Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

I am not familiar with this bit of history but the phrase 'to accept the abrogation of national sovereignty, provided that we are satisfied with the conditions and the safeguards' reflects pretty much how many approach brexit. When they feel that the conditions and safeguards have much changed, then it easy to understand why they voted for brexit.

The Saxon Kingdoms manged it to form Engand, so why is that a problem?
38 different states formed Germany and 9 Nations formed the USA,
What therefore is the problem?
This is a created notion playing up false pseudo Patriotism.
Bull in other words to mislead the easily led.
The term is "Red Herring" a notion seeded without any pertinence to their everyday lives.

 

[PeterL]

Here we have an example of the thinking processes of a Conservative Voter and Brexit fan confronted with the evidence that Churchill said this
"
In March 1957 the six nations of France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg founded the European Economic Community (later to be renamed the European Union).

Four months later Churchill gave his last speech on Europe at Central Hall, Westminster. He welcomed the formation of a ‘common market’ by the six, provided that, “the whole of free Europe will have access.” He added, “we genuinely wish to join.”

In August 1961, Churchill wrote: “I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community...”

You are expecting us to believe that the man who first proposed the Formation of a "United States of Europe"had his forgotten his part in all that, and only though it was a Market we were joining when he knew very well that it was intended to develop into a Federal State?
You are quite clearly calling Churchill a fool

Truly you really cannot delude yourself with that, and it's amazing you would come out with such nonsense and describe my comments as nonsense?

I think you have made my point very will indeed.
It is impossible to get facts through the religious Blinkers Conservatives and Brexit voters wear.

Pity that he's still not with us. The truth here is that you have put words into his mouth to make your point. When he first proposed the United States of Europe he clearly said not for us, or words to that effect? The second time was for the Economic Union which not the same thing at all. So it is you OG that make things up and put both words and now thoughts into the great man's head.

Next time I will respond in the same vein as you do - we'll call it colourful for now.

 

[PeterL]

You really can't tolerate being wrong, can you?

And that is why Conservative and Brexit Voters are hard to convince of reality, they prefer lies.

Doesn't even deserve an answer.

 

[Steb]

The - or does it? was the clue. People are not unlike a flock of sheep who need a dog in the same field, not 500 miles away. I fully accept your description of 'progressive democracy' House - street - village - town - county etc. There is a limit however and it's been (over) reached.

what patronising twiddle (although I fully accept that you are like a sheep and need a dog in the same paddock)

 

[PeterL]

what patronising twiddle (although I fully accept that you are like a sheep and need a dog in the same paddock)

Oh dear, looks like a cow has entered the field and left a message.

 

[Steb]

Yes, I totally accept all that. However ,I am not that interested in others views and models of democracy. We have s model of it in UK which although far from perfect is a working model I am very happy with. Without doubt the model the EU adopts will , and already has begun to, replace the model I,m content with. You being happy with EU is fine but like wise me being happy with our UK one and not wanting another " model" should also be fine. I should not have to explain why I dont want the EU model. You did and voted accordingly. I didn't and voted accordingly. We never joined EU with a view to it becoming a USE , which it must we have now realised.
A 13% vote for matters in EU , even allowing for vetoes and the concepts you mentioned, is not the model of democracy I want. The UK model is fine. ( well as fine as is possible)
If it ain't bust...dont mend it.

On the Churchill/ TB opinions matter. We don't even know the stance of our opposition leader and he is alive, allegedly. How on earth can we expect to work out who the dead would support when the living dont know.??

to continue our previous conversation (about you thinking), how about doing some more thinking? about the Westminster system. you know, that abortion of an electoral system that subjects you to 180 u turns every four years and increasingly desperate attempts to buy votes with no regard, whatsoever for the long term damage(like Gordon brown raiding pension funds or thatcher deregulating financial services). As opposed to proportional representation in many parts of the EU. You would have to be committed sadomasochist to opt for the Westminster system. and no its not civilised or democratic.

 

[Steb]

Oh dear, looks like a cow has entered the field and left a message.

a sheep with a thing for cow dung, this is becoming morbidly interesting

 

[PeterL]

a sheep with a thing for cow dung, this is becoming morbidly interesting

I have to admit that both of our dogs have a fascination for the stuff and roll in it given half a chance - I doubt that yours would hold any appeal, at all.

 

[PeterL]

You would have to be committed sadomasochist to opt for the Westminster system. and no its not civilised or democratic.

It's homophobic to be precise and I'm not so sure Zlatan would approve.

 

[Steb]

I have to admit that both of our dogs have a fascination for the stuff and roll in it given half a chance - I doubt that yours would hold any appeal, at all.

and not just any old interest in dung, a connoisseur (bet it took a lot of rolling in faeces before you achieved this level of discrimination). but, back to brexit - you may enjoy rolling in it in a paddock with a dog to guide you - I don't fancy living in a society where that's the level of functioning.

 

[oldgroaner]

Pity that he's still not with us. The truth here is that you have put words into his mouth to make your point. When he first proposed the United States of Europe he clearly said not for us, or words to that effect? The second time was for the Economic Union which not the same thing at all. So it is you OG that make things up and put both words and now thoughts into the great man's head.

Next time I will respond in the same vein as you do - we'll call it colourful for now.

Sorry but you really cannot put forward the notion you are doing to do so would imply Churchill was suffering from memory loss, he knew very well what the intentions were as detailed here
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_1.1.1.html

Do stop digging, the water's coming in!
Next time respond with facts and do try not to dissemble by using snide comments, nobody is fooled, save them for the Conservative Club.

 

[oldgroaner]

Doesn't even deserve an answer.

An admission you were wrong would suffice.

 

[Steb]

It's homophobic to be precise and I'm not so sure Zlatan would approve.

back in conservative HQ, perhaps, back here in the real world there's nothing homophobic about sadomasochism (ask Max Moseley). given that he has voted for brexit, I have a hunch zlatan would approve, heartily, of sadomasochism.

 

[oldgroaner]

back in conservative HQ, perhaps, back here in the real world there's nothing homophobic about sadomasochism (ask Max Moseley). given that he has voted for brexit, I have a hunch zlatan would approve, heartily, of sadomasochism.

That's why he likes me
Can't you tell?

 

[Steb]

That's why he likes me
Can't you tell?

if only we knew about the electorate's desire for punishment before the referendum we could have worked out something less traumatic than brexit

 

[PeterL]

Sorry but you really cannot put forward the notion you are doing to do so would imply Churchill was suffering from memory loss, he knew very well what the intentions were as detailed here
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_1.1.1.html
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_1.1.1.html
Do stop digging, the water's coming in!
Next time respond with facts and do try not to dissemble by using snide comments, nobody is fooled, save them for the Conservative Club.

No mention of an USE in there at all.

 

[flecc]

if only we knew about the electorate's desire for punishment before the referendum we could have worked out something less traumatic than brexit

Wouldn't have needed working out, any Conservative budget would do the trick.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

if only we knew about the electorate's desire for punishment before the referendum we could have worked out something less traumatic than brexit

Be Fair it would have been harder to find something to top the suffering of electing a Conservative Government as they did , other than going for the "Nuclear option" Brexit.
Perhaps for instance waging war on some unsuspecting nation?
Oh! I forgot, we do that in the background all the time...

 

[oldgroaner]

No mention of an USE in there at all.

You really are funny aren't you?
Get someone to explain what this means to you

"The founders of the ECSC were clear about their intentions for the Treaty, namely that it was merely the first step towards a ‘European Federation’.

Now what could European Federation Mean?
Could it be something along the lines of Russian Federation or Federal Germany?
Have another go, see what else you can come up with, it gets funnier each time.

 

[flecc]

No mention of an USE in there at all.

It will be the EUE, États-Unis d'Europe.

As with the end e on Concorde, the French will insist on getting their own way.
.