If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

No. You asked why we became great, and I gave you an answer in the context of history. It's got sod all to do with brexit, beyond pointing out that they reasons we became great stopped hundreds of years ago.

No I didn't asked why we became great.
what I posted was

CLAPTON wrote:

another person that distains the UK : how did we become one of the richest countries in the world by producing only second rate products?

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

Indeed it is. I doubt we're ever going to see eye to eye on anything that involves reality I'm afraid. I don't know why I even keep replying.

Do you not watch documentaries?


In almost every field of Human endeavour across the globe you invariably find a disproportionate British contingent, everything from Polar climate stations to breeding programs re-establishing Iguanas in far flung Caribbean islands, champions of disabled sports, leading the way in film and music, F1, The Premiership, Wimbledon, Satellite tech, bio-tech, sustainable hippy types found in every corner of the world, training the world Officer class at Sandhurst, setting land speed records, free diving, dive masters at thousands of resorts globally, saving rain forests, huge FA budget, unmateched public charity, poetry, 15% of worlds Nobel prizes, the world attends our scientific debates and conferences, the list is endless.


What other nation produces the likes of Attenborough and Dawkins, Hawkins and Feynman in such abundance?


Why does the world adore our stars, Bowie, Jagger even Simon Cowell !!!!!!


The spirit of Empire is alive and well, we're a bloody adventurous can-do spirited lot.


I'm reading Paxmans Empire right now. The same spirit of adventure has not been lost, not at all. Try watching Ben Fogles programmes showing Brits setting up far away safari operations in places like Namibia, with next to no money and becoming masters of all they survey

Conrad

Here's just one area of British life that gives us great leverage and influence, The Commonwealth and who do we find as the Sec-General..............that's right a Brit of course;




31 December 2016Statement by: Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, The Rt Hon Patricia Scotland QC - See more at: http://thecommonwealth.org/media/news/new-year-message-secretary-general-commonwealth#sthash.RClzVOlX.dpuf

Conrad

From John Redwood MP today;


By johnredwood | Published: January 6, 2017


My time as Single Market Minister turned me into a strong critic of the single market we were meant to be creating. I had accepted the verdict of the 1975 referendum where people voted to stay in a common market, and did my best to help bring it about. The more involved I became, the more I realised the EU model was more bureaucracy and government than market. The Single market programme was used to extend EU power and control over more and more areas of business and life, often without helping business to compete or succeed.

Practically every item we were asked to negotiate caused problems to UK businesses. I was regularly lobbied to put off, amend or water down the proposals by large companies. A good week’s work was successfully lobbying other member states and the Commission to make sure something adverse did not happen. Various proposals were kept in limbo for many years, as lots of member states agreed with us they were not desirable. Other proposals were more difficult to arrest, as a majority of member states would go along with them. The careful construction of a blocking minority took time and effort.

The whole structure was based on the misleading idea that you need a comprehensive set of law codes regulating so many facets of life to be able to trade with each other. As far as I was concerned all I wanted to complete the common market others had voted for was the acceptance that if a product was of merchandisable quality in one country, the home country, it could be offered for sale in the other countries in the Union. Customers would make up their own minds as to its quality, desirability and value for money. Instead the EU wanted to control in minute detail not just the products, but also the workforces, environments, transport systems and much else vaguely related to producing the goods. Soon the Union also wanted a defence policy, a security policy, a foreign policy and all matters that a state undertakes.
When negotiating there was an assumption shared by most that the EU did want an agreement.


The Commission had hundreds of ideas of things it wanted to control and regulate, and it kept pushing them forwards to get them ticked off its list of things to do and powers to assume. It exploited the weakness of member states in the structure. Only the Commission could make and draft a proposal. The Commission could use the rotating Presidencies to push different draft laws, depending on the preferences of each Presidency country. It was one way traffic towards ever more EU power.

The Commission was not interested in repeal or amendment of past laws that did not work well. When pressed for repeals, they usually came up with the idea of creating a large portmanteau Directive in place of lots of more limited ones, so it could both announce various repeals and still end up with more power overall. As the figures show, there was no increase in the UK growth rate in the years after we joined the EEC, and no improvement in the growth rate after they completed the Single market in 1992. Indeed, the longer term UK growth rate fell after 1972 and again after 1992. That was not surprising given the nature of the law making programme they jokingly called a market. Common EU policies like the Fishing and Agriculture policy were damaging to us, and the dear energy policy has made the EU less competitive. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the Euro of course conspired to depress growth for many member states.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

We know these things Conrad.

Herzlos however, as he himself says, refuses to acknowledge such facts point blank in a post above, #14969

I doubt we're ever going to see eye to eye on anything that involves reality I'm afraid.

Living up to his "handle" or username on here which incidentally is German and translates as "cruel", "callous" or "heartless".
Which makes me wonder where the opinions expressed by this poster might come from, since they cannot be described as patriotic British.

Bin ich richtig, Herzlos?

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

a truely awesomely silly statement

but I take comfort that I know you would never live in such a vile country or take advantage of consequences of any aspect of its history.

At least you could be more open about our history! Read up on the activities of the East India company before potificating too much about how the EU exploits Africa!

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

From John Redwood MP today;


By johnredwood | Published: January 6, 2017


My time as Single Market Minister turned me into a strong critic of the single market we were meant to be creating. I had accepted the verdict of the 1975 referendum where people voted to stay in a common market, and did my best to help bring it about. The more involved I became, the more I realised the EU model was more bureaucracy and government than market. The Single market programme was used to extend EU power and control over more and more areas of business and life, often without helping business to compete or succeed.

Practically every item we were asked to negotiate caused problems to UK businesses. I was regularly lobbied to put off, amend or water down the proposals by large companies. A good week’s work was successfully lobbying other member states and the Commission to make sure something adverse did not happen. Various proposals were kept in limbo for many years, as lots of member states agreed with us they were not desirable. Other proposals were more difficult to arrest, as a majority of member states would go along with them. The careful construction of a blocking minority took time and effort.

The whole structure was based on the misleading idea that you need a comprehensive set of law codes regulating so many facets of life to be able to trade with each other. As far as I was concerned all I wanted to complete the common market others had voted for was the acceptance that if a product was of merchandisable quality in one country, the home country, it could be offered for sale in the other countries in the Union. Customers would make up their own minds as to its quality, desirability and value for money. Instead the EU wanted to control in minute detail not just the products, but also the workforces, environments, transport systems and much else vaguely related to producing the goods. Soon the Union also wanted a defence policy, a security policy, a foreign policy and all matters that a state undertakes.
When negotiating there was an assumption shared by most that the EU did want an agreement.


The Commission had hundreds of ideas of things it wanted to control and regulate, and it kept pushing them forwards to get them ticked off its list of things to do and powers to assume. It exploited the weakness of member states in the structure. Only the Commission could make and draft a proposal. The Commission could use the rotating Presidencies to push different draft laws, depending on the preferences of each Presidency country. It was one way traffic towards ever more EU power.

The Commission was not interested in repeal or amendment of past laws that did not work well. When pressed for repeals, they usually came up with the idea of creating a large portmanteau Directive in place of lots of more limited ones, so it could both announce various repeals and still end up with more power overall. As the figures show, there was no increase in the UK growth rate in the years after we joined the EEC, and no improvement in the growth rate after they completed the Single market in 1992. Indeed, the longer term UK growth rate fell after 1972 and again after 1992. That was not surprising given the nature of the law making programme they jokingly called a market. Common EU policies like the Fishing and Agriculture policy were damaging to us, and the dear energy policy has made the EU less competitive. The European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the Euro of course conspired to depress growth for many member states.

I saw John Redwood and read no further. The man is a prize loon. He is a zealot!and hardly someone who will give a balanced perspective.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

At least you could be more open about our history! Read up on the activities of the East India company before potificating too much about how the EU exploits Africa!

I hope that you might reflect on your quite disgusting post and then choose to delete it.

PS: I'm NOT referring to the (incorrect) first sentence.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Which makes me wonder where the opinions expressed by this poster might come from, since they cannot be described as patriotic British.

Bin ich richtig, Herzlos?

Am I unpatriotic because I question brexit? We've seen that before too.

Or am I unpatriotic because you believe me to be a foreigner? I do speak German, ja.

mayonnaise

Anyone else getting utterly bored with Clapper's feigned indignation?