If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

michaels wrote: »

'Tanking' by growing between 10 and 18% less than they would otherwise have done - which means what -6% to +2% in 2 years time. It is hardly world war 3

It would be interesting to see how many 'excess deaths' that represents.

The poorer the country the less it can spend on health care so the more people die preventable deaths.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Businesses closing down, people losing their homes and families out of work won't hurt lovey actors and rich politicians as much as it would the average punter, don't you think?

are you referring to the continuing high unemployment in the EU?
whilst the UK has an unemployment rate of about 5% the EU is still suffering from recession levels of 8% with many countries much much higher.
Clearly the bigotted political EU ruling class care little for people losing their homes and jobs.
Thank goodness we have avoided the worst of the EU madness.

However only the rich older people of the UK, welcome poor housing standards and young people being unable to live in a modest family sized property.

All people of goodwill would prefer there was a better match between supply and demand so that ordinary young people could enjoy the same level of housing as their equivalents 20 years ago.
Such a better match of supply and demand would imply a welcome reduction in house prices which would be to the good of the majority.

Only the economically ignorant equate decent housing standards with 'recession' and unemployment rather than sensible control of immigration numbers are more house building.

I trust you have recovered from your fantasy about being a citizen of the world and believing in unlimited free movement of people and have now settled back to your more familiar white christian comfort zone.

Rinoa

mayonnaise wrote: »

Funny, but irrelevant.
There were several candidates for the EU Commission Presidency.
Here they are : http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/presidential-candidates/#.V0A1yb62F5A
As I said, the democratically elected leaders of each EU member chose Junkers 26-2, which was then endorsed by a democratic vote in the democratically elected European Parliament.

There certainly were several candidates, none of which were allowed to be chosen by the elected members of the EU parliament.

And the elected EU leaders chose a president up to his eyes in dodgy corporation tax deals which are still under investigation. But that's the EU for you.

Sapphire

mayonnaise wrote: »

Unelected character? Juncker was elected by a democratically elected European Parliament.

Glad to help.

He wasn't elected by me, or by anyone else I know, hence he was not 'democratically elected'. The man is a drunken disaster.

Neither was the European Parliament 'democratically elected', for that matter. None of the reasons for its existence were even ever put to me, and I was certainly never given an opportunity to vote for it or any of its policies. As far as I'm concerned, the eradication of democracy and of the sovereignty of ancient nations has occurred by stealth. It won't end well.

Glad to help. :T

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how many 'excess deaths' that represents.

The poorer the country the less it can spend on health care so the more people die preventable deaths.

I guess you agonise over the level of 'excess' deaths in those EU countries whose population is declining due to the mad EU economic policies that mean million have emigrate.

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

He wasn't elected by me, or by anyone else I know, hence he was not 'democratically elected'. The man is a drunken disaster.

Neither was the European Parliament 'democratically elected', for that matter. None of the reasons for its existence were even ever put to me, and I was certainly never given an opportunity to vote for it or any of its policies. As far as I'm concerned, the eradication of democracy and of the sovereignty of ancient nations has occurred by stealth. It won't end well.

Glad to help. :T

Were the reasons for the English Parliament (now British) put to you?

How were the eradication of Mercia and Wessex voted on?

These arguments are a bit silly.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Were the reasons for the English Parliament (now British) put to you?

How were the eradication of Mercia and Wessex voted on?

These arguments are a bit silly.

interesting that Aus hasn't adopted the super state EU 'democratic' model for managing its affairs; or indeed any other super group except by way of conquest.

Wessex and Mercia did use the EU model : out of one option they chose that

danothy

Rinoa wrote: »

More accurately, the democratically elected European Parliament endorsed the only candidate available to them.

They could have rejected him, and forced another nomination. Reminds me of something from the time of the vote, when UKIP were tweeting mock ballots implying they had to endorse the guy, but also tweeting pictures of their ballots in which they showed they weren't:

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

interesting that Aus hasn't adopted the super state EU 'democratic' model for managing its affairs; or indeed any other super group except by way of conquest.

Wessex and Mercia did use the EU model : out of one option they chose that

Why are you so obsessed by Australia?

Australia isn't in the EU and is never likely to be because geography.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Why are you so obsessed by Australia?

Australia isn't in the EU and is never likely to be because geography.

I could indeed have taken any country as an example of excess deaths due their not being part a super state:
I could have used N Korea as an example but I know you have a particular and unique interest in Aus.
So I thought we could share views on how many Aus lives could be saved if you joined a super state. (and who knows spared a WW too.

All seems reasonable and straightforward to me.