So there seems to be some debate about how much we should pay as part of Brexit

[World's End Stella]

I had heard rumours of 50bil or so, but Boris is saying 30bil is too much, I think.

All of which is very puzzling because I've been assured many times that Brexit means Brexit and that that answers all questions pertaining to the details of us leaving the EU so I'm not too sure what the issue really is.

I'm going to repeat Brexit means Brexit over and over to myself and see if a number magically appears at some point.

:nod:

[Luis Anaconda]

I had heard rumours of 50bil or so, but Boris is saying 30bil is too much, I think.

All of which is very puzzling because I've been assured many times that Brexit means Brexit and that that answers all questions pertaining to the details of us leaving the EU so I'm not too sure what the issue really is.

I'm going to repeat Brexit means Brexit over and over to myself and see if a number magically appears at some point.

:nod:

Jesus WES - it's Monday ****ing morning. Can we just do football for a while before you start this ****?

[Burney]

I had heard rumours of 50bil or so, but Boris is saying 30bil is too much, I think.

All of which is very puzzling because I've been assured many times that Brexit means Brexit and that that answers all questions pertaining to the details of us leaving the EU so I'm not too sure what the issue really is.

I'm going to repeat Brexit means Brexit over and over to myself and see if a number magically appears at some point.

:nod:

Well given that we legally don't owe them a single fücking penny, it's fairly ludicrous to talk in terms of there being any 'correct' number. The number will be whatever we can get away with based on the negotiations. :shrug:

[World's End Stella]

Jesus WES - it's Monday ****ing morning. Can we just do football for a while before you start this ****?

I'm multi-tasking :-)

[Pokster]

I'm multi-tasking :-)

Talking **** about 2 subjects at once.. a rare skill. wd WES

[SWv2]

I had heard rumours of 50bil or so, but Boris is saying 30bil is too much, I think.

All of which is very puzzling because I've been assured many times that Brexit means Brexit and that that answers all questions pertaining to the details of us leaving the EU so I'm not too sure what the issue really is.

I'm going to repeat Brexit means Brexit over and over to myself and see if a number magically appears at some point.

:nod:

Okay, please forgive my stupidity here as obviously being an Irish citizen I am removed from all this.

When you say "how much should we pay" ... is this penalty clauses (as such) or whatever for removing yourselves from the EU or just some kind of notional costs to the economy etc.

[Burney]

Okay, please forgive my stupidity here as obviously being an Irish citizen I am removed from all this.

When you say "how much should we pay" ... is this penalty clauses (as such) or whatever for removing yourselves from the EU or just some kind of notional costs to the economy etc.

No. There is absolutely no official mechanism that requires us to pay any price for leaving the EU. We accept, however, that we have an obligation to pay for those projects or aspects of the EU to which we committed prior to the vote to Leave. The EU is obviously trying to get us to pay as much as possible, while we are trying to pay as little as possible. It's just haggling, basically.

[Peter]

Well given that we legally don't owe them a single fücking penny, it's fairly ludicrous to talk in terms of there being any 'correct' number. The number will be whatever we can get away with based on the negotiations. :shrug:


Let me just get this clear in my head. So, our government (the responsible, hard headed, flag waving patriots who put britain first and dont stand for any nonsense from this euro cretins) are going to try to negotiate a reduction on a bill that we have precisely no legal obligation to pay?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Cant we just find a half decent lawyer? I know a guy....

[Peter]

No. There is absolutely no official mechanism that requires us to pay any price for leaving the EU. We accept, however, that we have an obligation to pay for those projects or aspects of the EU to which we committed prior to the vote to Leave. The EU is obviously trying to get us to pay as much as possible, while we are trying to pay as little as possible. It's just haggling, basically.

Why dont we just tell them to **** off? I cannot see a problem with this at all.

[Burney]

Let me just get this clear in my head. So, our government (the responsible, hard headed, flag waving patriots who put britain first and dont stand for any nonsense from this euro cretins) are going to try to negotiate a reduction on a bill that we have precisely no legal obligation to pay?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Cant we just find a half decent lawyer? I know a guy....

I didn't say that we didn't have to pay money, I said there was no legal obligation to do so. There are imperatives other than the law.

However, as an initial negotiating position, the fact that we are under no legal obligation is quite a useful one.

[Rich]

Let me just get this clear in my head. So, our government (the responsible, hard headed, flag waving patriots who put britain first and dont stand for any nonsense from this euro cretins) are going to try to negotiate a reduction on a bill that we have precisely no legal obligation to pay?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Cant we just find a half decent lawyer? I know a guy....

I'm not sure that upsetting the other party is a great tactic for the rest of the Brexit negotiations. We could do with a concession or two being thrown our way.

[Burney]

I'm not sure that upsetting the other party is a great tactic for the rest of the Brexit negotiations. We could do with a concession or two being thrown our way.

Yes. Increasingly, however, it's becoming apparent that the EU Commission are ideologues rather than pragmatists. This makes negotiating sensibly with them rather difficult.

[Ash]

I'm not sure that upsetting the other party is a great tactic for the rest of the Brexit negotiations. We could do with a concession or two being thrown our way.

They're already upset, Rich. I think Peter is on the mark on this one. **** 'em.

[Rich]

Yes. Increasingly, however, it's becoming apparent that the EU Commission are ideologues rather than pragmatists. This makes negotiating sensibly with them rather difficult.

They're going to make a bloody example of us, B :-(

My other half is going to have to go and live in Amsterdam if things don't work out.

[Burney]

They're already upset, Rich. I think Peter is on the mark on this one. **** 'em.

On one level, I'd love to see us walk away while flicking v-signs at them. However, one can see that this would precipitate an all-out shítstorm for both sides that would be in neither side's interests.

However, one starts to suspect that a break that's as acrimonious as humanly possible is actually what the Commission wants, so I wouldn't rule out such an outcome.

[Burney]

They're going to make a bloody example of us, B :-(

My other half is going to have to go and live in Amsterdam if things don't work out.

If that's what they want, then have at it. :shrug: EU member states have as much to lose by such an outcome as we do. To push for such an outcome would be to put the ideological purity of the EU project ahead of the interests of its member states and I wonder how forgiving the people of those member states would be of such as stance once the results started to bite.

[Peter]

They're already upset, Rich. I think Peter is on the mark on this one. **** 'em.

Quite. I dont think it is a particularly good negotiating tactic to be rubbishing them in public but it is the government's job. THat prize goof Johnson telling them to go whistle, etc.

If we are going to do that in public we may as well do it in private. I cant see that we really want anything from them. Brexit means brexit (after all) so we are out, out, out. We are getting a trade deal either way and happy to leave without one so lets just get on with it. As fr as the rights of our citizens abroad are concerned we hold the cards as we can just threaten to be beastly to the MILLIONS of EU citizens here claiming benefits, stealing our women etc.

Tell them to **** off. Its what the public wants, after all.

[Peter]

If that's what they want, then have at it. :shrug: EU member states have as much to lose by such an outcome as we do. To push for such an outcome would be to put the ideological purity of the EU project ahead of the interests of its member states and I wonder how forgiving the people of those member states would be of such as stance once the results started to bite.

But the EU Project, by definition, cares little for the notion of 'member states'. States are merely local agents, subordinate to the union and its interests. This is the real reason you wanted out.

[Peter]

On one level, I'd love to see us walk away while flicking v-signs at them. However, one can see that this would precipitate an all-out shítstorm for both sides that would be in neither side's interests.

However, one starts to suspect that a break that's as acrimonious as humanly possible is actually what the Commission wants, so I wouldn't rule out such an outcome.

The thought does occur that the 'divorce bill' and the EU's insistence on being bloody minded are crucial instruments for our own government. Let's face it, once we are out the usual excuses of blaming the EU have a shelf life. This is the only transition Westminster really cares about. In the decade after we leave they need an excuse to explain why the economy is ****e, why we are still overrrun by immigrants, why we havent spent any money on the NHS. THe divorce bill is crucial in this.

[Burney]

But the EU Project, by definition, cares little for the notion of 'member states'. States are merely local agents, subordinate to the union and its interests. This is the real reason you wanted out.

Of course. However, it has only succeeded as far as it has by obscuring that fact as much as possible and by being able to point to material benefits for the citizens in return for losing their rights of self-determination. For the citizens of the EU to see the ideology play out red in tooth and claw in a way that hurts them might be a somewhat different proposition imo.

[Burney]

The thought does occur that the 'divorce bill' and the EU's insistence on being bloody minded are crucial instruments for our own government. Let's face it, once we are out the usual excuses of blaming the EU have a shelf life. This is the only transition Westminster really cares about. In the decade after we leave they need an excuse to explain why the economy is ****e, why we are still overrrun by immigrants, why we havent spent any money on the NHS. THe divorce bill is crucial in this.


In which case, it's pretty idiotic tactically for the EU to dig its heels in so doggedy about it. Because it is they, not us, who have made it a central tenet of negotiations.

[Ash]

The thought does occur that the 'divorce bill' and the EU's insistence on being bloody minded are crucial instruments for our own government. Let's face it, once we are out the usual excuses of blaming the EU have a shelf life. This is the only transition Westminster really cares about. In the decade after we leave they need an excuse to explain why the economy is ****e, why we are still overrrun by immigrants, why we havent spent any money on the NHS. THe divorce bill is crucial in this.

I don't think that the EU has been blamed for the economy being ****e. Though we will of course be able to renationalise the railways and plough state investment into high-tech sectors. :cloud9:

[Peter]

Of course. However, it has only succeeded as far as it has by obscuring that fact as much as possible and by being able to point to material benefits for the citizens in return for losing their rights of self-determination. For the citizens of the EU to see the ideology play out red in tooth and claw in a way that hurts them might be a somewhat different proposition imo.

They are only really losing the right to come here, and they are losing that because of us, not the EU. No problem spinning that, I could do it in my lunch break.

And the only countries where citizens are bothered about that are those that will be receiving a fortune from the EU to invest in infrastructure etc. No problem there either.

The real problem is the example. We are leaving because our voters decided that they want to. That is dangerous so yes, they will make it difficult and will be pointing out how ****ed we are because of it for years.

I did find that speech funny the other day. The chap lists all the the wonderful things we are going to miss out on and manages to completely misunderstand the fact that those 'wonderful things' are in fact our biggest fears. Even I would probably leave in the face of them.

They just dont get us, b. They never did.

[Peter]

In which case, it's pretty idiotic tactically for the EU to dig its heels in so doggedy about it. Because it is they, not us, who have made it a central tenet of negotiations.

Of course. THey are making a show for their member states. Britain must pay, etc. Ultimately its all *******s, on both sides.

[Peter]

I don't think that the EU has been blamed for the economy being ****e. Though we will of course be able to renationalise the railways and plough state investment into high-tech sectors. :cloud9:

In a roundabout way, they were. Immigration has never been far away from any debate about the economy, employment, benefits etc. Of course in recent years the economy has been overshadowed by a crash that has nothing to do with the EU. That is also running out of shelf life so they will be looking for a new answer.

Looking forward to all those right wing euro sceptics converting to vehement supporters of public sector investment and championing the NHS. :)

[Ash]

Of course in recent years the economy has been overshadowed by a crash that has nothing to do with the EU. That is also running out of shelf life so they will be looking for a new answer.


Oh, there'll be another crash along soon enough.

[Burney]

They just dont get us, b. They never did.

Ultimately, this is the problem. We never understood what the European project was about because we don't have the same hang-ups about WWII (albeit we have a completely different set of hang-ups about it). In fairness to him, De Gaulle knew this and knew we could simply never get on board with the whole bloody nonsense.

The problem is that, as a nation, we were sold a pup by our own politicians. We rather liked the idea of a Common Market and, by the time we realised there was a bit more to it than that, we were (seemingly) in too deep to get out. However, ever since we realised what we'd got ourselves into (around the time of Maastricht, basically), opposition to the EU has grown and grown, culminating in the referendum. That's no coincidence. As a people we loathe the idea of being subsumed by a European superstate in no small part because we don't really consider ourselves European.

I mean, one could argue that the only good reason for us to stay in the EU was to prevent it becoming a single unified superstate, but I think the idea that that was what we were doing presupposes rather too much foresight and cynicism on the part of our leaders over the last 40 years. I think we bumbled into the bloody thing and now we're bumbling our way out.

[Peter]

Ultimately, this is the problem. We never understood what the European project was about because we don't have the same hang-ups about WWII (albeit we have a completely different set of hang-ups about it). In fairness to him, De Gaulle knew this and knew we could simply never get on board with the whole bloody nonsense.

The problem is that, as a nation, we were sold a pup by our own politicians. We rather liked the idea of a Common Market and, by the time we realised there was a bit more to it than that, we were (seemingly) in too deep to get out. However, ever since we realised what we'd got ourselves into (around the time of Maastricht, basically), opposition to the EU has grown and grown, culminating in the referendum. That's no coincidence. As a people we loathe the idea of being subsumed by a European superstate in no small part because we don't really consider ourselves European.

I mean, one could argue that the only good reason for us to stay in the EU was to prevent it becoming a single unified superstate, but I think the idea that that was what we were doing presupposes rather too much foresight and cynicism on the part of our leaders over the last 40 years. I think we bumbled into the bloody thing and now we're bumbling our way out.


Pretty much sums it up. Its in historical perspective that we differ so hugely from the mainland. Our biggest triumphs and greatest strengths have always involved ridding ourselves of our responsibilities in europe and making hay with the rest of the world. Our biggest challenges have all come from europe, be they the Pope, the Armada, Napolean, the Kaiser or Adolf. We thought the EEC would be a nice little talking shop that would keep peace between FRance and Germany.

All of this is true but of course none of it is the point. The idea of the nation state was a short lived ideal that led to nothing but trouble. Governments don't wield economic power now, that sits with the multinational entities that run a global economy. I am not saying that supra national bodies like the EU are of any real use in tackling this but I am saying that we are thoroughly deluded if we think that leaving the EU is going to make any real difference. It will give us a sense of independence that, for whatever reason, we need to feel happy with ourselves. And it will enable us, in theory, to manage the process of EU citizens coming here.

That will be enough for most people.

[World's End Stella]

I am saying that we are thoroughly deluded if we think that leaving the EU is going to make any real difference. It will give us a sense of independence that, for whatever reason, we need to feel happy with ourselves. And it will enable us, in theory, to manage the process of EU citizens coming here.

Yes, leaving the EU is just fluff really. It keeps a certain cross section of the public happy despite the fact that the real impact on anyone's life will be minimal unless everyone does something really stupid.

Put it this way, had the UK never joined, how different do you think the UK would be now compared to what it really is?

Not a jot imo.

[Peter]

Yes, leaving the EU is just fluff really. It keeps a certain cross section of the public happy despite the fact that the real impact on anyone's life will be minimal unless everyone does something really stupid.

Put it this way, had the UK never joined, how different do you think the UK would be now compared to what it really is?

Not a jot imo.

It will change a little bit and I would imagine we will be worse off in the short term. In the long term, I dont think anyone really knows. That will depend on how we adjust to our new freedom.

[Burney]

It will give us a sense of independence that, for whatever reason, we need to feel happy with ourselves.

This is actually a tremendously important thing. You underplay it, but it is.

[Peter]

This is actually a tremendously important thing. You underplay it, but it is.


As an outdated concept and a vague feeling yes, incredibly important. In a practical sense it obviously means nothing whatsoever but if it makes people feel happy then I am all for it.

What really matters is what they then choose to be unhappy about instead.

[Burney]

As an outdated concept and a vague feeling yes, incredibly important. In a practical sense it obviously means nothing whatsoever but if it makes people feel happy then I am all for it.

What really matters is what they then choose to be unhappy about instead.

I would argue that something that makes people happy does not mean nothing whatsoever. It's bound up with a sense of identity, cohesion and - most importantly - leaves no room for the sort of cùnt who tells you he's a 'global citizen' or an 'internationalist'. Those people really ought to be shot.

I mean, look at this bunch of cùnts at the LibDem Conference (at the risk of tautology). Absolute state of them. Hopefully, Brexit will wipe such people out. :-(

748

[Ash]

(on independence) As an outdated concept and a vague feeling yes, incredibly important. In a practical sense it obviously means nothing whatsoever but if it makes people feel happy then I am all for it.


This is how upside-down leftism has become. The pwopah old-school internationalism was based on solidarity among workers, and an understanding that nationalism was a capitalist tool to get workers to side with their respective national bourgeoisie. "Workers of the world unite!" as the man said.

On the contrary, the globalism of the EU benefits the capitalist class (ease of movement for their capital) and their middle-class hangers-on (don't you just love these cheap builders, baristas and au-pairs, darling) while forcing elements of the working class to chase around the continent for jobs.

Supra-nationalism not the new default position. It doesn't exist outside of the EU other than in empires, and national self-determination is currently the best geopolitical unit of democracy available.

[Burney]

This is how upside-down leftism has become. The pwopah old-school internationalism was based on solidarity among workers, and an understanding that nationalism was a capitalist tool to get workers to side with their respective national bourgeoisie. "Workers of the world unite!" as the man said.

On the contrary, the globalism of the EU benefits the capitalist class (ease of movement for their capital) and their middle-class hangers-on (don't you just love these cheap builders, baristas and au-pairs, darling) while forcing elements of the working class to chase around the continent for jobs.

Supra-nationalism not the new default position. It doesn't exist outside of the EU other than in empires, and national self-determination is currently the best geopolitical unit of democracy available.

That's because nationalism and nationhood have become demonised by the globalists. The narrative that nationalism was the evil at the heart of WWII (and must therefore be destroyed) dominates. People forget, of course, that that narrative is easily countered by the fact that nationalism was as much a huge motivating factor for those nations that defeated Nazism as for those who fought for Nazism. I don't think many Russians died at Stalingrad for communism and neither do I think anti-fascism motivated British, Canadian or American soldiers in Normandy. People will fight and die for their nations just as much when they're in the right as when they're in the wrong.

[Peter]

This is how upside-down leftism has become. The pwopah old-school internationalism was based on solidarity among workers, and an understanding that nationalism was a capitalist tool to get workers to side with their respective national bourgeoisie. "Workers of the world unite!" as the man said.

On the contrary, the globalism of the EU benefits the capitalist class (ease of movement for their capital) and their middle-class hangers-on (don't you just love these cheap builders, baristas and au-pairs, darling) while forcing elements of the working class to chase around the continent for jobs.

Supra-nationalism not the new default position. It doesn't exist outside of the EU other than in empires, and national self-determination is currently the best geopolitical unit of democracy available.


I have nothing against the nation state, aside from the fact that it pulled Europe to pieces for a century. The fact remains that the idea existed at a time when it was possible to identify a nation's economy and its immediate issues. Those are now less obvious.

The modern nation state is a political unit that doesn't reflect how the world works and how the global economy runs. This is not necessarily a problem unless you want your government to run its economy. As I said, I am not suggesting that supra-national bodies are any better- what they may offer in terms of broader boundaries they lose in a lack of accountability and conflicting priority from constituent members.

However, we are really talking about how people feel. Our view of our own independence is a little old fashioned and harks back to an age when a government did control our economy (and the economies of half the developing world). I am not sure the same advantages exist now. We shall see.

The point being, independence is not what it was. I dont necessarily view the nation state as a cause worth fighting for but am happy to live in it if it makes people better off. If it doesn't, it was not a price worth paying.

[Burney]

I have nothing against the nation state, aside from the fact that it pulled Europe to pieces for a century. The fact remains that the idea existed at a time when it was possible to identify a nation's economy and its immediate issues. Those are now less obvious.

The modern nation state is a political unit that doesn't reflect how the world works and how the global economy runs. This is not necessarily a problem unless you want your government to run its economy. As I said, I am not suggesting that supra-national bodies are any better- what they may offer in terms of broader boundaries they lose in a lack of accountability and conflicting priority from constituent members.

However, we are really talking about how people feel. Our view of our own independence is a little old fashioned and harks back to an age when a government did control our economy (and the economies of half the developing world). I am not sure the same advantages exist now. We shall see.

The point being, independence is not what it was. I dont necessarily view the nation state as a cause worth fighting for but am happy to live in it if it makes people better off. If it doesn't, it was not a price worth paying.

Only one nation state pulled Europe apart over the last century, p. Europe was at relative piece for 50 years right up until the Unification of Germany. A Europe with an over-mighty Germany in it cannot be safe.

[Peter]

That's because nationalism and nationhood have become demonised by the globalists. The narrative that nationalism was the evil at the heart of WWII (and must therefore be destroyed) dominates. People forget, of course, that that narrative is easily countered by the fact that nationalism was as much a huge motivating factor for those nations that defeated Nazism as for those who fought for Nazism. I don't think many Russians died at Stalingrad for communism and neither do I think anti-fascism motivated British, Canadian or American soldiers in Normandy. People will fight and die for their nations just as much when they're in the right as when they're in the wrong.

Nationalism was at the heart of every problem in Europe for the century that preceded WW2. THe crumbling of great empires and the states that replaced them on the continent created a fundamental shift in the balance of European influence, most notably with the Gerries. Yes, it is unfair to blame the idea of the nation state for this as the balance of european power had to be restructured as the continental empires crumbled. Nevertheless, cooperation in europe in the aftermath was important and would have felt so.

Quite frankly, the attempts of the remain campaign to nod in the direction of european security and safety in defence of the EU was laughable. At this stage, the idea of Germans marching into France is as laughable as the idea that the EU would be able to prevent it happening.

So what is the real purpose of the EU? As Ash says, cheap labour and comfy regs for businesses to prowl the continent with greater ease. For us it also means being the natural home for those from the poorest parts of the Union.

From our point of view, bit of a **** deal.

[Peter]

Only one nation state pulled Europe apart over the last century, p. Europe was at relative piece for 50 years right up until the Unification of Germany. A Europe with an over-mighty Germany in it cannot be safe.

A Europe with an artificially un-mighty Germany in it was even less safe. The story from unification to surrender in 1945 was one of Germany finding its rightful place as a major european power and economy.

Italian nationalism was pretty destabilising, as were the artificial nation states imposed at Versailles that created such easy prey for Hitler.

the problem is that we never wanted this to be our problem. We only ever got dragged in to sort it out and, from day to day, wanted nothing to do with them. We still dont.

Arguably the right thing to do was never join. Or at the very least, to leave before Maastricht.

[Ash]

That's because nationalism and nationhood have become demonised by the globalists. The narrative that nationalism was the evil at the heart of WWII (and must therefore be destroyed) dominates. People forget, of course, that that narrative is easily countered by the fact that nationalism was as much a huge motivating factor for those nations that defeated Nazism as for those who fought for Nazism. I don't think many Russians died at Stalingrad for communism and neither do I think anti-fascism motivated British, Canadian or American soldiers in Normandy. People will fight and die for their nations just as much when they're in the right as when they're in the wrong.

:nod: The Russians fought in the Great Patriotic War, rather than WWII.

[Burney]

Nationalism was at the heart of every problem in Europe for the century that preceded WW2. THe crumbling of great empires and the states that replaced them on the continent created a fundamental shift in the balance of European influence, most notably with the Gerries. Yes, it is unfair to blame the idea of the nation state for this as the balance of european power had to be restructured as the continental empires crumbled. Nevertheless, cooperation in europe in the aftermath was important and would have felt so.

Quite frankly, the attempts of the remain campaign to nod in the direction of european security and safety in defence of the EU was laughable. At this stage, the idea of Germans marching into France is as laughable as the idea that the EU would be able to prevent it happening.

So what is the real purpose of the EU? As Ash says, cheap labour and comfy regs for businesses to prowl the continent with greater ease. For us it also means being the natural home for those from the poorest parts of the Union.

From our point of view, bit of a **** deal.

Europe's problem has always been very simple: a lot of different people who don't much like one another crammed into a relatively small continent and competing for resources. If it isn't nationalism, it's ideology. If it isn't ideology, it'll be religion or ethnicity. if it isn't nations vs nations, it's been city states vs city states or dukedoms vs dukedoms. The only things that've stopped people killing one another in Europe in the last 70 years have been economic and material exhaustion, the threat of nuclear annihilation and a relative torpor induced by living cosily under NATO's nuclear umbrella. Dismantling the nation state (assuming it's even possible, which I doubt) will make fück all difference to anything.

