EU-BREXIT - Page 320 - 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 Rugoz
#15067144
Tourism is not even relevant here.

We're talking about people being allowed to work in other member states and/or receiving social benefits there.
User avatar
By Ter
#15067147
Rugoz wrote:Tourism is not even relevant here.

We're talking about people being allowed to work in other member states and/or receiving social benefits there.


Yes, those hundreds of thousands of Polish plumbers, Romanian truck drivers, Bulgarian brick layers, Hungarian dentists, and so on, was that really necessary ?
That created a lot of resentment among the working people all over Europe.
And of course, then Frau Merkel said "Wir Schaffen Das" and let in Millions of Muslim migrants.
Bonjour BREXIT and let's see what follows next.
User avatar
By Beren
#15067150
I'd rather bet Brexit has its roots in British culture and history, while most Leavers don't mind if they can get the apparatus of their water supply or their teeth fixed cheaper by immigrants.

ImageDCI Barnaby and his wife Joyce dancing at a WWII nostalgia party

Unleashing Britain's potential. :lol:
By B0ycey
#15067152
Rugoz wrote:We're talking about people being allowed to work in other member states and/or receiving social benefits there.


If the position is vacant, what's the problem?

The four free movements was never an issue and neither were working EU citizens. I am sure people in the UK would prefer no visas for a visit to Spain and I doubt anyone would really have an issue with someone from Spain coming here. The problem was that Farage and Co threatened a Turkish exodus to the UK during the migrant crisis (when they are unlikely to become a member anytime soon) and to prevent such a threat being used as propaganda in the future, perhaps member states should have restrictions to return people back to their member states under certain conditions to stop this so called fear from ever becoming a reality. This of course is irrelevant to the UK today.
By Rich
#15067156
B0ycey wrote:If the position is vacant, what's the problem?

The four free movements was never an issue and neither were working EU citizens.

Of course it was an issue. The mass immigration of recent decades is massively impacting our living standards and quality of life. in the short and medium term it drives down wages, but most importantly over the long term it drives up housing costs. The left and their mass immigration corporate allies keep lying about this over and over again. In fact the more hard working and capable the immigrants the more they add to the ever increasing demand for housing.

In pre industrial times the big resource constraint was farming land. Of course we can support far more people on the same land area than in the Middle Ages, but the same basic competition exists now as then. When people are on the bread line, give them a bit more income and they'll spend the bulk of it on food. But once people reach a certain level of prosperity they spend a huge proportion of additional income on property. What do a Medieval Baron and a modern day plumber want? A bigger house and a bigger garden. And even when the modern citizen is not spending additional income on property, the goods and service they buy instead themselves drive up the demand for commercial property.

The other point that lefties refuse to face is that higher population density not only drives down the average living standard, it also increases inequality, hitting the indigenous poor and the middle classes with a double whammy, because it increases the profits of land and capital owners.

So yes we want a shortage of health workers because we want to drive up the wages of health workers. We want a shortage of highly skilled IT workers because want to force employers to recruit and train indigenous worker into the higher paying occupations. We want a shortage of agricultural workers because we want to drive up the wages of both agricultural and seasonal workers. If that means some jobs don't get done or have to be mechanised so be it.
User avatar
By Beren
#15067161
Rich wrote:So yes we want a shortage of health workers because we want to drive up the wages of health workers. We want a shortage of highly skilled IT workers because want to force employers to recruit and train indigenous worker into the higher paying occupations. We want a shortage of agricultural workers because we want to drive up the wages of both agricultural and seasonal workers. If that means some jobs don't get done or have to be mechanised so be it.

It seems the only thing you don't want is competitiveness on either the global or the local market. How will Britain's potential (and exports) be unleashed if British goods and services get more expensive? How will you find and buy British fruits and vegetables for a payable price on the local market if imported fruits and vegetables will be available for half the price, for example? Do you mean to wage trade wars too? Or do you fuckers really mean to live in the Victorian era, when you were still dominant and had your exclusive empire, or what? :knife:
By B0ycey
#15067165
Rich wrote:Of course it was an issue. The mass immigration of recent decades is massively impacting our living standards and quality of life. in the short and medium term it drives down wages, but most importantly over the long term it drives up housing costs. The left and their mass immigration corporate allies keep lying about this over and over again. In fact the more hard working and capable the immigrants the more they add to the ever increasing demand for housing.


OK, I can understand the issue of housing for which you have a point. A low supply of homes is definitely bring up the cost of housing whether it be by rent or ownership. I don't blame migrants for this but Thatcher and that is another topic all together for why that is the case. But nonetheless we have low unemployment. If wages are low, it isn't because of an over supply of the workforce. It is because business can't compete globally to maintain a profit with UK wages. Which is why we have sent out manufacturing to Asia to begin with. Ultimately that is why there is a minimum wage to at least counter this threat and being in or out the EU won't change this conundrum.

So yes we want a shortage of health workers because we want to drive up the wages of health workers. We want a shortage of highly skilled IT workers because want to force employers to recruit and train indigenous worker into the higher paying occupations. We want a shortage of agricultural workers because we want to drive up the wages of both agricultural and seasonal workers. If that means some jobs don't get done or have to be mechanised so be it.


Well it will mean jobs don't get done. Agriculture relies on Migrant workers because without them crop doesn't get picked and this will increase not decrease living costs. The NHS relies on migrant workers and again without them it couldn't even function as health isn't a desirable skill to learn for the pampered UK populous. And IT skills are sort after globally because there is a shortage in this skill. If the UK doesn't want these skills from migrants some other nation most definitely will. Although I will say now it isn't the lack of opportunity why the UK populous doesn't learn IT. It is because demand outstrips those who want to learn it. IT is a well paid even here in the UK.
By fokker
#15067193
JohnRawls wrote:Also the waves of immigration are always different because right now eastern Europe is fine compared to what it was 15 years ago for example. Our unemployment is pretty low (Below 5%) While the main immigration is happening out of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal due to their high unemployment. Its complicated.


Source countries are different, but target countries are the same. Now Britain is out. Who will be next? :)

B0ycey wrote:If wages are low, it isn't because of an over supply of the workforce. It is because business can't compete globally to maintain a profit with UK wages. Which is why we have sent out manufacturing to Asia to begin with. Ultimately that is why there is a minimum wage to at least counter this threat and being in or out the EU won't change this conundrum.


Low wages are good for economy, but bad for workers. It helps to drive economic growth which eventually means improvement of everybody's lifestyle. We can look back at 19th century when workers were paid so little they had to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, even children. Those poor people built many things we have today - railways, bridges, roads, many buildings in city centers. But it can't be a permanent situation as it creates an explosive atmosphere full of racism and class hatred. Immigration we are experiencing isn't anything new - it happened already in 20th century - in US, also in Europe but on smaller scale like in Vienna, which was a melting pot of its empire citizens. Austrians were not too happy about it and it helped to form Hitlers personality. My point is we have to control it if we want to maintain peace, prosperity and a fair economy where everybody has a change to lead decent life (own property, have family, education). Without control it can become a permanent situation as people from poor areas naturally migrate to richer ones in hope of better life. Equalization of living standard in EU is not guaranteed, even in 50 years. I predict Eastern EU will still be poor (used as a manufacturing base, sort of mini China), Western EU still rich and people will keep migrating.

If we look at the situation in UK as a whole, nothing really bad has happened as those 2 million immigrants got employed and unemployment is still low. If they left suddenly it could even trigger economic crisis in UK due to severe labor shortage, rising wages thus loss of competitiveness. But if we look at peoples lives then property prices keep rising, new schools are not being built, there are no new hospitals. All those new workers must use services of host country and those cannot be easily expanded, congested roads cannot be widened. I'm not surprised at all that trust in democratic system is reaching its lowest point.

B0ycey wrote:And IT skills are sort after globally because there is a shortage in this skill. If the UK doesn't want these skills from migrants some other nation most definitely will. Although I will say now it isn't the lack of opportunity why the UK populous doesn't learn IT. It is because demand outstrips those who want to learn it. IT is a well paid even here in the UK.

Not everybody has potential to learn certain skill. IT is a good example and it requires either migration or multi location cooperation. Companies handle migration restrictions by expanding offices abroad. Professionals get paid quite well there as well, so much that it surprisingly doesn't pay off at all to migrate to Western EU countries - Germany, UK etc. There are many IT experts in Eastern EU who are unwilling to migrate, because increase of salary would be very small (maybe 20%, sometimes even the same and any gain easily consumed by high property prices). It may surprise you, but it is true, many skilled people actually don't want to come to UK (despite its huge language advantage, unlike Germany as few people want to speak German all day, every day in their future life :D ). After Brexit it will be even worse and actually US could benefit from it most. UK simply cannot compete with US in terms of opportunities.

So now we know skilled people do not always want to migrate because they are well aware of the pitfalls - foreign language, possibly smaller house due to higher prices in new location, some people will always hate them.. While the unskilled ones will keep migrating happily.. Migration should be controlled so that the mix of skill is right for the host country and not skewed towards unskilled workers.
By B0ycey
#15067235
fokker wrote:Low wages are good for economy, but bad for workers. It helps to drive economic growth which eventually means improvement of everybody's lifestyle. We can look back at 19th century when workers were paid so little they had to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, even children. Those poor people built many things we have today - railways, bridges, roads, many buildings in city centers. But it can't be a permanent situation as it creates an explosive atmosphere full of racism and class hatred.


Low wages can be aligned to the cost of living by a government providing a minimal living wage. If unemployment is low this is perhaps a better way to counteract class inequality. The problem with Victorian England was profits were paramount and a class divide between the Proletariat and the bourgeoisie was distinct - which is fine whilst the proletariat are unaware of their class distinction. The French and Russian revolutions highlight the possible consequence of pushing the wealth divide too much.

Nonetheless I see no correlation with poor wages and economic growth. Sure Victorian workers created wonders and boosted productivity with new inventions and hours worked but the same wonders are being build today and factories are even more productive than they were yesteryear with a shorter working day. Low wages are only a factor when it comes to profits. It is part of the cost of production and is why production is being sent to Asia. It is good for their economies I guess due to the Free Market. But whilst unemployment is low the same businesses would still have to look at new countries to invest in even if wages were significantly lower in the UK than they are now. Why? Because the labor simply isn't here unless you have migrants.

If we look at the situation in UK as a whole, nothing really bad has happened as those 2 million immigrants got employed and unemployment is still low. If they left suddenly it could even trigger economic crisis in UK due to severe labor shortage, rising wages thus loss of competitiveness. But if we look at peoples lives then property prices keep rising, new schools are not being built, there are no new hospitals. All those new workers must use services of host country and those cannot be easily expanded, congested roads cannot be widened. I'm not surprised at all that trust in democratic system is reaching its lowest point.


Exactly, if those two million people left tomorrow it would cause an economic/ health crisis. That is because there isn't enough people here to replace them as unemployment is low. The irony of course is if all EU citizens left, we would need new migrants from the Commonwealth to replace them. So you aren't getting rid of migration, just replacing them.

As for a shortage in services, that is a political shortfall. It is up to government to address this problem once they realised the significance of a population increase. If we can afford a few illegal wars we most definitely could have afforded a few more schools. The fact they never did was simply because they were ignorant of this issue until it was far too late. It was the same with Thatcher selling social housing for a quick buck. It is fine until the realisation that there isn't enough homes for everyone if you do that. And there wasn't even a plan to build new homes to replace them until recently from any government and the plan they have now still isn't enough.

While the unskilled ones will keep migrating happily.. Migration should be controlled so that the mix of skill is right for the host country and not skewed towards unskilled workers.


But what if what you require from migrants is unskilled labor? It is no coincidence that migrants take jobs that are classed as undesirable and low skilled. There aren't many UK residence who want to work in care for example. And high skilled migrants will always be desirable for any nation in or out of the EU.
By fokker
#15067352
B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless I see no correlation with poor wages and economic growth. Sure Victorian workers created wonders and boosted productivity with new inventions and hours worked but the same wonders are being build today and factories are even more productive than they were yesteryear with a shorter working day. Low wages are only a factor when it comes to profits. It is part of the cost of production and is why production is being sent to Asia. It is good for their economies I guess due to the Free Market. But whilst unemployment is low the same businesses would still have to look at new countries to invest in even if wages were significantly lower in the UK than they are now. Why? Because the labor simply isn't here unless you have migrants.


4 cheap workers can build and produce things faster than 2 expensive British workers. That inevitably means higher production, more houses can be built in the same time period. That ultimately means higher GDP. We have reached a point when it is very difficult to achieve further growth with native workforce due to their cost. This is visible mainly in areas that cannot be exported - construction industry, services.

Poor wages allow companies to undercut competition and gain market share. They also allow huge profits that can be used for investments and in that case it leads to more growth. They can invest in home country - in that case likely more automation or abroad, in that case new factories overseas that will supply cheap parts. In both cases it leads to economic growth of world as a whole and ultimately improvement of quality of life for everybody, including those poor workers, although for them it will not be immediate. There is a limit how much can be invested locally due to eventual labor shortages as you noted.

Cheap workforce from outside of UK could also be used to build schools, hospitals, new houses in the UK in near future, just like poor Brits built them during Victorian era.

B0ycey wrote:Exactly, if those two million people left tomorrow it would cause an economic/ health crisis. That is because there isn't enough people here to replace them as unemployment is low. The irony of course is if all EU citizens left, we would need new migrants from the Commonwealth to replace them. So you aren't getting rid of migration, just replacing them.


Yeah it's a very tricky issue to solve in the UK after Brexit. Boris can't blackmail EU with those workers, as we actually want them back home. He can't send them back immediately as that would trigger an economic crisis. If he sends them back gradually in smaller numbers, coupled with Brexit and poor future trade agreement it could lead to economic stagnation for some time (small economic growth would be negated by decrease of population). Moreover it means children of those immigrants will study at British schools, with every Brit paying for it and what can Britain do? Send them back after they paid for their education? That would be a very poor economic decision.

Job vacancies that get filled with immigrants, as long as economy is in good shape will result in new job vacancies being opened as immigrants also buy more goods and use services. Those new vacancies can again be filled by immigrants and it keeps repeating until whole Britain is one huge city - London. Which is why I advocate controlled immigration, not the chaos we have in EU right now.

B0ycey wrote:As for a shortage in services, that is a political shortfall. It is up to government to address this problem once they realised the significance of a population increase. If we can afford a few illegal wars we most definitely could have afforded a few more schools. The fact they never did was simply because they were ignorant of this issue until it was far too late. It was the same with Thatcher selling social housing for a quick buck. It is fine until the realisation that there isn't enough homes for everyone if you do that. And there wasn't even a plan to build new homes to replace them until recently from any government and the plan they have now still isn't enough.


UK debt as a percentage of GDP has risen from about 40% to about 80%. It had to pay huge sums of money to EU to trade and got huge number of immigrants in return (that also allowed higher growth to be fair). It needs replacement of Trident system and investment in state run services while being in high debt. Solving this is not going to be easy at all and continued membership of EU wouldn't make this easier either without some immigration control.

B0ycey wrote:But what if what you require from migrants is unskilled labor? It is no coincidence that migrants take jobs that are classed as undesirable and low skilled. There aren't many UK residence who want to work in care for example. And high skilled migrants will always be desirable for any nation in or out of the EU.

Selecting primarily unskilled immigrants results in uneven pressure on the home labour market as some locals will be affected by competition. Being unable to compete as they want to live decently they will resort to racism, fascism, vote for radical parties. It can work if it is controlled, but in EU it is not the case. Normally we could argue some locals could fill those job vacancies if unemployment rate is 6-8%, but in UK it seems to be about 3.8% so this doesn't apply as the bottom 3% tend to be quite useless in any country.

On top of that it introduces the problem of integration, as unskilled workers need to work many hours, will not read books, have poor knowledge of English language and not much time to learn it, tend to stick together more. US has experienced the same problem in early 20th century, it can be solved but is very slow, basically resolved only with children receiving British education. This problem doesn't exist for skilled immigrants as they come with the intention to integrate and become loyal citizens from the first generation.

Boris may experience a shock that Britain that is outside of EU isn't attractive for skilled EU workers anymore. We are talking about doctors, scientists, university teachers, IT professionals, engineers. British citizenship suddenly became worthless after Brexit to any prospective skilled immigrant. Winners will be US and EU.
User avatar
By Beren
#15067402
Wikipedia about Rishi Sunak wrote:Image
Business career

Sunak worked as an analyst for investment bank Goldman Sachs between 2001 and 2004. He then worked for hedge fund management firm The Children's Investment Fund Management, becoming a partner in September 2006. He left in November 2009 to join other former colleagues at new hedge fund firm Theleme Partners, which launched in October 2010 with an initial $700 million. Sunak was also a director of investment firm Catamaran Ventures, owned by his father-in-law, Indian businessman N. R. Narayana Murthy.

Personal life

Sunak married Akshata Murthy, the daughter of Indian billionaire and co-founder of Infosys, N. R. Narayana Murthy, in August 2009. They met while studying at Stanford University and have two daughters. He is a Hindu, and has taken his oath at the House of Commons on the Bhagavad Gita since 2017.

I wonder if the whole point of the Brexit circus was to finally have this guy as Chancellor of the Exchequer to 'unleash Britain's potential' without any restrictions.

Poor Javid sold his soul for peanuts. :muha1:
User avatar
By Ter
#15067523
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole

UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years

Presidents, prime ministers and chancellors across Europe will pack their bags later this week in preparation for a long weekend in Brussels. They won’t, however, be taking in the baroque majesty of the Grand Place or savouring the local culinary treats. Instead, they will be preparing for that most infamous of events, a “four shirter”, to use the clothes-packing gauge adopted by male diplomats to measure the length and horror of EU leaders’ summits in the Belgian capital. The thorny subject this time around? Money. And the problem? Britain.

The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union has left a huge €75bn (£62bn) hole in the bloc’s budget for the next seven years, 2021 to 2027. “And now we are fighting like ferrets in a sack,” said one EU diplomat with a sigh.

Covering items ranging from agricultural subsidies to science programmes and the EU’s efforts to combat the climate emergency, the new multi-annual financial framework (MFF) needs to be agreed by the leaders and an increasingly unpredictable European parliament before the end of the year. Without agreement, everything risks grinding to a halt in just nine months’ time, including the flow of cohesion funds, the cash dedicated to supporting the poorest member states.

Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.

There are two main rivals in the budget battle. On one side are those who proudly describe themselves as “the Frugals” – the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark (although there are some concerns within the camp that the new Austrian coalition government, being a bit Green now, has been lost to them, and that the Swedes are going soft). As the biggest net payers, the Frugals have been insisting on a budget of no more than 1% of the EU’s gross national income. The European commission’s initial proposal was for 1.1% – around €1.25tn over the seven years.

Then there are the “Friends of Cohesion”. “The Friends of Corruption, you mean?” spat one EU diplomat from a Frugal state.

The 15 under the FoC flag are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Croatia, Malta, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Portugal and Greece.

The Frugals say that the commission’s €90bn in cuts to agriculture and cohesion funding are not enough. The FoC say they are being unfairly targeted and that the richer countries should cough up some more, setting up a battle between east and west.

The debate is all the more toxic as the commission has proposed that cohesion funds should also, in the future, be conditional on member states respecting the rule of law. It is a red rag to the bulls in the nationalist governments of Hungary and Poland, who are already in a battle with Brussels over their judicial reforms, among other issues.

Then there is France and Germany. Berlin’s main concern is that they don’t come out of it looking worse than the French. In Paris, the government just worries about how much cash is going to go to its farmers, said one senior EU official. The fragmentation of the national debates leaves it impossible to say what will happen, said a second official, with even Irish politics in turmoil following the election that has made Sinn Féin the second largest parliamentary party.

Going in to the summit, the European council’s president, Charles Michel, a former prime minister of Belgium, has been engaged in furious shuttle diplomacy around the capitals.

Michel has put forward an alternative proposal for the budget to be 1.074% of the bloc’s gross national income (€1.094tn) in an attempt to split the difference between the warring camps.

“In this negotiation, we are not expecting member states to be happy, but the degree of dissatisfaction will be key,” said a senior EU official. “No chance,” responded a Frugal diplomat. “There is not a lot to say, except we won’t pay. And as the Rolling Stones song goes, ‘Time is on my side’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ost-brexit

So it was true that Britain will save a lot of money thanks to Brexit ?
User avatar
By Beren
#15067552
Sure, the UK as a net contributor can save some money by leaving the EU. It's never been an issue, however. :roll:
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#15068231
JohnRawls wrote:Canada is full in line with US standards. Very rarely they deviate from each other due to proximity and trade importance. That was idea for the EU. Same goes for Mexico to a large degree.

The point is, as I think you know, that Canada is not required to automatically align itself with rules and regulations that the US might come up with at a future point.

JohnRawls wrote:Also i don't remember Canada pronouncing anything of the sort to milk the US for benefits while ignoring all obligations it has to the US.

I don't know which specific pronouncement(s) you are referring to, so can't comment. Could you provide links?

JohnRawls wrote:The courts thing is frankly a very small part of it. I trust the UK courts actually a lot more than perhaps any other court due to their long history of intermidiation, problem solving and mitigation/litigation. I don't know why that bothers you so much, if it was just about the courts then this would have been resolved by now since most people in the EU don't care about them that much. The EU might as well be under UK courts as long as they are fair/just and nobody would really care. (Both politicians and people)

If we are talking about a conventional free trade deal, e.g. similar to the often referred to Canada deal, there is simply no reason why the ECJ should have jurisdiction at all. That the EU still insists on it would indicate that they regard it as somewhat more important than you.

It's better to not think of issues like the ECJ and dynamic alignment as completely separate issues. They are part of a broader pattern confirming the EU's wish to influence its neighbours above and beyond that which would be a natural dominance due to its size anyway. Again, it's quite a heavy handed and overbearing approach and is in my view an expression of a fundamentally different style and strategy with respect to trade and international cooperation which ought to be resisted on principle.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15068297
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:to be resisted on principle.

Another whinging pom. :roll:

What's your problem?

If the UK doesn't want to produce goods to EU standards, fine, cease trading manufactured goods to the EU.

If the UK doesn't want 'equivalence' in services, fine, cease trading in services with the EU.
By Rugoz
#15068298
B0ycey wrote:If the position is vacant, what's the problem?


EU workers have the same rights as domestic workers, companies cannot discriminate based of nationality. If 3 people apply for a job, the cheapest/best will get it. I'm not saying that's necessarily a problem. It depends on the supply of EU workers willing to work for a low wage.

It is far more of an issue if you have say a Romanian construction company offering work in the UK, while paying Romanian wages. There's no way UK companies could compete with that. Hence Romanian companies should pay UK wages to Romanian workers for the time they work in the UK.

ingliz wrote:If the UK doesn't want to produce goods to EU standards, fine, cease trading manufactured goods to the EU.


Sure, although it's hard to argue why the EU should have a mutual recognition agreement with Canada and others and not with the UK. It is also hard to argue why mutual recognition should not exist where standards are very similar.
By foxdemon
#15068317
ingliz wrote:Another whinging pom. :roll:

What's your problem?

If the UK doesn't want to produce goods to EU standards, fine, cease trading manufactured goods to the EU.

If the UK doesn't want 'equivalence' in services, fine, cease trading in services with the EU.



@Kaiserschmarrn isn’t English. She doesn’t even reside in Europe. I think she can be considered to have a disinterested opinion. In contrast, most opinions on this thread reflect the immediate interests of the opposing groups: British independence versus EU imperialist proclivities.

My opinion is that this whole affair is rather tragic. How can the EU be expected to survive without the UK? Gone is that fundamental democratic influence on the shape of European governance. Oh, and lots of money had been removed from the budget. How can a much poorer EU survive with autocrats running the show unchallenged?

Oh well, the British have shown themselves to truely be a nation of shop keepers and, as any small businessman knows, there is no point throwing good money after bad. Better to cut one’s losses and try something else.
User avatar
By Beren
#15068319
foxdemon wrote:@Kaiserschmarrn isn’t English. She doesn’t even reside in Europe. I think she can be considered to have a disinterested opinion.

She may be disinterested, but she's definitely not unbiased. Pretty much the same as you. :lol:
By foxdemon
#15068322
Beren wrote:She may be disinterested, but she's definitely not unbiased. Pretty much the same as you. :lol:



What are you talking about. We are completely unbiased. Most opinion outside of Europe accepts that a vote is a vote and the British voted to leave.

Personally, I think they should have stayed for the sake of the EU. But how fair is it to ask the British to stay in the EU in order to save Europeans from their own bad ideas? Now, were it the case that Europeans would listen to sound advice. But alas, they ears are full of wax.
User avatar
By Beren
#15068325
foxdemon wrote:What are you talking about. We are completely unbiased.

So you're dishonest too. :lol:
  • 1
  • 318
  • 319
  • 320
  • 321
  • 322
  • 326

You brought in the Boston Tea Party. I don't see[…]

In itself, Chinese imperialism is not worse than U[…]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

This is scary stuff. Lebanon is getting really ha[…]

Thank you Crantag for replying. Not in order. As I[…]