What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

In all honesty I’ve never previously seen any suggestion come out of senior sources within Germany that we should form a United States of Europe in the mould of the USA with Berlin as the capitol City

The idea seems completely bizarre to me

What's the endpoint of increased federalisation we have seen other than a united Europe of federated states? We currently have a borderless collection of states with a single currency with proposed moves towards to shared foreign policy and defence.

What's the endpoint of increased federalisation we have seen other than a united Europe of federated states? We currently have a borderless collection of states with a single currency with proposed moves towards to shared foreign policy and defence.

 

Even if that WAS the "endpoint" (which it isn't), what exactly is it that you're scared of?

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by Cheese

A quote from a German politician shown earlier, together with evidence from recent decades tends to suggest increased federalisation is the goal.

You're always asking for facts, and they have been presented. If its not the aim, then at what point does it stop?

You

Even if that WAS the "endpoint" (which it isn't), what exactly is it that you're scared of?

What is the endpoint then? And asking the question I did does not mean I am scared of the European project or make me a Mail reading Little Englander.

A quote from a German politician shown earlier, together with evidence from recent decades tends to suggest increased federalisation is the goal.

You're always asking for facts, and they have been presented. If its not the aim, then at what point does it stop?

The end point will be when it all collapses similar to communism when folk have had enough, they won’t put up with it forever, the cracks are already showing and widening, hopefully euro sceptic parties won’t be made to be pariahs but I fear they already are by being labelled nazi.

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

The end point will be when it all collapses similar to communism when folk have had enough, they won’t put up with it forever, the cracks are already showing and widening, hopefully euro sceptic parties won’t be made to be pariahs but I fear they already are by being labelled nazi.

Quite right. Which in turn will help to drive more moderate sceptic folk into extreme groups.

Ukip provided a far more moderate stance, but still confronted the status quo, thus helping to get us where we are today.

Like him or loathe him, as Kent (iirc) once said, farage has been incredibly influential.

You

What is the endpoint then? And asking the question I did does not mean I am scared of the European project or make me a Mail reading Little Englander.

 

Have you considered that there isn't actually a specific "endpoint"? The EU isn't an army trying to defeat an enemy. It's a Union. We ARE the EU. Do you think the world is a better place when countries treat each other as enemies?

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by Cheese

So if there is no endpoint, then as its evolution has brought about more and more closeness, federalisation would become an inevitability. If it does stop then that's the end point.

 

Why do you see it that we are treating anyone as an enemy? Simply pulling out of an agreement isn't a declaration of war.

Have you considered that there isn't actually a specific "endpoint"? The EU isn't an army trying to defeat an enemy. It's a Union. We ARE the EU. Do you think the world is a better place when countries treat each other as enemies?

I have considered there not being a specific endpoint but given the direction of travel dismissed it as being naive at best. We may be the EU now but in time would be a constituent part of a federated European state.

 

Your final question is just your standard rhetoric but I do not think the world is a better place when countries treat each other as enemies. It is not a binary option, you can be friends with someone and not their enemy without marrying them.

So if there is no endpoint, then as its evolution has brought about more and more closeness, federalisation would become an inevitability. If it does stop then that's the end point.

 

Why do you see it that we are treating anyone as an enemy? Simply pulling out of an agreement isn't a declaration of war.

 

Have you not heard the rhetoric from Brexiters? Have you missed the front pages? You don't even have to be foreign to be their enemy...

 

As for the "closeness leads to federalistion" thing.... utter nonsense. How long has the "United Kingdom" existed? And yet it has always existed on the verge of collapse. Closeness leads to peace. That's it.

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by Cheese

What's the endpoint of increased federalisation we have seen other than a united Europe of federated states? We currently have a borderless collection of states with a single currency with proposed moves towards to shared foreign policy and defence.

I’d assume that the end point lies much further than just Europe

 

It would involve a much broader spectrum of developed countries including the likes of America, Canada, Australia etc

 

Countries that largely share the same values trading freely with each other whilst working within a common set of laws and regulations. Obviously it has to be done with each member keeping their own identity. If that means some shared military resources then it’s not a huge step on from what we have with NATO / UN

 

It might take decades or centuries to get there but the principle is sound. Having tariffs getting in the way of trade and different countries working with their own set of regs just puts complexity in the way of globalisation

 

I’m not sure it’s all down to Germany ‘driving the bus’ to feather their own nest at the expense of their partners as has been made out

I have considered there not being a specific endpoint but given the direction of travel dismissed it as being naive at best. We may be the EU now but in time would be a constituent part of a federated European state.

