempt to redress the balance.
We still have a AA credit rating. 2 our of 3 ain't bad.
The pound was lower in value 32 years ago.
The $3 trillion currently wiped off the value of global shares since the referendum is less than $4 trillion.
We'll soon have £350m per week to spend on the NHS.
erm....
Boris for PM?

The $3 billion hasn't just vanished. It's simply moved from one person/ company to another person /company who has put it somewhere else (invested in gold, cars, stuck it in a savings account, waiting to reinvest it etc).

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

People keep criticising Remain voters for being overly negative in the days since the vote. Let me attempt to redress the balance.
We still have a AA credit rating. 2 our of 3 ain't bad.
The pound was lower in value 32 years ago.
The $3 trillion currently wiped off the value of global shares since the referendum is less than $4 trillion.
We'll soon have £350m per week to spend on the NHS.
erm....
Boris for PM?

You missed the best bit, we're on the road to leaving the EU.

[zygalski]

NRS said:

zygalski said:

People keep criticising Remain voters for being overly negative in the days since the vote. Let me attempt to redress the balance.
We still have a AA credit rating. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
The pound was lower in value 32 years ago.
The $3 trillion currently wiped off the value of global shares since the referendum is less than $4 trillion.
We'll soon have £350m per week to spend on the NHS.
erm....
Boris for PM?

The $3 billion hasn't just vanished. It's simply moved from one person/ company to another person /company who has put it somewhere else (invested in gold, cars, stuck it in a savings account, waiting to reinvest it etc).

More great news.
Keep it coming!