Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

Arklight

Sapphire wrote: »

There's also the major question of sovereignty – of being allowed to make our own decisions with regard to our laws and other key issues that affect our country; of electing our own, British politicians who are meant to do the people's will, and being able to change them if they do not; of not being governed remotely by some anonymous, unelected, highly paid foreign business types of another country, unaccountable to anyone; of not having the Euro imposed on our country, and so on. Though this issue has been swept under the carpet as if it does not exist by pro-EU interests, the very real threat of loss of sovereignty was a big motivating factor in the vote to leave of many of the people I know (actually sophisticated and educated metropolitan types), who thought about how they were going to vote long and hard, and weren't influenced by the propaganda campaigns. Many people certainly feel there should be control of immigration, not the free for all that there is now; that is not racist, though it is being portrayed as such by vested interests.

Loss of sovereignty is something that can only be truly appreciated after the loss has occurred (coming from a family whose nation was lost to deep oppression for a very long time, I can easily see that). Regaining it after that is a cruel and hard task.

It could be that an EU organisation can work for a country like Germany, which didn't even exist until the 19th century and up till then was a collection of warring states. But it will not work for sovereign countries with millennia-long traditions and histories, and sooner or later others will want to take the same route as Britain. I also find it incredible that no citizen of this country was ever given a vote on whether they wanted to be a part of some continental European 'state'. As I understood it until quite recently, the EU was created purely for economic purposes, to make the markets work harmoniously. I never dreamt it involved loss of sovereignty.

The actions of the EU itself since our vote (e.g. the 'Britain must be punished' stance, and so on) have only reinforced my view that we have to leave.

I honestly don’t give a tinkers about “millennia of tradition”. I don’t care about what Babyboomers were promised by Ted Health in 1972. I care about the modern world, what is happening now. Why can you people not understand that?

Tromking

Arklight wrote: »

I honestly don’t give a tinkers about “millennia of tradition”. I don’t care about what Babyboomers were promised by Ted Health in 1972. I care about the modern world, what is happening now. Why can you people not understand that?

I understand your standpoint completely, it’s totally legitimate in my view for people to accept the democratic deficit incumbent with EU membership for reasons of pragmatism.
However what you need to understand is that to people like me being able to vote in and then unseat lawmakers is just as legitimate.

Herzlos

Sapphire wrote: »

There's also the major question of sovereignty – of being allowed to make our own decisions with regard to our laws and other key issues that affect our country; of electing our own, British politicians who are meant to do the people's will, and being able to change them if they do not; of not being governed remotely by some anonymous, unelected, highly paid foreign business types of another country, unaccountable to anyone; of not having the Euro imposed on our country, and so on. Though this issue has been swept under the carpet as if it does not exist by pro-EU interests, the very real threat of loss of sovereignty was a big motivating factor in the vote to leave of many of the people I know (actually sophisticated and educated metropolitan types), who thought about how they were going to vote long and hard, and weren't influenced by the propaganda campaigns. Many people certainly feel there should be control of immigration, not the free for all that there is now; that is not racist, though it is being portrayed as such by vested interests.

Loss of sovereignty is something that can only be truly appreciated after the loss has occurred (coming from a family whose nation was lost to deep oppression for a very long time, I can easily see that). Regaining it after that is a cruel and hard task.

It could be that an EU organisation can work for a country like Germany, which didn't even exist until the 19th century and up till then was a collection of warring states. But it will not work for sovereign countries with millennia-long traditions and histories, and sooner or later others will want to take the same route as Britain. I also find it incredible that no citizen of this country was ever given a vote on whether they wanted to be a part of some continental European 'state'. As I understood it until quite recently, the EU was created purely for economic purposes, to make the markets work harmoniously. I never dreamt it involved loss of sovereignty.

The actions of the EU itself since our vote (e.g. the 'Britain must be punished' stance, and so on) have only reinforced my view that we have to leave.

Can you point to an EU role that's unelected where the UK equivalent isn't also unelected?
I'm just curious, as I don't see this unelected beaurocrat thing.
Or the 'Britain must be punished thing'. Is that the quote about Brexit being punishment enough?

Sapphire

Arklight wrote: »

I honestly don’t give a tinkers about “millennia of tradition”. I don’t care about what Babyboomers were promised by Ted Health in 1972. I care about the modern world, what is happening now. Why can you people not understand that?

That's fine for you, but it's hardly any sort of argument, and many people disagree with you. And I and others like me also care about the 'modern world', and what is happening now, which is precisely why we voted as we did. Why can't you understand that?

Why bring 'Babyboomers' and Ted Heath into it? I didn't mention him and I've no idea what he 'promised' in 1972 (perhaps in your frustration you just want to take the opportunity to bash that age group, again). I do, however, seem to remember that Bliar and Brown who replaced him signed certain key agreements with the EU, involving Britain's sovereignty, without first consulting the population.

Sapphire

Herzlos wrote: »

Can you point to an EU role that's unelected where the UK equivalent isn't also unelected?
I'm just curious, as I don't see this unelected beaurocrat thing.
Or the 'Britain must be punished thing'. Is that the quote about Brexit being punishment enough?

Easy answer to your first question: I cannot vote on the election of people like Junker, or Merkel, or the Belgian individual with the crooked teeth. They are alien to me, and I have no control over their election, and cannot vote to remove them from power when they fail.

With regard to your second question, as you probably know, Merkel actually said 'Britain must be punished', as did others, like Junker, at the time we voted leave. No, I am not going to waste time trying to find the instances when they said it to 'prove' my statement, since I have no doubt you are well aware that they said it.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Arklight
I honestly don’t give a tinkers about “millennia of tradition”. I don’t care about what Babyboomers were promised by Ted Health in 1972. I care about the modern world, what is happening now. Why can you people not understand that?

If you are going to totally disregard history. Then your understanding of almost everything is worthless. Our history determines who we are and our relationships with others. Like posting on Facebook. Once written it's never erased. Will comeback to haunt you at the most inopportune moment in the future.

Sapphire

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If you are going to totally disregard history. Then your understanding of almost everything is worthless. Our history determines who we are and our relationships with others. Like posting on Facebook. Once written it's never erased. Will comeback to haunt you at the most inopportune moment in the future.

Just wanted to say that this is so true. Who was it who said: 'Those who forget their past, have no future.'?

cogito

Ballard wrote: »

They are all senior politicians. How much more influencial can anyone be?

Being influential and having the power to exercise it are not the same.

Herzlos

Sapphire wrote: »

Easy answer to your first question: I cannot vote on the election of people like Junker, or Merkel, or the Belgian individual with the crooked teeth. They are alien to me, and I have no control over their election, and cannot vote to remove them from power when they fail.

And I can't vote for May as PM, or any cabinet positions, civil servants, MPsoutside of my constituency or Lords.

The people you mention are elected/appointed by a group from who you elect your representatives. You have the same opportunity to remove Barnier as I do to remove Reese Moggs.

But we've had this discussion before I'm sure.

With regard to your second question, as you probably know, Merkel actually said 'Britain must be punished', as did others, like Junker, at the time we voted leave. No, I am not going to waste time trying to find the instances when they said it to 'prove' my statement, since I have no doubt you are well aware that they said it.

I'll have a quick look.

I've got:

Ms Merkel insisted she did not want to punish Britain. But she made clear the UK should not expect special treatment in a sharp response to recent attacks on the EU from leading British Brexiters, including foreign secretary Boris Johnson. Last week he said Brussels was trying “to bleed this country white”.

The closest to supporting your claim I can find is this article:

https://www.cer.eu/in-the-press/angela-merkel-wants-punish-britain-because-shes-worried-more-countries-will-quit-eu-if
Which is based on an article in the Sun. Neither actually mention anything like Merkel saying we should be punished.
So I'm afraid I've got nothing; I don't think Merkel or Barnier have threatened to punish us for leaving, but are just pointing the obvious consequences of economic suicide.

gfplux

chucknorris wrote: »

I agree, although that doesn't necessarily equate to racism (and I am not implying that you are saying that it is), for example parents could be concerned about school places and/or quality of teaching for their children, unemployed voters might want more opportunity for work (I know that might be a doubled edged sword with some firms relocating etc.). Others might be concerned about the drain on the NHS (again a doubled edged sword). That's just off the top of my head, there are probably a few other examples too. Personally, I agree with freedom of movement, but I accept that others might feel differently about it.

With so little money spent by successive Governments on Teaching, NHS and infrastructure the EU became the scapegoat.
London centric Governments continue to make the same mistakes.
Perhaps there just is not enough money available to be spent on making things better.