Jump to content

Brexit - Merged Threads

panoma1

By panoma1,
in Off Topic

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 875
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Granett

Granett

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public/amp

Not so far fetched now is it?

It is just as far fetched. 

I'll concede that that Daily Express article will pull the wool over some of its readers eyes and to them it might seem more plausible, but that's not quite the same thing. 

Here's a challenge for you - can you print the full wording of "Secret document FCO 30/1048" (LOL.  "Secret document FCO 30/1048" - I bet that name made so many readers feel so X-Files) and its timing and authorship? If you've not discovered that so far, you'll learn a lot.

Edit: cross posted with above. Excellent. Have a read of "Secret document FCO 30/1048" in full and then say what you think it proves. 

Edited by Granett
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yod dropper

yod dropper

Posted
Posted (edited)

Unfortunately I can't see the article behind the paywall Oowee.

My sterling wealth is more than what it was.  A few items are a bit more expensive to buy but as a result of the currency changes UK shares have shot up as they are cheaper for foreign investors and foreign shares have shot up in sterling terms so I'm well in profit; not that this was ever anything to do with the economy for me and countless others.

One area where we have all lost wealth is in the overcrowding that we're experiencing.  Up until several years ago it used to be said of my area that living here was in itself a second pay cheque.  This isn't mentioned anymore, instead it's becoming about how long it takes to travel anywhere and how crowded it's becoming; the natural wealth of the area has reduced due to there being so many more people living here.  That wealth has gone not temporarily but forever.   I'm by no means an older voter but do remember how 'wealthy' we once were.

Just bringing in more and more people to pay for pensions  is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.  It's unsustainable; when does it end?  It's not about GDP but productivity which cheap labour stifles.

 

 

Edited by yod dropper
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oowee

oowee

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, yod dropper said:

Unfortunately I can't see the article behind the paywall Oowee.

Unfortunate but you have the highlights. 

My sterling wealth is more than what it was.  A few items are a bit more expensive to buy but as a result of the currency changes UK shares have shot up as they are cheaper for foreign investors and foreign shares have shot up in sterling terms so I'm well in profit; not that this was ever anything to do with the economy for me and countless others.

Thats' a neat investment trick winning on black and red at the same time.

One area where we have all lost wealth is in the overcrowding that we're experiencing.  Up until several years ago it used to be said of my area that living here was in itself a second pay cheque.  This isn't mentioned anymore, instead it's becoming about how long it takes to travel anywhere and how crowded it's becoming; the natural wealth of the area has reduced due to there being so many more people living here.  That wealth has gone not temporarily but forever.   I'm by no means an older voter but do remember how 'wealthy' we once were.

House prices must have declined with the extra demand :lol:

Just bringing in more and more people to pay for pensions  is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.  It's unsustainable; when does it end?  It's not about GDP but productivity which cheap labour stifles.

It end's when we start to live within our means I don't think the electorate will accept it by choice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Granett

Granett

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

That's the one...... I'm sure I posted a link early but Grannett LOL dismissed it as 30yr old twaddle.

Lol. Pointed out your Daily Express was engaging in its fake news again, dressing up a letter as a newly discovered document you mean? 

Edited by Granett
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Granett

Granett

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Newly discovered or not it's still real so are you going to admit you're wrong?

Wrong about what? Cut and paste the bit(s) in there that prove "a deliberate plot to dilute our culture and national identity so that we sleep walk into the globalist's new world order." 

While you're answering that why not also answer how PW contributors, were they even-handed would commented about a 30 year old letter that set out the advantages we subsequently benefited from as EU members? 

Edited by Granett
Link to comment
Share on other sites
12gauge82

12gauge82

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Granett said:

Jeez. That's proper tinfoil hat level stuff. Does this feature a Deep State, and black helicopters? 

Wrong about this, clearly there was a conspiracy to embed us in the EU, without giving us a choice.

Your also wrong about remaining in the EU being a good idea, but I don't expect you to admit that :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
neutron619

neutron619

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Granett said:

It is just as far fetched. 

I'll concede that that Daily Express article will pull the wool over some of its readers eyes and to them it might seem more plausible, but that's not quite the same thing. 

Here's a challenge for you - can you print the full wording of "Secret document FCO 30/1048" (LOL.  "Secret document FCO 30/1048" - I bet that name made so many readers feel so X-Files) and its timing and authorship? If you've not discovered that so far, you'll learn a lot.

Edit: cross posted with above. Excellent. Have a read of "Secret document FCO 30/1048" in full and then say what you think it proves. 

I've read the (FCO) document and annotation from start to finish and three things interested me (which I'll come to). I am assuming that it's been correctly quoted, is the document it is purported to be, etc. Thus:

One can agree or disagree with the civil servant who wrote the original report, when they state that Britain is a "medium-sized nation" whose future lies within larger groupings of nations and agree or disagree with the rather pessimistic outlook that says we can't do otherwise. This is clearly an opinion and not one I agree with - that it is, is obvious in the context and tacitly admitted later in the document, when they refer to much (or even most) of what is said as being "political" rather than factual and therefore technically outside their remit.

The original FCO text reads rather like a report designed to persuade a sceptical minister of the benefits of the European Community (as it was then), which I can imagine it probably was. Ignoring the stuff in there which clearly states which joining the will result in a "technical loss of sovereignty" (the author's words - and it goes on to highlight the areas in which that will most likely occur with immediate or near-immediate effect), it's the conclusion they draw in response to this which is both the first "interesting point" and entirely misguided:

Essentially, the author states as fact (by no means proven) that the "technical" loss of sovereignty (i.e. in a legal sense) should be ignored or hidden from the masses, and dressed up in the argument described in the quotation "are the French any less French for being members of the [European] Community?". Essentially, they are asking the question "will folk stop identifying as French, British or German, if their laws are written outside of their own Parliaments?" and implying that the answer is "no".

To me, this is a straw man of the first order, presented quite openly as a way for ministers to avoid the real question - beloved of Brexiteers - which is "are we still fully in control of our own lawmaking process?" Essentially, they are arguing (it is opinion) that retaining one's "cultural sovereignty" (my expression) and defining, through being something, what it is to be British / French / German / etc. will be enough to placate the masses when they discover they have effectively been disenfranchised. The original FCO text implies (and the author of the annotations notes) that national parliaments should be maintained - effectively as a pretense - for as long as possible whilst this gradual transfer of sovereignty to the Commissioners / Council of Ministers occurs.

The second point of interest follows this thread, in section 19 of the FCO document:

Quote

By the end of the century with effective defence and political harmonisation the erosion of the international role of the member states could be almost complete.

Granett will of course say instinctively that this is a quote taken out of context and try to argue the point on a technicality (as he often does), so if anyone wants to see if the context supports the implication I'm making (it does) then it's on page 11 of the document linked above.

What the FCO author is saying is basically that, the national identities of the member nation states of the EC will be diluted, as far as possible, in the sphere of international relations, to be replaced with the identity of the "Community" (i.e. the EC). OK - so, what they're effectively looking forward to (and it's hard not to "hear" a certain amount of glee) in the tone here, is the point at which the EC which will represent them in the fields of foreign affairs and defense, essentially as one nation.

But hang on a moment - what is the "international role" of the member state? What is a state, if not a structure which exists in opposition to other states? What does a state (outwardly) do which isn't foreign affairs or defense? The implication here is clear: the nation state will no longer exist, except as a part of a larger superstructure in which its own interests, whatever they might be, will be subsumed by the interests of the whole collective.

At least they're not entirely hiding it (except for the whole "top secret and sealed for 30 years thing"), although they are rather "sugar coating" it as the annotator says. 

The third interesting point is this:

Quote

"...although a European Parliament might in the longest term become an effective, directly elected democratic check upon the bureaucracy, this will not be for a long time, and certainly not in the decade to come..."

That was in the 1970's and we are still waiting!

I wonder why. The chap from the FCO goes on quite a bit, in rather cynical terms, about how it would be worth pushing the idea of the European Parliament so that the poor plebs, though they have been disenfranchised by the removal of their ability to elect the people who make their laws (i.e. the "bureaucracy" by which he / she means the European Commission), feel that they have some influence on the system.

Granett's unproven point that MEPs can de jure initiate legislation notwithstanding; de facto, they don't and don't dare block Commission-initiated legislation either and here is the FCO admitting as much, whilst hoping (or putting on a politically-useful affectation of hope) that the (European) Parliament will one day restore some much needed accountability to the system and the re-enfranchisement of the masses. 

The overarching theme, however, is clear: by joining the EC, sovereignty will be lost; parliament will no longer be responsible (or wholly-responsible) for large areas of lawmaking in  Britain and schemes should be put in place to misdirect or counter those who stand up and protest about it.

As far as I can tell, the FCO guys earned their money as they only got two things wrong.

The first thing they got wrong was their assumption that, because the British had been rich and powerful pre-1945, that we would accept a loss of "technical sovereignty" (again, their phrase) so as to maintain (the illusion of) that standing. In fact, I don't think the EU is particularly rich or powerful (it certainly lacks co-ordination with 28 dissenting voices) and I don't suppose we are either, but I suspect that most Brexiteers, like myself, don't much care whether we're rich, powerful or influential, provided we're independent, sovereign (technically) and personally (and genuinely) enfranchised.

We could be the poorest nation on earth in my book, provided that the vote I cast elects (or fails to elect) the rulers who make the laws under which I agree to live. (That is still freedom, because I consent willingly and freely to the sacrifice of personal liberty which occurs because I elect those lawmakers. If I do not elect them or someone I did not elect - i.e. the Commissioners - rules over me, I had no freedom to choose.)

The second mistake the FCO made was in underestimating the strength of the resistance to their plan (or expectations). They didn't expect to still be fighting for their superstate in 2017 and I for one am bloody glad they're having to. Unlike many "remainers" (Granett included, I suspect), I don't measure my well-being in purely financial terms and economic might is not the only measure I use to qualify our success (or not) as a nation. Furthermore, I do not, as I have said, depend only upon the discrete, the measurable, to respond to a given situation. I acknowledge the capacity in humans of an emotional response being correct, even without factual justification.

The very fact of those mandarins' arguing for membership of a protectionist trade bloc apparently blinded them to the considerations of membership not related to trade. Perhaps they had a strict criteria for what was included in their report and were not permitted to include more than fleeting references to the ephemeral, but they certainly do not seem to have considered or admitted the possibility that factors other than strict economics should be included when making a decision as to joining (as it turned out to be).

Beyond that, I can only say that none of it was particularly surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
12gauge82

12gauge82

Posted
Posted

Neutron another excellent post.

I have used a number of your posts over the last few days to explain to remain supporters that i work with, far better than I ever could, some of the reasons we should leave the EU and that Brexiters are not just a bunch of racist thicko's, it's actually convinced 4 of them  (out of 6 remain supporters) that we should leave! 

I will be using this post to ?

1 hour ago, Granett said:

Wrong about what? Cut and paste the bit(s) in there that prove "a deliberate plot to dilute our culture and national identity so that we sleep walk into the globalist's new world order." 

While you're answering that why not also answer how PW contributors, were they even-handed would commented about a 30 year old letter that set out the advantages we subsequently benefited from as EU members? 

Any chance of an admission you were wrong then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Granett

Granett

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Neutron another excellent post.

I have used a number of your posts over the last few days to explain to remain supporters that i work with, far better than I ever could, some of the reasons we should leave the EU and that Brexiters are not just a bunch of racist thicko's, it's actually convinced 4 of them  (out of 6 remain supporters) that we should leave! 

I will be using this post to ?

Any chance of an admission you were wrong then?

Lol. Have you demonstrated where the doc demonstrates "a deliberate plot to dilute our culture and national identity so that we sleep walk into the globalist's new world order."

I see neutron has posted another new wall of text (having made an excuse to give up on the debate previously) which I'll look at if I think have time tomorrow. In the meantime though it's hilarious to see other Brexiteers "+1" stuff posted by him that directly contradicts stuff they've posted themselves! 

Edited by Granett
Link to comment
Share on other sites
12gauge82

12gauge82

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Granett said:

Lol. Have you demonstrated where the doc demonstrates "a deliberate plot to dilute our culture and national identity so that we sleep walk into the globalist's new world order."

I see neutron has posted another new wall of text (having made an excuse to give up on the debate previously) which I'll look at if I think have time tomorrow. In the meantime though it's hilarious to see other Brexiteers "+1" stuff posted by him that directly contradicts stuff they've posted themselves! 

I don' need to, I've already demonstrated that you were wrong, it's okay to get something wrong sometimes you know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yod dropper

yod dropper

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, oowee said:

Unfortunate but you have the highlights.

Yes and that was enough by the looks of it.  I stand by the macro costs.  For other readers, the report is from the FT which was solidly pro-EU, indeed Lionel Barber, the editor was offered France's highest honour for his positive EU stance in the debate.  It makes me wonder if the research was biased.

5 hours ago, oowee said:

Thats' a neat investment trick winning on black and red at the same time.

Don't you understand this?  Further to what has happened I then further exploited the currency exchange rate as I hold both UK and overseas shares.  As the rate changed my foreign shares became worth more in sterling so I sold them and bought the UK shares that had fallen the most, not through fundamentals but through sentiment.  This quickly reversed.  A swift 40% increase in my sterling wealth on those trades.  Overseas investors piled in as their currency bought more UK shares priced in sterling and this pushed up share prices.  You say your sterling wealth is down 10%, how so?  My sterling wealth is up over 40%.  Sure, there's possibly a small increase in my day to day spending but it's absolutely minimal.

5 hours ago, oowee said:

House prices must have declined with the extra demand :lol:

You're thinking in Remain campaign terms of £.  This is yet another reason why Remain lost, you didn't and don't get why we voted as we did.  It's not all about money you know.  I'm talking about wealth as in quality of life, this is just a much less pleasant place to live now what with all of the extra people, houses, traffic, pressure on free open spaces and so on.  Just read some of the threads about the friction as people move into areas where people try to go about their legitimate pigeon shooting.  

5 hours ago, oowee said:

It end's when we start to live within our means I don't think the electorate will accept it by choice.

You're right, I don't think they will accept living within our means.  So I say again, when does this ponzi scheme end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDog

JDog

Posted
Posted

This thread is more like a battleground for pseudo intellectuals rather than a forum for reasoned debate.

For the record I voted to leave. However just like most others I was unaware of the ramifications of the decision. Such information could not possibly have been made available due to the complicated nature of the process and political decisions made during the process e.g. the Irish border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aled

Aled

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

It's certainly evoked heated debate, I don't take it too seriously and enjoy a bit of banter. Not sure it always comes across quite right over the net though, it's easy to misinterpret things said on a forum.

I think that happens to all of us sometimes 12gauge82, also one letter out of place on a word or a typo and you (this includes all of us) can give people completely the wrong end of the stick entirely by accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rewulf

Rewulf

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

It's certainly evoked heated debate, I don't take it too seriously and enjoy a bit of banter. Not sure it always comes across quite right over the net though, it's easy to misinterpret things said on a forum.

I certainly wouldnt consider myself an intellectual, pseudo or otherwise !
Im just a bloke who works in a garage.
But I ,having no interest whatsover in politics before Brexit, have found the whole process fascinating, and very educational.
All the Brexit debates on PW have given me cause to research and ask questions about the whys, whens and therefores, so don your tin foil hats boys and girls, and Ill give you a little insight about my findings.
Some of you will probably already know some of this, but others may be quite surprised.

I read a non fiction book some years ago called The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, by Mssrs, M.Baigent,R.Leigh and H.Lincoln, a group of very meticulous authors who produce some interesting work, that I highly recommend.
The book was used (plaguarised actually) for The Da Vinci code by Dan Brown.
However the plot of the book is unimportant here, but one of the characters in the later parts of the book is called Pierre Plantard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard
Who during WW2 produced an 'underground magazine' within France called Vaincre.
Image result for vaincre magazine 1944

Vaincre is strange as its basically a resistance flyer,yet freely distributed with what seems to be approval of the German occupation?
Perhaps there were things the Germans approved of, or hoped to see come to fruition ?

Image result for vaincre magazine 1944

This translates to United States of the West, note the flag.
Although M.Plantard professed to be against freemasonry  (A wise move in occupied France) much of his knightly beliefs are very much in line with such orders.
Which brings us to one of his inspirations, Count Richard Cudenhove of Kalergi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi

His book Pan Europa, and the Pan European Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paneuropean_Union are the blueprint for the EU that we know today.
Part of it talks of flooding Europe with Asian and African migrants, to dilute our race, forming a mongrel race of people, who would, without our strong nationalist tendencies, would be far easier to control
Born of Austro Hungarian and Japanese aristocracy, his vision of the future of Europe followed a 20 th century version of the divine right of kings.
The aristocracy and the business elites (He was good friends with the Rothschilds) were , in his opinion, the rightful rulers of the world, the common man was too numerous and unruly to have any say in the ultimate destiny of Europe, you could say democracy was not his strong point.
Which proved his point when (being a freemason ) he fled Europe when the nazis came to power.
When the dust settled, he returned and he, Plantard and others including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet#Common_Market started putting their dreams into  practice.
The rest they say is history, but sometimes history can be a little vague.
The 'secret' FCO document mentioned earlier wasnt really that much of a secret when the aims of the EC, EEC and EU are stated quite plainly in the pages of history, you just have to look a bit harder for them.
They have already tried to form an EU army back in the 50 s, and their push for political unity has hit wall after wall.
Those pesky commoners just dont know whats good for them I suppose !

The Charlemagne prize, set up for the advancement of the federalisation of Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_Prize has some of the usual suspects as recipients.

Recipients[edit]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...