General / Off-Topic Nigel Farage says EU gangsters owe the UK billions

That is what does my head in about the general tone on the forums. It is mostly the same people saying the same things over and over as if they are facts, demanding anything optimistic be justified and qualified when it cannot possibly be.

I can't quantify why I'm not scared to death about Brexit because other people don't understand I trust our culture and history says it will work. We (as a people) work harder under adverse conditions.

I'm not a racist and I'm not xenophobic. I just think the EU isn't where we belong. I'm pretty sure you get what I mean :)
Britain is the nation that coined the phrase 'keep calm and carry on' and history shows us, that this is the case. They get by, no matter what and so it can be said, that as a whole, the U.K. will work its way through the Brexit and continue as always. However: It will be the poor and common people of the country that have to work the hardest and suffer the most to make this happen and not those who caused the issue or will take the credit.
 
Last edited:
So wanted to rep you for this!(another time mate).... Perfectly worded as to how i feel about Brexit and these threads, hell it may all go wrong but i wont be sitting up all night worrying about it, in fact its Friday night and time for an ale! ;)

Exactly mate. Getting in a big flap about it isn't going to achieve anything. Financial markets aren't driven by logic, they are driven by emotions.... fear and greed. The UK is being brave:)

- - - Updated - - -

Britain is the nation that coined the phrase 'keep calm and carry on' and history shows us, that this is the case. They get by, no matter what and so it can be said, that as a whole, the U.K. will work its way through the Brexit and continue as always. However: It will be the poor and common people of the country that have to work the hardest and suffer the most to make this happen and not those who caused the issue or will take the credit.

Quite possibly. Not because it is poor people that are directly affected negatively but because the system as a whole may suffer in the short (and possibly even longer) term.
 
When facts are there (dropping pound, reduction in immigration, businesses moving operations out of the UK) then they're facts. That they're unpleasant doesn't make them any less accurate.



The history and culture of the UK? The Island nation which has always acted as a trading hub, moving goods and services across the world throughout history? The nation with colonies all of the world, embassies in every country and experts in diplomacy in every capital city? The Island nation which is now trying to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist in a move which is the complete antithesis to how it has always operated?

We (as a people) have, for the most part, never had to deal with adverse conditions or even moderately difficult conditions. We've had the odd recession and a few million unemployed in the late 80s but other than that... what else?

And what about the history of the UKs entry into the EU?

http://voxeu.org/article/britain-s-eu-membership-new-insight-economic-history
http://uk.blastingnews.com/politics...oined-the-eu-in-the-first-place-00785599.html

I am saying these things as facts because they are facts.

Fuzzy you and I will never agree on this sort of thing. You are a liberal drama queen in my eyes. The very opposite to everything I value. I see no value in arguing with you. You claim things to be facts when they are just your take on the world and I don't really want to fight you on everything.

- - - Updated - - -

When facts are there (dropping pound, reduction in immigration, businesses moving operations out of the UK) then they're facts. That they're unpleasant doesn't make them any less accurate.



The history and culture of the UK? The Island nation which has always acted as a trading hub, moving goods and services across the world throughout history? The nation with colonies all of the world, embassies in every country and experts in diplomacy in every capital city? The Island nation which is now trying to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist in a move which is the complete antithesis to how it has always operated?

We (as a people) have, for the most part, never had to deal with adverse conditions or even moderately difficult conditions. We've had the odd recession and a few million unemployed in the late 80s but other than that... what else?

And what about the history of the UKs entry into the EU?

http://voxeu.org/article/britain-s-eu-membership-new-insight-economic-history
http://uk.blastingnews.com/politics...oined-the-eu-in-the-first-place-00785599.html

I am saying these things as facts because they are facts.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England
 
Britain is the nation that coined the phrase 'keep calm and carry on' and history shows us, that this is the case. They get by, no matter what and so it can be said, that as a whole, the U.K. will work its way through the Brexit and continue as always. However: It will be the poor and common people of the country that have to work the hardest and suffer the most to make this happen and not those who caused the issue or will take the credit.

Some people always profit. The top dogs in places like Russia or Mexico are immensely rich. It's the average people and especially the poor who get shafted. Even a suoer hard Brexit that tanks the economy will create winners who end up richer than ever.
 
One thing to think about.

The idea that the UK (well British Isles) has always been a trading hub is not really true.

If we take the "start of history" as the roman empire, the British Isles was a foggy little green island at the furthest corner of the empire/known world. Yes we traded but because we had to. The real hub was Rome.

All through history the British Isles were always at the edge of things. If you look at the geography of Europe, we are at the edge.

The British Isles only really became a trading hub in the 1700's. At this point the Americas started to become important, and the UK's position at the edge of the Atlantic (and weather patterns) made it a "gateway to the Americas" and suddenly started to put in an important place.

But here's the real rub.

For at least 15 of the last 20 centuries the real hub of civilization and trading for the world has been China.

The European ascendency only happened after the renaissance, then the rise of European empires. Before that Europe was just a bunch of tiny warring kingdoms.

The British Empire, with the UK as it's hub, only really existed from C18th to early C20th.

Now with the US as the worlds only super power and China soon to join them, The UK is on the wrong side of the globe to act as a hub between China and the US. Why got from the US to China via the UK when you can go direct across the pacific?

Of course the 3rd "super power" is Europe (but only if it acts as a unit).

So the future holds the US, China and and Europe.

Can the UK act as a hub for the big 3?
 
Last edited:
Poland was assured Protection by Britain. I dont think we even need to talk about what they got.

Poland fell within days, attempting to fight the German tanks with cavelry and ancient troops. Britain and France had both promised to help Poland but all 3 countries didn't anticipate the Blitzkrieg. France fell back behind the Maginot line. Britain also couldn't help in time to be of any use.

France was assured Support by Britain. But when Germany went through Netherlands and Belgium and France Troops on the Border were overrun. Britain retreated.

Yes, Britain retreated and it's almost folk-law in British history. The British forces were pinned in Dunkirk, and were being killed when almost every small boat in the country was commissioned and sent to rescue the troops from the French/Belgium border. It was essentially a defeat but what's remarkable is that so many men were rescued by fishermen, ferrymen, oarsmen and so many other civilians who faced the German u-boats, navy and overwhelming odds to prevent the British army at the time from being completely wiped out (as the Polish and French had already been).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation

Norw
Not going to comment any further on this as I like many others grew up without Grandfathers because of us "Bunkering down."
Losses WW2 (Military)
Soviets about 10 Million
Germany about 5 Million
China about 3 Million
Japan about 2 Million
UK about 400k.....

So what you're saying is that with the exception of the Germans (who lost so of course had far higher casualties), the British lost more than troops than any other member of the EU as it stands today. Very few of them on British soil either and most of them in France, Italy and North Africa.. which is not really consistent with your view of "Bunkering down". Undoubtedly Britain acted in it's own interests, but it also did the best it could for it's allies on a time scale that it could actually manage, given how outgunned we were..

Maybe Ask why there is so many British Graves and so little Honoring of the remaining ones.

Well, as we've discussed before, there was my Grandfather and my great Grandfather. Both of whom died far from home attempting to help in a situation which was not their or their countries making.

This is the website of the British war graves commision, who as such organisation have gone far further to find out what happened to every single soldier who died than any other country in the world.. Including my grandfather who lies in France. It was they that documented my families whereabouts so that my Grandmother was finally able to visit their graves in the late 90s as an old woman.

http://www.cwgc.org/

And you might get an Idea why People feel offended if Britain goes around Proclaiming itself being the Protector of Freedom and Savior from the s.

I have never made such a claim and I don't hold with this nonsense about people owning Britain any money. I'm not keen at all on Brexit and I believe that the UK should come to a good compromise on it's modern debts. However, Britain did it's best to honor it's alliances during the war. We did protect ourselves and no doubt it was my grandmother and my mother who were foremost in my Grandfather's mind as he died in France. Nevertheless we did the best we could for our allies and I don't believe we deserve your ungrateful scorn.

Then ask yourself if maybe this amount of People growing up without Grandfathers. Might actually be rather small in the UK Compared to other Countries.

You'll understand why it doesn't seem small to me. I find your tone frankly appalling and i think you should apologise to the other members of this forum. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Britain's role the WW2 but your tone is intensely disrespectful for those who died which is deeply unpleasant to read. Show some respect.

Especially around the Eastern portion of Europe which not only got abandoned by the UK in the earlier Stages of War.
B/ut afterwards fell to the Soviets.

It's a terrible shame that this occurred, but I frankly don't see how Britain could have done more, given the odds of success, the tactical distance from the UK and the resources available. During the battle of Britain, 1/12 of the pilots that defended the UK were Polish which I think shows perhaps that not all held the same view as you at that time.
 
Last edited:
Poland fell within days, attempting to fight the German tanks with cavelry and ancient troops. Britain and France had both promised to help Poland but all 3 countries didn't anticipate the Blitzkrieg. France fell back behind the Maginot line. Britain also couldn't help in time to be of any use.



Yes, Britain retreated and it's almost folk-law in British history. The British forces were pinned in Dunkirk, and were being killed when almost every small boat in the country was commissioned and sent to rescue the troops from the French/Belgium border. It was essentially a defeat but what's remarkable is that so many men were rescued by fishermen, ferrymen, oarsmen and so many other civilians who faced the German u-boats, navy and overwhelming odds to prevent the British army at the time from being completely wiped out (as the Polish and French had already been).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation



So what you're saying is that with the exception of the Germans (who lost so of course had far higher casualties), the British lost more than troops than any other member of the EU as it stands today. Very few of them on British soil either and most of them in France, Italy and North Africa.. which is not really consistent with your view of "Bunkering down". Undoubtedly Britain acted in it's own interests, but it also did the best it could for it's allies on a time scale that it could actually manage, given how outgunned we were..



Well, as we've discussed before, there was my Grandfather and my great Grandfather. Both of whom died far from home attempting to help in a situation which was not their or their countries making.

This is the website of the British war graves commision, who as such organisation have gone far further to find out what happened to every single soldier who died than any other country in the world.. Including my grandfather who lies in France. It was they that documented my families whereabouts so that my Grandmother was finally able to visit their graves in the late 90s as an old woman.

http://www.cwgc.org/



I have never made such a claim and I don't hold with this nonsense about people owning Britain any money. I'm not keen at all on Brexit and I believe that the UK should come to a good compromise on it's modern debts. However, Britain did it's best to honor it's alliances during the war. We did protect ourselves and no doubt it was my grandmother and my mother who were foremost in my Grandfather's mind as he died in France. Nevertheless we did the best we could for our allies and I don't believe we deserve your ungrateful scorn.



You'll understand why it doesn't seem small to me. I find your tone frankly appalling and i think you should apologise to the other members of this forum. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Britain's role the WW2 but your tone is intensely disrespectful for those who died which is deeply unpleasant to read. Show some respect.



It's a terrible shame that this occurred, but I frankly don't see how Britain could have done more, given the odds of success, the tactical distance from the UK and the resources available. During the battle of Britain, 1/12 of the pilots that defended the UK were Polish which I think shows perhaps that not all held the same view as you at that time.
Thank you o7
 
Utter rubbish as usual. An excerpt of the speech French President Sarkozy made when he addressed the U.K. Parliament.

"Our two countries' destinies have been closely intertwined for nearly 1,000 years.

"Since William the Conqueror set off from Normandy to seize hold of the throne of Edward the Confessor, to the reverse journey made by hundreds of thousands of young Britons to participate in the liberation of Europe, our destinies have constantly intersected.

"Our nations fought one another for a long time, until the day they understood that what brought them together was more important than what divided them, that they had interests to defend and, even more important still, common values to defend together."

He added: "France hasn't forgotten, she will never forget that when she was almost annihilated Britain was at her side.

"She will never forget the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish blood mixed with the French blood in the mud of the trenches.

"She will never forget the welcome the British people gave General de Gaulle and Free France. She will never forget the heroic resistance of the British people without which all would have been lost.

"She will never forget the fine young people who came from all over the British Empire and laid down their lives on the Normandy beaches.

Erm.
No offense but that speech is fro. A WW1 Memorial.
Wrong War Mate.


Poland fell within days, attempting to fight the German tanks with cavelry and ancient troops. Britain and France had both promised to help Poland but all 3 countries didn't anticipate the Blitzkrieg. France fell back behind the Maginot line. Britain also couldn't help in time to be of any use.



Yes, Britain retreated and it's almost folk-law in British history. The British forces were pinned in Dunkirk, and were being killed when almost every small boat in the country was commissioned and sent to rescue the troops from the French/Belgium border. It was essentially a defeat but what's remarkable is that so many men were rescued by fishermen, ferrymen, oarsmen and so many other civilians who faced the German u-boats, navy and overwhelming odds to prevent the British army at the time from being completely wiped out (as the Polish and French had already been).



So what you're saying is that with the exception of the Germans (who lost so of course had far higher casualties), the British lost more than troops than another other member of the EU as it stands today. Very few of them on British soil either and most of them in France, Italy and North Africa.. which is not really consistent with your view of "Bunkering down". Undoubtedly Britain acted in it's own interests, but it also did the best it could for it's allies on a time scale that it could actually manage, given how outgunned we were..



Well, as we've discussed before, there was my Grandfather and my great Grandfather. Both of whom died far from home attempting to help in a situation which was not their or their countries making.

This is the website of the British war graves commision, who as such organisation have gone far further to find out what happened to every single soldier who died than any other country in the world.. Including my grandfather who lies in France. It was they that documented my families whereabouts so that my Grandmother was finally able to visit their graves in the late 90s as an old woman.

http://www.cwgc.org/



I have never made such a claim and I don't hold with this nonsense about people owning Britain any money. I'm not keen at all on Brexit and I believe that the UK should come to a good compromise on it's modern debts. However, Britain did it's best to honor it's alliances during the war. We did protect ourselves and no doubt it was my grandmother and my mother who were foremost in my Grandfather's mind as he died in France. Nevertheless we did the best we could for our allies and I don't believe we deserve your ungrateful scorn.



You'll understand why it doesn't seem small to me. I find your tone frankly appalling and i think you should apologise to the other members of this forum. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Britain's role the WW2 but your tone is intensely disrespectful for those who died which is deeply unpleasant to read. Show some respect.



It's a terrible shame that this occurred, but I frankly don't see how Britain could have done more, given the odds of success, the tactical distance from the UK and the resources available.


Sigh.
Just going to correct some facts and not go in to deep...

1.
The Invasion of Poland took more than one Month.
And Germany barely had Tanks in that time.
In fact it hardly was Motorized.
Most of the German Army was running on Cavalry as well.


2.
France and Germany lurked at each other on the Maginout line.
Partially even helping out each other as no real War was happening.
Not surprising cause the German Army was barely 10% of the Frensh Army and was almost entirely in Poland.
If France and UK had called the bluff and Attacked. They would have been able to just March in.

But they waited and actual fighting only began after Poland fell and Germany had bought its troops to the West.


3.
Yes.
The escape from France is a well known Tale.
Germany itself was surprised because the Enemy retreated with nearly no resistance and stopped advancing because they got scared its a trap to lure them in.
Does not change that rather than Fighting to Protect France.
The UK retreated.
France fought on but with little chance against the now empowered German Army
It was not annihilated tough. In fact most of its troops were unharmed. Only the Northern Border Divisions fell.
These would later be Vichy France and thus Enemy to the UK.


4.
Uff thats wrong as well.
You had the most losses for any Country in the EU IF you include the Troops from your Colonies especially India which fell against Japan as well the expedition forces from other Colonies. Excluding those you actually lost way less.
But even then it only holds for the numbers.
If you go by the size of Population. The losses of the UK were marginal compared to the others.

Germany by the way had really small losses for being the loser.
but well different story.


5.
Does not answer nor contest my Statement.


6.
The guy I quoted did.
Dont complain that your dragged onto his side if your backing him.
Even less when you backed him without distancing yourself from his claims.


7.
It sounds out of the forest as you yell into it.
Dont expect respect from others when your not offering them respect yourself.


8.
Giving the UK the benefit of doubt I will assume they got faked out.
In terms of Military they could have Crushed Germany easily at this point if they had just attacked.
The more unfortunate truth is that in the UK the odea of sending Soldiers to die for Poland was not exactly well received.
Hence the delay.
This was also reason why Czechs etc got sold out to Germany.

But what else you could have done is not importand.
Because I am not blaming the UK for not saving Poland.
I would blame them for Guaranteeing them when they could not do anything anyways.
But thats a different story.

The Point is.
The UK did not save or protect Europe.

So it should not claim it did.
Much less should it claim that other EU members owe them Money for saving them.



Said this before.
But I am not contesting the UK having lost something or having fought.

I am contesting that the EU owes the UK for saving them from Germany.
Because well. It did not.
 
Nerwan, you might want to update your knowledge on the resistance Poland offered to Germany. The airforce put up an amazing fight, and they didn't actually "fight tanks with cavalry". The horses gave mobility to infantry, and Poland was hardly alone in still making use of horses in War. They helped Finland in the Winter War to no end, for example.

Poland was crushed between Germany and the Soviet Union, of course, but there was quite a lot of resistance that was both heroic and effective.
 
Sunleader, your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance. Go read some history and stop spouting off. You've moved beyond irritating and into outright insulting now. Please just stop.

There is absolutely no doubt that without British support WWII would have ended very differently. Think about it; no re-opening of the Western Front for the Axis. No D-Day landings. No logistical support to Russia. Imagine how different the world now would be, given how much of modern political boundaries were formed with the aftermath of the war.

We're proud of our history, paid for with much blood across continental Europe. If you're going to challenge our part in it - stop writing stuff which is either demonstrably incorrect or the whiny complaints of a keyboard warrior.

The British Empire, with the UK as it's hub, only really existed from C18th to early C20th.

Now with the US as the worlds only super power and China soon to join them, The UK is on the wrong side of the globe to act as a hub between China and the US. Why got from the US to China via the UK when you can go direct across the pacific?

Of course the 3rd "super power" is Europe (but only if it acts as a unit).

So the future holds the US, China and and Europe.

Can the UK act as a hub for the big 3?

Why not? There's actually huge markets which the UK can take advantage of with the African states and much of South East Asia (plus the more developed nations outwith the EU). Who better to introduce that produce into the US and European markets?

One of the flaws of the EU which isn't given enough attention is the impact it has on those nations who are principally agricultural but would be able to trade within the EU if it weren't for punitive barriers set up to protect local growers. The EU harms those economies and harms those people. The EU, through a combination of CAP and tariff barriers, effectively denies a good market share to nations who have produce to sell, will sell it cheaper than within the EU and need the money to develop.

With the right agreements (which don't have to be comprehensive free trade deals), we can buy goods, invest, develop infrastructure and provide the services that we're so good at doing. Being within the EU, we can't even have those conversations let alone make any agreements. From there, we can springboard that new produce into our own economy - giving newer options for onward export.

Imagine if the investment power of the City of London were put to work on infrastructure development in Africa. Imagine the growth potential - even with proper governance and controls were put in place to stop abuse. We could help leapfog over a billion people forward in living standards.

One of the elements which I find so annoying in this conversation is the complete lack of awareness of what the EU is. Almost every complaint and negative line of reasoning about us leaving the EU can be applied to the EU itself and it's treatment of the 6.5bn people who live outwith its borders. Even within it's own borders the EU is a shambles. West Wales has received £billions in EU support and achieved next to nothing. Where has that money gone? They literally would have been better off giving the money directly to the population.

Farage is a buffoon. But the reason that he's even a quarter credible in this sphere is actually he's not wrong all the time, the EU has become a rampantly out-of-control bureaucracy which seems to have convinced people that it's an agent of good.
 
Last edited:
Nerwan, you might want to update your knowledge on the resistance Poland offered to Germany. The airforce put up an amazing fight, and they didn't actually "fight tanks with cavalry". The horses gave mobility to infantry, and Poland was hardly alone in still making use of horses in War. They helped Finland in the Winter War to no end, for example.

Poland was crushed between Germany and the Soviet Union, of course, but there was quite a lot of resistance that was both heroic and effective.
The basic issue at the start, was the lack of re-arming. Churchill was considered a war-monger when he mentioned that Britain should do more and no one wanted to talk about Germany basically creating a modern war machine. No one wanted another 'great war' and so British forces were mostly armed with a lot of WW1 equipment. Germany was banned from have any military capability after WW1 so it could start from scratch and no one wanted to talk about it, or even think about it.
 
Nerwan, you might want to update your knowledge on the resistance Poland offered to Germany. The airforce put up an amazing fight, and they didn't actually "fight tanks with cavalry". The horses gave mobility to infantry, and Poland was hardly alone in still making use of horses in War. They helped Finland in the Winter War to no end, for example.

Poland was crushed between Germany and the Soviet Union, of course, but there was quite a lot of resistance that was both heroic and effective.

Thank you. I must admit I'm no war buff and my knowledge is lacking. I was simply offended by what I perceive to be Sunleaders rudeness and dismissiveness of what I know cost older members of my family very dearly. I don't think I'll participate further in this particular discussion.
 
Sunleader, your ignorance is only outweighed by your arrogance. Go read some history and stop spouting off. You've moved beyond irritating and into outright insulting now. Please just stop.

There is absolutely no doubt that without British support WWII would have ended very differently. Think about it; no re-opening of the Western Front for the Axis. No D-Day landings. No logistical support to Russia. Imagine how different the world now would be, given how much of modern political boundaries were formed with the aftermath of the war.

We're proud of our history, paid for with much blood across continental Europe. If you're going to challenge our part in it - stop writing stuff which is either demonstrably incorrect or the whiny complaints of a keyboard warrior.



Why not? There's actually huge markets which the UK can take advantage of with the African states and much of South East Asia (plus the more developed nations outwith the EU). Who better to introduce that produce into the US and European markets?

One of the flaws of the EU which isn't given enough attention is the impact it has on those nations who are principally agricultural but would be able to trade within the EU if it weren't for punitive barriers set up to protect local growers. The EU harms those economies and harms those people. The EU, through a combination of CAP and tariff barriers, effectively denies a good market share to nations who have produce to sell, will sell it cheaper than within the EU and need the money to develop.

With the right agreements (which don't have to be comprehensive free trade deals), we can buy goods, invest, develop infrastructure and provide the services that we're so good at doing. Being within the EU, we can't even have those conversations let alone make any agreements. From there, we can springboard that new produce into our own economy - giving newer options for onward export.

Imagine if the investment power of the City of London were put to work on infrastructure development in Africa. Imagine the growth potential - even with proper governance and controls were put in place to stop abuse. We could help leapfog over a billion people forward in living standards.

One of the elements which I find so annoying in this conversation is the complete lack of awareness of what the EU is. Almost every complaint and negative line of reasoning about us leaving the EU can be applied to the EU itself and it's treatment of the 6.5bn people who live outwith its borders. Even within it's own borders the EU is a shambles. West Wales has received £billions in EU support and achieved next to nothing. Where has that money gone? They literally would have been better off giving the money directly to the population.

Farage is a buffoon. But the reason that he's even a quarter credible in this sphere is actually he's not wrong all the time, the EU has become a rampantly out-of-control bureaucracy which seems to have convinced people that it's an agent of good.

Some guy from Britain who really beliefs the UK saved Europe from Fascism just told me I am Ignorant and Arrogant as well as telling me that I should read up some History....


Oh lord why do you tempt me so much....
 
Fuzzy you and I will never agree on this sort of thing. You are a liberal drama queen in my eyes. The very opposite to everything I value. I see no value in arguing with you. You claim things to be facts when they are just your take on the world and I don't really want to fight you on everything.

I presented you with facts. You respond without fact but mere insults. This is a childish response of someone who can't face reality because they don't like it, and it doesn't bode well for the nation if 50% of the country has that attitude. You're incapable of forming an explanation as to why the experts are almost unanimous in saying Brexit is a bad idea. Beyond absolutely daft notions like....


What the hell do those have to do with anything?!

I hope you realize everyone involved in any of those things are a very long time dead. YOU never suffered through those, and nor did anyone else. YOU have suffered through the petrol crisis of 2000 and the mad cow disease scare. If you're very unfortunate maybe you or family had a period of unemployment and had to rely on state benefits. But to invoke the Spanish armada as a reason Brexit won't be terrible? That's just bizarre.
 
Thank you. I must admit I'm no war buff and my knowledge is lacking. I was simply offended by what I perceive to be Sunleaders rudeness and dismissiveness of what I know cost older members of my family very dearly. I don't think I'll participate further in this particular discussion.

I don't disagree with the essence of it. I just wanted to point out that Poland wasn't actually some backwater fighting tanks with horse and musket.
 
So have we noticed by now what those "x owes y discussions" lead to? Nothing good.
You think Garage pulls that stuff because he's "a patriot"? Or because he wants to further divide the U.K. and the EU? Or distract from leave campaigns own promises what great things brexit will bring for the U.K.?
 

Minonian

Banned
Than why to continue this discussion, and with it giving to it attention? It's a thread, not a troll. You don't have to open it, and give a damn about it.
 
Last edited:
So have we noticed by now what those "x owes y discussions" lead to? Nothing good.
You think Garage pulls that stuff because he's "a patriot"? Or because he wants to further divide the U.K. and the EU? Or distract from leave campaigns own promises what great things brexit will bring for the U.K.?

The EU started it... ;)
 
Why not? There's actually huge markets which the UK can take advantage of with the African states and much of South East Asia (plus the more developed nations outwith the EU). Who better to introduce that produce into the US and European markets?

The EU doesn't keep you from trading with those huge markets.

One of the flaws of the EU which isn't given enough attention is the impact it has on those nations who are principally agricultural but would be able to trade within the EU if it weren't for punitive barriers set up to protect local growers. The EU harms those economies and harms those people. The EU, through a combination of CAP and tariff barriers, effectively denies a good market share to nations who have produce to sell, will sell it cheaper than within the EU and need the money to develop.

To protect its own agriculture is a strategic decision, not an economic decision. The EU as a collective doesn't and shouldn't rely solely on imports, otherwise it'd be easy to blackmail.

With the right agreements (which don't have to be comprehensive free trade deals), we can buy goods, invest, develop infrastructure and provide the services that we're so good at doing. Being within the EU, we can't even have those conversations let alone make any agreements. From there, we can springboard that new produce into our own economy - giving newer options for onward export.

The EU makes and made those agreements for you. Agreements which aren't specifically tailored to british needs, but agreements negotiated with a lot more leverage behind them than the UK could bring up alone.

Imagine if the investment power of the City of London were put to work on infrastructure development in Africa. Imagine the growth potential - even with proper governance and controls were put in place to stop abuse. We could help leapfog over a billion people forward in living standards.

Didn't happen in the past, won't happen in the future. Africa is the prime example of what uncertainity can do to an economy. Would you invest your own money in South Africa or Central Africa?

Another question you should ask yourself is, would it really be beneficial for you and humanity as a whole if you raise the living standard of a billion people? Maybe I sound like a major a-hole right now, but I'm not sure whether our planet and environment could support that.

One of the elements which I find so annoying in this conversation is the complete lack of awareness of what the EU is. Almost every complaint and negative line of reasoning about us leaving the EU can be applied to the EU itself and it's treatment of the 6.5bn people who live outwith its borders. Even within it's own borders the EU is a shambles. West Wales has received £billions in EU support and achieved next to nothing. Where has that money gone? They literally would have been better off giving the money directly to the population.

Farage is a buffoon. But the reason that he's even a quarter credible in this sphere is actually he's not wrong all the time, the EU has become a rampantly out-of-control bureaucracy which seems to have convinced people that it's an agent of good.

The EU is not responsible for the 6,5bn people outside it. Why should it be? And no, the arguments for and against the Brexit are specifically related to Britain, they can't be applied to any country outside of the EU.

If you want to know where the funding in West Wales went, simply google it. Here's also a nice infographic of what the EU funds did throughout Wales.

The EU is no agent of good, it's a union with the sole purpose to serve the nations which count to its members. It's not perfect but far from failing. And if you think that the EU bureaucracy is bad, try filing taxes or doing anything with officials in Germany lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom