So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[woolley]

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

Would the European nations be any safer from Russia outside the EU?  No.   

And as I am sure you are well aware the EU is a political and economic union not a military one.  The defence of EU members against any Russian aggression would be in the hands NATO or the individual countries.

I had flash backs of woody2 there woolley! 

Indeed! I said that it would be down to America (NATO). It was PK who invoked the bogeyman of resurgent Russia and suggested that membership of the EU was an insurance policy. (It isn't!)

As for the EU as a military alliance, well, they are working on it:

https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_european_army_a_tale_of_wilful_misunderstanding

You will note that I have linked to an anti-Brexit narrative to demonstrate my characteristic self-effacing fairness and evenhandedness. There is definitely an aspiration for an EU army. Does the UK want to be embroiled in that?

Flashbacks of the lamented Woody The Great, eh? Well, MM1980, I will take that as a compliment coming from you.

Have a great weekend!

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

Do me a favour, PK. What do you think Brussels will do if Russia marches into the Baltic member states? The EU is a paper tiger and Putin knows it. All they would do is squeal for big nasty Uncle Sam to come and rescue them with his army fed on poisonous chlorinated chicken.

The only thing worse than being unsafe is being unsafe while thinking you have protection in numbers.

Do me a favour Woolster and answer this:

21 hours ago, P.K. said:

The thing is folks have to apply, they're not forced to join.

So again what's not to like about strategy?

Thanks.

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

What do you think Brussels will do if Russia marches into the Baltic member states? The EU is a paper tiger and Putin knows it. All they would do is squeal for big nasty Uncle Sam to come and rescue them with his army fed on poisonous chlorinated chicken.

The only thing worse than being unsafe is being unsafe while thinking you have protection in numbers.

We have tripwire troops based in The Baltics to make sure that doesn't happen...

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

Indeed! I said that it would be down to America (NATO). It was PK who invoked the bogeyman of resurgent Russia and suggested that membership of the EU was an insurance policy. (It isn't!)

In any event I did not mean a resurgent Russia in military terms. The annexation of Crimea notwithstanding.

But Trump questioning the basis of NATO is strategically bloody stupid....

Edited December 14, 2018 by P.K.

[Freggyragh]

6 hours ago, woolley said:

That is just the same. Come back with meaningless minor amendments until the voters "get it right", or just ignore the result altogether or put it through as an instrument not requiring a treaty that does the same thing. All the underhanded tricks in the book. Lisbon Treaty was a disgrace. But of course, it is just a benign free trade zone. What's not to love?

Your ‘meaningless amendments’ were, amongst others, a commitment for all members to hold a permanent veto over an EU army - a major plank in your project fear, and exemption for the U.K. and Ireland from participation in Schengen - in other words, border controls. Brought about by democracy. If these are ‘meaningless’, what exactly are your meaningful objections to membership? What are these ‘instruments’ you talk of?  Can you name one? Why was Lisbon a disgrace? Can you tell us which bit you don’t like? 

You leavers, you’re just so NEBULOUS. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Freggyragh

[P.K.]

3 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

Your ‘meaningless amendments’ were, amongst others, a commitment for all members to hold a permanent veto over an EU army - a major plank in your project fear, and exemption for the U.K. and Ireland from participation in Schengen - in other words, border controls. Brought about by democracy. If these are ‘meaningless’, what exactly are your meaningful objections to membership? What are these ‘instruments’ you talk of?  Can you name one? Why was Lisbon a disgrace? Can you tell us which bit you don’t like? 

You leavers, you’re just so NEBULOUS. 

I'm still waiting to hear what terrible insights came out of Maastricht....?

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

If the first phrase is true then the last one cannot be.

I disagree. There is no need to trash a relationship just because it needs modification. 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

It is quite breathtaking that all of the intelligence is on the pro-EU side and all of the stupidity is on the anti-EU side. Does it EVER cross their minds that they might be misguided? I don't think it does.

Nobody mentioned intelligence and stupidity apart from you. 

[wrighty]

I don’t understand how everyone can be so certain that their choice, be it leave or remain, is correct and that the other lot are idiots for not seeing it as they do. After 2 years of hearing the arguments, perpetually, on radio 4 and question time I’m still not sure. What I am sure about is that Brexit has turned out to be more complex than anybody thought. 

I’m most definitely in favour of a second referendum. Now that we all know much more about it. Why not? It can only be ardent leavers against it, worried that the decision will go the other way. If that’s the case we should definitely have one, otherwise we’re in the ridiculous situation where we’re going to leave the EU against the wishes of the majority now. 

I voted leave in 2016, mainly because I didn’t know which way was best and thought it might make life more interesting for a bit. If I could vote again I think I’d remain. For any other decision you make - buying a tele, having an operation, getting a divorce - you get a cooling off period and can change your mind without (much) penalty. Why is it that for such a momentous political decision we can’t?

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

After 2 years of hearing the arguments, perpetually, on radio 4 and question time I’m still not sure.

Anyone who is completely sure is questionable.

Most people who are unsure would normally not opt to change the status quo until they are. That however does not imply that they think the status quo is unquestionable.

My biggest issue with leaving is the risk. Imo the risk is being excessively played down in the hope things will be better. Hope is an emotion that I have trouble with due to a working lifetime's training to work on evidence.

[P.K.]

46 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

Nobody mentioned intelligence and stupidity apart from you. 

You're forgetting that a Brexiteer motivator is to give the intelligensia (subtext - they think you're thick) a "good kicking" or some such "by making your vote count" or whatever.

You see those who have been taken in by that load of old nonsense on here all the time....

 

[Mr. Sausages]

 

[Freggyragh]

Insights?

You won’t get anything. The closest Woolley has ever got to be explaining his position on Brexit is when he said he thought Britain would be able to continue producing lamps for domestic consumption that are obsolete in every other market and a misty eyed belief that Britain could be as comfortably we’ll off after Brexit as it was in 1972 - the year before Heath took the U.K. into the EU. 

1972 U.K. had a lot of advantages over 2018 UK.

It still had quite a few lucrative external sources of income back in 1972, including Hong Kong.

Brits pretty much enjoyed free movement in the remaining colonies and there were still plenty of well paid jobs for Brits in the civil, military and corporate administration of the remaining Empire.

The demographics were very positive - baby boomers were in their mid-twenties, car production at its peak, (plenty of the lazy generation could afford cars).

Oil prices were low and stable and had been falling since the mid-sixties. 

But despite all the advantages, it also had:

A state of emergency and the three day week. 

A corrupt Home Secretary who had to resign. 

Top rates of income tax at 75%, 90% for  investment income. 

7.1% inflation. 

A loss of 7.84% for the pound against the USD. 

The pound coming of the gold standard (setting the scene for the 73/74 stock market crash).

The highest rate of unemployment since the 1930s. 

Exchange controls (couldn’t take more than £15 in cash and £50 in travelers cheques out of the country.) 

Government control of wages, prices and interest rates.

A British football club getting banned from Europe for thuggish behaviour. 

Extreme violence in the north of Ireland with 479 killed and 4,876 injured, and bombings spreading to England. 

 

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, Freggyragh said:

Insights?

You won’t get anything. The closest Woolley has ever got to be explaining his position on Brexit is when he said he thought Britain would be able to continue producing lamps for domestic consumption that are obsolete in every other market and a misty eyed belief that Britain could be as comfortably we’ll off after Brexit as it was in 1972 - the year before Heath took the U.K. into the E.U.

Probably more of this nonsense usually spouted by mendacious, untrustworthy, self-serving twats like Boris Johnson. You know the sort of thing. How we're all going to be subsumed into a superstate. That's despite the built in safeguards in the various treaties espcially those to reassure the ex-communist new democratic states who wanted to make sure they retained their newly won statehood.

On 2/15/2018 at 10:38 PM, woolley said:

A bit like the words "European superstate", "single currency", "Maastricht", "Schengen", "Lisbon",etc, etc, weren't alongside "Common Market" when we got into this disaster. They made those up as they went along too. Now it falls to us to save Europe from itself - yet again.

 

[Freggyragh]

Those negotiations:

UK: We want to exit the EU. 

EU: OK. Want to come over and discuss paying for the things you signed up for and then we’ll talk about future arrangements?

UK: There won’t be a divorce bill. 

EU: There will, or no talks. 

UK: Fine. We’ll talk direct to each country. 

EU: You won’t. 

UK: We will. 

EU: OK, go see how that’ll work out. 

UK: (with the clock already ticking): OK, we’ll pay. But only 8 billion. 

EU: It’s 39 Billion. 

UK: OK then. 

EU: Now then, what sort of future relationship do you have in mind?

UK: Brexit means Brexit. 

EU: Erm, ok, what kind of Brexit do you have in mind?

UK: A red, white and blue one. 

EU: WTF. Show us your plan. 

UK: We don’t have one. We’ll thrash it out together. We’ll send David Davis. 

Two years later: 

UK: It seems David Davis only met you for four hours over the last two years, and meanwhile Liam Fox has made a tit of himself at the WTO, Boris Johnson has a made tit of himself on the world stage and we now see that we can’t have an independent trade policy without breaking the GFA. We need a deal pretty quick now. Do you have any ideas? 

EU: Yes. We’ll help you survive and find your feet until you work out how to leave. 

UK: We’ve seen what you want worked out what we want. We’ve got a deal called chequers. 

EU: It’s crap. Change it back to what we discussed. 

UK: OK. But it’s going to be much worse for us that staying. Can’t you give us what we want?

EU: What is it you want?

UK: The British People demand a unicorn!

EU. Our deal, no deal, or stay. 

UK: But what about the unicorns. 

EU: Bloody hell you’re nebulous. 

UK: WHAT DID YOU CALL ME!!!!!

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by Freggyragh