• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The referendum in the UK split Europe, get ready to plan B #brexit

Phoenix One UK said:
PeteEU, I note you are located in Denmark. Any comment on following?
Click to expand...

What is there to comment. They will be registered and their cases heard if they seek asylum. Most will get kicked out most likely. Denmark aint perfect, but we do have some restrictive rules on who can apply for asylum. However most will most likely go to Sweden as always.

Listen there is a simple solution. Have EU wide asylum and external immigration rules. The problem is that the fake asylum seekers aka economic migrants and the asylum seekers are shopping around. I dont blame them. We all do it ourselves when buying stuff... one shops sells a TV for 1000, and the shop 20 km sells it for 900.. It is easier to get asylum in Sweden than in Denmark, so people go there. Germany is more open than Spain.. so people go to Germany. Egyptians get asylum in Germany, but not in Denmark.. guess where Egyptians mostly go?

Now if we had one rule for all countries, including the UK, then it would not be a problem. You come to the external border of the EU, there you are assessed. If a real refugee then you are distributed around Europe fairly with the understanding you are on a temporary visa that runs out the day the EU says that your country is safe. If you are an economic migrant then you are kicked out. This would also require we had unified external visa rules of course.. simple ones, like going to the EU.. get a visa, .. or have a job.

Problem is some countries dont want such rules, because they think "sovereignty" or what ever bull**** excuse is being violated. They want to continue to get tons of certain nationalities in, while denying others... the classic is the UK that allows Pakistanis to enter almost without any problem, but refuse to take Syrian refugees.

The solution is there, but some countries refuse to admit it.
 
PeteEU said:
In other words you cant. No it is not obvious... far far far from it. No one on the "anti-EU/Europe" front can ever justify any of their claim.. it is always like this.. and you are just another one... you even counter your own claim, which is hilarious.

Again, if the German constitutional court wont allow this so called "ever closer union" then how will we ever get it? Oh let me give you a hint.. there are a lot of other countries where institutions or systems also will block an "ever closer union", which is why what you and your anti-EU/Europe comrades keep saying is a load of crock.
Click to expand...

Can't what? Waste my time in the way I explained to you? Why should I?

As to the blocking argument. Don't be silly. Look at the way the decisions have developed and you will understand, why the people calling for more protection of the population against EU overshoot are worried. I mean, how could anyone think they ie their sovereignty was safe with that kind of judiciary? Even you must have noted that there was something that sinks at the heart of the EU
 
joG said:
Can't what? Waste my time in the way I explained to you? Why should I?
Click to expand...

LOL you have never explained anything!

As to the blocking argument. Don't be silly. Look at the way the decisions have developed
Click to expand...

What decisions? Specifics!

and you will understand, why the people calling for more protection of the population against EU overshoot are worried.
Click to expand...

I understand them.. they are usually linked to far right nationalistic organisations or have a personal economic or political benefit from "worrying".

I mean, how could anyone think they ie their sovereignty was safe with that kind of judiciary?
Click to expand...

Again specifics are lacking. How is my sovereignty in danger by the 28 countries agreeing that X thing must be done at an European level? how is my sovereignty in danger that discrimination based on nationality, sex and religion are banned in the EU?

Even you must have noted that there was something that sinks at the heart of the EU
Click to expand...

Something stinks at the heart of any country and organisation.. again a lame comment from you without any specifics or backing up of your view.
 
PeteEU said:
What is there to comment. They will be registered and their cases heard if they seek asylum. Most will get kicked out most likely. Denmark aint perfect, but we do have some restrictive rules on who can apply for asylum. However most will most likely go to Sweden as always.

Listen there is a simple solution. Have EU wide asylum and external immigration rules. The problem is that the fake asylum seekers aka economic migrants and the asylum seekers are shopping around. I dont blame them. We all do it ourselves when buying stuff... one shops sells a TV for 1000, and the shop 20 km sells it for 900.. It is easier to get asylum in Sweden than in Denmark, so people go there. Germany is more open than Spain.. so people go to Germany. Egyptians get asylum in Germany, but not in Denmark.. guess where Egyptians mostly go?

Now if we had one rule for all countries, including the UK, then it would not be a problem. You come to the external border of the EU, there you are assessed. If a real refugee then you are distributed around Europe fairly with the understanding you are on a temporary visa that runs out the day the EU says that your country is safe. If you are an economic migrant then you are kicked out. This would also require we had unified external visa rules of course.. simple ones, like going to the EU.. get a visa, .. or have a job.

Problem is some countries dont want such rules, because they think "sovereignty" or what ever bull**** excuse is being violated. They want to continue to get tons of certain nationalities in, while denying others... the classic is the UK that allows Pakistanis to enter almost without any problem, but refuse to take Syrian refugees.

The solution is there, but some countries refuse to admit it.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
PeteEU said:
LOL you have never explained anything!



What decisions? Specifics!



I understand them.. they are usually linked to far right nationalistic organisations or have a personal economic or political benefit from "worrying".



Again specifics are lacking. How is my sovereignty in danger by the 28 countries agreeing that X thing must be done at an European level? how is my sovereignty in danger that discrimination based on nationality, sex and religion are banned in the EU?



Something stinks at the heart of any country and organisation.. again a lame comment from you without any specifics or backing up of your view.
Click to expand...

I have been quite specific on a number of occasions with you. That is why I had decided not to go into details with you. I mean, what good would it do with someone that doesn't know that the Euro, Ukraine or Dublin and any number of other messes were symptoms of eu rot.
 
le bouffon said:
Yes, but the Irish economy struggled upon leaving the Empire. That's the point I'm trying to make with Brexit. Guinness moved to London when the Irish Free State happened, which shows how business favors stability over campaign idealism. Also, you're assuming the borders will stay the same. There is a lot of assuming going on with the Brexit camp. Are you assuming the British expats will be able to stay in Spain and France if Brexit happens as well?
Click to expand...

Again i think if stability was the issue then this had more to do with the fact that there was a civil war at time. Though wikipedia blames the control of manufactures act. As for the latter that seems to be a very valid concern but hardly a certainity.
 
Last edited:
Red_Dave said:
Kind of a strange comparison to make, given that the economi relationship between the UK and Ireland remained pretty much the same,. Britain still controlled a number of Irish ports untill the 1930s and decades after independance and decades after independance Eamon De Valera was still complainging that Ireland was 'The kitchen garden of England'. That is to say that it simply supplied agricultural products and hadn't been able to diversify its economy. This, combined with the fact that there was still a low level civil war for decades after independance has far more to do with Irelands economic situation then any imagined economic separation from the UK. There simply wasn't one.

As regrds borders and such the UK leaving the EU wouldnt have any kind of impact given that neither Ireland nor the UK are part of the Schengen zone, and have their own system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area
Click to expand...

Eh, there was a trade war. And the civil war only lasted a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Trade_War
 
PeteEU said:
Yes you are a growing economy... big deal. I remember the thread, and it was debunked back then too. And you aint passing the Germans any time soon and you know it. France is realistic of the small differences in population.
Click to expand...

I never said anytime soon and you didn't debunk anything - you simply repeated no without any facts. The business links I showed you all said around 2030. I showed you links and all your refutation was they were pro-UK websites... :roll:

PeteEU said:
~ Yes, but Spain and others are outstripping the UK.. you were saying?
Click to expand...

Find me a link that states Spain will be the biggest / 2nd biggest or even 3rd biggest economy in Europe by 2050 (See, I'm generous)

PeteEU said:
~ You brought Iceland into the discussion!!
Click to expand...

To show that people do survive outside the EU.

PeteEU said:
~ Seems we are talking past each other. Oh and the EU does not wish to discuss ever closer union... the individual countries of which the UK is one of them do... which they dont btw..
Click to expand...

I think other nations are quite keen on the Lisbon Treaty and ever closer union. Why do they not wish to discuss a charter they all set out? Why do new members also have to accept the chain onto adopting the Euro.

Who can join and when? - European Commission

Pretty clear cut aims written into the EU and for new members.

All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.
Click to expand...

Read on and it's pretty clear what they are after. But you knew this anyway.

PeteEU said:
~What? Lets look at what you wrote again..

Care to change your comment to reflect what you actually mean? Because right now, all it says is that you dont want Eurozone members to be able to punish non eurozone members... in general.
Click to expand...


Ah, we are talking past each other. I meant in regard to economic policies etc and you went for the political ones. Fair enough.

PeteEU said:
~ No you were not saying that. Go re-read it... you specifically single out the council and the member nations in a way that means they are different.. they are not.
Click to expand...

I know that the council adopts laws as suggested by member state govts but these must still be negotiated and opt-outs kept.
Click to expand...

OK, another difference of interpretation. I know they are the same, I put that line in to stop a circular argument about whether the council was separate from state govts

EUROPA - How EU decisions are made

I'm beginning to get a picture after this exchange: anything EU wise, you are there to nitpick and deflect as best you can. I basically meant what you are saying but you built it into something else. I watched that video Saturday / Sunday and saw one in French with Englist subtitles explaining how laws were proposed and I thought my short translation would make sense.

Either it didn't or you found a way to build a false mountain around what I was saying.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
BBC NEWS | Business | Timeline: Northern Rock bank crisis

No EU funds claimed or used.
Click to expand...

No disrespect, but that really does not mean anything. I had been involved in number of debates some years ago surrounding secret bailouts, backdoor bailouts, and even how the euro could not survive without being constantly propped up by member states that were not even in the Eurozone.

Here is one I assume you may know about, the Fed $16 trillion secret bailouts. Note who the recipients of those secret bailouts were:

The Fed Audit

Thursday, July 21, 2011

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

The Fed Audit - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Click to expand...

Note the supplied link includes a link GAO report, which makes for interesting reading.
 
Red_Dave said:
Again i think if stability was the issue then this had more to do with the fact that there was a civil war at time. Though wikipedia blames the control of manufactures act. As for the latter that seems to be a very valid concern but hardly a certainity.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest reading a book on the subject rather than quoting wikipedia. The Brexit camp is simplifying a very complicated issue.
 
Phoenix One UK said:
No disrespect, but that really does not mean anything. I had been involved in number of debates some years ago surrounding secret bailouts, backdoor bailouts, and even how the euro could not survive without being constantly propped up by member states that were not even in the Eurozone.

Here is one I assume you may know about, the Fed $16 trillion secret bailouts. Note who the recipients of those secret bailouts were:



Note the supplied link includes a link GAO report, which makes for interesting reading.
Click to expand...

le bouffon said:
You were talking about banks that went defunct, but failed to mention Northern Rock. I was correcting you.
Click to expand...

I need clarification: are we claiming that EU funds were used in the bailout of British Banks? Are we claiming that EU funds were used to bailout Northern Rock?
 
joG said:
I have been quite specific on a number of occasions with you. That is why I had decided not to go into details with you. I mean, what good would it do with someone that doesn't know that the Euro, Ukraine or Dublin and any number of other messes were symptoms of eu rot.
Click to expand...

When have you been specific? Never.. so stop lying.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I never said anytime soon and you didn't debunk anything - you simply repeated no without any facts. The business links I showed you all said around 2030. I showed you links and all your refutation was they were pro-UK websites... :roll:
Click to expand...

And I was correct. I also stated that such predictions are idiotic. Cameron claimed that the UK would be 100% connected with broadband this year.. aint gonna happen. Cameron predicted that the UK would reach a certain goal in renewable energy by 2020 or something like that.. aint gonna happen according to the government. They predicted we would have flying cars by 2015.. did not happen. Predictions on that scale, even economic, are almost consistently wrong.

Find me a link that states Spain will be the biggest / 2nd biggest or even 3rd biggest economy in Europe by 2050 (See, I'm generous)
Click to expand...

err you were talking about growth. Spain is out growing the UK at the moment. UK growth last quarter.. 0.3%.. Spanish growth.. 1%. The quarter before that.. 0.7 for the UK, and 0.9 for Spain.

To show that people do survive outside the EU.
Click to expand...

LOL nice walk back there.. yea so do people in Albania..

I think other nations are quite keen on the Lisbon Treaty and ever closer union. Why do they not wish to discuss a charter they all set out? Why do new members also have to accept the chain onto adopting the Euro.

Who can join and when? - European Commission

Pretty clear cut aims written into the EU and for new members.
Click to expand...

Why do they have to accept the Euro if they want to become members of the EU? Cause those are the membership requirements that have been set out for new members. And why should the UK care.. they opted out.. You also have to accept the Human Rights convention btw, and a bunch of other things.. funny how you aint bitching about those eh?

I'm beginning to get a picture after this exchange: anything EU wise, you are there to nitpick and deflect as best you can.
Click to expand...

I am not deflecting.. I do nitpick because more than often that nitpicking is a result of false information spreading because people dont understand the basics of the EU. I am sorry that this pisses you off, but it does matter in a discussion.. for example, in a discussion about the European Human Rights act. Thanks to the anti-EU crowd, this act, that was created long before the EU was even thought off, is now being pushed as an EU law/rule. The fact that we all have been living under the Human Rights act longer than the EU/EEC is often ignored or intentionally left out... and that fact matters. It is a bit like blaming you for the the problems your grandfather created 70 years ago..

Or in this case.. you made it sound like the Council of Ministers were some how different than the countries they represent.. they are not. David Cameron is on the Council of Ministers, and he represents the UK. They are one in the same. So if the council negotiates something, then it is the country that is negotiating too.

Details matter in discussions.
 
PeteEU said:
Show one link to where you went into specifics..
Click to expand...

Why in Gods name should I do that? What a waste of time that would be.
 
PeteEU said:
And I was correct.
Click to expand...

No, your’re not. The first prediction by all those same sites show us getting bigger than France before 2020 and it’s still going to happen. Germany is shrinking while we grow economically and demographically.

PeteEU said:
err you were talking about growth. Spain is out growing the UK at the moment. UK growth last quarter.. 0.3%.. Spanish growth.. 1%. The quarter before that.. 0.7 for the UK, and 0.9 for Spain.
Click to expand...

OK, but UK’s growth is more significant, it may be slower than Spain but Spain is starting from a lower point and we will be the biggest economy in the EU way before 2050.

PeteEU said:
LOL nice walk back there.. yea so do people in Albania..
Click to expand...

Albania won’t be the EU’s biggest local trading partner.

PeteEU said:
Why do they have to accept the Euro if they want to become members of the EU? Cause those are the membership requirements that have been set out for new members.
Click to expand...

The same “ever closer union” you think nobody wants to talk about.

PeteEU said:
I am not deflecting..
Click to expand...

Haha! It’s your whole ethos in debate.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I need clarification: are we claiming that EU funds were used in the bailout of British Banks? Are we claiming that EU funds were used to bailout Northern Rock?
Click to expand...

I am only saying what was reported in FED audit. The list of banks that received such bailouts is listed.
 
Most here would know of Prime Minister Cameron's EU renegotiations with EU, and the link I will provide at end of this post comes directly from Conservative home website showing how the British National Press seen what Cameron achieved. It should also be interesting to note that the PM received critism from both Eurosceptic and Europhile MPs, and it is not very often they agree on much where the EU concerned.

Here is the link: The centre right press delivers a withering verdict on Cameron’s EU renegotiation demands | Conservative Home
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I need clarification: are we claiming that EU funds were used in the bailout of British Banks? Are we claiming that EU funds were used to bailout Northern Rock?
Click to expand...

Banks that went defunct during that period. That should be quite easy to discern. I never said anything about EU funds.
 
le bouffon said:
~ I never said anything about EU funds.
Click to expand...

No, but the discussion I was having was about his deflection towards anyone and everyone being subjugate to the great god "Ever Closer Union" and how the UK's position was somehow linked to EU funds we never claimed when Northern Rock and other banks went down.
I never saw why you were making the point you did.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
No, but the discussion I was having was about his deflection towards anyone and everyone being subjugate to the great god "Ever Closer Union" and how the UK's position was somehow linked to EU funds we never claimed when Northern Rock and other banks went down.
I never saw why you were making the point you did.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the "Ever Closer Union" bit. UK banks have gone defunct, which you didn't mention in your previous post.

Infinite Chaos said:
We didn't use EU money when the banks here went belly up. Don't build strawmen ~ it was Greek, Irish and other banks that went down. Then, only Iceland could take individual action because it was outside the EU.
Click to expand...

You mentioned the banks that went defunct in other countries, but didn't mention any in the UK. EU funds weren't garnered, but still the failure in the UK banking sector needs to be mentioned in this argument. The Brexit camp is given the advantage by stating they didn't partake in EU funds during the banking fiasco.
 
le bouffon said:
Agreed with the "Ever Closer Union" bit. UK banks have gone defunct, which you didn't mention in your previous post.
Click to expand...

I think I read somewhere that you are Canadian? "Belly Up" was used in the same way "defunct" would be, or bust or collapsed / dead / wiped out.


le bouffon said:
~ You mentioned the banks that went defunct in other countries, but didn't mention any in the UK. EU funds weren't garnered, but still the failure in the UK banking sector needs to be mentioned in this argument. The Brexit camp is given the advantage by stating they didn't partake in EU funds during the banking fiasco.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom