EU-BREXIT - Page 43 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By B0ycey
#14948451
layman wrote:@B0ycey

I agree his stated position stupid but thickness isn’t the issue actually. The whole brexit idea simply doesn’t work unless you go hyper deregulated as @JohnRawls pointed out.

Politicians are trying to square many circles and play the game and so need to be wrong and contradictory. It’s not being stupid, despite appearances. Even may is not dumb. She has an impossible task she is doing quite poorly.


It was always "Hard Brexit" or "No Brexit". The shit that is going on now proves this. Corbyn can't make a deal either. Or not one that he wants to make anyway. And that is why the Brexiteers are liars. They promised things that they could not deliver unless the EU agreed to it. So yes, the politicians are thick as shit. They still think they can cherry pick. No you fucking can't. So either remain in the EU with all the benefits or fuck off out of it and deal with the consequences. Stop pussy footing around.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14948453
B0ycey wrote:Sturgeon is keeping her mouth shut because without a deal, Scottish Independence will have the same issues the UK is havIng with the EU and and a damn sight more. With a deal, EU membership would allow them to trade with the UK to the agreed terms.

You cannot walk away from your biggest trading partner without economic loss. It is that simple.


She isn't keeping her mouth shut, she is very outspoken, even on twitter. I dunno where you got that from.



If there is no deal, the government in England will fall and the new one will go crawling back to beg the E.U for a deal. Scotland not trading with England isn't going to happen, it's just used as Britnat scaremongering.
By B0ycey
#14948454
Seeker8 wrote:She isn't keeping her mouth shut, she is very outspoken, even on twitter. I dunno where you got that from.



If there is no deal, the government in England will fall and the new one will go crawling back to beg the E.U for a deal. Scotland not trading with England isn't going to happen, it's just used as Britnat scaremongering.


Sorry Seeker, there is no mention of Indref2 there. She know full well she needs a deal for any chance of independence in the future. So that is what she is pursuing.

As for Scotland not trading with England, sure. But the same is true with the UK and the EU today. It is the red tape and tariffs that is the problem. And the logistics of trading.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14948455
layman wrote:@Seeker8 the conspiratorial nature of the nationalist inner core is one of the turn offs for a lot of people. Also, talking of lies - those growth forecasts ....


Please, the British state being capable of shady dealings isn't a conspiracy theory. You have to be joking.

I don't know what you mean about forecasts, but you know the SNP can't get away with lying like the unionist parties can due to media corruption. So they tend to stick to facts, unlike especially the tories who are almost Trump like.
By Istanbuller
#14948457
Atlantis wrote:Bulgarians and Romanians have the same rights of free movement to travel, settle and work anywhere they like in the EU. They will become Schengen members once they fulfill the criteria for Schengen membership.

They already fullfill the criteria. European Commission denied their entry.

Turkey was also promised to be given free movement of Turkish people to EU in return for an immigration deal. We did everything you demand. But guess it what happened later? EU did not keep its promise.

Atlantis wrote:With tens of thousands of political prisoners and most independent journalist either in exile or in prison, Turkey is one of the blackest spots on the map of civil liberties worldwide.

What on earth are you living?! We had a coup attempt. Our parliament was bombed by warplanes. Civilians were murdered. Now are you saying us that criminals should not be punished?
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14948458
B0ycey wrote:Sorry Seeker, there is no mention of Indref2 there. She know full well she needs a deal for any chance of independence in the future. So that is what she is pursuing.

As for Scotland not trading with England, sure. But the same is true with the UK and the EU today. It is the red tape and tariffs that is the problem. And the logistics of trading.


Her mandate to hold a ref is based on us leaving the E.U. If we aren't leaving she doesn't have one any more. That's why she doesn't talk about it, because no one has any idea what the hell is going to happen yet.

About trade, I'm saying England will be forced to make a deal with the E.U and therefore Scotland if we were in it.
By B0ycey
#14948459
Seeker8 wrote:
About trade, I'm saying England will be forced to make a deal with the E.U and therefore Scotland if we were in it.


Forced? Deals are a two way street. If there is no agreement there is no deal. But FYI the UK has a trade deficit with the EU. There will be more pressure by business onto them. But ultimately principles are a greater factor. And the same is true with the UK. So no, it will be No Deal or No Brexit.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14948467
[quote="Atlantis"]True, many EU leaders said that May must have known that Chequers wasn't possible with the EU. I guess her willingness to stay in power is so great that she is grasping at straws.



Labour doesn't have to promise a referendum on Irish unification. Under the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish have a right to reunification whenever there is a majority in favor. Thus, Westminster couldn't refuse it if it wanted.

Anyways, Labour has just come down against another Scottish independence referendum, which doesn't allow it to promote NI independence reunification since it would serve as precedent for Scottish independence.


NONSENSE - I know that Sinn Fein want to 'Remain' in the E.U, so, the presumption must be that such a referendum for them would settle the question, if put to the test.
Yes, Labour(Scottish) have set themselves against another independence referendum for Scotland, however, would they be so keen if my suggestion settled the 'Irish' question in respect of the E.U?

Another point is, Labour, when last in power, exercised a policy of 'Devolution', creating assemblies in Scotland, Wales & so to deny that to the Irish as a way of bring resolve to BREXIT is a bit nonsensical.

By contrast the biggest 'decentralising' act of all was implemented in a Tory manifesto, the commitment to Joining the EEC, which is an act of supreme 'Devolution'-'Centralisation' that this country has ever known, including ceding sovereignty to Brussels by subjecting the law of the U.K to that of the E.U.

The Heath government was advised Lord Kilmuir that joining the EEC involved a loss of sovereignty, yet they still embraced it in a manifesto that contained few words on the issue & virtually none on the 'pros & cons'.

Again, in contrast to that period, the trades unions were against us joining, the only reason for joining was that the economy was stagnant & Europe was doing well in terms of growth at that time.
Exactly the same issues for or against, held by the population pro & antagonist to the issue held sway back then, just as they do now on leaving.
General De Gaulle was correct about this country, the Tories should have listened to him more intently.
The public arguments by MP's that run counter to the people's decision to leave will have to account for themselves & their party at the next election.

The effects from migration on population levels, public services, lowering living standards & cultural balance will be issues that will determine the next election results.
In the face of austerity,which is an economic weapon of war used against a large section of the people will cost the Tories dear, as well as 'Remainer' Labour MP's at the next election, which is why they have overhyped their opposition to Leave, when they could\should have accepted the result.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#14948471
B0ycey wrote:It was always "Hard Brexit" or "No Brexit". The shit that is going on now proves this. Corbyn can't make a deal either. Or not one that he wants to make anyway. And that is why the Brexiteers are liars. They promised things that they could not deliver unless the EU agreed to it. So yes, the politicians are thick as shit. They still think they can cherry pick. No you fucking can't. So either remain in the EU with all the benefits or fuck off out of it and deal with the consequences. Stop pussy footing around.


NONSENSE - The 'problem' with your assertions about the 'benefits' of membership are that the majority of British people have not seen any.
It's the migrants that benefit, we British pick up the tab, that's why people voted Leave.

Whether it's migrant crime, demand-cost of housing, Benefit fraud, lengthening NHS waiting list, terrorism, Fake degrees-qualifications, illegal migration, the complete loss of control of this country by the one-world 'elite', the end result is, the E.U has utterly failed to increase the prosperity of ALL it's nationalist populations, that is fatal to the E.U, because that principle is one of the fundamental aims of the E.U.

You simply cannot fill a continent with economic migrants or bogus 'refugees' & increase prosperity for the indigenous peoples, it does NOT work that way.

That's why Labour will find the going tough to win the next election, in spite of people wanting nothing more than to rid themselves for good of the Tories & we British know that Labour will FAIL TO DELIVER the goods to those that vote for them as has always been the case since 1945. :( :*( :p
By B0ycey
#14948520
@Nonsense, all the benefits of the EU for ordinary citizens will be noticed under "Hard Brexit" conditions. You're in denile if you believe there are none. The size of your pension is one of them btw.

As for migrants, the can only "steal" a job if there is a vancany. The UK has low employment. The vast majority of migrants are not criminals. They are workers contributing to the economy.

As for housing, there is an issue and that is solely down to Thatcher and not the EU. You cannot sell off your nations housing stock and not build new housing to replace them and expect there not to be an issue in the future. Migrants don't take social housing. They take up private rent. The reason, because they are not entitled to social housing. The NHS needs migrants to run btw and terrorist are usually UK citizens of Asian heritage, not Eastern Europeans looking for work. To replace those workers under Hard Brexit conditions would likely mean more migrants from Pakistan btw. So all your fears are actually hightened outside the EU.
User avatar
By redcarpet
#14948523
Nonsense wrote:bogus 'refugees'


There's no such thing as a 'bogus' refugee. You don't understand the concept.

