Post EU World

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Post EU World

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 178 of 259 < 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 >

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 21 Feb 23 1.19pm
Originally posted by mezzer And there we have the EU in a nutshell. In WE's own words, "if they were poor they'd soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership". So you can be wealthy by remaining outside it, but once those less wealthy are envious of that wealth, they will do anything to join to share in that wealth. Socialism, in short. I think the Remainers didn't think it through. By remaining, you subsidise those less wealthy than you. By leaving, if things are as bad as some say they are, we've done the right thing for the country because we'll become less wealthy than those who are in it, and so can rejoin in order to benefit from all those countries in the EU which are prospering. They can subsidise us for a change. So, whichever way you look at it, Leave was the right thing to do. Fair take on it. It does of course depend what the net gain from subsidy is though, vs. the comparable net gain (or loss) from leaving. You might subsidise and still be better off from gains made elsewhere, or you might leave and be worse off even if you get all the money back that you were originally spending in subsidies because you lose benefits from elsewhere. It's a numbers game, a complex one at that, and no-one appears to have any reasonable estimates for either scenario yet. I do think that you'd have a hard job convincing pro-brexit ideologues to sign up to rejoining, even if it was demonstrably provable that brexit had failed and we were all suffering significantly as a result. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 21 Feb 23 1.19pm

Originally posted by mezzer

And there we have the EU in a nutshell. In WE's own words, "if they were poor they'd soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership".

So you can be wealthy by remaining outside it, but once those less wealthy are envious of that wealth, they will do anything to join to share in that wealth. Socialism, in short.

I think the Remainers didn't think it through. By remaining, you subsidise those less wealthy than you. By leaving, if things are as bad as some say they are, we've done the right thing for the country because we'll become less wealthy than those who are in it, and so can rejoin in order to benefit from all those countries in the EU which are prospering. They can subsidise us for a change.

So, whichever way you look at it, Leave was the right thing to do.

Fair take on it.

It does of course depend what the net gain from subsidy is though, vs. the comparable net gain (or loss) from leaving. You might subsidise and still be better off from gains made elsewhere, or you might leave and be worse off even if you get all the money back that you were originally spending in subsidies because you lose benefits from elsewhere.

It's a numbers game, a complex one at that, and no-one appears to have any reasonable estimates for either scenario yet.

I do think that you'd have a hard job convincing pro-brexit ideologues to sign up to rejoining, even if it was demonstrably provable that brexit had failed and we were all suffering significantly as a result.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 21 Feb 23 1.34pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I know that. I don't though believe that's the reason for not becoming full members of the EU. If they were poor I bet they would soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership. Many of the current member states are net fiscal recipients, and who can blame them if others want to give them free stuff and the right to move into any member country Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 21 Feb 23 1.34pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I know that. I don't though believe that's the reason for not becoming full members of the EU.

If they were poor I bet they would soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership.

Many of the current member states are net fiscal recipients, and who can blame them if others want to give them free stuff and the right to move into any member country

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 21 Feb 23 3.54pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Switzerland is a direct democracy and its citizens want to keep that system. no epidemic of 'Asian Grooming Gangs' there, nor Norway, Iceland or all the other countries outside the EU. whereas France ? Sweden ? you tell me ? Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 21 Feb 23 3.54pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Switzerland is a direct democracy and its citizens want to keep that system.

no epidemic of 'Asian Grooming Gangs' there, nor Norway, Iceland or all the other countries outside the EU.

whereas France ? Sweden ? you tell me ?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 21 Feb 23 4.04pm
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio no epidemic of 'Asian Grooming Gangs' there, nor Norway, Iceland or all the other countries outside the EU. whereas France ? Sweden ? you tell me ? Unfortunately for their citizens, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are in the EU in all but name as they are in the European Free Trade Association and are subject to free movement of people. Norway also has a more or less open door to anyone and this has indeed led to a sharp rise in rape cases and general crime in Norway. Edited by georgenorman (21 Feb 2023 4.07pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

21 Feb 23 4.04pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

no epidemic of 'Asian Grooming Gangs' there, nor Norway, Iceland or all the other countries outside the EU.

whereas France ? Sweden ? you tell me ?

Unfortunately for their citizens, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are in the EU in all but name as they are in the European Free Trade Association and are subject to free movement of people. Norway also has a more or less open door to anyone and this has indeed led to a sharp rise in rape cases and general crime in Norway.

Edited by georgenorman (21 Feb 2023 4.07pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 21 Feb 23 5.08pm
Originally posted by mezzer And there we have the EU in a nutshell. In WE's own words, "if they were poor they'd soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership". So you can be wealthy by remaining outside it, but once those less wealthy are envious of that wealth, they will do anything to join to share in that wealth. Socialism, in short. I think the Remainers didn't think it through. By remaining, you subsidise those less wealthy than you. By leaving, if things are as bad as some say they are, we've done the right thing for the country because we'll become less wealthy than those who are in it, and so can rejoin in order to benefit from all those countries in the EU which are prospering. They can subsidise us for a change. So, whichever way you look at it, Leave was the right thing to do. I like that. A bit like our benefit system now you mean, feckless workshy useless idiots alongside immigrants milking us. What’s not to feel proud about
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 21 Feb 23 5.08pm

Originally posted by mezzer

And there we have the EU in a nutshell. In WE's own words, "if they were poor they'd soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership".

So you can be wealthy by remaining outside it, but once those less wealthy are envious of that wealth, they will do anything to join to share in that wealth. Socialism, in short.

So, whichever way you look at it, Leave was the right thing to do.

I like that. A bit like our benefit system now you mean, feckless workshy useless idiots alongside immigrants milking us. What’s not to feel proud about

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 21 Feb 23 5.14pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Fair take on it. It does of course depend what the net gain from subsidy is though, vs. the comparable net gain (or loss) from leaving. You might subsidise and still be better off from gains made elsewhere, or you might leave and be worse off even if you get all the money back that you were originally spending in subsidies because you lose benefits from elsewhere. It's a numbers game, a complex one at that, and no-one appears to have any reasonable estimates for either scenario yet. I do think that you'd have a hard job convincing pro-brexit ideologues to sign up to rejoining, even if it was demonstrably provable that brexit had failed and we were all suffering significantly as a result. Tbh using ‘brexit failed ‘ isn’t the issue. I doubt, if the Ts and Cs were in our favour that 10 billion quid would be an issue. It’s the forced rules which are the issue. Shengun is a disaster as proven with Sweden and Germany for want of two. The euro ties countries down and forcing trade blocs doesn’t suit if you produce something the eu doesn’t need or can produce itself. I see a rejoin mantra happening but it must be at least 50/50 on benefits to negatives. If that was on the table and sold as is to us the public then rejoining would be an option. As it stands the eu are playing keep ball and not actually scoring. A bit like palace really and look how frustrating that is atm
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 21 Feb 23 5.14pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Fair take on it.

It's a numbers game, a complex one at that, and no-one appears to have any reasonable estimates for either scenario yet.

Tbh using ‘brexit failed ‘ isn’t the issue. I doubt, if the Ts and Cs were in our favour that 10 billion quid would be an issue. It’s the forced rules which are the issue. Shengun is a disaster as proven with Sweden and Germany for want of two. The euro ties countries down and forcing trade blocs doesn’t suit if you produce something the eu doesn’t need or can produce itself. I see a rejoin mantra happening but it must be at least 50/50 on benefits to negatives. If that was on the table and sold as is to us the public then rejoining would be an option. As it stands the eu are playing keep ball and not actually scoring. A bit like palace really and look how frustrating that is atm

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.07pm
Originally posted by georgenorman MEPs have delegated nothing, they have no such powers to delegate. If MEPs were elected that wanted to have the power to propose and frame laws themselves, how would they go about implementing that policy? Edited by georgenorman (21 Feb 2023 10.53am) You are at it again, failing to understand a simple fact. It's us, via our own Parliament, who delegate. As I have patiently pointed out the MEPs have another role. If any MEP wanted to frame the laws then they haven't understood their role. If they want to change the role then they aren't in the right Parliament. They can though ask the Commission to prepare proposals. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.07pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

MEPs have delegated nothing, they have no such powers to delegate. If MEPs were elected that wanted to have the power to propose and frame laws themselves, how would they go about implementing that policy?

Edited by georgenorman (21 Feb 2023 10.53am)

You are at it again, failing to understand a simple fact. It's us, via our own Parliament, who delegate. As I have patiently pointed out the MEPs have another role. If any MEP wanted to frame the laws then they haven't understood their role. If they want to change the role then they aren't in the right Parliament. They can though ask the Commission to prepare proposals.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.12pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle We choose who makes decisions, except when the EU is involved. The Swiss decide for themselves. Referendums are at the heart of their democracy and they want to keep it that way. That's only because of the unique situation in Switzerland. There are no parallels with us to be drawn. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.12pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

We choose who makes decisions, except when the EU is involved.
The Swiss decide for themselves. Referendums are at the heart of their democracy and they want to keep it that way.

That's only because of the unique situation in Switzerland. There are no parallels with us to be drawn.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.18pm
Originally posted by mezzer And there we have the EU in a nutshell. In WE's own words, "if they were poor they'd soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership". So you can be wealthy by remaining outside it, but once those less wealthy are envious of that wealth, they will do anything to join to share in that wealth. Socialism, in short. I think the Remainers didn't think it through. By remaining, you subsidise those less wealthy than you. By leaving, if things are as bad as some say they are, we've done the right thing for the country because we'll become less wealthy than those who are in it, and so can rejoin in order to benefit from all those countries in the EU which are prospering. They can subsidise us for a change. So, whichever way you look at it, Leave was the right thing to do. "They" are Switzerland. They are unique. You cannot apply the same to others, no matter how many straws are clutched to try to justify such a terrible mistake. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.18pm

Originally posted by mezzer

And there we have the EU in a nutshell. In WE's own words, "if they were poor they'd soon compromise their democratic system to gain membership".

So you can be wealthy by remaining outside it, but once those less wealthy are envious of that wealth, they will do anything to join to share in that wealth. Socialism, in short.

So, whichever way you look at it, Leave was the right thing to do.

"They" are Switzerland. They are unique. You cannot apply the same to others, no matter how many straws are clutched to try to justify such a terrible mistake.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.28pm
Originally posted by HKOwen Many of the current member states are net fiscal recipients, and who can blame them if others want to give them free stuff and the right to move into any member country analysis I despair whenever I read this kind of analysis. In an organisation like the EU there will always be some who are currently recipients whilst most pay more than they receive. Organisations need funds to operate. It's not the direct cost which is important. It's what the overall impact is. Most of the benefit arises from indirect savings from avoiding duplicated costs at national level. Prosperity is what matters. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 23 8.28pm

Originally posted by HKOwen

Many of the current member states are net fiscal recipients, and who can blame them if others want to give them free stuff and the right to move into any member country

analysis

I despair whenever I read this kind of analysis.

In an organisation like the EU there will always be some who are currently recipients whilst most pay more than they receive. Organisations need funds to operate.

It's not the direct cost which is important. It's what the overall impact is. Most of the benefit arises from indirect savings from avoiding duplicated costs at national level. Prosperity is what matters.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Feb 23 8.32pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That's only because of the unique situation in Switzerland. There are no parallels with us to be drawn. So are they right to stay out?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Feb 23 8.32pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That's only because of the unique situation in Switzerland. There are no parallels with us to be drawn.

So are they right to stay out?

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 21 Feb 23 9.02pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You are at it again, failing to understand a simple fact. It's us, via our own Parliament, who delegate. As I have patiently pointed out the MEPs have another role. If any MEP wanted to frame the laws then they haven't understood their role. If they want to change the role then they aren't in the right Parliament. They can though ask the Commission to prepare proposals. The Oxford Dictionary gives the definition of 'parliament’ as “the group of people who are elected to make and change the laws of a country.” So perhaps they should change their name to the EU Parliamentary Charade. The Commission is not obliged to take any notice of what the parliament proposes - as their own website says: "The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation. The European Commission is the only EU institution with the power to initiate new laws."
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

21 Feb 23 9.02pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The Oxford Dictionary gives the definition of 'parliament’ as “the group of people who are elected to make and change the laws of a country.” So perhaps they should change their name to the EU Parliamentary Charade.
The Commission is not obliged to take any notice of what the parliament proposes - as their own website says: "The European Parliament cannot initiate legislation. The European Commission is the only EU institution with the power to initiate new laws."

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 178 of 259 < 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Post EU World

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors