ChatterBank1 min ago
Bozo And Nige
Boris has rejected a pact with Nigel, so we all know what's going to happen next.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You can call it "political" or whatever you like, Jim. My view is certainly not a "quasi-religious obsession." My idea of leaving is changing the governance of the UK to that enjoyed by normal countries: that is, not being bound by the political decisions of a foreign bureaucracy, not submitting to the rulings of its court, controlling how its own tax revenues are raised and spent, controlling with whom and on what conditions it trades with other nations and having political control of its legislation. There's nothing quasi-religious or extreme about any of this. These are the things that we were told (by both sides) would be the result of leaving.
At present, as a member of the EU, the UK is part of the "foreign bureaucracy", is one of the equal member nations whose court it is, one of the equal member nations in a system of taxation and spending, it is also one of equal member nations of a customs and trade regime. This is what co-operation is about and three years ago a slim majority of those who voted on the question are said not to want co-operation at EU level (if at all). The same people are said to want to completely end any and all forms of involvement in all aspects of EU systems and activities and policies. The oft stated results of that move amount to visions of pie in the sky benefits, entirely uncertain and quite possibly catastrophic at least in the short term and possibly the long term too - all of it unknown and little understood by any/everybody. Among some, the drive forward toward a full and total "end to being in the EU" at all costs routinely has an evangelical/messianic tone to it. Little wonder that religion springs to mind. The desire for arrival in Paradise via an explosive vest is perhaps not all that that different.
//...one of the equal member nations in a system of taxation and spending,///
Equal? EQUAL? How much does the UK (i.e. UK taxpayers) contribute to the EU budget? How much do Bulgarian taxpayers contribute to the EU budget?
You are having a laugh, Karl, aren't you?
Yes many people did vote for an end to political involvement with the EU. Not the end to any involvement at all. Normal nations manage perfectly well to trade and interact with each other to their mutual benefit without the need for political control. It is the political interference and control of the UK's legislation, finance, borders and trade policies which is the price that has to be paid for "frictionless" trade with the EU. Normal nations do not acquiesce to such control in order to trade with others. People who voted to leave believed the price was simply too high. There's nothing "religious" about it at all.
Equal? EQUAL? How much does the UK (i.e. UK taxpayers) contribute to the EU budget? How much do Bulgarian taxpayers contribute to the EU budget?
You are having a laugh, Karl, aren't you?
Yes many people did vote for an end to political involvement with the EU. Not the end to any involvement at all. Normal nations manage perfectly well to trade and interact with each other to their mutual benefit without the need for political control. It is the political interference and control of the UK's legislation, finance, borders and trade policies which is the price that has to be paid for "frictionless" trade with the EU. Normal nations do not acquiesce to such control in order to trade with others. People who voted to leave believed the price was simply too high. There's nothing "religious" about it at all.
Steady on Karl; // and three years ago a slim majority of those who voted on the question are said not to want co-operation at EU level (if at all).//
I don't know your age, but some of us well remember life before the EU & there was plenty of co-operation on all levels & there still will be after Brexit. Why shouldn't there be, Britain isn't going anywhere.
I don't know your age, but some of us well remember life before the EU & there was plenty of co-operation on all levels & there still will be after Brexit. Why shouldn't there be, Britain isn't going anywhere.
I am old enough to remember the triumphal newspaper articles (yes, Mail, Express, NotW, Sun, etc., when the UK's application to join the Common Market was finally accepted - the UK would now steer that rabble toward utopia, courtesy of its much heralded wisdom and expertise, oh not to mention common sense (and of course the UK holds the patent on it).
I remember the UK being the sick man of Europe and slowly crawling out of the mire largely through its new membership.
I also remember the series through the years of fits and tantrums insisting on the UK being more equal that the rest, and always getting something out of it (yes, those foreigners are simpletons and pushovers).
Yes, the Common Market developed into the EU but the UK was as involved in that development, some might argue more involved, than the rest. It was not a dictate from any one member but agreed/accepted and ratified by them all. If the UK now wants to leave then fine (some are quietly/secretly saying good riddance to a pain).
The operative expression is "at EU level". Of course there has been co-operation between countries as far back as records go, but Brexit was/is (so it is argued by some/many/all) to end the UK's involvement with the EU and co-operation at EU level. The UK (all sides) of course hopes to achieve co-operation with the EU eventually but at the moment the way some people foam at the mouth one wonders if they can countenance any form of co-operation with "the enemy" with whom negotiations must be held.
Those of us who see religion as a similarity are looking at things from one perspective, those who see a bright dawn ahead from a flashing EXIT sign are looking at them from another.
Now, you make sure it is properly strapped on, this button here is what sends you on your way...... Send us a postcard.
I remember the UK being the sick man of Europe and slowly crawling out of the mire largely through its new membership.
I also remember the series through the years of fits and tantrums insisting on the UK being more equal that the rest, and always getting something out of it (yes, those foreigners are simpletons and pushovers).
Yes, the Common Market developed into the EU but the UK was as involved in that development, some might argue more involved, than the rest. It was not a dictate from any one member but agreed/accepted and ratified by them all. If the UK now wants to leave then fine (some are quietly/secretly saying good riddance to a pain).
The operative expression is "at EU level". Of course there has been co-operation between countries as far back as records go, but Brexit was/is (so it is argued by some/many/all) to end the UK's involvement with the EU and co-operation at EU level. The UK (all sides) of course hopes to achieve co-operation with the EU eventually but at the moment the way some people foam at the mouth one wonders if they can countenance any form of co-operation with "the enemy" with whom negotiations must be held.
Those of us who see religion as a similarity are looking at things from one perspective, those who see a bright dawn ahead from a flashing EXIT sign are looking at them from another.
Now, you make sure it is properly strapped on, this button here is what sends you on your way...... Send us a postcard.
Sorry, should have addressed NJ's comparison.
EU member countries are equal on much the same terms as are citizens/inhabitants of the UK. Those better able to pay for the development and running of the whole pay more than those who cannot - it's the welfare state concept (or communism as some refer to socialist policies, especially in the USA). Each has the same power/influence on matters/policy through representation (MEP's votes matter as much as those in UK elections).
Now, there is a consideration which I have heard mentioned and I find it makes a good bit of sense. The UK struts about as a rich, powerful and developed country, well above the rest. This may be a huge mistake, given how poorly it compares whenever any socio-economic comparisons are made (think of all the lists). Instead, perhaps the UK should have been more realistic and presented itself as a rather backward member of the EU in special need (like those other members who are beneficiaries of generous help).
EU member countries are equal on much the same terms as are citizens/inhabitants of the UK. Those better able to pay for the development and running of the whole pay more than those who cannot - it's the welfare state concept (or communism as some refer to socialist policies, especially in the USA). Each has the same power/influence on matters/policy through representation (MEP's votes matter as much as those in UK elections).
Now, there is a consideration which I have heard mentioned and I find it makes a good bit of sense. The UK struts about as a rich, powerful and developed country, well above the rest. This may be a huge mistake, given how poorly it compares whenever any socio-economic comparisons are made (think of all the lists). Instead, perhaps the UK should have been more realistic and presented itself as a rather backward member of the EU in special need (like those other members who are beneficiaries of generous help).
Jim360
//This isn't on its own a reason to stop Brexit altogether. Presumably at the heart of this disagreement on AB, there is still consensus among Leave supporters here that we should still leave *somehow*. But as long as there is disagreement as to *how*, there is at least some sense in pausing and working out amongst ourselves what the answer to that question is.//
Lol, there it is, folks. I knew we'd get to it eventually. Ho ho ho.
//This isn't on its own a reason to stop Brexit altogether. Presumably at the heart of this disagreement on AB, there is still consensus among Leave supporters here that we should still leave *somehow*. But as long as there is disagreement as to *how*, there is at least some sense in pausing and working out amongst ourselves what the answer to that question is.//
Lol, there it is, folks. I knew we'd get to it eventually. Ho ho ho.
"Loathe and detest this country" (traitor allegation) ? Not at all - but I am deeply disappointed by certain things (delusion for one) and maybe I come close to loathing and and detesting posturing/huffing/puffing, misrepresentation/misleading, mendacity, bragging, blind-spotting, etc. and I dearly wish people would limit themselves to and respect reliable facts and give due weight to uncertainty. While hope and aspiration, including the ideological ones, are fine as far as they go, sticking to expecting/listening only to what one wants to hear and objecting to (loathing and detesting ?) anything else (including even established facts) not least those expressing them is unimpressive and unwise.
//...it's the welfare state concept (or communism as some refer to socialist policies, especially in the USA).//
Yes that's all very well, Karl - provided you consider the EU to be a single nation state (which, of course, it isn't). Otherwise why should taxpayers in the UK provide "welfare" for people in, say, Romania or Bulgaria? This is especially so when may people who pay tax are so poverty stricken that they are in receipt of benefits themselves.
Yes that's all very well, Karl - provided you consider the EU to be a single nation state (which, of course, it isn't). Otherwise why should taxpayers in the UK provide "welfare" for people in, say, Romania or Bulgaria? This is especially so when may people who pay tax are so poverty stricken that they are in receipt of benefits themselves.
As I said, it's all about taking part in a cooperative venture or not. Those in need in any/all member countries benefit from the EU, not just those who want (and, according to the influence of their own nature want to deny/withhold from others). Those benefits are often less obvious than those received by individuals from any local system but those systems are /"behind the scenes) more likely to be the direct beneficiaries and that is very relevant to all discussions on these things. But that is precisely what some seek to keep out of the way of "the campaign".
// Those in need in any/all member countries benefit from the EU, not just those who want (and, according to the influence of their own nature want to deny/withhold from others). Those benefits are often less obvious than those received by individuals from any local system but those systems are /"behind the scenes) more likely to be the direct beneficiaries //
I may be a bit thick but I can't make head nor tail of that!
I may be a bit thick but I can't make head nor tail of that!
In the 70s the triumphalism was more about joining a nearby Common Market, and any talk of federalism was mocked as lies (fake news in today's parlance). Inadequate Europhile politicians since then have signed off further documentation allowing us to be further controlled by the external EU, but none of that was with the consent of the people. Both our entry and the rush to put us further in the mire has been down to deceit, and politicians deciding they're the important ones who make decisions without taking account of the views of the plebs who voted them in. The people had no involvement, the process was dictated by the Commission, the rest just signed obediently on the dotted line.
"there is at least some sense in pausing and working out amongst ourselves what the answer to that question is"
Had enough pauses created by those hoping to string things out until it's possible to revoke, thank you very much. We have an agreement that is far from ideal but might be made better by negotiations after we've left, and we have the option of resetting everything and leaving with a clean sheet to negotiate trade etc. from. (I'm sure EU discussions wouldn't be right at the back of the list.) So all Westminster needs to do, after the general election, is take an afternoon to decide which they've been favouring since the agreement was made known, and vote/act accordingly.
Had enough pauses created by those hoping to string things out until it's possible to revoke, thank you very much. We have an agreement that is far from ideal but might be made better by negotiations after we've left, and we have the option of resetting everything and leaving with a clean sheet to negotiate trade etc. from. (I'm sure EU discussions wouldn't be right at the back of the list.) So all Westminster needs to do, after the general election, is take an afternoon to decide which they've been favouring since the agreement was made known, and vote/act accordingly.
How strange, what I typed and proof read seems to have become jumbled up. ....Those benefits are often less obvious than those received by individuals from any local system but those systems are /"behind the scenes) more likely to be the direct beneficiaries and that is very relevant to all discussions.... should read:
Those benefits are often less obvious than those received by individuals from any local system, but those systems are ("behind the scenes") more likely to be the direct beneficiaries and that is very relevant to all discussions......
Those benefits are often less obvious than those received by individuals from any local system, but those systems are ("behind the scenes") more likely to be the direct beneficiaries and that is very relevant to all discussions......
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Society & Culture31 mins ago
Other Sports34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.