 

Your final question is just your standard rhetoric but I do not think the world is a better place when countries treat each other as enemies. It is not a binary option, you can be friends with someone and not their enemy without marrying them.

 

If being a citizen of a  'Federated European State' was better than being a citizen of a single country, what would you prefer?

Countries that largely share the same values trading freely with each other whilst working within a common set of laws and regulations. Obviously it has to be done with each member keeping their own identity.

In a sentence that's essentially where we are today but not where we are heading.

In a sentence that's essentially where we are today but not where we are heading.

The EU should just be a free trade club, the rest of the baggage is just nonsense and that baggage is ultimately why it will fail.

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

If being a citizen of a  'Federated European State' was better than being a citizen of a single country, what would you prefer?

When presented with two options where one is stated to be the better I would chose the better one.

The United Federation of Planets swan all over the fucking place like their shit don’t stink, yet they still haven’t managed to convince certain cultures that they should join in with their smug, sickly ways.

 

The very people who claim to be perfect examples of humanity because they embrace all cultures, diversity and attitudes seem to be the first to act like utter twats when confronted with people who have their own ideas about how things should be, the hypocritical thundercunts.

 

Personally I think staying or leaving would be shite. At least it’s entertaining.

When presented with two options where one is stated to be the better I would chose the better one.

 

Yes, that was a badly worded question. Apologies.

Yes, that was a badly worded question. Apologies.

Haha, it was a bit of a full toss to bowl.

Yes, that was a badly worded question. Apologies.

...and despite the fact you’re clearly a bright lady or gent, you crack on that you’re a shining beacon of tolerance and liberalism, yet refuse to accept people’s reasons for making a democratic decision.

 

Stop being a twat.

The EU should just be a free trade club, the rest of the baggage is just nonsense and that baggage is ultimately why it will fail.

Very difficult to build a free trade club effectively without a common set of rules and regulations that you all work with. But then you’re giving some ‘sovereignty’ up I.e bendy bananas

 

You also need to chuck money into a central pot to administrate the rules and regulations - I.e our EU contributions

 

Finally you need to be able to move relatively freely to sell your wares and trade with each other - I.e free movement

...and despite the fact you’re clearly a bright lady or gent, you crack on that you’re a shining beacon of tolerance and liberalism, yet refuse to accept people’s reasons for making a democratic decision.

 

Stop being a twat.

 

Where have I ever 'cracked on' any of that?

 

Nor do I refuse to accept people's democratic decisions - I just question them when they make certain claims.

 

The fact you think that makes me a 'twat' says more about you really...

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by Cheese

When presented with two options where one is stated to be the better I would chose the better one.

Id presume it was a trap or trick question and choose the other one

 

"Death by mau mau"

Very difficult to build a free trade club effectively without a common set of rules and regulations that you all work with. But then you’re giving some ‘sovereignty’ up I.e bendy bananas

 

You also need to chuck money into a central pot to administrate the rules and regulations - I.e our EU contributions

 

Finally you need to be able to move relatively freely to sell your wares and trade with each other - I.e free movement

9 billion year for a set of regulations that says you have to have bendy bananas and such like so that you can have a free trade deal sounds an awful lot of money to spend on something that should be so simple in fact it beggars belief that we’ve put up with it for so long.

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

Where have I ever 'cracked on' any of that?

 

Nor do I refuse to accept people's democratic decisions - I just question them when they make certain claims.

 

The fact you think that makes me a 'twat' says more about you really...

So if Mounts just says “I don’t want to be part of the EU, it’s my belief system”, you’re saying you’ll accept it? Aye, course.

 

Some of his claims are bollocks but plenty make sense.

 

Personally - and I mean this - I couldn’t give a fuck if we’re in or out. Seriously, I’ll just crack on.

 

But as I see it you present your arguments with a strong sense of claiming some sort of liberal, tolerant high ground. It weakens every sentence you write.

 

Sharpen up. Be as good as you think you are.

 

Sonny

You wonder if they would be far behind?

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/05/europe/italy-referendum-whats-next/index.html

 

 

Honestly Gonzo, if they get the chance I'd be surprised if they didn't opt out from the opinions of the people I know.

 

The south would definitely vote out I suspect but the industrial north is a little different although the majority of people I work with from up there do not speak with any love whatsoever for the EU.