Yes. It made it pretty much impossible to counter the argument that Germany calls the shots in the EU, for one thing.Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
Yes. It made it pretty much impossible to counter the argument that Germany calls the shots in the EU, for one thing.
Oh, Berni, have you ever studied the terms of the German 1914 September Programme? This was just after the war had started when they thought they were about to secure a quick victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm
Look at this bit:
Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states.
Don't you think the Greeks et al will see similarities between Kaiser Willy's aims and the current EU under Merkel?
Benelux countries to be vassal states or annexed. Poland under their control. France seriously weakened so never a threat again. Only country not mentioned? GB. Because they obviously intended to have a 2nd war. Once they had all of Europe under their control, they would be able to spend on the navy instead of the army. The Programme states they want Belgian Channel ports.
So 100 years after they settled on this path, it has come to fruition.
Oh, as a Remainer, can I ask you one thing?
GB Foreign Policy has had two major planks for 500 years. To stop Europe being dominated by one power, and making sure that the Channel Ports were not all in hostile hands. In his excellent book on WW1, Forgotten Victory, Gary Sheffield starts by quoting Lord Burghley, Elizabeth's principal minister, telling her we can't let the Dagos take the Low Countries because these are "the counterscarp to your Majesty's kingdom."
Counterscarps are the outermost defensive parts of a fortress.
So, Brexit, imo, has done away with 500 years of GB foreign policy. We now have a united Europe against us, with no continental allies, with the Channel Ports all in the hands of powers who will always support the EU in the event of any form of conflict with GB. I'm obv not talking about war, but it seems to me that all these Brexiteers who bang on about war and history haven't really thought this through.
enter into a post-war partnership with Britain. That's why we weren't mentioned; they presumed we'd happily go along with it out of friendship and mutual respect.
But then, they would say that, wouldn't they
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
This is nonsense, I'm afraid, gg. By leaving the EU, we have in fact extricated ourselves from the German hegemony you describe - into which our leaders were happily drawing us further. It is now the case that, in fact, the EU will be surrounded by three military powers - the UK, Russia and Turkey - that are not contained within it and harbour various degrees of hostility towards it. That prospect, i suspect, will keep them in check.
We now need to arm for the coming wars.
1. We haven't extracted ourselves from German hegemony. We had been pooling sovereignty. We got our way in votes 95% of the time, more than both Germany and France. We now have no say in the rules that govern 44% of our exports.
2.The UK and Turkey as military powers? Lol. Bring in France and we can have Crimea 2.0. And we don't want hostile relations with our major trade partner.
3. How are we going to afford to arm? We are predicted to lose 9.5% of our GDP by 2030 because of Brexit. The public - including the idiots who voted fro Brexit - are now saying they want an end to austerity. Yet they voted to see the pound fall by 15-20%, which isn't helpful for a country with a large current account deficit, and for inflation to go well beyond the MPC's 2% remit and for a massive fall in our GDP.
Brexit is going to make us much, much poorer, as everyone knows full well. It disgusts me that there were about a dozen studies looking at how much Brexit will cost us in GDP loss, and all but one said it would be big. The other was was Economists for Brexit - 8 people. So because 8 ideologues came up with taht crap about us being richer, the Beeb were froced to say that there were arguments both ways.
And now all the predictions - as people realise what it entails - are saying it's going to be much worse than we thought a year ago.
By on earth did people vote to make themselves much poorer? The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision. We don't have the space or facilities to have customs checks at the ports for all the containers. Euratom, the fall in all the NHS workers etc. The rural food industry can't get the fruit pickers et al it needs.
I really worry for thsi country. If people are complaining about austerity now, what will they do in a decade when GDP is down 10%? They were moaning about only getting a 1% public sector pay rise. Now we need 3% just to keep real wages on a par.
People are going to realise that they have become a lot, lot poorer and that the reduced growth will devastate the public services they rely on. And what happens when the voters or govt have to decide which groups of people suffer most from the shrinking pie.
One half of the country will know that it's all the fault of the other half.
I can see a dark political future for this country, potentially.
When people see that we've fallen from being as rich as France to as poor as Portugal, and knowing that unlike, say, the Wall St crash that:
1. It's not affecting every nation, just us.
2. That it's not going to go back to how it was, we've got this forever.
3. That it wasn't outsiders - foreign bankers or a hostile power - that's to blame, it's one half of our fellow citizens.
Do you not worry about how voters wil react when it dawns on them what they have either done or had done to them by the other group?
Oh, dear.And we were having such a nice chat until now. This is merely the hysterical ranting of a bedwetter, gg.
Oh, by the way, whenever someone says in all seriousness: 'The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision', I reach for my revolver. You either trust the public with decisions about how they are governed or you advocate tyranny. There is no middle ground.
There is a middle ground and it is called parliamentary democracy. The public get to choose a few hundred people to make these decisions for us.Oh, dear.
Oh, by the way, whenever someone says in all seriousness: 'The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision', I reach for my revolver. You either trust the public with decisions about how they are governed or you advocate tyranny. There is no middle ground.
They either know best or they are not up to the job. The rest of us have our own work to be getting on with.
Absolutely, and I'm a big fan of it - as long as it remains representative. Where that duty of representation fails - as it did so abjectly on the question of the EU - then the need for recourse to direct democracy arises.
No, they know nothing, which is why they can all be readily ignored. As you say, just get on with your own life.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
Firstly, there is a middle ground. Represnentative democracy, not referendums. I don't know what level our interest rates should be, so we leave it to the MPC overseen by a govt, accountable in parl, which has experts to advise them.Oh, dear.
Oh, by the way, whenever someone says in all seriousness: 'The public should never have been entrusted with such a decision', I reach for my revolver. You either trust the public with decisions about how they are governed or you advocate tyranny. There is no middle ground.
We shouldn't let the public vote every three months on what the rate should be. Cos people with mortguages will vote for 0% and people with savings will vote for 100%. Leave it to the experts, accountable to govt, accountable to parl, accountable to their voters.
This is precisely the middle ground I'm talking about. Put experts, govt and parl between the voters and the decision.
But the econ issues are not the hysterical rantins of a bedwetter. You read the Times, don't you? Because the Times, FT and Economist have been showing almost daily how this is really going to cost us **** loads.
And if every economist, bar 8, in the country says it's going to cost us **** loads, I trust them. All the experts know this is going to be an economic disaster. A slow, drawn out one, admittedly, but a disaster none the less.
But please answer my question about what happens when our economy does go tits up.
Just for sake of argument, assume that it does go bad. Very bad. The 9.5% fall in GDP predicted by 2030.
How do you think the voters will react? One half knowing the other has ruined their and their children's' futures.
And what about those who voted fro Brexit? Will the Mail and Sun tell them that it was their fault, that they should have listened to all the experts who told them they'd be much poorer? Or will it say that they have been stabbed in the back by traitors like post-ww1 Germany? What do you think?
You really don't think some form of extremism can happen here?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote