Jump to content
Mathew Steel

The EU Referendum

Recommended Posts

I'm not exactly in touch with politics, although I do like reading about certain things, especially those that will affect me.

 

However, this EU referendum has left me at a brick wall. I have no idea what sources to trust. What will affect me? What does this mean for my future? What does this mean for the UK?

 

I'm a 16 year old living in Wales. I plan on going to university after I finish my years in sixth form, and plan on studying forensic psychology.?

 

What I'm asking is for someone to explain to me the advantages and disadvantages of us leaving the EU. Preferably without any bias answers, just solid facts :)

 

Thank you in advance to all that reply!


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am strongly in favour of leaving the EU. So my answers will probably be biased. But I've tried to add as many facts and statistics as possible, from reliable sources (unlike the remain camp). There is an awful lot of information to digest, so it will probably take several posts to get it all through. I talked a bit about immigration in my other post, so I'll leave that out for now.

 

Our country is in a mess, this is a time when we have never faced a moment like it in out history - and the elected Politicians and establishment officials are doing absolutely nothing to fix the mess. Indeed, they are making it even worse than it already is. I've heard a few people tell me, that voting doesn't change anything- voting always results in the same result. And that's because it does - because the EU is far more responsible for damage in our country than we think. This vote will result in real change for our country, and it will be the start of a new era. A new era which the people have more say in what happens, less corruption and a better, brighter, happier and more prosperous future.

 

I'll first start a bit about the history of the EU, as it's only for history that we are where we are today. There has been outrage at the likes of Boris Johnson comparing the EU to Hitler and The Nazis. But actually, the EU was designed by The Nazis back in 1942. We are living in the exact same model of Europe that the Nazis has planned for World Domination, often referred to as "The Fourth Reich".

 

There are a few changes, which I'll post below. But the rest is the same as what the Nazis has planned. The EU was designed to take all power away from Nation states, essentially making their own Parliaments Council Chambers, and instead centralise power around the EU. I will touch on the EU institutions later. When the EU was formed, it was a very noble idea, to prevent countries on the continent going to war ever again, and to have countries such as France and Germany become closer to one another.

 

However, over time, the system has become massively corrupt, which I will take more about later. But not only that, it doesn't even work properly. Originally, there were six countries of the EU, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg and The Netherlands and the EU was founded in 1956. It was a time where the war had left a lot of these countries devastated and it was designed to prevent them from ever going to war again.

 

Back then, it was called the Common Market, and was designed for Free Trade between nations, at a time where Tariffs (taxes on imports and exports) was very high, at around 30-40%. The idea was that countries could trade freely between each other without any tariffs on goods or services. And at first, it worked. Europe began to thrive without any tariffs and economically, it was a good thing to be part of it, it made sense.

 

But there were some problems, and one of these was the loss of sovereignty that countries endured by becoming a member. Laws were made by foreign powers in Brussels which became the capital of the EU, rather than by nation states. Fast forward to 1970, and the election in the UK. People in the UK did not want to vote Labour, because they were frightened that they would put us into the EU and we would lose sovereignty, become less independent and lose our national identity, and instead they voted Conservative resulting in a landslide victory for Ted Heath.

 

They believed that the Conservatives were strong and would not put us into the EU, but they were wrong. Ted Heath signed us up to the EU without a single mandate to do so, utterly betraying the country. People never had a vote on it, people were very unhappy about it and this was the start of a new type of politics, a one where the elite would take over. But one more important thing - the country was conned by Ted Heath, who told us it was completely for trade.

 

In 1974, we had another General Election and this time Harold Wilson won for the Labour Party, promising he would reform this organisation which made our laws, trading agreements and we paid to do so. Under the Treaty of Rome which established the EU, we are not allowed to negotiate our own free trade agreements, and an unelected EU Commissioner does this for us instead. So in essence, we can't make free trade agreements to scrap tariffs on exports and imports to any country because it is illegal to do so. The fact that we cannot make our own trade agreements results today in ?2.6 billion in lost revenue to South America alone.

 

Harold Wilson promised to reform the EU so that we would fell happier, and he would then hold a referendum on the EU (or still Common Market) so the people could decide whether we leave or stay. But he came back with absolutely no reform whatsoever, just as Cameron has achieved today. And that is for one single reason - EU law is superior to UK law, and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. Once something is enshrined in law, there is nothing we can do.

 

So Harold Wilson came back from the EU, waving his piece of paper saying he had 'reform'. The people voted to stay in by 66.6% to 33.3%, believing once again, that it was for trade, despite massive opposition to it. From the second we joined, we lost 200 miles of Sea for our use of fishing, which was 'shared' between all other countries in the EU. The result of this, was utter devastation on our fishing industry. In some places now, we only have 2 miles of sea where only we can fish. And EU quotas on fishing means that every year hundreds of thousands of fish are thrown back into the sea.

 

To get back to the history, the only year the UK has ever received more funding from the EU than we paid in was 1975 - the year of that referendum.

