Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 10:39:56 GMT
If you are talking armed conflict then I suspect NATO may be the one involved. Presumably you are still an advocate of membership or do you think we should withdrawal? Good God no! Despite the claims of the EU, it has been NATO that has kept the peace in Europe for so long. The EU screwed up in the Balkans, and they screwed up with Ukraine.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,316
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 4, 2019 10:48:55 GMT
If you are talking armed conflict then I suspect NATO may be the one involved. Presumably you are still an advocate of membership or do you think we should withdrawal? Good God no! Despite the claims of the EU, it has been NATO that has kept the peace in Europe for so long. The EU screwed up in the Balkans, and they screwed up with Ukraine. But if we withdrawal from NATO we can spend the money we save elsewhere and strike defence deals with other regions across the world 😉 The EU (more accurately its antecedents) deserves its share of the credit too. Also, I disagree the EU is at fault for Ukraine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 11:05:26 GMT
Good God no! Despite the claims of the EU, it has been NATO that has kept the peace in Europe for so long. The EU screwed up in the Balkans, and they screwed up with Ukraine. But if we withdrawal from NATO we can spend the money we save elsewhere and strike defence deals with other regions across the world 😉 The EU (more accurately its antecedents) deserves its share of the credit too. Also, I disagree the EU is at fault for Ukraine. No. Membership of NATO is vital.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,316
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jun 4, 2019 11:12:10 GMT
But if we withdrawal from NATO we can spend the money we save elsewhere and strike defence deals with other regions across the world 😉 The EU (more accurately its antecedents) deserves its share of the credit too. Also, I disagree the EU is at fault for Ukraine. No. Membership of NATO is vital. I agree, I was being facetious.😉
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 11:19:10 GMT
No. Membership of NATO is vital. I agree, I was being facetious.😉 I know
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jun 4, 2019 13:10:52 GMT
I agree with Nobby. I think a United States of Europe is indeed the end game.
It follows basic logic to assume that's the way it's heading.
I'd love it if we were part of that, not separated from it.
One of the reasons I voted remain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 13:18:22 GMT
I agree with Nobby. I think a United States of Europe is indeed the end game. It follows basic logic to assume that's the way it's heading. I'd love it if we were part of that, not separated from it. One of the reasons I voted remain. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Sarcastic sod
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jun 4, 2019 21:13:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 6:23:11 GMT
Ooooh, facts officer, facts. I can see the leavers on here getting apoplectic over this. But of course it's not just about the numbers they tell us..its....well they cannot say. Feelings, nothing more than feelings.....to quote that awful song from the 70s 🤣🤣🤣🤣🏌️♂️
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 7:43:54 GMT
Ooooh, facts officer, facts. I can see the leavers on here getting apoplectic over this. But of course it's not just about the numbers they tell us..its....well they cannot say. Feelings, nothing more than feelings.....to quote that awful song from the 70s 🤣🤣🤣🤣🏌️♂️ The article is a bit mis-leading in many places. For example, it only attributes 2% to the 'Rotterdam Effect'. I think the real figure is higher than that. Plus, here is one, "Freed trade for whom? Do we want the UK to protect UK jobs? Does anyone want to give up their job?" - It assumes that an FTA means there will be job losses in the UK? Yet it spends an awful amount of time detailing the FTA's various countries have in place already. The article contradicts itself. It says that FTA's are good for others, but they will mean job losses in the UK? As always, when an article is written with any bias, it's worth taking the conclusions with a pinch of salt. It is also worth remembering that the UK was one of the jewels that the EU had to offer in making their FTA's. For example, Canada's main exports to the EU are with the UK. Without the UK the Canada/EU deal is nowhere as attractive for Canada. They will want a quick deal done with the UK, as will many many other countries. We all know that leaving the EU will not be easy and the UK will not have everything ready on day one. So what if it takes one or two years to sort out FTA's. The UK cannot sign any FTA's until we leave the EU anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 8:01:30 GMT
Ooooh, facts officer, facts. I can see the leavers on here getting apoplectic over this. But of course it's not just about the numbers they tell us..its....well they cannot say. Feelings, nothing more than feelings.....to quote that awful song from the 70s 🤣🤣🤣🤣🏌️♂️ The article is a bit mis-leading in many places. For example, it only attributes 2% to the 'Rotterdam Effect'. I think the real figure is higher than that. Plus, here is one, "Freed trade for whom? Do we want the UK to protect UK jobs? Does anyone want to give up their job?" - It assumes that an FTA means there will be job losses in the UK? Yet it spends an awful amount of time detailing the FTA's various countries have in place already. The article contradicts itself. It says that FTA's are good for others, but they will mean job losses in the UK? As always, when an article is written with any bias, it's worth taking the conclusions with a pinch of salt. It is also worth remembering that the UK was one of the jewels that the EU had to offer in making their FTA's. For example, Canada's main exports to the EU are with the UK. Without the UK the Canada/EU deal is nowhere as attractive for Canada. They will want a quick deal done with the UK, as will many many other countries. We all know that leaving the EU will not be easy and the UK will not have everything ready on day one. So what if it takes one or two years to sort out FTA's. The UK cannot sign any FTA's until we leave the EU anyway. Leavers can dance on a sixpence, can wave away years of economic turmoil as "difficulties", without reference to peoples jobs or the tax base that funds our services. In the name of what? Not one single coherent argument as to how this will be for the betterment of the people of the UK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 9:22:49 GMT
The article is a bit mis-leading in many places. For example, it only attributes 2% to the 'Rotterdam Effect'. I think the real figure is higher than that. Plus, here is one, "Freed trade for whom? Do we want the UK to protect UK jobs? Does anyone want to give up their job?" - It assumes that an FTA means there will be job losses in the UK? Yet it spends an awful amount of time detailing the FTA's various countries have in place already. The article contradicts itself. It says that FTA's are good for others, but they will mean job losses in the UK? As always, when an article is written with any bias, it's worth taking the conclusions with a pinch of salt. It is also worth remembering that the UK was one of the jewels that the EU had to offer in making their FTA's. For example, Canada's main exports to the EU are with the UK. Without the UK the Canada/EU deal is nowhere as attractive for Canada. They will want a quick deal done with the UK, as will many many other countries. We all know that leaving the EU will not be easy and the UK will not have everything ready on day one. So what if it takes one or two years to sort out FTA's. The UK cannot sign any FTA's until we leave the EU anyway. Leavers can dance on a sixpence, can wave away years of economic turmoil as "difficulties", without reference to peoples jobs or the tax base that funds our services. In the name of what? Not one single coherent argument as to how this will be for the betterment of the people of the UK. To be a free, independent, sovereign nation, and not a Region in the European Federal Republik.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 9:28:22 GMT
Leavers can dance on a sixpence, can wave away years of economic turmoil as "difficulties", without reference to peoples jobs or the tax base that funds our services. In the name of what? Not one single coherent argument as to how this will be for the betterment of the people of the UK. To be a free, independent, sovereign nation, and not a Region in the European Federal Republik. And other such fairy stories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 9:44:59 GMT
To be a free, independent, sovereign nation, and not a Region in the European Federal Republik. And other such fairy stories. You go on and on about others not being able to present a 'coherent argument'. You constantly demand that people who voted Leave explain themselves, and that they give detailed explanations as to why they voted leave........yet you constantly just revert to type and produce one line nonsense. I am still waiting for your views on the future direction of the EU and will you produce a 'coherent argument' as to that effect? C'mon, convince me that we should remain in the EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 10:22:00 GMT
And other such fairy stories. You go on and on about others not being able to present a 'coherent argument'. You constantly demand that people who voted Leave explain themselves, and that they give detailed explanations as to why they voted leave........yet you constantly just revert to type and produce one line nonsense. I am still waiting for your views on the future direction of the EU and will you produce a 'coherent argument' as to that effect? C'mon, convince me that we should remain in the EU. The one liners are aimed squarely at hypocrisy. For example, Al (with his Alice in Wonderland vision of reality) maintained that remainers views were just projections, something you subscribed to thereafter. Yet here you are expressing reasons for leaving which are pure conjecture. Go figure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 10:44:52 GMT
You go on and on about others not being able to present a 'coherent argument'. You constantly demand that people who voted Leave explain themselves, and that they give detailed explanations as to why they voted leave........yet you constantly just revert to type and produce one line nonsense. I am still waiting for your views on the future direction of the EU and will you produce a 'coherent argument' as to that effect? C'mon, convince me that we should remain in the EU. The one liners are aimed squarely at hypocrisy. For example, Al (with his Alice in Wonderland vision of reality) maintained that remainers views were just projections, something you subscribed to thereafter. Yet here you are expressing reasons for leaving which are pure conjecture. Go figure. You're avoiding the question yet again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 11:41:47 GMT
The one liners are aimed squarely at hypocrisy. For example, Al (with his Alice in Wonderland vision of reality) maintained that remainers views were just projections, something you subscribed to thereafter. Yet here you are expressing reasons for leaving which are pure conjecture. Go figure. You're avoiding the question yet again. You accused, I answered. I gave a 2 or 3 paragraph reasoning of my remain stance some pages back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 11:55:48 GMT
You're avoiding the question yet again. You accused, I answered. I gave a 2 or 3 paragraph reasoning of my remain stance some pages back. That's strange, because whenever a Leaver talks about their reasons for leaving, you only response is a glib comment, and yet you continually ask the same question, when many on here have already answered you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 12:41:28 GMT
You accused, I answered. I gave a 2 or 3 paragraph reasoning of my remain stance some pages back. That's strange, because whenever a Leaver talks about their reasons for leaving, you only response is a glib comment, and yet you continually ask the same question, when many on here have already answered you. You are a bit like Trump, keep saying, so it must be true. No leaver on here has been able to rebut the challenges offered up. Not one. If we argue the economics, it goes around and around until we are told it's not just about the economics. Generally accepting there will be economic disruption and a cost to the consumer. So then it's about something else. Something nebulous like Sovereignty. Having to live under rules allegedly set by others. Asked to name one law which has adversely affected their lives, the answer is always the same...silence. We can go around this house as often as you like, but a year on from when I started this thread, there has not been one post which sets out, makes the case for, leaving. None, zero, zilch. As the good officer said, the responses are just a collection of populist soundbites. This thread is done. I do believe, sadly, that we will leave in October. I just hope and pray it is managed, with some kind of agreement with the EU on the table that gives our economy the oxygen to make the transition...transition to whatever comes next. Hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Jun 5, 2019 14:02:53 GMT
Well Nobby has tried but all he's got is insults like 'gobby nationals' so why would anyone else bother?
|
|