Re: Brexit, The Lies.

Well I wouldn't have voted remain if I wanted us to leave.

The EU isn't a foreign power, it's an economic, socio-political block we belong to. We are one of the big three but we have always behaved like we don't want anything to do with them when we should have been in the driving seat influencing their direction. To liken it to the Fourth Reich is simply twaddle. Shows you don't understand our position in the EU at all. Many people have a totally distorted view of what the EU means and what Brexit means. No two views are alike.

What will go down in history is the socio-economic revolution that was triggered by Brexit. It will be up there with black Monday, the Great depression and Enron.

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

The trouble is that the EU is not only a trading block. It is a political organisation now which takes it upon itself to create laws to which all of its member countries are subject.

When it was a trading block - the EEC - I would be the first to suggest that we stay a member.

Unfortunately, it is not in our interests to remain now especially since the organisation is becoming increasing controlling.

Evidence?

Well, the plans to divide each country into EU regions should ring alarm bells, and the concept of an EU Army controlled, presumably, by Brussels (or Berlin perhaps). The European Commission, which creates the laws handed down to us, is not an elected body at least by us and other ordinary citizens of EU countries.

Above all we have the EU negotiators demanding money from us before we leave and before they will discuss anything else pertaining to Brexit and, what's more, without providing any explanation of how the figure is arrived at.

I can see where the EU is heading. Can't you? And you think we should remain a member?

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

Yeah but what has that to do with the EU? Seriously this is just capitalism and are we planning to leave capitalism behind when we Brexit?

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

That's right but I don't think most of the members want it to be moving towards closer unification. They want a trading block with some closer ties but not anything that totally removes sovereignty. We were in a position to fight to change the strategy but acted like our view didn't count. I am for a trading block, shared standards, security, buying power etc. All the stuff that makes sense for business and ease of transactions. but not for any loss of individual culture, language, autonomy of law and always for special exemptions. The euro was a sticking point because it makes so much sense to have a single currency but it's such a bad idea where there is any economic disparity. But we didn't join the euro.

We didn't do so many things we don't agree with so I fail to understand the problem. We would not have been in the closer union. We were outside schengen, outside the euro etc. A neighbour said that this was nothing to do with europe but about people sticking two fingers up at the government. This is what annoys me most. That's no good for the country. To leave a successful (ish) trading block because we don't like the way our own government is working. Bizarre.

I am glad that we can agree on something. I also agree to a trading block, I did not agree to euro expansion (neither did the government), but we as a country did not really integrate further. So... why would we leave? - immigration? it's within our control - we chose not to control it.



Again I am against taking away nation status. Nobody has appetite for this. But once again I think we can only influence it by staying in and using our clout. We had all the cards in our hand and chose not to play them by taking a bigger part of ownership of management. In terms of the army it is no different than NATO. I'm not sure I understand the opposition. Merkel is no nazi. She was born into a communist state, her grandfather was Polish. She wasn't a good communist. She's a scientist at heart. We are better off with her than with the alternatives.

Swim has already explained what this is made up of. There are certain obligations when you leave such an entrenched union. It may be excessive, but they are losing out a fair bit with our choices.
I think we should remain to influence where it's heading and to take advantage of a trading block. I think purely from the point of view of transaction costs, ease of process, certainty of terms of trade, shared systems, standards, etc. We can influence change but we are too lazy, this is the problem. We will find it difficult to be the opposite of lazy. We should have been a mover and shaker not billy no mates. It's said that Britain innovates and other nations profit. I see this as our major weakness. The inability to see our own value and use it to our advantage.

How will Brexit change that?

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

I agree JB and there are too many people who have gained power and wealth from the EU to ever allow it to become just a trading block again.
So much money wasted, we only have to look at the farce of part of the EU parliament being based in Strasbourg and part in Brussels and the cost involved with staff shuffling between the two.
Why hasn't it been brought to an end , I would say it is for political reasons with no country wanting to give ground on their position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ng-circus.html

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

Hi

The lies are not all one sided.

The Guardian has published an article saying food bills could rise by £930 a year after Brexit.

That is a joke.

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

I apologise for not responding in full, but you have so many misconceptions in there that I'm afraid I don't have the time (or inclination) to point them all out right now.

I shall, therefore, just explain about this one particular misunderstanding.

NATO is an alliance or treaty between several independent nations. It is not governed by any one of them, although the US is by far the most powerful of the members and so carries the greatest weight.

The proposed EU Army would consist of armed services of all EU members and would be controlled by Brussels. Just as we are subject to the laws passed by the unelected European Commission, our own armed services would be under the control of the EU mandarins.

To have all European armed forces under the control of this one political organisation is a dangerous step. To me (and many others) having an unelected body in charge of all armed forces would result in their effectively complete control of all European countries.

I'm sure you don't see the dangers, though.

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

I agree.

The Grauniad, the BBC and many other media organisations are against Brexit for their own reasons.

The BBC, for example, is not only full of lefties, but also benefits financially from EU handouts.

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

The EU army doesn't exist as yet and would need to be ratified by all members. Members would not agree to something that they have no control over.

NATO has not been without its own share of controversy. France saw it as a British/US led organisation. It's lost its raison d'etre somewhat and Europe could be left exposed as a result. I can see why they want a pan-EU defence body. How it's structured and led has to be negotiated between members. I am against any top down impositions of this and many member states will fight against it. As a big player we should have been in there helping to fight against it too.

Re: Brexit, The Lies.

That's total rubbish no where in a capitalist ideal do they support companies by paying part of the workers wages from the tax payer.