 

Then Margaret Thatcher came along, who after seeing what the EU was doing, the fact we were regularly overruled by other EU countries and became very Eurosceptic. She persistently had to badger the EU to get rebates back from what we paid into it, and slowly the EU took more and more powers. By this time, the Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers (which I will explain next) all existed, and there were calls from the EU and EU officials for this to be the official Government of the EU, as such. Thatcher rejected this famously in her '

' speech.

 

But naturally, after Thatcher, the EU moved on again, taking more and more power away from us. In a time where the World Trade Organisation was founded and Tariffs began to slowly go down, it was becoming less sensible to remain inside the EU. In 1992, we had another General Election, and the Conservative Party won this time with John Major as PM. In 1993, his Government signed the infamous Maastricht Treaty.

 

This took pretty much what power we had left, including our veto over a lot of areas, and handed it to the EU. This marked the end of '1,000 years of history'. This is the founding of the current European Union, and what powers it has over the UK. Its courts are supreme over ours, its Parliament is supreme, its laws are supreme - and our own democratically elected government could, from then on, be overruled by the EU whenever it chooses.

 

Shortly after, we saw the introduction of the Euro, a disastrous currency which has crashed the economy of every country which ever joined it. By this point, economic union has been completed of these countries, and next on the agenda is political union - which is exactly what the Maastricht Treaty and the next part I'm coming to, is all about.

 

At the moment, we have a temporary opt-out from the Euro. but we will not always have this forever. In fact it was predicted that if we had joined the Euro, the 2008 crash would have been a full depression like the 1930s, not just a recession. The Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2009, takes away even more powers from the UK and hands them to Brussels. For example, yet to have even been disclosed on the media, is the fact that on 31st of March 2017, the EU will take control over our armed forces and police services.

 

Interestingly, on the Lisbon Treaty, both the French and Irish voted overwhelmingly against the Lisbon Treaty back in 2005 - and there was much more opposition to it than this. But just a few years later in 2009 the Commission pushed it through the back door in virtually the same format so that the people's voice did was overturned. And this is exactly how the EU works. It discusses things in secret with the leaders of other nations so that it can be done as quietly as possible without the public objecting. If you need another example of this, take TTIP. This is being discussed in private between the US Government and the EU officials.

 

Until just last week, members of the European Parliament were not even allowed to see the documents. They are now allowed to go into a locked room to view TTIP, providing they hand over their mobile phone and take no electronic devices which them in the room, and swear not to tell a member of the public what is in the deal so far.

 

And from leaked documents, we have a very good idea. It will open up all our public services to American companies for privatisation, including the NHS - and not only that, but it will be directly responsible for the loss of 1 million jobs, it will push down standards of food and allow Genetically modified foods to be brought into the UK - and not only that, but most chillingly of all - it will allow American Companies to take the British Government to Court (in private, non-public courts!) over their policies. This means that it could become irreversible privatisation.

 

This really is a microcosm of how the EU works. And as you've seen - one of the main arguments that the remain camp brings up is that we can get reform - but we've repeatedly tried for forty years to get reform, and have failed every single time. This has rightly caused outrage across the whole of Europe, and people such as Jeremy Corbyn have said they will veto it. But there are two questions involved with this, the first - how much longer will a veto be available for? And the second point, is that even though theoretically we have a Veto, we've seen how the Commission sneaks things through the back door, low-profile under another name when things don't go their way. The Commission always wins.

 

In my next post, I'll talk a bit about influence, and how exactly we have no influence in the EU.

 

Changes from the Nazi model of Europe to the modern-day EU

 

13239242_1538017683174472_223529535647217645_n.png


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wasn't expecting such a (very very very) thorough response. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful for it! I've just read through it and it's really making me want to get out of the EU just to see how we'd do. I personally, can't vote, but I'm looking forward to seeing the result.?

 

Thank you, Chris. If you wish to add anything else, please do! :)


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The European Union has several institutions, the major ones being the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice and the European Council of Ministers. These all supposedly represent different things, the Commission represents the EU, the Parliament the people, the Court of Justice interprets the law and the Council represents the Government of each member state. But they just don't do this; the end aim is to create a 'United States of Europe', and a lot of this process involves lobbying and lobby groups. In fact there is more lobbying in Brussels than in Washington DC. Many MEPs are given free champagne (among many other luxuries) in return for voting in a certain way for a particular law. This is what people mean when they say that the big businesses run the EU. They really do.

 

The first thing to note is that any real power is nested away and kept hidden from ordinary people, elected representatives and anyone who could make a difference. The power is kept by the European Commission, and this (in essence, it's the Government of Europe) and has the sole right to propose and amend legislation.

 

The Commission is completely made up of 28 unelected officials, one from each member state of the EU - only 3.6% of people come from the UK in the Commission. They supposedly represent their member state, but they have to swear an oath of allegiance to the EU, so they cannot even act in the interests of their member state, they are forbidden to do so. Each Commissioner has a specific responsibility, for example, Competition between businesses, agriculture, Anti-Fraud .etc. The Commission does have a President, one of the 28 Commissioners who are elected by the Parliament as President - but there is only usually one or two candidates. At the moment, Jean-Claude Juncker was the only candidate.

 

The Commission is advised by the Directorate General, but this is very heavily lobbied, just like the Commission is. After the Commission decides a law, for example, to increase VAT on fuel by 10%, this is taken to the Parliament.

 

The Parliament contains 751 elected representatives that each member state is responsible for electing every five years. It also has a President, voted from within the Parliament, but the current one, Martin Schulz, was again, the only name of the ballot paper to elect. The Parliament technically has the power to overthrow the Commission, but as I said in my last post - the Commission always gets its way. The Parliament have never successfully been able to remove the Commission - and they never attempted to get rid of the extremely corrupt one between 2004 and 2009. This Commission included Siim Kallas as the Anti-Fraud Commissioner who was given this role despite being charged with fraud, abuse of power and providing false information after ?4.4million disappeared while he was head of Estonia's national bank.

 

The Parliament is a front, designed to make the EU appear more democratic than it really is. In reality, it's no Parliament as we know one because they have no right to propose laws. Instead, this entire power is handed to the unelected Commission. The Parliament does vote and can make amendments on laws which are proposed by the Commission, but the Commission must accept any of the amendments proposed for the changes to become effective.

 

Once something becomes a law, the Parliament has no right to propose any changes to it. It's used to push through laws that would be rejected at our own Parliament, and other national Parliaments throughout the EU. For the European Parliament to pass a law, a 60% majority is needed. But there's a catch. Any MEPs who do not attend the voting session are automatically counted as voting for that specific law to be passed. In fact even on certain votes, the "No" button is disabled and the MEP can only vote to accept the law or abstain from voting at all.

 

The Parliament means absolutely nothing at all. One example is the monthly move to Strasbourg. Every month, the entire European Parliament packs up, and moves to Strasbourg for four days. Everyone; translators, bureaucrats, officials, MEPs, MEP staff, cleaning staff, everyone. This is a cost of around ?100 million every single year. At the end of that week, that Parliament moves back to Brussels.

 

The reason for doing this is because it's in the treaties. And because it's in the treaties that means it can't be changed unless all 28 member states agree. Because France like the fact it boosts their economy, they effectively veto any changes. And in 2013, the European Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority to abolish moving to Strasbourg once a month - but France vetoed it. So it's still happening. No other Parliament in the entire world does not even have the power to determine where it sits.

 

On some occasions, hundreds of votes ranging on an exceptionally wide area of issues are all passed within an hour or two in the Parliament. This means it's exceptionally hard for the MEPs to know exactly what they're voting on and understand the issues in depth. Some documents are so secret that MEPs are fined if they reveal the contents - and other things, such as TTIP, are negotiated in secret behind closed doors that the elected representatives have not even seen yet. And even if all 73 British MEPs voted against a law, as has been done recently with the Port Services Regulation, it can still be overruled, and usually is. The people mean nothing to the EU and its elite.

 

The next institution is the European Council. After being passed in the Parliament (which practically everything is) then this is the last place a law goes through before becoming law. This is usually done through qualified majority voting. So what this means, is that we can vote against a law and as we only have 8.5% of the say, we can be overruled. And actually this is happening more and more. Since 1993, on the 72 occasions that we have objected to a law in the Council of Ministers, we have been overruled 72 times - and this process is speeding up as well. We have a veto in a very minor number of areas, and when the Council accepts this as law, then they become EU (and consequently UK) law in one of two forms; directives or regulations.

 

Regulations become law automatically and national parliaments do not have to pass any legislation. Directives force national parliaments such as our own at Westminster to change their laws within a specific time-period to comply with the new law, whether they want to change them or not. There has been a lot of reports on what percentage of laws are actually made by the EU, the remain camp say that it's 13.5% but this is a lie. This report only includes the percentage of laws which our own Parliament were forced to pass and does not include the percentage which automatically become UK law. When this figure is included, the average of the last ten years comes to 75%. In 2006 for instance, it was 86% of our laws which were made by the EU.

 

The final major institution of the EU is the Court of Justice. This should interpret the EU laws and make sure they comply with EU treaties, but this just doesn't happen. It ignores things if it feels like it, for example if the EU pushes its own agenda. This is no court like we have in the UK, and it does more than bend the rules, it chooses when to impose them. One example of this is the EU bailouts. These are illegal under EU law, but because it helped the EU to prop-up the failing Eurozone, it allowed them.

 

One thing I will finish on the "law" section is what the EU wants for the future. by 2020, the EU wants 50% of lawyers in the EU to be trained in the Roman law system of Corpus Juris. The majority of other countries in the EU do not use Habeas Corpus, so we would probably get outvoted on that too. Below is a short comparison on the two law systems.

 

law.png


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really wasn't expecting such a (very very very) thorough response. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful for it! I've just read through it and it's really making me want to get out of the EU just to see how we'd do. I personally, can't vote, but I'm looking forward to seeing the result.?

 

Well, I've hardly touched the surface with these two posts ;)

 

I'll focus on the economy later, probably tomorrow morning now to give you a chance to read and take it in. Good to see it's persuasive though! :D

 

This really is the most important decision we'll ever make - and I really doubt we'll ever be given another opportunity to get out of the EU. In just five or ten years time, I really believe it will be too late. In fact, one thing which I failed to mention was the Five President's Report. This calls for complete economic, political and monetary union of all members by 2025, and it would be extremely damaging.

 

Anyway, I'll let you read what I've put so far. Let me know what you think, or if you have any questions, comments, concerns .etc !


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall only say that in most cases you know very little, and you "know" what you are supposed to know. Just like we in Yugoslavia "had to sell our best companies because we are switching to capitalism". Now when you look at it - what the f***? It isn't forbidden in any country for a state to have its own factories or whatever. If it doesn't do well, then fine, but they were selling those best ones. Later people see how they were tricked, and by the time they lose their will to vote or do anything. That was after year 2000. During 90's we also "knew" a lot of that which weren't facts.

 

And now regarding this one:

http://forums.strongholdnation.co.uk/post/11303/#p11303

 

Why do you think that more qualified doctors from India are unable to come to UK and work today? That is not a fact, every hospital has the right to choose which doctor he wants to employ. Sure, it may be easier for the one from EU to get the job, but if the hospital cares about who is the better one, they should arrange for the one in India to get a working visa, so he could come, and perhaps even settle in UK. So, I am sorry to break it, but it is ABOUT YOU.

 

There are other things which you mentioned - regarding controlling your borders... The current issue with EU is mostly related to migration I guess, and the fact that you want to keep control of your borders. I understand why some may want to have any holding on borders between EU countries, but if they decided to change that, wouldn't that remove at least most of the problems?

 

For example, if you were able to do this:

1. to let certain people in with their passports after the control on the border

2. to deport foreign citizens including EU citizens

3. to not let deported people in, or anyone else who you decide not to let in

(you may add something else as well, if I forgot something)

would that be helpful?

 

Still, I have to point out that this way you wouldn't require a visa from someone entering a country, but only a passport.

Also, this wouldn't affect EU migrants who seek for job - if being an EU citizen automatically means having permission to work, though like I said, almost anyone can get a working visa. What would you like to have regarding this issue.

On the other hand, you could require visa's for citizens of some EU countries of your choice. Sure, you have free trade, no need to disturb that, but I don't get it why shouldn't it be an issue for you to control your borders. Of course, I realize some of these would require changing of some rules of EU... But still, those few states that managed to survive though centuries have survived because they were flexible, and they were managing to adopt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Results are in, we are leaving the EU.?

 

Chris, after reading what you said that day, I decided to spend an hour really researching into the topic.

 

Now we know the outcome. I couldn't be more angry, disappointed and worried. We have all been lied to. What is really happening here has been masked, covered up, sugar coated if you will. Nigel Farage (who is a complete racist and b*****d) lied to us about to us about the ?350 million that was PROMISED to go to the NHS, as he has said this morning that this was a "mistake," it wasn't a mistake, it was an intentional and in all fairness tactical, lie. That promise was a huge influence on the people to vote leave. Plus, I'm sure he himself will get a nice raise out of that ?350 million.

 

What was said to mean "more control over our borders" is literally what I hate. Nationalism. In a time of conflict, we have chosen to separate. In a time where allies need to stay together, we have chosen to 'fend' for ourselves. You know who else claims he wants "more control over borders" - Donald Trump. In my eyes, UKIP and Donald Trump are racist. They're the percentage of the population that live in the past, the type of people that think black people are the cause for all crime. Idiots.

 

Already the value of the British pound has dropped. This seems like a little thing really, just a bit of copper. It's far more than that. We could have swapped to the Euro, but we didn't. The pound is part of us. It's unique to us. And it's dying already.

 

It's interesting to see that the majority of the people that voted leave, are old age pensioners. The people that, let's be honest, won't be here long enough to experience the effect of what is to happen. The people who's values may not have changed since their time perhaps?

 

I don't like what is happening to us. And I fear it's going to get worse. Don't get me wrong, Chris, I respect your opinion, but I am so furious at what has happened.


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you, I believe you may be too worried right now.

 

What happens to the pound is not so much a danger, it's a short term thing which was expected. I mean, right now people in world are worried about what will happen to pound, and they are trying to get rid of it (in case UK falls apart), so the value of pound drops. At least that's how I see it, and it is a short term thing.

 

Regarding lies, we in Serbia are experienced with lies. ;) They lie to you as soon as they open their mouth. :D Even now you don't know the facts. The thing is that someone wanted you to leave EU, he put some money in it, and that's all. F*ck democracy, it's only about those who have money to sponsor professional liars aka politicians. I don't have another system to offer though, but you know what I mean... And even if it was about people deciding, how the hell would they know what is the best! Nobody has enough time to read all those tiny letters, etc...

 

About controlling your border - no, you (the British) are not wrong! What is the purpose of the border, if anyone can enter however they want? Fine, you want to help those people who flee from war, but this is not the right way. EU doesn't defend their borders, and that's what p****d the people off. Surely you can understand that. EU has made a huge mistake, and they they payed the price for it. Even Tramp isn't entirely wrong, when he says he would send away all ILLEGAL migrants, there's nothing wrong in that. Consider that you may be the one affected by media right now. I'm just saying that as an observer.

 

You have build a well functioning system, and in order to keep it working so well, you must not let everyone in. Look at the example of my city, and the province in which I live. Until 1950's, and especially until 1990's a lot of people came here, and now they have influence in controlling the city. Many of them don't care about the legacy, they care about nothing, they destroy some of our oldest buildings in order to build some glassy c**p, they destroy old houses which were under cities protections on order to do whatever... They have destroyed an Armenian church in the center of the city in order to make a boulevard. I mean, WTF! When you accept someone, be aware of the fact that they will come with their mentality, and if they are in larger numbers, they will be able to change what you are - to destroy what you love, because you cannot give someone permission to live and work in UK, but not to give him the voting right. If he doesn't get the right, his kids will have it, and if they don't get it - that would be discrimination.

 

I realize that this what I said in the previous paragraph will sound to you that I share opinions of Donald Trump, but I am not. I am also accepting people who are from different countries, and I actually like meeting such people. You must understand that the truth is somewhere in between (or maybe not even there), and the reality is that you are very likely not to be able to pick the best choice. Even if there was an honest politician, the other ones would destroy him like piranhas.

 

Also, I hope that you do realize that this may not be a definite thing. Now after this they need to negotiate about UK leaving EU, and who knows what will happen, what would be offered to UK, etc... Maybe in the end you do stay in EU. Maybe this makes Europe to change in the way which is preferred by the people!

 

And don't think that you are not sticking with your allies if you're not in EU. Your traditional allies are still with you, and you're with them, and you're not obligated to open your borders to any people who were accepted in some other country. You have that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all boils down to money and the power that money brings.

Eventually like the French, Russians, Americans, Cuba, China and just about every other large population, there will be the peoples rebellion and they will try to overthrow their oppressors.

 

Unfortunately the young will be the ones to be in the thick of it and have to do the fighting like is expected of youth as you are more expendable ( as long as your parents breed more).

At the present time, if I were taking odds, I'd say the Muslims have the future sewed up. They are motivated and breed a lot.

 

Matthew Steele, if I were you I would emigrate to New Zealand (unwanted and relatively safe), find a a few rural acres and study how to live off the land without being dependent on the establishment.

In the words of someone or the other. "Run! run far away and never look back."

 

LS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think that more qualified doctors from India are unable to come to UK and work today?

 

Simply put, because EU citizens are sent immediately to the front of the queue just from the part of the world they live in. Non-EU citizens are sent to the back of the line and it's much harder for us to get them into the UK.

 

Also, this wouldn't affect EU migrants who seek for job - if being an EU citizen automatically means having permission to work, though like I said, almost anyone can get a working visa. What would you like to have regarding this issue.

 

I'd like to have a system where people in the UK only decide who can come in or not. I'd like to end the free movement of people from the EU.

 

I realize some of these would require changing of some rules of EU... But still, those few states that managed to survive though centuries have survived because they were flexible, and they were managing to adopt.

 

The EU does not reform. We've tried to do this for 40 years and have failed every single time.

 

Now we know the outcome. I couldn't be more angry, disappointed and worried. We have all been lied to. What is really happening here has been masked, covered up, sugar coated if you will.

 

I haven't actually seen this interview that seems to have caused so much uproar, but Nigel Farage never promised the ?350 million a week. Vote Leave promised ?100 million a week. I haven't ever see anyone promise all ?350 million on the NHS.

 

That promise was a huge influence on the people to vote leave. Plus, I'm sure he himself will get a nice raise out of that ?350 million

 

It wasn't a massive influence, there are far more reasons that just this. It's not just us who don't like the EU. A majority of people in Greece, Sweden, Spain, Cyprus, Czech Republic and Germany to name a few [source] And Nigel Farage isn't even in Parliament or will in any way be affiliated with the Government, or have any decisions on how this will be spent, so I'm not sure how you work that out ....

 

What was said to mean "more control over our borders" is literally what I hate. Nationalism. In a time of conflict, we have chosen to separate.

 

More control over our borders is literally that. More control. It's the ability for our Government to control our borders without freedom of movement of people from EU countries. A few small amount of people in the Leave camp may have suggested this, but this is by no means what the majority wish. More control means the ability for a democratically elected Government in the UK to decide whether we want more migration or less migration and not to be controlled from by Brussels. There is nothing wrong with this, there are over 200 countries in the world but only 28 (now 27) have chosen to give up control of their borders to a foreign unelected power.

 

In a time where allies need to stay together, we have chosen to 'fend' for ourselves.

 

There is some confusion on this subject, we are allies with Europe, and we will remain allies with Europe. But what we do not want is to be in political union with those countries, and for them to govern us.

 

In my eyes, UKIP and Donald Trump are racist. They're the percentage of the population that live in the past, the type of people that think black people are the cause for all crime. Idiots.

 

I will ask you to cool things down a bit, some people who read this and who may support these political parties or points of view may be offended by this kind of attack on them. This is a stereotype which is simply not true.

 

Already the value of the British pound has dropped. This seems like a little thing really, just a bit of copper. It's far more than that. We could have swapped to the Euro, but we didn't. The pound is part of us. It's unique to us. And it's dying already.

 

Hold on a moment .... the value of the pound fluctuates all the time. The reason for this particular drop is because of people selling off shares fearing economic destruction (by the predictions from the Media .etc.). Because they're selling off shares, more people sell of shares while the economy is not doing as well (which remember, it fluctuates), they buy them back when the economy is doing slightly better and make more money. This is what is happening here. This is a natural occurrence; the pound drops to support the FTSE and things are at a slightly higher level than they were in February, actually.

 

But this is wrongly used by the media as directly linked to Brexit. But if you think logically - we haven't even left yet! We only voted to leave, we're still in the EU, we haven't even invoked article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty or anything. Everything is exactly the same. The reason for such a big drop is because people were expecting a remain vote to win (and the value was doing better), and when leave results came in it dropped further than expected.

 

But, more to the point; we're going into a period of uncertainty where we don't know what our trade deals with the EU will look like. The value of the pound was overvalued anyway. It's fell and this will make our exports cheaper. It's better during this time. But as I said, the media are causing panic (because they are pro-EU) and directly linking this to the EU referendum and predicting doom and gloom.

 

It's interesting to see that the majority of the people that voted leave, are old age pensioners. The people that, let's be honest, won't be here long enough to experience the effect of what is to happen. The people who's values may not have changed since their time perhaps?

 

I feel by this, you're implying that these people are racist or (as I've heard a lot) "want the country to return to what is was before". it is partly that they want the country to return, but not for the reasons you think. These people have been alive before we joined the EU. They've seen the damage it has done to our country, our industries, how we've lost our sovereignty and ability to control our own lives, and they don't like foreign powers telling us what to do. The amount of people who you think are doing it for the reasons you think, are a very small percentage indeed.

 

By contrast, young people have never known anything different. They were born when the UK has been a member, they don't know how much better things were doing before we joined. And Labour certainly don't help this phenomenon, blaming everything on the Conservatives, rather than where the blame really belongs. The Conservatives are partly to blame, but the EU has played a fundamental role in the destruction of our nation state. We will do much better once we have left, once we finish this period of uncertainty. Of course people who have never know anything different will not feel as strongly about leaving as older people. They don't know how much the EU works by stealth, lack of democracy and how terrible it is. And also how the same arguments are repeated when countries want to leave. When Norway voted on EU membership, EXACTLY the same arguments we're having now were told to Norway: no trade, isolated, insignificant, wrecked economy, no jobs, businesses will leave .etc. And now Norway aren't in the EU, it's rated one of the best countries in the world to live, and one of the richest. So is Switzerland.


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't wish to argue about this. If Wales left the UK and joined the EU once again, I'd be a very happy person.

 

EDIT: As for my stereotype I apologise to anyone who has taken offence to it. I get angry over such things, and can see why my point was incorrect. However, it does make me question why people vote for these parties.

 

I will say this though. The NHS promise was a HUGE factor in influencing the voters to leave. Believe what you want, I know lots of people, nurses, teachers, receptionists that all said they voted leave because of that one promise.

 

As for the immigration voters, immigration isn't going to change. It just isn't. Levels will stay the same, too many uneducated people were allowed to vote. Whilst 16-17 year olds were not allowed, regardless of their knowledge on the topic.

Edited by Mathew Steel

"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't resist this one either, Matt. I highly recommend you find or research an old late 1960s or 1970s movie called "Wild in The Streets". Believe it or not it may answer many of your questions. Let me know if you do. It was a book too, I think.

 

Personally - and this will tick of my English friends, let Scotland, Ireland and Wales go.?

It is the 21st Century. THAT story is older than old, is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally - and this will tick of my English friends, let Scotland, Ireland and Wales go.?

I feel that unless there is a second referendum, it won't be long until Wales are voting to leave the UK. Personally, I hope we do if that is the case.


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the immigration voters, immigration isn't going to change. It just isn't. Levels will stay the same, too many uneducated people were allowed to vote. Whilst 16-17 year olds were not allowed, regardless of their knowledge on the topic.

 

That's very unfair of you calling them uneducated, everyone has exactly the same right to vote, regardless of how much education they receive. 16-17 year olds really do not know what they were voting on, and the vast majority just don't care regardless. So that I do agree with, I don't think they should have been given the vote. Regarding the immigration levels, they will change if a proper government changes them. The fact is that now we actually have the power to change them. That's the key point.

 

 

Personally I see why Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, want to leave the UK, and I can see both ways. I personally would rather they did not vote to leave, but I can understand it if they do. I would like us all to stay united. I think this has been made a lot worse by the Government's reactions to people there wanting to leave as well.

 

I believe that we should all have the Westminster Parliament, and I do believe in devolution, but proper devolution, where it is done effectively. The devolution at the moment just isn't done properly at all. What I would say is have a central Government in Westminster, and a Parliament in each country (other than England) where they decide a lo more things, but things that make sense and that don't impact the rest of the UK. In short, they should have free roam providing it doesn't contradict another country's system.

 

For one point, and this does irritate me quite a bit, Scotland, for example, get free prescriptions, and free Universities. But the UK Government gives Scotland a lot of money, and this ends up paying for such things while in England we have to pay for Universities and prescriptions.

 

I'm not against Scotland having this, but I am against us paying for it while we have to pay ourselves.

 

I think it's really ironic that people who want Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter, want to come out of the UK to be independent and set their own laws, but they're more than willing to go into the EU, which takes away much more sovereignty, is less accountable (in fact not at all really) and is further away from them than London, in a real foreign country ... :rolleyes:


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For one point, and this does irritate me quite a bit, Scotland, for example, get free prescriptions, and free Universities. But the UK Government gives Scotland a lot of money, and this ends up paying for such things while in England we have to pay for Universities and prescriptions.

 

I'm not against Scotland having this, but I am against us paying for it while we have to pay ourselves.

OK, so Scotland gets a lot of money from UK, but from how you said it, it's like the money isn't from UK but from England. You have four states (or however you call them), and each of them gets something from UK, while it also gives a lot to UK. The same way is with England - England gives to UK, and it gets something back, while it decides on it own how to spend the money. It's not that you give some charity to Scotland, UK just gives them something back. Sure, at some moments it can be that they get more than they give, and at another moment it can be different - it's the way it is when several states are united.

 

I don't know if I wrote it here, Chris, I wanted, but I think I deleted that... Local politicians are always like "they take away our money, give us back our money", while they actually want to do what they want to do - without being control, and all that for their own wallets, not so much for being patriots. As someone who live where Yugoslavia used to be, I can only say - screw those politicians, don't let yourself be influenced by them! Same applies to Scotland, same applies to UK. Now you have six banana republics - Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia, and each of us is irrelevant, and we are being treated accordingly. Believe it or not, it does matter how your country is treated - it does effect the quality of your living.

 

In case of UK, England has most of population, but still, the other countries have their own resources, which you will lose if they separate. Similar to the other three, a country with population of 5 million is irrelevant compared to being a part of a 65 million people country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so "swimming" into the Land of........"What do I Know, Anyway"??? :D ? ? Would be safe to assume that IF Scotland left, then all their benefits do to. England would (and I suppose they would go back to being called "England" strictly) - save much of these "free resources". The more to use in their Country. Let the other 3 start their own systems. This is what happens when you wish to be "independent".

 

I base this on simple historical reference. IF The Confederacy of America (1861-65) HAD been independent (as they so fervently wished), just how would they have styled themselves? They would have had to develop EVERYTHING on their own (treaties, etc). Facing a "big wide World", which vied for control of former Colonies - how long could they have lasted without the old majority help (a larger Union).

 

While a free educational system is wonderful (and should be to some extent) - what does Scotland give in return? Is it seen mostly from a defensive position for England with regards to it's outward (and inweard defense - England's that is?). The same for Wales. And Ireland? I never fully under stood any of the 3s basic importance to Britain in the first place (aside from "Medieval Philosophy") - eg "Kingmaking" and expansion of Empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I don't have time to read how UK works, I will just assume that certain amount money from taxes goes to UK, and then UK decides how much to give to each of the countries. This way Scotland gets a certain amount of money, which they decide to invest in educations. It seems that, if educations in England isn't free, then it is because English government wanted it like that. Maybe Chris will correct me, but Chris, don't spend too much of your time in that. :)

 

Now, when it comes to Scotland for example, they would most certainly get into EU if they want to almost instantly. They are already a member of EU, so they don't have to adopt much - like it is the case with Serbia.

 

I know it can p**s people off when "their money" is being sent away to somebody else, and then later those other guys decide how much "to give them".

 

 

And yes, I agree that I know nothing. :D But I would only add this - during 2000's (which are the years that I remember better, during 90's I was a kid), there was a lot of discussions what should be done, and what would not. Younger people (who frequently consider themselves to be the smarter ones for some reason) were following what politicians were talking more, while the elders (like my grandfather) used to be more cautious saying "this isn't going to be good", and those elders turned out to be right. Of course, some basic stuff were noticed by the younger as well, but still - those younger people were supporting these stuff which turned out to be bad for us.

 

Yes, we all know how to use logic, but by using wrong facts one can prove anything without making a logical mistake, and there's the problem - there's too much of that which we do not know, even if everything was transparent! We don't have the time to read all those stuff on hundreds and thousands of pages on daily basis - we have other priorities, and that is how to live for another day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a "European" your are more in tune than I am (although I try to be as much as News Research will let me). You sound 100% right about it. And yes, when your "Young" you know everything........until the "veil" gets ripped away :p

 

Personally, let everyone "be" as they wish to be. I bet "we" as a "Human Community" would get along better. Most of our Wars are from failure to understand cultural or religious issues. Who cares what you believe in or how you live your life. As long as you respect basic human dignity and independence. Now we all must follow our "laws" (that's a token of civilization that sadly is NOT respected). But we (as Humans), cause more harm than good in trying to create our (as Sir Thomas More put it in the 16th Century)....."Utopia".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would be safe to assume that IF Scotland left, then all their benefits do to. England would (and I suppose they would go back to being called "England" strictly) - save much of these "free resources". The more to use in their Country. Let the other 3 start their own systems. This is what happens when you wish to be "independent".

 

Yes. if they go independent, they need to do everything by themselves. They'll get no resources or grants from the UK Government and all laws .etc. need making by themselves. They'll need a new currency and a financial plan on what they can do to ensure stability. Scotland, for example, based its 2014 plans on Independence on selling Oil which in 15, 20 years will have run out and then their economy will be in a very dire situation. The oil price has also dropped considerably since then so it would have been an absolute disaster.

 

And of course, and independent Scotland would also want to join the EU, so they would also have to put into account all the contributions to the EU, and the money lost from the pesky EU regulations imposed on businesses and other areas of society. For the whole of the UK for example, at the moment the 100 most costly EU regulations cost British businesses ?33.3 billion a year.

 

Scotland does host some Military bases, such as the one used for Trident, and while that can be seen as good for the defence of England as a whole, by leaving the UK that will be moved into England and that would cost a lot of jobs in Scotland. As far as Scotland is concerned, I don't think it would be very successful at all if they left.

 

I will just assume that certain amount money from taxes goes to UK, and then UK decides how much to give to each of the countries. This way Scotland gets a certain amount of money, which they decide to invest in educations. It seems that, if educations in England isn't free, then it is because English government wanted it like that.

 

The bulk of the money the Government gets comes from England, and a lot of this money goes to grants for Scotland (and I also think, but not as sure, Wales and Northern Ireland). So it's the English which are giving them grants which in turn make their Universities free. People in England have to pay ?9,000 for a single year, and a course usually alsts about 3 to 4 years, which believe me is an awful lot here for a student.

 

Now, when it comes to Scotland for example, they would most certainly get into EU if they want to almost instantly. They are already a member of EU, so they don't have to adopt much - like it is the case with Serbia.

 

That's not actually true. If Scotland becomes independent, they need a stable economy for five years before they can apply to join the EU. And that can take decades to actually join. Turkey applied in 1987, I think, and countries such as Macedonia have applied in 2005. But all new countries which join the EU now have to adopt the Euro, which is a disastrous currency. But at the moment, it's the UK which is a member of the EU, and it's the UK which is leaving. Scotland would have to re-join as an independent country.


Quote

The fields have eyes, and the woods have ears.

⁠— Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales: The Knight's Tale

Useful Articles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, you still talk as if England owns everything which belongs to UK. Also, you keep talking like one has completely no benefits of EU, which is not true. Whether there are more benefits than disadvantages, I don't know, I still believe that you don't know all the facts. You are all influenced by your media, and you know what you "need" to know. It's the same with me, and it's same everywhere. The only thing I can say for sure is that someone does have some benefits from UK leaving EU, but that doesn't mean UK has benefits of that too. Similar to Scotland, you keep watching them like they are infants who couldn't handle on their own. There are about 5mil Scots if I am not mistaken, and about 55mil Englishmen, so even if England has 11 as much resources as Scotland does, it's hard for me to believe that Scotland doesn't have enough to survive. You also mentioned law - why would they have to invent everything right now on their own, they can simply keep having the laws from UK, and later just change some of them if they will.

 

Regarding studies, isn't there a possibility for some of the best students to get scholarship? In Serbia on each program there is a number of places which are funded bu the country, and if it is about 30 places, and 50 of them applies, those 30 betters ones would be able to pay tuition fee. Also, if 25 of them apply, some still may not get this privilege, as there are some minimum conditions which have to be satisfied.

 

I would also like to add that you cannot compare Scotland to Turkey or Macedonia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this discussion does not cause us to fall out. I respect everybody will have different views on the matter and it's normal to agree and disagree.

 

Chris to my earlier point, I meant misinformed, not uneducated. That is a fault on my behalf, I couldn't think of the word and ended up writing something I didn't mean.

 

I don't wish to carry on with the conversation personally. I feel that naturally we are all biased and it's unlikely our views will change.?


"Gofyn wyf am galon hapus, calon onest, calon l?n."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, I also think we should close this discussions, or perhaps even delete it. We shouldn't discuss on politics. I realize you didn't have politics in mind, but that's where it's going. Also, considering that each of us know too little about this matter, this is almost like discussion about which religion is better. This is only a matter of opinion, right now none of us knows what is for the best.

 

Still, I have to point out that no harm has been done here because of this discussion, but that is mostly because we know each other for a long time, and we respect each other. If by any chance there were more people in this conversation, it could have got out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this thread to be very informative and definitely NOT a waste of time.

Politics are exactly what you should discuss (in this thread) especially for young people who are venturing into the topic for the first time. Older folks like me had our chance to make change and because of not paying attention AND doing something to force change, we let the establishment walk all over us and bring the world to the crisis it appears to be in now.

 

Personally i prefer independence from belonging to groups of any kind, but if you want to get something done it's impossible unless you belong to a group that has the power and money to implement changes.?

 

The changes that are happening and those that are about to happen are basically of two minds, those that are ready to give up independence and join globalization and those that want to keep their histories and their way of life as in the past.

Being an old one I hate the changes that are taking individualism away and forcing us to accept one culture... however being a realist I know it's pointless and have to accept that those whose agendas are to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else will always win because they are driven by the biggest drive of all... greed! ?

 

LS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...