Errrrrrrr…….if you're trying to argue there the number of rejections is high, first of all you'd have to demonstrate that, secondly being rejected asylum doesn't mean you don't deserve it. The country in question might have reached its cap/quota.
By Atlantis
#14948526
redcarpet wrote:There's no such thing as a 'bogus' refugee. You don't understand the concept.

Errrrrrrr…….if you're trying to argue there the number of rejections is high, first of all you'd have to demonstrate that, secondly being rejected asylum doesn't mean you don't deserve it. The country in question might have reached its cap/quota.


I'm pro-asylum, but to claim that everybody who applies for asylum is a genuine refugee is an extreme position that cannot but damage the asylum system because it'll reduce acceptance of refugees among the native population.

In Europe, the rejection rate is around 50%, not because of any cap or quota. Except for the US and Australia, there are no countries that categorically bar refugees from entry. Asylum seekers are rejected because an examination, which often takes years, has come to the conclusion that there are no grounds for asylum.

Economic migrants ought to apply for work permits and not pose as refugees. While most countries accept the principle of asylum, no country has an obligation to take in an unlimited number of economic migrants.

I find that even hard-core racists are in favor of accepting refugees who really need protection. Thus, there should not even be any debate about the right to asylum. If the so-called refugee crisis has such a political impact it is because the asylum system is abused for economic or political reasons and because extremists demand that everybody claiming refugee status be given refugee status. The result is that those who need asylum most are often not given asylum.
By Atlantis
#14948529
Nonsense wrote:NONSENSE - The 'problem' with your assertions about the 'benefits' of membership are that the majority of British people have not seen any.
It's the migrants that benefit, we British pick up the tab, that's why people voted Leave.


The average Brit didn't see the benefit of the empire either and could have made the argument that the Chinese of Indians were sucking the UK dry because of the cost of maintaining the empire.

There is nothing so great in this world as the capability of people to delude themselves. The UK was the main driver for enlarging the EU for the benefit of the UK economy. Tony Blair also waived EU rules on limiting migration from new EU members for a period of 5 years. He wanted the UK to benefit from the "first mover's principle." It did work because the UK had the highest growth rates in Europe for the decade prior to the referendum.

Having cashed in on the benefits of the EU, the UK now wants to pass on the cost to others. It's not going to work. People on the continent understand the benefit of the EU very well. Free movement has substantially contributed to economic convergence and peace in Europe. We don't need to build walls between Italy or Spain and the North of Europe like Trump wants to in North America. Free movement has not only benefited poor countries but also rich countries. Knowing this, why should the EU let the UK destroy everything that has been achieved in the last 60 years?
By layman
#14948530
It’s not just about genuine claims. Asylum seekers and refugees cannot choose where they end up. This isn’t workable.

@Seeker8 oil tax revenues have turned out to be one tenth of what was predicted in the White paper. To make up for this the new plan is to grow like 5-6 percent to balance the books. Nichola sturgeon is the smartest one in the room right now but her shit stinks like a everyone else.

Anyway, the big news here is labour and ref2. With this policy I think labour can get a decent majority where as before I would predict a Tory win.

The question is how the eu will react to it. There is some sort of motion going through the courts - initiated by the Scottish government - to test whether article 50 can be withdrawn unilaterally.

My feeling is that the eu might put up with this. There would be sufficient humiliation for the uk to make a point while protecting the status quo. Far from certain though. Many would want at least concessions like the rebate.

@Atlantis i agree with most of what you said above but you gotta watch those sweeping ststements. Not everyone on the continent is in love with free movement. Certainly not Italy right now. What the uk people don’t seem to get is the difference between eu and other migration. There is strong myth that non eu migrants come here through eu passports I think. It’s hard to tell because many are too ignorant for details on their views.
By Atlantis
#14948532
layman wrote:The question is how the eu will react to it. There is some sort of motion going through the courts - initiated by the Scottish government - to test whether article 50 can be withdrawn unilaterally.

My feeling is that the eu might put up with this. There would be sufficient humiliation for the uk to make a point while protecting the status quo. Far from certain though. Many would want at least concessions like the rebate.


There is no way Article 50 can be revoked "unilaterally." It'll require a unanimous decision by the EU27. But as I said above, there is a good chance that the EU will agree to extend the term beyond two years if there are changed political conditions in the UK, like a new government, for example.

Why would Italians not want the freedom to move to other EU countries? They certainly don't have a problem with that. They have a problem will illegal immigration from outside the EU. But that is due to Italy's geographic position and not due to the EU.

Farage has done a good job of confounding EU freedom of movement with illegal immigration from outside the EU. With or without the EU, there will always be illegal immigration, but with the cooperative framework of the EU we at least have the means to control illegal immigration even before it reaches our borders.

Instead of antagonizing the Mexicans, Trump would do better if he followed the EU example and cooperated with Mexico to control illegal immigration from further South.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14948535
B0ycey wrote:Forced? Deals are a two way street. If there is no agreement there is no deal. But FYI the UK has a trade deficit with the EU. There will be more pressure by business onto them. But ultimately principles are a greater factor. And the same is true with the UK. So no, it will be No Deal or No Brexit.


I mean forced by the economics, i don't mean literally. As i said, i think if there is no deal a new U.K government will be forced to crawl back to the E.U for a deal.

But if England sticks to the "no deal", yes Scotland would suffer as an independent country. Worse than as part of the U.K? i doubt it, since Scotland supplies England with power, water and a base for their Nukes. But to be honest i have no idea and i don't think anyone here does.

@layman An oil prediction isn't a lie. Are you really comparing that to making promises one week before the referendum because the polls indicate you are losing, then not sticking to them. (federalism, devo-max, each nation would be equal partners, etc, etc). Anyway who do you vote for? you seem like a tory to me, which is funny if you think SNP are even a fraction as dishonest as them.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14948547


So Labour are just offering soft or hard brexit in their peoples vote it seems.

Is there actually ANY benefit to soft brexit over just staying as a member? Anyone know?
By Rich
#14948550
Both sides in the referendum were not just dishonest, but laughably dishonest. David Cameron was an idiotic joke who led the remain campaign to defeat. He was a rabid Islamophobe working tirelessly to get Turkish membership. His argument was, i'm a demented Isalmophile, but don't worry the French are a bit more sane than me and would never allow Turkish membership. Boris Johnson was also a fanatical Isamophillic supporter of Turkish membership. He vowed to continue working for Turkish membership whether we were in or out.

Camerons argued that the EU was utterly, utterly terrible and that we needed to leave unless Britain's deal was utterly transformed. After he got his deal he then argued that leaving the EU would lead to armageddon, when months before he had been arguing that leaving the EU was a reasonable and pragmatic option.

And then you had Labour and the Liberal Democrats, even more fanatically committed to transforming Britain into a Sharia state and flooding Europe with Muslims and Sub-Saharan immigration. They constantly used the EU as an excuse for their own policies. Quite rightly people trusted them even less than the Torries. All of the parties failed to condemn the European traitor Merkel, because they were all traitors themselves. We should have been allying with Hungry, Poland, Greece and Italy against Merkel.
User avatar
By JohnRawls
#14948558
Atlantis wrote:There is no way Article 50 can be revoked "unilaterally." It'll require a unanimous decision by the EU27. But as I said above, there is a good chance that the EU will agree to extend the term beyond two years if there are changed political conditions in the UK, like a new government, for example.

Why would Italians not want the freedom to move to other EU countries? They certainly don't have a problem with that. They have a problem will illegal immigration from outside the EU. But that is due to Italy's geographic position and not due to the EU.

Farage has done a good job of confounding EU freedom of movement with illegal immigration from outside the EU. With or without the EU, there will always be illegal immigration, but with the cooperative framework of the EU we at least have the means to control illegal immigration even before it reaches our borders.

Instead of antagonizing the Mexicans, Trump would do better if he followed the EU example and cooperated with Mexico to control illegal immigration from further South.


Actually there is some truth and untruths. EU is not fully without guilt regarding illegal immigration. Merkel opened the flood gates which hurt countries like Greece, Spain and Italy the most. Germany and France to a lessor degree. And UK almost not at all. So in context of UK, sure it is a lie but not as a whole of the EU. UK recieved under 1% of refugees ( I think it was even under 0.5%).

We desperately require immigration reform. Getting a bit more tougher on it is enevitable in the long term. Perhaps Macron can do it. Use force if necessary but the immigration situation needs to be put under control because it is hurting our border states. Start forcefully sending them back and disembarking them in the middle of the desert if we have to.

We have the means and the resources but we do not have the will for some reason. This has nothing to do with "corporatism" or "liberalism". Politicians are unwilling to get their hands dirty. I would same the same thing about Farange. He is a coward. He managed to push through Brexit but didn't stay to make it a reality.
User avatar
By Seeker8
#14948561
@JohnRawls You don't think Europe should take in refugees from warzones like Syria?
  • 1
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 328
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]