Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

cogito

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I believe one day the whole world will be united.

BUT that is hundreds of years away.

You cannot force these things, and that is precisely what the eu are trying to do. We are not ready for a USofE, I don't think Eastern Europe is either, we are not ready for anyone being able to live anywhere, for Europe to become one big country with no identifiable differences between what would then be regions. We are certainly not ready for it to be run by corrupt officials that can't even get the books right, and send money to countries like Italy where it then goes to the !!!!! rather than companies that are run properly.

Seriously, you could not get more ridiculous than wanting to let someone that has been prosecuted for negligence but reckoned she had done nothing wrong! She was convicted of the misuse of public funds fgs, and they think the ecb would be safe in her hands? When she thinks she did nothing wrong?

The EU'S nominee for its head of foreign affairs, Josep Burrell is also a convicted fraudster so Lagarde will be in good company if he is appointed.

Berlaymont is full of drunks and criminals. Isn’t the EU wonderful?

westernpromise

phillw wrote: »

I haven't lied about anything. Have you not seen Star Trek? That is where we are heading. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a federation.

Remaining was a status quo, we would be in the same position slowly moving towards the future. We were protected from anything extreme because 28 countries have to agree (although prejudiced people struggle to understand this). Brexit was a knee jerk reaction to some small scale/short term issues that people felt entitled about.

So in this and the previous posts we have, neatly, the essence of the big Remain lie. We have you saying Remain means the status quo means in fact change means federation; above you we have Herzlos saying Remain means no further integration.

The two positions are mutually contradictory. At least one is a lie.

I suggest to you that people who voted Remain did not understand what they voted for, probably because they are stupid, and that had Remain won, we would need more referendums continually re-asking the same question. Does that refrain sound familiar at all?

Regardless of the result, we would now have the losing side arguing that the winners won because they were stupid and didn't understand what they voted for, so the vote needs to be undermined and overturned. In respect of Remain at least the posts above wholly support this.

westernpromise

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Seriously, you could not get more ridiculous than wanting to let someone that has been prosecuted for negligence but reckoned she had done nothing wrong! She was convicted of the misuse of public funds fgs, and they think the ecb would be safe in her hands? When she thinks she did nothing wrong?

She does appear to be an unrepentant criminal in denial. A normal individual, not of the EU nomenklatura, would certainly have been jailed, and would have been refused parole if they continued to deny guilt and failed to show remorse in the way she has.

mayonnaise

We have a history of opting out of bits we don't like.
We opted out Schengen, we opted out of the Economic and Monetary Union, we opted out of the Social Chapter, we opted out of the Euro.

To state that a vote to Remain would be a vote to give up any current or future opt-outs is utter baloney, more project fear and disinformation by desperate Europhobes.

mayonnaise

cogito wrote: »

Josep Burrell is also a convicted fraudster

And here we go again.
More fake news by cogito.

westernpromise

mayonnaise wrote: »

We have a history of opting out of bits we don't like.
We opted out Schengen, we opted out of the Economic and Monetary Union, we opted out of the Social Chapter, we opted out of the Euro.

To state that a vote to Remain would be a vote to give up any current or future opt-outs is utter baloney, more project fear and disinformation by desperate Europhobes.

So when phillw said all that, by saying that Remain meant integration, that was "more project fear and disinformation by desperate Europhobes", was it?

You need to get the story straight. Does Remain mean certain further integration or doesn't it? And if it doesn't, why are Remainers saying that it does?

Rinoa

mayonnaise wrote: »

And here we go again.
More fake news by cogito.

He was fined 30,000 euros for insider dealing.

Nothing sufficiently serious to prevent him holding high office in the EU.

mayonnaise

What exactly is that further integration we would be sucked into?
Who would force us to adopt anything we don't want to sign up to?
What if we just opt out of any further integration we don't agree with - like we did for the past 45 years?

westernpromise

mayonnaise wrote: »

What exactly is that further integration we would be sucked into?
Who would force us to adopt anything we don't want to sign up to?
What if we just opt out of any further integration we don't agree with - like we did for the past 45 years?

You need to straighten all that out with phillw, who is gung ho for the superstate.

When you have agreed among yourselves one single version of what Remain actually means, reconcilable to every account previously given, and guaranteed never to change in perpetuity, maybe you could get back to the rest of us.

Meanwhile it is plain that Remainers don't know or agree on what Remain means any more than Leavers agree on what Leave means. Hence there is no case for Remaining. Sound familiar? It should.

SouthLondonUser

However unpleasant to Brexiters, the fact remains (forgive the pun…) that leave has always meant different, incompatible things to different people, with an entire spectrum ranging from the hardest no-deal Brexit to the softest Brexit-in-name-only. By contrast, remain has always meant one thing only: the status quo.

I am not responsible for what other remainers say and do. If other remainers say they are certain about closer future integration, I disagree with them – I don’t think it’s that certain at all. Oh, but Remainers are as divided, I hear you say. No, not at all. Remainers may have different views on future integration, but this doesn’t change the simple fact above. As far as I am aware and as far as I have seen (please prove me wrong), it is evident that the Leave campaign has always been split on the meaning of Leaving. Am I the only one who remembers prominent Brexiters, who once talked about how easy it would be to get an excellent deal, now talking about no deal? Have you seen a comparable level of division among Remainers? Have you seen, I don’t know, Gordon Brown or the SNP or the Lib Dems etc etc doing a comparable u-turn on the meaning of remain and future integration, or being divided among themselves in an even remotely comparable fashion? I haven’t. I may of course have missed something – so happy to be proven wrong (with facts, not fake news, though).

The fact that the EU may change over the next decades does not negate that; who can predict with reasonable certainty what will happen anywhere over the next decades? We may each have our views, but we cannot pretend they are certainties! Talking about “guaranteed never to change in perpetuity”, like @westernpromise does, makes no sense whatsoever at all because no one can predict what will happen over the next decades, and anyone who says otherwise deserves to be laughed out of the room.

The key thing is that, IMHO, there is no reliable basis to think that the EU will materially and surely change in a given direction in the short term. In the long term… who knows?
A few words taken out of context, said by one or two leaders (who may well be replaced by someone with a completely different view in a couple of years) and not shared by a sizeable majority of the others, do not change this very simple fact.

For example, the European Council in June 2014 said the following:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/143478.pdf#page=12
The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed. In this context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.

Another example: if the push for the much-feared integration were so strong and so certain, how come as many as 8 countries (+UK) are in the EU but have not adopted the euro? One might argue that Croatia is small, largely irrelevant and not ready, but certainly not Denmark, Sweden or Poland. [Yes, I know that Denmark de facto pegs its currency to the euro, but that’s not the same as adopting the euro, and is a decision that can change]

The fact that leave has always meant different things is one of the many reasons why the referendum made no sense: because the choice has never been binary! If 48% want to stay home, 26% want to go to the pub and 26% want to go to the park, the real majority is for staying home. Yes, 52% want “somewhere other than home” but that is split between two incompatible options!