[Peter]

:nod: The Russians fought in the Great Patriotic War, rather than WWII.

Its amazing how patriotic one can feel when 3 million heavily armed germans turn up looking to wipe you and yours off the face of the earth.

In addition, I wouldn't **** with the Russians. Bloody lunatics.

[Burney]

A Europe with an artificially un-mighty Germany in it was even less safe. The story from unification to surrender in 1945 was one of Germany finding its rightful place as a major european power and economy.

Italian nationalism was pretty destabilising, as were the artificial nation states imposed at Versailles that created such easy prey for Hitler.

the problem is that we never wanted this to be our problem. We only ever got dragged in to sort it out and, from day to day, wanted nothing to do with them. We still dont.

Arguably the right thing to do was never join. Or at the very least, to leave before Maastricht.

Oddly enough, Europe's never been more peaceful than when Germany was divided. No sooner does Germany reunify than Yugoslavia kicks off in no small part because that fat-headed cünt Helmut Kohl - in a moment of post-unification hubris - unilaterally decided to recognise Croatia and Slovenia.

The Cold War - for all its faults - kept everything nice and stable.

And yes, we'd love to leave well enough alone, but long experience tells us that if we don't at least keep a watching eye on our European cousins, sooner or later they'll come after us and have to be slapped.

[Peter]

Oddly enough, Europe's never been more peaceful than when Germany was divided. No sooner does Germany reunify than Yugoslavia kicks off in no small part because that fat-headed cünt Helmut Kohl - in a moment of post-unification hubris - unilaterally decided to recognise Croatia and Slovenia.

The Cold War - for all its faults - kept everything nice and stable.

And yes, we'd love to leave well enough alone, but long experience tells us that if we don't at least keep a watching eye on our European cousins, sooner or later they'll come after us and have to be slapped.

Nah, that's all over and done with. Its all about the islamists these days, b. THe Gerries are yesterday's news.

[Burney]

Nah, that's all over and done with. Its all about the islamists these days, b. THe Gerries are yesterday's news.

Yes, because there's no precedent for a Germany that feels it faces a cultural and ethnic threat getting uppity, is there? ;-)

[Peter]

Yes, because there's no precedent for a Germany that feels it faces a cultural and ethnic threat getting uppity, is there? ;-)

Yeah, but they wont be getting uppity with us, will they. If they want to take on the mad Muslimists you would be right behind them wouldn't you?

Anyway, they wont do it.

[redgunamo]

Yes, because there's no precedent for a Germany that feels it faces a cultural and ethnic threat getting uppity, is there? ;-)

Right. This morning, the wife fed my special steak and kidney pie filling to my hounds while I wasn't looking. Lying cow says she presumed it was meant for them on account of the smell.

[Burney]

Yeah, but they wont be getting uppity with us, will they. If they want to take on the mad Muslimists you would be right behind them wouldn't you?

Anyway, they wont do it.

No, they won't. They're all pussies, these days. Ripe for the plucking by our mad Allan friends.

[Burney]

Right. This morning, the wife fed my special steak and kidney pie filling to my hounds while I wasn't looking. Lying cow says she presumed it was meant for them on account of the smell.

How dare she? These people boil sausages, ffs! The smell indeed!

[redgunamo]

How dare she? These people boil sausages, ffs! The smell indeed!

Exactly. It's quite obviously the beginning of a campaign.

[Burney]

Exactly. It's quite obviously the beginning of a campaign.

:nod: You're being punished for Brexit imo.

[Peter]

Right. This morning, the wife fed my special steak and kidney pie filling to my hounds while I wasn't looking. Lying cow says she presumed it was meant for them on account of the smell.

At least she cant say that she wouldn't feed that to the dogs :D

[Burney]

At least she cant say that she wouldn't feed that to the dogs :D

Besides, having seen their pornography, I'm amazed a German would have any capacity for squeamishness.

[redgunamo]

At least she cant say that she wouldn't feed that to the dogs :D

30 kilos of it, all gone :-(