So it seems our chums in the ever-democratic EU are threatening to suspend Poland's

[Burney]

EU voting rights because they don't like some measures that Poland's democratically-elected government are taking.

This should be fun.

[Sir C]

EU voting rights because they don't like some measures that Poland's democratically-elected government are taking.

This should be fun.

Surely the EU cannot allow Poland to stand in defiance against its diktats? Reichsprotektor Merkel should despatch a small army across the border to explain to the Polish people exactly who is in charge.

[Burney]

Surely the EU cannot allow Poland to stand in defiance against its diktats? Reichsprotektor Merkel should despatch a small army across the border to explain to the Polish people exactly who is in charge.

The Visegrad Group are already in the naughty corner for sticking two fingers up at Mutti Merkel when she demanded they take a fúck tonne of muslim low-life so that they could share in the culturally enriching experience of gang rape, honour killing and FGM like the rest of us. This could push her over the edge into full Lebensraum mode.

[Sir C]

The Visegrad Group are already in the naughty corner for sticking two fingers up at Mutti Merkel when she demanded they take a fúck tonne of muslim low-life so that they could share in the culturally enriching experience of gang rape, honour killing and FGM like the rest of us. This could push her over the edge into full Lebensraum mode.

It's interesting that the two things which very much might have destroyed European civilisation in the 20th century, Germans and communism, have come together in the form of a German communist to complete the job in the 21st.

[redgunamo]

EU voting rights because they don't like some measures that Poland's democratically-elected government are taking.

This should be fun.

I think they're just upset because the Varsovians heartily applauded the Donald's speech the other day.

[Ash]

The Visegrad Group are already in the naughty corner for sticking two fingers up at Mutti Merkel when she demanded they take a fúck tonne of muslim low-life so that they could share in the culturally enriching experience of gang rape, honour killing and FGM like the rest of us. This could push her over the edge into full Lebensraum mode.

http://bultimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/adolf-merkel.jpg

[Burney]

I think they're just upset because the Varsovians heartily applauded the Donald's speech the other day.

Oh, they love a Republican President in Eastern Europe - and they've little or no time for multiculturalism.
There's a bloody great statue of Ronald Reagan in Budapest.

[World's End Stella]

EU voting rights because they don't like some measures that Poland's democratically-elected government are taking.

This should be fun.

That's like accusing the Tories of not being democratic because they insist MPs vote along party lines. If you want to be in the club, you need to be part of the club. :shrug:

[Burney]

http://bultimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/adolf-merkel.jpg

I do sometimes wonder why so few pro-EU types worry that Merkel took a unilateral decision about letting in millions of migrants to Germany and was then allowed to use the Commission to pressure fellow EU states into following suit. Did that sort of undue influence not set anyone else's alarm bells ringing?

[Peter]

That's like accusing the Tories of not being democratic because they insist MPs vote along party lines. If you want to be in the club, you need to be part of the club. :shrug:

Its not really like that at all though, is it?

[Sir C]

That's like accusing the Tories of not being democratic because they insist MPs vote along party lines. If you want to be in the club, you need to be part of the club. :shrug:

You realise that Conservative MPs are elected by the people of this country to serve in the parliament of this country, do you?

Sometimes I think that pokster's assault must have shifted the plates in your head mate.

[redgunamo]

I do sometimes wonder why so few pro-EU types worry that Merkel ...

Because that's their point, that's what they want.

[Burney]

That's like accusing the Tories of not being democratic because they insist MPs vote along party lines. If you want to be in the club, you need to be part of the club. :shrug:

That would have rather more validity had the EU not studiously ignored it when the previous, pro-EU Polish government undertook similar measures.

Besides, it's the optics that are the real problem here. They are now being seen to be overtly interfering in the internal governance of a member country because they don't like its government's policies. This sort of naked attack on democratic sovereignty makes explicit to people just what an appalling shítshow the EU really is, which can only be good.

[Burney]

Because that's their point, that's what they want.

They want to be pushed around by Germany? Really?

I'd always known such people were misguided, but I generally have assumed they were at least sincerely misguided. You are suggesting that they are actively treasonous. :-(

[World's End Stella]

Its not really like that at all though, is it?

If the context is 'any time some body has to do something they don't want to it's un-democratic' then yes it is.

I'm always amused when people criticise the EU for not being democratic. Because getting 28 different countries to act as a union and reap the benefits of that union while allowing them to vote on everything and opt out of anything they don't agree with would just be sooooo easy. :hehe:

[World's End Stella]

You realise that Conservative MPs are elected by the people of this country to serve in the parliament of this country, do you?

Sometimes I think that pokster's assault must have shifted the plates in your head mate.

I'm afraid your point is just a really stupid one, Charles. Think harder next time.

[Sir C]

I'm afraid your point is just a really stupid one, Charles. Think harder next time.

K! Will do.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I do sometimes wonder why so few pro-EU types worry that Merkel took a unilateral decision about letting in millions of migrants to Germany and was then allowed to use the Commission to pressure fellow EU states into following suit. Did that sort of undue influence not set anyone else's alarm bells ringing?

As an ardent Europhile, that was the one thing that completely outraged me. I had no way of even starting to justify it.

[Peter]

If the context is 'any time some body has to do something they don't want to it's un-democratic' then yes it is.

I'm always amused when people criticise the EU for not being democratic. Because getting 28 different countries to act as a union and reap the benefits of that union while allowing them to vote on everything and opt out of anything they don't agree with would just be sooooo easy. :hehe:

You appear to be suggesting that it is as democratic as it can afford to be. I would agree.

People only complain about a lack of democracy when they don't like something. People are ****s.

[Burney]

If the context is 'any time some body has to do something they don't want to it's un-democratic' then yes it is.

I'm always amused when people criticise the EU for not being democratic. Because getting 28 different countries to act as a union and reap the benefits of that union while allowing them to vote on everything and opt out of anything they don't agree with would just be sooooo easy. :hehe:

Right. So you concede that it is undemocratic because it cannot be otherwise and function?

That isn't a reason why it isn't undemocratic, it is simply a reason for it being so.

Given which, you'll understand why those of us to whom the principles of democratic government actually matter had no alternative other than to vote Leave?

Glad we've sorted that out.

[Burney]

As an ardent Europhile, that was the one thing that completely outraged me. I had no way of even starting to justify it.

Yes. It made it pretty much impossible to counter the argument that Germany calls the shots in the EU, for one thing.

[redgunamo]

They want to be pushed around by Germany? Really?

I'd always known such people were misguided, but I generally have assumed they were at least sincerely misguided. You are suggesting that they are actively treasonous. :-(

Oh, sure. And there's plenty of both sorts.

Naturally they distrust their own government more than some (any!) other government which they don't know so well and have less experience of.

The fears of today are always greater than the fears for tomorrow, as the man said.

[World's End Stella]

That would have rather more validity had the EU not studiously ignored it when the previous, pro-EU Polish government undertook similar measures.

Besides, it's the optics that are the real problem here. They are now being seen to be overtly interfering in the internal governance of a member country because they don't like its government's policies. This sort of naked attack on democratic sovereignty makes explicit to people just what an appalling shítshow the EU really is, which can only be good.

Not knowing what the specific issue is that you are referring to, I'm guessing you could rephrase what you posted as 'they have expressed concern that an EU member state is proposing something that is inconsistent with the state's EU membership'.

And they have every right to do that, as I said, if you want to be in the club. I notice the EU expressing concern about the threat to democracy in Turkey and the impact that would have on their attempt to join the EU. I don't hear many criticising them for that 'interference'.

[Burney]

People only complain about a lack of democracy when they don't like something.

:hehe: Well, quite.

[redgunamo]

You appear to be suggesting that it is as democratic as it can afford to be. I would agree.

People only complain about a lack of democracy when they don't like something. People are ****s.

Especially if that something is Germans, you'd think?

[World's End Stella]

K! Will do.

You've made me feel guilty now. :-(

You c*nt. :-)

[Burney]

Not knowing what the specific issue is that you are referring to, I'm guessing you could rephrase what you posted as 'they have expressed concern that an EU member state is proposing something that is inconsistent with the state's EU membership'.

And they have every right to do that, as I said, if you want to be in the club. I notice the EU expressing concern about the threat to democracy in Turkey and the impact that would have on their attempt to join the EU. I don't hear many criticising them for that 'interference'.

No, they have said they are considering invoking Article 7 for the first time in their history to suspend Poland's voting rights.

[Peter]

Right. So you concede that it is undemocratic because it cannot be otherwise and function?

That isn't a reason why it isn't undemocratic, it is simply a reason for it being so.

Given which, you'll understand why those of us to whom the principles of democratic government actually matter had no alternative other than to vote Leave?

Glad we've sorted that out.

The principles of democratic government. What are these, exactly?

[Peter]

:hehe: Well, quite.

Glad we have sorted that out. So you admit its the EU you hate, not the fact that its undemocratic.

Principles of democratic government, my arse :)

[eastgermanautos]

EU voting rights because they don't like some measures that Poland's democratically-elected government are taking.

This should be fun.

Yeah, when so-called democratically elected govt starts enacting measures to curb democracy, you have a problem. #AdolphHitler1933

[World's End Stella]

Right. So you concede that it is undemocratic because it cannot be otherwise and function?

That isn't a reason why it isn't undemocratic, it is simply a reason for it being so.

Given which, you'll understand why those of us to whom the principles of democratic government actually matter had no alternative other than to vote Leave?

Glad we've sorted that out.

See Peter's post above, it is more or less as democratic as it can be.

As for leaving, what if it is less democratic than we'd like but ultimately the country still benefits more from being a member? If you were certain that was true would you still vote to leave because of your love of democracy?

[redgunamo]

If the context is 'any time some body has to do something they don't want to it's un-democratic' then yes it is.

I'm always amused when people criticise the EU for not being democratic. Because getting 28 different countries to act as a union and reap the benefits of that union while allowing them to vote on everything and opt out of anything they don't agree with would just be sooooo easy. :hehe:

No, it's more than that. Europeans are simply not democratic by nature; the whole concept is simply not in their bones, the way it is for the English.

For this reason, any organisational structure they come up with is bound, from the start, to be undemocratic. And whatsmore, they do not see a problem with that, whereas many of us do.

[Burney]

The principles of democratic government. What are these, exactly?

On the most basic level: that those who propose and promulgate our laws are held to account for their actions by the electorate on a regular basis rather than simply being allowed to remain in place in perpetuity.

[redgunamo]

Yeah, when so-called democratically elected govt starts enacting measures to curb democracy, you have a problem. #AdolphHitler1933

That is democracy, as Germans understand it :shrug:

[World's End Stella]

No, they have said they are considering invoking Article 7 for the first time in their history to suspend Poland's voting rights.

Why? What is it that Poland are doing or thinking of doing that the EU don't like? And will there be a vote of some kind to decide whether or not to invoke Article 7?

[Burney]

See Peter's post above, it is more or less as democratic as it can be.

As for leaving, what if it is less democratic than we'd like but ultimately the country still benefits more from being a member? If you were certain that was true would you still vote to leave because of your love of democracy?

'As democratic as it can be' isn't good enough, I'm afraid.

And in answer to your second question: Yes. Absolutely. I really struggle to see how anyone can feel differently.

A cosy tyranny will always remain a tyranny, but may not remain cosy. Ask the Greeks.

[Burney]

No, it's more than that. Europeans are simply not democratic by nature; the whole concept is simply not in their bones, the way it is for the English.

For this reason, any organisational structure they come up with is bound, from the start, to be undemocratic. And whatsmore, they do not see a problem with that, whereas many of us do.


It's the Napoleonic code, basically. They see it as a reasonable blueprint for law and government, whereas we see it for what it is: a means devised by a tyrant to control a subject population. That divide has always been at the heart of Britain's issues with the EU.

[World's End Stella]

'As democratic as it can be' isn't good enough, I'm afraid.

And in answer to your second question: Yes. Absolutely. I really struggle to see how anyone can feel differently.

A cosy tyranny will always remain a tyranny, but may not remain cosy. Ask the Greeks.

Funny, never really seen you as an idealist, Burnley. :-)

And my answer would be absolutely not. I think we're less democratic than you make us out to be and the EU more than you want to believe. And at the end of the day I want a nice life, I could give a rat's ass about political philosophy which I may or may not be exposed to. And in my lifetime, being part of the EU is far less risky than leaving.

[Sir C]

Funny, never really seen you as an idealist, Burnley. :-)

And my answer would be absolutely not. I think we're less democratic than you make us out to be and the EU more than you want to believe. And at the end of the day I want a nice life, I could give a rat's ass about political philosophy which I may or may not be exposed to. And in my lifetime, being part of the EU is far less risky than leaving.

Good Lord. A german saying this in 1936 would probably have regretted it by 1945.

By the way, your hanging preposition is perfectly revolting.

[redgunamo]

Good Lord. A german saying this in 1936 would probably have regretted it by 1945.

By the way, your hanging preposition is perfectly revolting.

I understand one or two of them still regret it even now.

[Burney]

Funny, never really seen you as an idealist, Burnley. :-)

And my answer would be absolutely not. I think we're less democratic than you make us out to be and the EU more than you want to believe. And at the end of the day I want a nice life, I could give a rat's ass about political philosophy which I may or may not be exposed to. And in my lifetime, being part of the EU is far less risky than leaving.

Essentially, then, you are happy for you, your children, grandchildren and fellow citizens to be progressively disenfranchised as long as the money's good? That seems a remarkably dim, selfish, historically illiterate and short-sighted view to me - not least because it's predicated on the rather dubious premise that the money will always be good.

Unfortunately, it's a fairly common attitude. At least - unlike most middle-class remainers - you're honest about it. I'lll give you that.

[World's End Stella]

Good Lord. A german saying this in 1936 would probably have regretted it by 1945.

By the way, your hanging preposition is perfectly revolting.

When I was in school, Charles, boys did maths, girls were good at grammar.

The EU and Hitler, eh? You really have gone proper mental in your old age. :hehe:

[redgunamo]

It's the Napoleonic code, basically. They see it as a reasonable blueprint for law and government, whereas we see it for what it is: a means devised by a tyrant to control a subject population. That divide has always been at the heart of Britain's issues with the EU.

Right. As even young Stan Kowalski could've told us.

[Sir C]

When I was in school, Charles, boys did maths, girls were good at grammar.

The EU and Hitler, eh? You really have gone proper mental in your old age. :hehe:

I am afraid your 'school' on the tundra didn't serve you as well as it might have, wes.

Not caring about democracy seems to me a dangerous attitude, for without democracy, something nasty tends to sneak in.

[redgunamo]

Essentially, then, you are happy for you, your children, grandchildren and fellow citizens to be progressively disenfranchised as long as the money's good? That seems a remarkably dim, selfish, historically illiterate and short-sighted view to me - not least because it's predicated on the rather dubious premise that the money will always be good.

Unfortunately, it's a fairly common attitude. At least - unlike most middle-class remainers - you're honest about it. I'lll give you that.

Obviously, the money will always be good, so long as you keep giving more and more of it to the EU.

No, wait ..

[Burney]

Good Lord. A german saying this in 1936 would probably have regretted it by 1945.

By the way, your hanging preposition is perfectly revolting.

It's the sheer, smug, wilfully-ignorant amorality of it I find so terrifying. We really have become so cosy and secure that we've lost all vestige of 'the tragic sense of life'. We think we are immune to history and have forgotten the key lesson of the 20th Century - that absolutely everything you think you have can be swept away if you aren't prepared to defend it or are happy to trade it for short term gain.

Depressing. We are fūcked.

[World's End Stella]

Essentially, then, you are happy for you, your children, grandchildren and fellow citizens to be progressively disenfranchised as long as the money's good? That seems a remarkably dim, selfish, historically illiterate and short-sighted view to me - not least because it's predicated on the rather dubious premise that the money will always be good.

Unfortunately, it's a fairly common attitude. At least - unlike most middle-class remainers - you're honest about it. I'lll give you that.

The UK was a rather important member of the EU and heavily influenced many decisions and there is no factual basis for the claim that the EU will become more 'undemocratic' with time. You just make that bit up because it suits your argument.

I'm happy to lose some control provided I think the upside merits it and I know that we can always withdraw if we no longer want to be part of it. As that is the case with the EU, I see no strong case for Leave beyond immigration scaremongering a very dubious long term global trading strategy that has so many holes it doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

As we know, the under 55s voted Remain, the over 55s voted overwhelmingly to Leave. I think we all know why the older generation voted the way they did, dear old England and all that nonsense.

[Sir C]

The UK was a rather important member of the EU and heavily influenced many decisions and there is no factual basis for the claim that the EU will become more 'undemocratic' with time. You just make that bit up because it suits your argument.

I'm happy to lose some control provided I think the upside merits it and I know that we can always withdraw if we no longer want to be part of it. As that is the case with the EU, I see no strong case for Leave beyond immigration scaremongering a very dubious long term global trading strategy that has so many holes it doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

As we know, the under 55s voted Remain, the over 55s voted overwhelmingly to Leave. I think we all know why the older generation voted the way they did, dear old England and all that nonsense.

There is nothing nonsensical about 'dear old England'. You may not understand patriotism, having chosen to abandon your homeland, but you might at least display sufficient politeness to allow the existance of such a concept in the nation which has welcomed you and allowed you to settle and build a life.

[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.

[Sir C]

It's the sheer, smug, wilfully-ignorant amorality of it I find so terrifying. We really have become so cosy and secure that we've lost all vestige of 'the tragic sense of life'. We think we are immune to history and have forgotten the key lesson of the 20th Century - that absolutely everything you think you have can be swept away if you aren't prepared to defend it or are happy to trade it for short term gain.

Depressing. We are fūcked.

Foreign.

Never mind. March 2019 and he's out on his ear :cloud9:

[Burney]

The UK was a rather important member of the EU and heavily influenced many decisions and there is no factual basis for the claim that the EU will become more 'undemocratic' with time. You just make that bit up because it suits your argument.

I'm happy to lose some control provided I think the upside merits it and I know that we can always withdraw if we no longer want to be part of it. As that is the case with the EU, I see no strong case for Leave beyond immigration scaremongering a very dubious long term global trading strategy that has so many holes it doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

As we know, the under 55s voted Remain, the over 55s voted overwhelmingly to Leave. I think we all know why the older generation voted the way they did, dear old England and all that nonsense.

Like most of your glib sort, you forget that the over 55s were the people who voted us into Europe in the first place. They have experienced more of Europe for longer than anyone else and they found it wanting. They are also the generation who can remember what life was like before the EU and if, with hindsight, they decided they rather preferred it, I'd say that represents a fairly damning judgement on the 'benefits' of EU membership to ordinary people, wouldn't you?

As for your assertion that 'we can leave if we want to', it's obvious bullshīt. We had one chance in my lifetime to leave due to an unprecedented and almost certainly never-to-be-repeated set of circumstances. Thankfully, we took it. And even then - with a clear vote in favour of leaving - our overlords (to whom you are happy to cede more and more powers, by the way) are doing everything in their power to frustrate that democratic decision.

Oh, and it's beside the point, but there's nothing 'scaremongering' about this country's immigration issue, I can assure you.

[World's End Stella]

There is nothing nonsensical about 'dear old England'. You may not understand patriotism, having chosen to abandon your homeland, but you might at least display sufficient politeness to allow the existance of such a concept in the nation which has welcomed you and allowed you to settle and build a life.

The nonsensical bit is the idea that voting Leave would in some way allow a return to something like the dear old England of their childhood.

Not to mention that that dear old England included rationing, massive debts, socialism far beyond what we have now, lower living standards, a hand out to the IMF, rampant racism, sh1t food and seriously bad clothes at various times.

[redgunamo]

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 :-\




Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states.

[Burney]

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.

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.

[Sir C]

The nonsensical bit is the idea that voting Leave would in some way allow a return to something like the dear old England of their childhood.

Not to mention that that dear old England included rationing, massive debts, socialism far beyond what we have now, lower living standards, a hand out to the IMF, rampant racism, sh1t food and seriously bad clothes at various times.

Well, the rationing, massive debts and socialism were a direct result of sorting out Europe's shít, the lower living standards, racism, **** food and dubious fashion choices far from unique to the UK.

You don't understand dear old England; you don't feel dear old England. That's fine, but please remember your position as a guest in our country and keep your foul views to yourself. Otherwise we will have to send pokster to relieve you of the burden of living. Thank you.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

When I was in school, Charles, boys did maths, girls were good at grammar.

The EU and Hitler, eh? You really have gone proper mental in your old age. :hehe:

As I've just said, I'm a Europhile, but the current EU has become effectively the Mitteleuropa customs union that Kaiser Wilhelm invisgased in 1914 just after the war had started when he thought Germany were about to win a quick victory.

"Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states."

That is what's basically happened, isn't it? I still want to stay in the EU and reform it from the inside, as the future is continental, no longer the C19th concept of modern nation states.

And Germany never intended to use the EU to create the German dominated customs union that Wilhelm invisaged. But this has happened for various reasons. The econ power of Germany, the Euro and the crash, the fact that they have vastly lower real wage growth than every other OECD member, impoverishing the southern nations keeps the Euro far lower than a DM would be helping German exports etc etc.

As with the refugees, Merkel can impose her will on other nations who have no way of voting Merkel out. She has the power, but with no accountability. Of course she has the put the interests of her voters first when they are in conflict with the interests of other EU/EZ countries.

There needs to be political, fiscal union, especially for the EZ monetary union states.

But why would Germany do that? Let the poor states vote what to do with German tax revenue? They won't. They have their cake and are eating it with the Euro helping German exports while stoping the South devaluing their way out of the crisis as GB did after the crash.

We should stay in the EU and try to help force these reforms. But I can't justify Merkel telling other nations who can and can't come into their country from outside the EU when these nations have no way of voting her out. The 1914 September Programme has come to pass.

[World's End Stella]

Like most of your glib sort, you forget that the over 55s were the people who voted us into Europe in the first place. They have experienced more of Europe for longer than anyone else and they found it wanting. They are also the generation who can remember what life was like before the EU and if, with hindsight, they decided they rather preferred it, I'd say that represents a fairly damning judgement on the 'benefits' of EU membership to ordinary people, wouldn't you?

As for your assertion that 'we can leave if we want to', it's obvious bullshīt. We had one chance in my lifetime to leave due to an unprecedented and almost certainly never-to-be-repeated set of circumstances. Thankfully, we took it. And even then - with a clear vote in favour of leaving - our overlords (to whom you are happy to cede more and more powers, by the way) are doing everything in their power to frustrate that democratic decision.

Oh, and it's beside the point, but there's nothing 'scaremongering' about this country's immigration issue, I can assure you.

I doubt very many people who remember life in the 50s and 60s think it is preferable to our current lifestyle unless they are viewing it through bigoted eyes. By virtually every measurable standard our lifestyle has improved. Unemployment levels, home ownership, life expectancy, education levels, quality of healthcare - things get better with time, mostly because human beings are a rather clever lot who tend to get things right.

I'm disappointed in your lack of faith in the intellects of the under 55s, Burnley. Are we really that stupid? :-(

And I never said I was happy to cede more power to the EU, so please stop making things up. I said That I was happy to cede some control if the upside merited it, which is hardly the same thing.

[Burney]

I doubt very many people who remember life in the 50s and 60s think it is preferable to our current lifestyle unless they are viewing it through bigoted eyes. By virtually every measurable standard our lifestyle has improved. Unemployment levels, home ownership, life expectancy, education levels, quality of healthcare - things get better with time, mostly because human beings are a rather clever lot who tend to get things right.

I'm disappointed in your lack of faith in the intellects of the under 55s, Burnley. Are we really that stupid? :-(

And I never said I was happy to cede more power to the EU, so please stop making things up. I said That I was happy to cede some control if the upside merited it, which is hardly the same thing.

So you're now suggesting the EU has brought all these benefits, are you? That's a rather grandiose claim, if I may say so. How have all those developed countries not in the EU managed, I wonder?
Of course various things in life have got better. That has nothing to do, however, with membership of the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU, upon which over-55s made a judgement and - as I say - found it wanting.

[redgunamo]

As we know, the under 55s voted Remain, the over 55s voted overwhelmingly to Leave. I think we all know why the older generation voted the way they did, dear old England and all that nonsense.

I'm not even sure why that's relevant. Do you allow young people to make decisions for you affecting your future.

The whole point of being a grown-up is that you make those decisions on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the young, our children. And that you, as the grown-up, are responsible.

What you're doing there is shirking your responsibility as an adult.

[Sir C]

As I've just said, I'm a Europhile, but the current EU has become effectively the Mitteleuropa customs union that Kaiser Wilhelm invisgased in 1914 just after the war had started when he thought Germany were about to win a quick victory.

"Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states."

That is what's basically happened, isn't it? I still want to stay in the EU and reform it from the inside, as the future is continental, no longer the C19th concept of modern nation states.

And Germany never intended to use the EU to create the German dominated customs union that Wilhelm invisaged. But this has happened for various reasons. The econ power of Germany, the Euro and the crash, the fact that they have vastly lower real wage growth than every other OECD member, impoverishing the southern nations keeps the Euro far lower than a DM would be helping German exports etc etc.

As with the refugees, Merkel can impose her will on other nations who have no way of voting Merkel out. She has the power, but with no accountability. Of course she has the put the interests of her voters first when they are in conflict with the interests of other EU/EZ countries.

There needs to be political, fiscal union, especially for the EZ monetary union states.

But why would Germany do that? Let the poor states vote what to do with German tax revenue? They won't. They have their cake and are eating it with the Euro helping German exports while stoping the South devaluing their way out of the crisis as GB did after the crash.

We should stay in the EU and try to help force these reforms. But I can't justify Merkel telling other nations who can and can't come into their country from outside the EU when these nations have no way of voting her out. The 1914 September Programme has come to pass.

Staying in the EU to try to reform it would have done no good at all, I'm afraid.

There is only one thing Germans understand, g. Cold steel. And they don't like it up 'em.

Believe me, the day of reckoning is approaching. We face a Deutschland Erwacht and, once again, only we stand between a continent crushed under the heel of the jackboot. I have but one single concern: who is to be our Churchill? Our King Arthur? Our Elizabeth? Our Fabregas?

It's the Moggman! #moggmentum

[Burney]

As I've just said, I'm a Europhile, but the current EU has become effectively the Mitteleuropa customs union that Kaiser Wilhelm invisgased in 1914 just after the war had started when he thought Germany were about to win a quick victory.

"Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states."

That is what's basically happened, isn't it? I still want to stay in the EU and reform it from the inside, as the future is continental, no longer the C19th concept of modern nation states.

And Germany never intended to use the EU to create the German dominated customs union that Wilhelm invisaged. But this has happened for various reasons. The econ power of Germany, the Euro and the crash, the fact that they have vastly lower real wage growth than every other OECD member, impoverishing the southern nations keeps the Euro far lower than a DM would be helping German exports etc etc.

As with the refugees, Merkel can impose her will on other nations who have no way of voting Merkel out. She has the power, but with no accountability. Of course she has the put the interests of her voters first when they are in conflict with the interests of other EU/EZ countries.

There needs to be political, fiscal union, especially for the EZ monetary union states.

But why would Germany do that? Let the poor states vote what to do with German tax revenue? They won't. They have their cake and are eating it with the Euro helping German exports while stoping the South devaluing their way out of the crisis as GB did after the crash.

We should stay in the EU and try to help force these reforms. But I can't justify Merkel telling other nations who can and can't come into their country from outside the EU when these nations have no way of voting her out. The 1914 September Programme has come to pass.

History demonstrates that Europe can never be safe with a united Germany, I'm afraid. Reunification will prove to have been a disaster for Western Europe.

[Sir C]

So you're now suggesting the EU has brought all these benefits, are you? That's a rather grandiose claim, if I may say so. How have all those developed countries not in the EU managed, I wonder?
Of course various things in life have got better. That has nothing to do, however, with membership of the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU, upon which over-55s made a judgement and - as I say - found it wanting.

Consider life in Switzerland, with the famine and the plagues and that :-(

[Peter]

The nonsensical bit is the idea that voting Leave would in some way allow a return to something like the dear old England of their childhood.

Not to mention that that dear old England included rationing, massive debts, socialism far beyond what we have now, lower living standards, a hand out to the IMF, rampant racism, sh1t food and seriously bad clothes at various times.

Yeah, but not THAT dear old England.

Its more Rupert Brooke's England we are talking about. Well not we, I think its all *******s.

[Peter]

History demonstrates that Europe can never be safe with a united Germany, I'm afraid. Reunification will prove to have been a disaster for Western Europe.

Nonsense. Europe is perfectly safe. It has the EU.

[World's End Stella]

Well, the rationing, massive debts and socialism were a direct result of sorting out Europe's shít, the lower living standards, racism, **** food and dubious fashion choices far from unique to the UK.

You don't understand dear old England; you don't feel dear old England. That's fine, but please remember your position as a guest in our country and keep your foul views to yourself. Otherwise we will have to send pokster to relieve you of the burden of living. Thank you.

I can assure you, Charles, that dear old England is still alive and well. I felt it from the day I arrived. It's why I stayed. :shrug:

Well, that and knocking up an Essex bird.

And if you think that there is a sign that the empire is not well, having to send Pokster along as a sign of strength would have to be right up there.

[Burney]

Consider life in Switzerland, with the famine and the plagues and that :-(

Yes. And Australia. Until I read WES's post, I hadn't realised Mad Max was a documentary.

[redgunamo]

So you're now suggesting the EU has brought all these benefits, are you? That's a rather grandiose claim, if I may say so. How have all those developed countries not in the EU managed, I wonder?
Of course various things in life have got better. That has nothing to do, however, with membership of the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU, upon which over-55s made a judgement and - as I say - found it wanting.

You see what I mean? You do get this, yet you claim to see no issue with Wenger declaring He built the Arsenal Football Club practically single-handedly.

As I said, fascinating.

[World's End Stella]

So you're now suggesting the EU has brought all these benefits, are you? That's a rather grandiose claim, if I may say so. How have all those developed countries not in the EU managed, I wonder?
Of course various things in life have got better. That has nothing to do, however, with membership of the Common Market/EEC/EC/EU, upon which over-55s made a judgement and - as I say - found it wanting.

You really do love logical leaps, Burney. :hehe:

No, I never said that. You said that over 55s decided they preferred life pre EU and that's why they voted Leave and that that is a powerful argument for Leave. I pointed out that by virtually every measurable standard life is better now, so that argument doesn't really hold. At no point did I credit the EU for those improvements.

[Sir C]

Nonsense. Europe is perfectly safe. It has the EU.

Yes, there is great strength in unification for Grossdeutschland.

680

[Burney]

You really do love logical leaps, Burney. :hehe:

No, I never said that. You said that over 55s decided they preferred life pre EU and that's why they voted Leave and that that is a powerful argument for Leave. I pointed out that by virtually every measurable standard life is better now, so that argument doesn't really hold. At no point did I credit the EU for those improvements.

Given the context of my remarks, it should be abundantly clear that I was referring to those areas of life in which membership of the EU has had an influence. You were the one who artificially conflated that with a range of irrelevant sociological factors that are common to every developed country.

[World's End Stella]

I'm not even sure why that's relevant. Do you allow young people to make decisions for you affecting your future.

The whole point of being a grown-up is that you make those decisions on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the young, our children. And that you, as the grown-up, are responsible.

What you're doing there is shirking your responsibility as an adult.

Sorry red, I've read that three times and still have no idea why you posted it or what it means. I'll assume you're having an insanity moment. :-)

[redgunamo]

Given the context of my remarks, it should be abundantly clear that I was referring to those areas of life in which membership of the EU has had an influence. You were the one who artificially conflated that with a range of irrelevant sociological factors that are common to every developed country.

I think you had it right the first time; Brexit wasn't about facts, it was more about feelings and grabbing a rare opportunity to express the feeling that we simply don't like Europeans very much.

Tolerate them, yes. Even enjoy them. But "like"? No. We're not really going to "Leave" though; that was never the intention. At least, of Brexit.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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?

[Burney]

Yes, there is great strength in unification for Grossdeutschland.

680

Yes. My worry is where the borders of Grossdeutschland will be. I suspect the Mediterranean in the south, the Arctic Ocean to the north, the Channel to the west and the Polish/Ukrainian border to the east. :-(

[redgunamo]

Sorry red, I've read that three times and still have no idea why you posted it or what it means. I'll assume you're having an insanity moment. :-)

I doubt you ever understand anything you disagree with, do you. Funny that ;-)

You're not a snowflake, are you :-(

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

History demonstrates that Europe can never be safe with a united Germany, I'm afraid. Reunification will prove to have been a disaster for Western Europe.

I do concede that even though we can't predict the future solely on the past, our Bosche brethern don't have a great record as a united nation.

[World's End Stella]

I think you had it right the first time; Brexit wasn't about facts, it was more about feelings and grabbing a rare opportunity to express the feeling that we simply don't like Europeans very much.

Tolerate them, yes. Even enjoy them. But "like"? No. We're not really going to "Leave" though; that was never the intention. At least, of Brexit.

There you go, red, spot on all of that. The quantitative analysis said Remain.

And for that reason, we will. The rest is all just packaging.

[Burney]

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.

[Peter]

Yes. My worry is where the borders of Grossdeutschland will be. I suspect the Mediterranean in the south, the Arctic Ocean to the north, the Channel to the west and the Polish/Ukrainian border to the east. :-(

And quite right too. German dominance of Europe is an economic inevitability and is therefore to be welcomed. The 'problem' is a century of resistance to it. All that matters is that it is achieved peacefully.

Anyway, none of our business. Our greatest periods of triumph have come from ignoring Europe altogether.

**** the trade deal and send the gunships east of the Med. The real good old days.

Let us meet next in Malacca :)

[Sir C]

Yes. My worry is where the borders of Grossdeutschland will be. I suspect the Mediterranean in the south, the Arctic Ocean to the north, the Channel to the west and the Polish/Ukrainian border to the east. :-(

One wonders whether we shall be forced into a pact with the Russian devil once more. I suppose if we instituted a naval blockade and Putin switched off their gas they'd be tempted to negotiate...

[World's End Stella]

I doubt you ever understand anything you disagree with, do you. Funny that ;-)

You're not a snowflake, are you :-(

Oh, not at all. I always understand why other people are wrong. :-)

And, no. NTTAWWI

[Burney]

And quite right too. German dominance of Europe is an economic inevitability and is therefore to be welcomed. The 'problem' is a century of resistance to it. All that matters is that it is achieved peacefully.

Anyway, none of our business. Our greatest periods of triumph have come from ignoring Europe altogether.

**** the trade deal and send the gunships east of the Med. The real good old days.

Let us meet next in Malacca :)

Hard not to read that as: 'And I for one welcome the gentle pressure of our new teutonic overlords' boot on our neck'.

Fūck that, p. I didn't watch all those war films just to bow down to Hans Hun now.

[Burney]

One wonders whether we shall be forced into a pact with the Russian devil once more. I suppose if we instituted a naval blockade and Putin switched off their gas they'd be tempted to negotiate...

:nod: We should deffo snuggle up to Vlad. We've supped with longer spoons than that in our time.

[redgunamo]

:nod: We should deffo snuggle up to Vlad. We've supped with longer spoons than that in our time.

For a start, the Germans are terrified of him.

[Sir C]

For a start, the Germans are terrified of him.

You can't really blame them after what happened last time.

:hehe: I shouldn't laugh, but, :hehe:

[Burney]

For a start, the Germans are terrified of him.

A Germany that's terrified of Russia is an eminently good thing imo.

[Burney]

You can't really blame them after what happened last time.

:hehe: I shouldn't laugh, but, :hehe:

Yes. I imagine sizeable portions of the German population must be descendants of the last Russian army that rolled across the border.

[Peter]

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.

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.

[redgunamo]

Yes. I imagine sizeable portions of the German population must be descendants of the last Russian army that rolled across the border.

Plenty of recent immigrants too. Perhaps even too much plenty.

[Peter]

Hard not to read that as: 'And I for one welcome the gentle pressure of our new teutonic overlords' boot on our neck'.

Fūck that, p. I didn't watch all those war films just to bow down to Hans Hun now.

We bow to nobody, b. We owe Europe nothing and ask nothing from it. If they cant fight off the Gerries that is their problem. Let it never again become ours.

Our future lies with our past in the East. A new Pax Britannica.....

[Burney]

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.

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.

[redgunamo]

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.

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.

No, they know nothing, which is why they can all be readily ignored. As you say, just get on with your own life.

[Burney]

Plenty of recent immigrants too. Perhaps even too much plenty.

Yes. You have to say this for the keen rapists of the Red Army: whatever their faults, a lack of thoroughness was not among them.

[Burney]

We bow to nobody, b. We owe Europe nothing and ask nothing from it. If they cant fight off the Gerries that is their problem. Let it never again become ours.

Our future lies with our past in the East. A new Pax Britannica.....

That would be great. Trouble is, an o'ermighty Germany will inevitably end up bothering us.

Maybe we could nuke them now? It would save an awful lot of time later.

[redgunamo]

Yes. You have to say this for the keen rapists of the Red Army: whatever their faults, a lack of thoroughness was not among them.

Decent lads, but they will insist on wearing shower flip-flops outdoors :-(

[eastgermanautos]

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?

You've marshaled a lot of facts here, my friend. I will say this. Sometimes it's about having *the right* to assert yourself. It may cause a lot of ****, but freedom isn't free. Ganpati. Freedom isn't free. These Europeans are always trying to take British babies and use them in some sort of new socialistic food bank. They get reconstituted as paste, or pellets. So it's hardly surprising that the British wanted to say, enough.

[Sir C]

Decent lads, but they will insist on wearing shower flip-flops outdoors :-(

Hairy backs. That's the thing that always strikes me about Russians. Hairy backs.

It's a sign of coarse breeding, you know.

[Sir C]

You've marshaled a lot of facts here, my friend. I will say this. Sometimes it's about having *the right* to assert yourself. It may cause a lot of ****, but freedom isn't free. Ganpati. Freedom isn't free. These Europeans are always trying to take British babies and use them in some sort of new socialistic food bank. They get reconstituted as paste, or pellets. So it's hardly surprising that the British wanted to say, enough.

Finally, our colonial cousins appear across the pond to put all straight.

wd ega.

[Burney]

Hairy backs. That's the thing that always strikes me about Russians. Hairy backs.

It's a sign of coarse breeding, you know.

Well all the decent ones were either killed or fled between 1917 and 1953. Only the dregs are left.

[Peter]

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.

Which is where the peculiarly british pomposity about representation starts to get on my ****ing tits. The notion that YOUR MP is elected to represent YOUR views has been utter nonsense since political parties acquired the semblance of party organisation in the 1830s.

The first thing your MP does on arrival at Westminster is take the whip, meaning he speaks, acts and votes with and for his party. What his constituents may or may not believe does not matter a jot for another 4 and a half years.
You either accept this arrangement or you don’t.

Demanding a referendum when it doesn’t get you what you want is not the done thing at all.

Poor form.

[eastgermanautos]

Finally, our colonial cousins appear across the pond to put all straight.

wd ega.

Np :thumbup:

[Sir C]

Np :thumbup:

You're a bit late to the party, to be honest.

Nothing new there, I suppose.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

History demonstrates that Europe can never be safe with a united Germany, I'm afraid. Reunification will prove to have been a disaster for Western Europe.

I do concede that even though we can't predict the future solely on the past, our Bosche brethern don't have a great record as a united nation.

[redgunamo]

Hairy backs. That's the thing that always strikes me about Russians. Hairy backs.

It's a sign of coarse breeding, you know.

Don't look at me; the redgunamos are an essentially hairless variety :shrug:

[Peter]

That would be great. Trouble is, an o'ermighty Germany will inevitably end up bothering us.

Maybe we could nuke them now? It would save an awful lot of time later.

The East, b. All of it.

India, China (sorry, but we have to), the tiger economies of South East Asia.

And at some point, the Yanks, I suppose. Leave that for now though.

Germany wont fancy all of that. The Russians are the bigger worry.

[Burney]

Which is where the peculiarly british pomposity about representation starts to get on my ****ing tits. The notion that YOUR MP is elected to represent YOUR views has been utter nonsense since political parties acquired the semblance of party organisation in the 1830s.

The first thing your MP does on arrival at Westminster is take the whip, meaning he speaks, acts and votes with and for his party. What his constituents may or may not believe does not matter a jot for another 4 and a half years.
You either accept this arrangement or you don’t.

Demanding a referendum when it doesn’t get you what you want is not the done thing at all.

Poor form.

Sure, but if Brexit demonstrates anything, it's that all major parties simply ignoring the feelings of a majority of voters on the key constitutional matter affecting the country for 40-odd years and carrying on regardless really doesn't work.

That, it seems to me, is the lesson our political classes are struggling to learn.

[Sir C]

The East, b. All of it.

India, China (sorry, but we have to), the tiger economies of South East Asia.

And at some point, the Yanks, I suppose. Leave that for now though.

Germany wont fancy all of that. The Russians are the bigger worry.

We can't invade China, man! Are you quite sane? They've got an army of 18 billion and they're all experts in kung fu.

No no, it would be a disaster.

[Peter]

Sure, but if Brexit demonstrates anything, it's that all major parties simply ignoring the feelings of a majority of voters on the key constitutional matter affecting the country for 40-odd years and carrying on regardless really doesn't work.

That, it seems to me, is the lesson our political classes are struggling to learn.

That depends on the belief that it is the key constitutional matter. Its not. It means very little and is too complicated for the mass populace to comprehend.

And they didn't ignore the feelings of the majority- they just didn't agree with them. Its called leadership.

David Cameron, for all his faults, understood this.

[Peter]

We can't invade China, man! Are you quite sane? They've got an army of 18 billion and they're all experts in kung fu.

No no, it would be a disaster.

Wooooah!!!

Who mentioned invasion?? These people are our friends, Sir C. Friends and partners. Let us work with them and build a secure and prosperous Asia. Europe is done, leave the rubble to the Germans.

I shall take up residence in Penang. I assume you will fancy Singapore?

[redgunamo]

That depends on the belief that it is the key constitutional matter. Its not. It means very little and is too complicated for the mass populace to comprehend.

And they didn't ignore the feelings of the majority- they just didn't agree with them. Its called leadership.

David Cameron, for all his faults, understood this.

It's not British leadership though. That's why he had to go.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

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.

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.

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?

[Burney]

That depends on the belief that it is the key constitutional matter. Its not. It means very little and is too complicated for the mass populace to comprehend.

And they didn't ignore the feelings of the majority- they just didn't agree with them. Its called leadership.

David Cameron, for all his faults, understood this.

The 'too complicated' thing is just what those in power say when they want the public to fūck off and stop asking awkward questions.

EU membership only became 'too complicated' because our political classes allowed it to. The public have applied Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot it is and it is now the business of those political classes to sort that out.

[Sir C]

Wooooah!!!

Who mentioned invasion?? These people are our friends, Sir C. Friends and partners. Let us work with them and build a secure and prosperous Asia. Europe is done, leave the rubble to the Germans.

I shall take up residence in Penang. I assume you will fancy Singapore?

Friends? Don't be ridiculous. They hate us and our sour milk smell and will never be our friends.

I'd rather live in Essex than Singapore. Singapore? Is there a more soulless place full of soulless people than Singapore?

Bangkok for me. A little place on the Chao Praya down at Silom or Saphan Taksin, I think

[Sir C]

Don't look at me; the redgunamos are an essentially hairless variety :shrug:

What, completely smooth - all over? I expect that's quite a sight when it's all oiled up, isn't it?

Pic?

[Burney]

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.

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?

No. I refuse to countenance your rather silly premise. And quoting three fanatically pro-Remain publications does not aid your cause.

[Peter]

Friends? Don't be ridiculous. They hate us and our sour milk smell and will never be our friends.

I'd rather live in Essex than Singapore. Singapore? Is there a more soulless place full of soulless people than Singapore?

Bangkok for me. A little place on the Chao Praya down at Silom or Saphan Taksin, I think

We can probably do without your sort anyway. Plenty of good men will fancy finding their fortune in the East.

[Burney]

We can probably do without your sort anyway. Plenty of good men will fancy finding their fortune in the East.

I don't think I'd be able to bear the heat in Singapore. Or the crowds.

[Sir C]

We can probably do without your sort anyway. Plenty of good men will fancy finding their fortune in the East.

Look, if it's an updated brand of colonial exploitation you're after, I'm all over it. Find me an opium den and three or four filthy oriental fillies to mop my brow, and I'm your man. My concern would be that your generation will ty to do things... ethically. :shudder:

[Sir C]

I don't think I'd be able to bear the heat in Singapore. Or the crowds.

Pfff. Call yourself an Englishman? Sir Stanford Raffles never removed his jacket or loosened his cravat.

I shall wear tweeds.

[Burney]

Pfff. Call yourself an Englishman? Sir Stanford Raffles never removed his jacket or loosened his cravat.

I shall wear tweeds.

It's true. I think I'd be dreaming fondly of a cold, wet London day in February before a week was out.

[Sir C]

It's true. I think I'd be dreaming fondly for a cold, wet London day in February before a week was out.

My word. I find it glorious, utterly glorious.

You've got too many Irish genes :-(

[Peter]

I don't think I'd be able to bear the heat in Singapore. Or the crowds.

Well, join me in Penang Hill then. Perfectly secure from the locals with a delightful, cooling breeze.

Lazy evenings in the hlll-top garden overseeing Georgetown and the ships coasting their way to Singapore, bound further east and beyond. We shall toast Francis Light and his ilk before dining at the E&O.

[Burney]

Well, join me in Penang Hill then. Perfectly secure from the locals with a delightful, cooling breeze.

Lazy evenings in the hlll-top garden overseeing Georgetown and the ships coasting their way to Singapore, bound further east and beyond. We shall toast Francis Light and his ilk before dining at the E&O.

Are you hitting on me? :-\

[redgunamo]

What, completely smooth - all over? I expect that's quite a sight when it's all oiled up, isn't it?

Pic?

My betters insist on coconut oil nowadays. It's all the rage apparently.

It's perfectly foul, I've decided.

[Burney]

My word. I find it glorious, utterly glorious.

You've got too many Irish genes :-(

Yes, but you hate the cold, don't you? I rather like it.

[Sir C]

Well, join me in Penang Hill then. Perfectly secure from the locals with a delightful, cooling breeze.

Lazy evenings in the hlll-top garden overseeing Georgetown and the ships coasting their way to Singapore, bound further east and beyond. We shall toast Francis Light and his ilk before dining at the E&O.

Done. In Malaysia the sundowner should, of course, be the stengah. But you know that.

[Peter]

Pfff. Call yourself an Englishman? Sir Stanford Raffles never removed his jacket or loosened his cravat.

.

Nor went by the name Stanford.

Sir Thomas, if you don't mind. And Stamford, not Stanford.

[redgunamo]

Are you hitting on me? :-\

Yes, that's the construction I put on the missive too. It is 2017 though, so there's probably nothing wrong with it.

[Peter]

Done. In Malaysia the sundowner should, of course, be the stengah. But you know that.

Of course. And the tea they pour from vessel to vessel beforehand.

I must always have tea....

[Sir C]

Yes, but you hate the cold, don't you? I rather like it.

I suppose if I lived there I might occasionally miss the cosiness of a roaring fire... but I could manage.

[Peter]

Are you hitting on me? :-\

How childish of you. I was merely setting a scene. If you prefer to remain in Cheshunt, so be it.

I can run this new empire myself if I have to.... anyway, Sir C has kindly stepped in.

[Sir C]

Of course. And the tea they pour from vessel to vessel beforehand.

I must always have tea....

Red Label. If that fúcking steward brings me Johnny Walker Black Label again at Christ knows how many ringgit a shot, I will have him beaten. I'm chucking soda in it for the love of God!

[Sir C]

How childish of you. I was merely setting a scene. If you prefer to remain in Cheshunt, so be it.

I can run this new empire myself if I have to.... anyway, Sir C has kindly stepped in.

There will be liddle bit the sexytime though, surely? Not in a gay way, just friends?

[Peter]

There will be liddle bit the sexytime though, surely? Not in a gay way, just friends?

The local women are to be explored just as the other sights.

Anyway, we have work to do.

[Peter]

Red Label. If that fúcking steward brings me Johnny Walker Black Label again at Christ knows how many ringgit a shot, I will have him beaten. I'm chucking soda in it for the love of God!

I once ordered two shots of Blue Label in India. 18 quid each.

Thank God for Corporate Cards ;)

[redgunamo]

You appear to be suggesting that it is as democratic as it can afford to be. I would agree.

People only complain about a lack of democracy when they don't like something. People are ****s.

Right. Just as people attempt to bypass democracy when it suits them too, by calling it "leadership" or something :-)