Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Jan 5, 2016 7:25:54 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 7:25:54 GMT
If we would save so many billions of ££££ by leaving the EU, and the prospects for trade are just as good (if not better), outside the EU, why do all UK governments and the vast majority of business leaders want us to stay in? And if it's all a Franco-German conspiracy to which we are blind (except on here), then why does the Netherlands remain such a supporter? No friend of Germany, successful economy, a huge per capita contributor? The Dutch are not such strong supporters. They actually voted 'No' to the EU Constitution. In fact, whenever the people of Europe have have a chance to say something (ie a vote) in matters regarding the EU, they have always voted 'No', except for when Ireland were forced to vote again. As for your first question, well, that is the great mystery isn't it! |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540 
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Jan 5, 2016 10:52:49 GMT
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 5, 2016 10:52:49 GMT
I am not sure that is quite the case Nobby, I know it's wiki but a good summary. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_UnionWith regards your overall point, I agree though. For me this is the crux of the matter for voting one way or another in a referendum. The question is a polarising one, whether it is the EU or Scottish independence or even the General Election. Did you agree with everything on your preferred party's manifesto or would you preferred to pick across the parties? Just because you want something better doesn't mean it is 100% wrong now and just because you are not unhappy with something doesn't mean you are totally behind it. I would have thought that had a middle option been offered in the Scottish referendum that it would have the overwhelming winner and the 'neverendum' would have genuinely gone for a generation. My view is that most in Europe like it or are simply ambivalent but have different views on how it can be improved. Some want a United States type, others just a reformed trading block. Churchill once said something about democracy being poor for good governance until you look at the alternatives. Maybe a crude comparison but there are some parallels. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Jan 5, 2016 11:39:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 11:39:46 GMT
Yep, the Dutch voted NO....To correct my earlier assumption on everybody voting 'No', Spain and Luxembourg actually voted 'Yes'. Interesting is the amount of Postponed. This killed off the EU Constitution, but by just re-phrasing some of the language in the document, it was re-labeled the Lisbon Treaty, which meant being a Treaty, there was no need for anyone to hold a referendum. Essentially it was the very same document. Democracy? No, the EU doesn't like it.
"The Dutch referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was a consultative referendum that was held on 1 June 2005 to decide if the Netherlands would ratify the proposed Constitution of the European Union.
The vote was the first national referendum for over two hundred years, and was not binding on the government, meaning that despite the electorate rejecting the Constitution it could theoretically still be ratified by the States-General. The government did say, however, that it would abide by a decisive result, provided turnout exceeded 30%. Official results say that 61.6% of voters rejected the Constitution, on a turnout of 63.3%.
The question put to voters was:
Bent U voor of tegen instemming door Nederland met het verdrag tot vaststelling van een grondwet voor Europa?
"Are you in favour of or against approval by the Netherlands of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?"
The possible answers were voor (in favour), tegen (against.) At some polling stations in the larger cities it was also possible to cast a blank ballot. The latter did not count for the result, but allowed voters to make an affirmative abstention.
National referendums on the
European Constitution
Czech Republic Cancelled
Denmark Postponed
France No by 55%. 69% turnout.
Ireland Cancelled
Luxembourg Yes by 57%. 88% turnout.
Netherlands No by 62%. 63% turnout.
Poland Postponed
Portugal Postponed
Spain Yes by 77%. 42% turnout.
United Kingdom Postponed
Parliamentary approvals
The referendum came just three days after the French referendum on the Constitution resulted in its rejection. Because all EU member states needed to ratify the treaty for it to take effect, some regarded the Dutch referendum as irrelevant. However, Dutch campaigners for a "Yes" vote appealed to the electorate to avoid damaging the Netherlands' standing in Europe in the way that the French result was perceived, in some quarters, to have weakened the position of France. Before the plebiscite, many "No" campaigners expressed the view that French rejection of the treaty would encourage Dutch voters to follow suit. A second "No" vote in a referendum in one of the founding countries of the project of European integration was widely regarded as having the power to "kill off" the treaty.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 5, 2016 20:03:35 GMT
Post by jaggas on Jan 5, 2016 20:03:35 GMT
If we would save so many billions of ££££ by leaving the EU, and the prospects for trade are just as good (if not better), outside the EU, why do all UK governments and the vast majority of business leaders want us to stay in? And if it's all a Franco-German conspiracy to which we are blind (except on here), then why does the Netherlands remain such a supporter? No friend of Germany, successful economy, a huge per capita contributor? It`s fear I think.Remember the scaremongering nonsense about the pound collapsing and being worthless if we didn`t join the Euro, how we wouldn`t survive by not joining as there was safety in numbers etc. As it turned out the pound remained and still remains a respected steady currency for investors while the Euro dropped and had to be bailed out by British gold reserves.Since then Greece nearly went down the toilet as did Cyprus, the economic experts who predicted the failure of the Euro and gave the reasons are the same experts who say the UK will thrive outside of the EU.I trust them rather than the likes of Merkel who would bankrupt everyone to keep the Euro alive. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 5, 2016 21:40:49 GMT
Post by aghast on Jan 5, 2016 21:40:49 GMT
If we would save so many billions of ££££ by leaving the EU, and the prospects for trade are just as good (if not better), outside the EU, why do all UK governments and the vast majority of business leaders want us to stay in? And if it's all a Franco-German conspiracy to which we are blind (except on here), then why does the Netherlands remain such a supporter? No friend of Germany, successful economy, a huge per capita contributor? It`s fear I think.Remember the scaremongering nonsense about the pound collapsing and being worthless if we didn`t join the Euro, how we wouldn`t survive by not joining as there was safety in numbers etc. As it turned out the pound remained and still remains a respected steady currency for investors while the Euro dropped and had to be bailed out by British gold reserves.Since then Greece nearly went down the toilet as did Cyprus, the economic experts who predicted the failure of the Euro and gave the reasons are the same experts who say the UK will thrive outside of the EU.I trust them rather than the likes of Merkel who would bankrupt everyone to keep the Euro alive. Well, people can think what they like about him, but we have Gordon Brown to thank for keeping us out of the Eurozone. If Blair had had his way we would have joined. Brown always vetoed this or demanded stringent economic conditions to be achieved here and in Europe before we could consider membership. Unless these were met, which of course they never were, we were never going to join while he was Chancellor. Germany also initially demanded the same tough economic performance targets for potential Eurozone recruits, but appeared to abandon these (perhaps influenced by France and Italy?) as countries like Greece and Portugal were allowed to join. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Jan 6, 2016 7:22:31 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 7:22:31 GMT
It`s fear I think.Remember the scaremongering nonsense about the pound collapsing and being worthless if we didn`t join the Euro, how we wouldn`t survive by not joining as there was safety in numbers etc. As it turned out the pound remained and still remains a respected steady currency for investors while the Euro dropped and had to be bailed out by British gold reserves.Since then Greece nearly went down the toilet as did Cyprus, the economic experts who predicted the failure of the Euro and gave the reasons are the same experts who say the UK will thrive outside of the EU.I trust them rather than the likes of Merkel who would bankrupt everyone to keep the Euro alive. Well, people can think what they like about him, but we have Gordon Brown to thank for keeping us out of the Eurozone. If Blair had had his way we would have joined. Brown always vetoed this or demanded stringent economic conditions to be achieved here and in Europe before we could consider membership. Unless these were met, which of course they never were, we were never going to join while he was Chancellor. Germany also initially demanded the same tough economic performance targets for potential Eurozone recruits, but appeared to abandon these (perhaps influenced by France and Italy?) as countries like Greece and Portugal were allowed to join. The truth, as has now been revealed, is that Brown did not keep us out of the Euro for economic reasons. It was purely to spit his enemy, Tony Blair. |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jan 6, 2016 15:42:16 GMT
Well, people can think what they like about him, but we have Gordon Brown to thank for keeping us out of the Eurozone. If Blair had had his way we would have joined. Brown always vetoed this or demanded stringent economic conditions to be achieved here and in Europe before we could consider membership. Unless these were met, which of course they never were, we were never going to join while he was Chancellor. Germany also initially demanded the same tough economic performance targets for potential Eurozone recruits, but appeared to abandon these (perhaps influenced by France and Italy?) as countries like Greece and Portugal were allowed to join. The truth, as has now been revealed, is that Brown did not keep us out of the Euro for economic reasons. It was purely to spit his enemy, Tony Blair. Which ever way you look at it whether you love or hate brown, he at least stood up to the warmongering war criminal b Lair |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 6, 2016 18:45:21 GMT
Post by jaggas on Jan 6, 2016 18:45:21 GMT
No he didn`t we have nothing to thank Brown for.One of the key points on Blairs manifesto when he was first elected Prime Minister was to offer a referendum to the people on the Euro. Blair and Brown were both keen on the Euro but knew they had no chance of winning a referendum.Browns five economic tests for joining the Euro were never revealed as they didn`t exist.
I expect behind closed doors Browns five economic tests were.
1: Can we win a referendum?
2: Can we win a referendum?
3: Can we win a referendum?
4: Can we win a referendum?
5: Can we win a referendum?
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 6, 2016 21:23:10 GMT
Post by aghast on Jan 6, 2016 21:23:10 GMT
No he didn`t we have nothing to thank Brown for.One of the key points on Blairs manifesto when he was first elected Prime Minister was to offer a referendum to the people on the Euro. Blair and Brown were both keen on the Euro but knew they had no chance of winning a referendum. Browns five economic tests for joining the Euro were never revealed as they didn`t exist.I expect behind closed doors Browns five economic tests were. 1: Can we win a referendum? 2: Can we win a referendum? 3: Can we win a referendum? 4: Can we win a referendum? 5: Can we win a referendum? Really? news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_at_one/programme_highlights/1081948.stm |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 14, 2016 0:59:29 GMT
Post by supergas on Jan 14, 2016 0:59:29 GMT
No he didn`t we have nothing to thank Brown for.One of the key points on Blairs manifesto when he was first elected Prime Minister was to offer a referendum to the people on the Euro. Blair and Brown were both keen on the Euro but knew they had no chance of winning a referendum.Browns five economic tests for joining the Euro were never revealed as they didn`t exist. I expect behind closed doors Browns five economic tests were. 1: Can we win a referendum? 2: Can we win a referendum? 3: Can we win a referendum? 4: Can we win a referendum? 5: Can we win a referendum? Blair (and later Brown) never held a referendum because neither of them are political lunatics. As aghast has pointed out the criteria existed but could never, ever be met. If Brown stopped Blair committing without stringent tests then that's the first useful thing I've read that he did in office...next you'll be telling me he was kind to stray puppies....  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Jan 21, 2016 13:40:37 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 13:40:37 GMT
So, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have both given money to the 'In' campaign. I really don't think either of those companies do a thing for the average bloke in the street.
Brexit.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 22, 2016 10:57:19 GMT
Post by inee on Jan 22, 2016 10:57:19 GMT
So, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have both given money to the 'In' campaign. I really don't think either of those companies do a thing for the average bloke in the street. Brexit. Of course they would both american companies raking in money world wide, GS seem to have a link to the us government and the bank of england and europe (goggles your friend here). Whilst the ordinary man on the street would be better of out of europe the two companies would lose money and it would weaken their grip on global finance. (see how this all links back in one way or another to big business ruling the world not governments ) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Jan 22, 2016 11:01:27 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2016 11:01:27 GMT
So, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have both given money to the 'In' campaign. I really don't think either of those companies do a thing for the average bloke in the street. Brexit. Of course they would both american companies raking in money world wide, GS seem to have a link to the us government and the bank of england and europe (goggles your friend here). Whilst the ordinary man on the street would be better of out of europe the two companies would lose money and it would weaken their grip on global finance. (see how this all links back in one way or another to big business ruling the world not governments ) As I have always said Inee, the EU is good for big business, but I struggle to see any benefits for the 'man in the street'. It really is sad to see the British Prime Minister hawking himself round Europe, begging to be allowed to make a few decisions on how his country is run. How did we ever come to this? |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 22, 2016 11:20:29 GMT
Post by inee on Jan 22, 2016 11:20:29 GMT
the answer nobby lies in one word Treason, im sure the original entry to europe was an act of treason as it gave control of our land to others. Nothing was ever done despite some attempts to bring the charge, wonder why  All it would take is one good lawyer, to bring us legally out of europe but i fear that person will never be found. I buy most of my bits and pieces from china good prices and fairly good quality (don't buy chargers unless you know how to test it). One thing that a lot of people don't realise is that the uk is registered as a ltd company and this changes often, the queen also owns wast tracts of america, but this is difficult to research as there is not much about it out there, for every source saying it's true there's another saying it's false. so very difficult to prove the payments to the queen from the us. If we really knew what was going on the whole of society would implode ,i would love free access to the vatican archives you can only imagine whats hidden and suppressed in there |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Feb 2, 2016 11:43:13 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 11:43:13 GMT
So, Cameron has negotiated his deal with the EU, and we have this.........
"In a speech later, Mr Cameron will today trumpet a 'red card' system that would let Westminster block 'unnecessary or unwanted' EU legislation, provided it can find at least 14 allies in Europe."
We already have this in place. It's called Majority Voting in the EU. How many times have we (the UK) won a Majority Vote in the EU that stopped any form of legislation being imposed by the EU?.....Um....well, none to be precise ! So, no change in the future. Do they really think people are that gullible to believe this nonsense?
We have a 'brake' which does not change anything, but just applies a gentle 'brake' to things for a limited period of time, and then we can only use that 'brake' if the EU allow us!
Out now !
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 2, 2016 13:13:09 GMT
Whatever the smallprint says it will be sufficient for those staying, never enough for those who want out and too confusing for the poor sods who have not decided. On a football related point, it may have negative consequences for the Premier League and a positive one for the national side. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35427610 |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Feb 2, 2016 13:15:07 GMT
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 2, 2016 13:15:07 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 13:22:38 GMT
It says there are 70,000 Poles in the UK, but Poland want us to send between 3,000 and 5,000 troops to Poland...............I can see the answer right there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Brexit
Feb 2, 2016 13:24:42 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 13:24:42 GMT
Whatever the smallprint says it will be sufficient for those staying, never enough for those who want out and too confusing for the poor sods who have not decided. On a football related point, it may have negative consequences for the Premier League and a positive one for the national side. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35427610That is the point though. This 'deal' is not worth the paper it's written on, so should have no consequence for the referendum. The football angle is total nonsense. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,540
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Feb 2, 2016 13:29:52 GMT
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 2, 2016 13:29:52 GMT
It says there are 70,000 Poles in the UK, but Poland want us to send between 3,000 and 5,000 troops to Poland...............I can see the answer right there. Time to reconstitute No.10 Commando? |
|
