And? You realize that the present is not the future? You're currently working hard to lose your status.Originally Posted by RandBlade
A lot of your status is due to your membership in the EU. Assuming anything else is deluded.
And? You realize that the present is not the future? You're currently working hard to lose your status.
A lot of your status is due to your membership in the EU. Assuming anything else is deluded.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I don't, but your PM calls it a victory for independence and sovereignty. I just like to make fun of that
And it's a nice example of this British tendency to make up EU laws to complain about them.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
What a moronic poll. I'd say no to every single one of those, except for passports for which I don't really care very much but would lean towards changing. If I was forced to choose one I'd say passports because the others are stupid.
If vacuum cleaners with high suction was an option I'd go for that.
No our status preceded membership of the EU.
In fact apart from Tokyo its worth noting that 4 of the big 5 financial centres are British or ex-British, there's a reason for that. Cities like Hong Kong and Singapore aren't up there due to membership of some large multinational organisation.
That's the highest priority action once we've leaved the EU?
No but it's the sort of thing that fits that inane list.
Right. Another delusion you keep telling yourself. Moron.
Read a history book or two, will you? You idiots still don't get that being a financial center is something you have to work at to keep. By CREATING ties.
You're currently sundering ALL ties.
And then you'll desperately try to knot those ties again. You bloody idiots don't want to see that you're shooting yourselves in both feet.
You'll see. And then you'll whine. And then you'll blame US because you still won't be able to admit that you were bloody morons.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It's not a delusion its history.
Maybe you should. Tell me when pre-EU was the last time we weren't a financial centre?Read a history book or two, will you?
Which is what we want.You idiots still don't get that being a financial center is something you have to work at to keep. By CREATING ties.
No we're not. We're leaving ONE political union that you have made abundantly clear can't be anything other than a political union while keeping and making plenty of ties. What alternative do you propose, stay in a political union we don't want for all time?You're currently sundering ALL ties.
Without the political bollocks yes. Why are you so desperate to have us in an unwanted political union?And then you'll desperately try to knot those ties again.
Because we're not.You bloody idiots don't want to see that you're shooting yourselves in both feet.
Dude, you keep ignoring why you guys joined the EU in the first place.
And I'm not desperate you keep you in. You can go down in flames for all I care. I'm just annoyed with your moronic revisionism and pie-in-the-sky optimism which has absolutely no base in reality.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
We joined the EU in the first place as it was a developing trade area and under our post war socialist experiment we were struggling. We ended up calling in the IMF after we joined, had the winter of discontent after we joined and eventually after rolling back the frontiers of the British state we started to recover. We didn't join the EU and later roll back the British state to have a new state imposed in Brussels.
We didn't join for the Eurozone, for Schengen, for the social chapter, for Lisbon's QMV voting that means the Eurozone can change our laws unilaterally via QMV. None of that is why we joined but is part of why we're leaving.
You joined the EEC which had the expressed intention to curb the sovereignty of its members through supra-national trade arrangements. You did NOT join a developing trade area.
Congratulations America
Wasn't the EEC created because the people of countries like France rejected the EPC and EDC because they felt those proposed communities infringed on their soveignty, prompting a less intrusive and less supranational focus on economic integration, i.e. a developing trade area, since increasing trade ties was considered a close second in liberal institutionalism as a means for preventing conflict and war?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don’t think you could say that. Given the choices made in the ECCS you could say though that trade turned out to be the field where progress was made easier as its benefits were obvious and the price in sovereignty wasn’t. Progress on political union and defense has been slow and piecemeal and very often went very little past the symbolic. It wasn’t untill the introduction of the euro that (part of) the EU gave up control to federal-ish constructs. The euro wasn’t part of the market strategy even though it was presented as such. It was a coldly calculated step to tie down Germany before it could become too powerfull again WITH the option of going it alone. Some of Germany’s political class knew that and willingly chose to go ahead. What nobody could have imagined was that it would actually force the German into the role of European hegemon. That i think has got to do everything with British absenteism.
I have always considered the British choice to stay outside of the euro as an abandonement of duty. It wasn’t Cameron who caused Brexit. Brexit comes fully on the head of Brown, because he removed Britain from the place where decisions about the future of the EU were made.
Congratulations America
So it wasn't until a construction we didnt join, decades after we joined the economic community that the economic community began to become federal? So the community we are leaving now is surely different to that which we joined originally then.
I think I already told you that you numbnuts didn't read the contract you signed.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Or we had a different interpretation of it.
Only if you were absolute morons. Then again, that actually does explain it.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Has the UK had a real referendum on the totality of EU membership? I recall each time there was something like a referendum, the EU has lost.
The EU is a world-historical example of administrative mission creep.
We've had two referendums in our history on Europe. The first was in 1975 on the European Economic Community (EEC) which was by a landslide victorious for Remaining in the EEC (we'd joined in 1973).
The EEC changed contentiously into the European Union following the Maastricht Treaty in the early 90s which is what permitted the creation of the Euro currency and started the major divisions on the right in the UK. We were repeatedly promised but then denied votes on various issues because it was known each time that the pro-European side would lose any further vote on further integration. Firstly to join the Euro (which opinion polls repeatedly showed to be unpopular) which was kicked into the very long grass by Gordon Brown. Then with the utterly disgraceful Lisbon Treaty which was irreversibly ratified without a vote despite all parties promising not to do so at the prior election. This led ultimately to the Brexit referendum and the rest is history.
I just noticed: Rand is deadset against a second referendum because decisions should not be second-guessed and such (when it's not even a legally binding vote)
But he's absolutely positive that the agreement (and legally binding, to boot!) on the first phase is absolutely allowed to be revoked if it isn't to his liking.
Once again a nice sign of his "Have his cake and eat it, too!" mentality.
Yes, Rand. I see you got your tinfoil hat at the ready.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
The Government has no idea what it’s doing which is why they consulted the electorate who don’t know what they’re talking about, the result being that the will of those who don’t know what they’re talking about must be respected by those who don’t know what they’re doing.
The leader of the Opposition apparently knows what he’s doing which includes not opposing those who don’t know what they’re doing. A non-legally binding statement of intent that is legally binding but is not agreed until everything is agreed has just been agreed.
The Government is therefore satisfied that it’s well on the way to securing the best possible deal which could be no deal as that would be better than a bad deal although any such deal will be worse than the current deal and will probably cost about £50bn.
However, this will allow the Government to then secure its own deals in order to replicate most of the existing deals that we derive from the current deal as well as securing better deals from a worse position.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Where did I say I'm dead set against a second referendum?
In case there's any hesitation of a doubt I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with a second referendum. In fact since before the first [actually the second] in 2016 I fully expected that this would be ultimately resolved with a second. So where you pulled the notion that I'm "deadset" against it I have no idea, I'm assuming you pulled that from your own arsehole as it wasn't from anything I wrote.
[In response to Khen's quote-only post since nothing else appears when I click the quote button - oh and I'm pissed as a newt in case this hasn't quoted correctly].
I take issue with your "probably cost about £50bn". Brexiting does not cost £50bn, being a member until now has cost that and £50bn is the bill we've accrued until now. Brexiting doesn't increase that bill it just makes us realise just how much has been accrued already as a cost of membership to date. What you're doing is the equivalent of me saying to a customer "don't settle up your tab as if you do you owe this much" and then encouraging them to buy more Jagerbombs on their pre-existing tab instead.
Because you get absolutely nothing in return
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
We've already had what this money is for.
https://amp.ft.com/content/7306b972-...7-5465a6ce1a00
Welcome to reality. Again.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's really amazing how the most fervent Breximaniacs have the least understanding for the fact that leaving the EU actually means that you're going to become an ex-member of the EU. Brexit is Brexit, no deal bravado and yet, the moment you confront them with the effects of their own choices they start trying to pull back their turd.
Congratulations America
If the report is genuine I really don't get what on Earth Davis is thinking there. It makes no sense whatsoever. Of course the EU is eminently within its rights to prepare for a No Deal scenario and ... seriously WTF!?
All I see in that link is a lot of "hoping." And we all know hope is the denial of reality.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote