[Saweeep]

(03-11-2015 01:57 AM)britchard Wrote:  

If there is a Labour/Green/SNP I vow leave the country as soon as my studies allow me to.

I was the same ago as you when "New" Labour came to power.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Figure out ways to profit if it happens.

Remember, the 1% do very, very well out of Labour governments...strive to be in that club.

[Que enspastic]

Any takers for the London meetup? These discussions always fly better with a pint

[H1N1]

(03-11-2015 07:49 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

Any takers for the London meetup? These discussions always fly better with a pint

When is this happening/where is the information on it? Didn't realise these things went on!

[freeuser]

(03-11-2015 06:39 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Respectfully, I disagree. Again, this is the typical leftist mantra that 'if you want the common market you have to have open borders, those are the EU's rules, and if you don't play by them you don't get a say in decision making'.

The cold hard fact about UK membership of the EU, when you strip aside all of the other nonsense, is that we are a net contributor. That means, however you dice it, the EU gains more from our membership than we get in return. The only purpose then, from a UK perspective, is to provide the political class with a supra-national platform for playing political games on. The UK is fantastically productive compared to most European countries (if you go by the conventional economic narrative that ignores the ridiculous, crazy debt that we can never repay, and indeed have no intention of paying). The loss of the UK to the European project would be far greater than the loss to the UK itself. Fundamentally, that puts us in a stronger negotiating position. I firmly believe that as a net contributor, we could negotiate access to the common market, and benefit from free trade, without having to accept any of the EU's crazy mandates.

This is obviously a drastic oversimplification of the position, but anyone who has studied EU law knows that to expand upon it in any detail would run to pages of dry analysis.

Come on, this is nonsense.

Population of the European Union without the UK: 443 million
Population of the UK: 64 million

GDP of the EU whitout the UK (nominal): $15.909 trillion
GDP of the UK (nominal): $2.490 trillion

How big, do you think, the impact would be, for the rest of the EU´s economy if Britain left? How big would the impact for Britain be, if they lost access to the common market? With these numbers in mind, who do you think has more leverage?

Now, the Net contribution from Britain in 2013, was £11.3 billion. That´s what 0,1% of their GDP? It´s a joke, compared to the privilege of having access to the largest economic zone in the world. By the way, many don´t know this, but Switzerland for example, pays to have access to the European Market, without restrictions. It´s not for free.

Even if Britain left, they´d still have to pay to have this privilege. So like I said, I don´t see much of a benefit leaving.

[Libertas]

(03-11-2015 06:44 AM)The Ligurian Wrote:  

The delivery of the message is not important, just judge the content. How his voice sounds is an irrelevance.

As Roosh has often said, "it's often possible to judge someone's politics just by looking at him." I believe that's the case here too. Brand seems to advocate a defeatism and he seems like a dipshit. He looks and sounds the part.

Quote:

Alexander the Great was banging Hephaistiun and countless other men but he was still a supreme tactician and leader, it doesn't detract from his achievements that he was probably camper than Kenneth Williams.

There is no conclusive evidence that Alexander the Great had homoerotic tendencies.

Quote:

Brand is right to say don't vote, because in all honesty no matter who gets in will serve the corporations and elites and not us. I'm totally apathetic this time round. There is not one leader or party putting forward something that inspires me and makes me believe that real change will come about. Issues that matter to me are being swept under the carpet.

The final straw was lowering the flag on Downing Street and Buckingham Palace for a Saudi despot. Revolting.

Usually that's true, particularly here, but it seems a vote matters a lot more in the UK electoral system than it does in the US, where it is mathematically set up to render the votes of most people meaningless. Like it or not some people are going to vote and they are going to rule over you.

Voting is only marginally influential at each passing election, but over time the system does, imperfectly, respond to the trends of the voters.

[H1N1]

(03-11-2015 09:30 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:39 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

Respectfully, I disagree. Again, this is the typical leftist mantra that 'if you want the common market you have to have open borders, those are the EU's rules, and if you don't play by them you don't get a say in decision making'.

The cold hard fact about UK membership of the EU, when you strip aside all of the other nonsense, is that we are a net contributor. That means, however you dice it, the EU gains more from our membership than we get in return. The only purpose then, from a UK perspective, is to provide the political class with a supra-national platform for playing political games on. The UK is fantastically productive compared to most European countries (if you go by the conventional economic narrative that ignores the ridiculous, crazy debt that we can never repay, and indeed have no intention of paying). The loss of the UK to the European project would be far greater than the loss to the UK itself. Fundamentally, that puts us in a stronger negotiating position. I firmly believe that as a net contributor, we could negotiate access to the common market, and benefit from free trade, without having to accept any of the EU's crazy mandates.

This is obviously a drastic oversimplification of the position, but anyone who has studied EU law knows that to expand upon it in any detail would run to pages of dry analysis.

Come on, this is nonsense.

Population of the European Union without the UK: 443 million
Population of the UK: 64 million

GDP of the EU whitout the UK (nominal): $15.909 trillion
GDP of the UK (nominal): $2.490 trillion

How big, do you think, the impact would be, for the rest of the EU´s economy if Britain left? How big would the impact for Britain be, if they lost access to the common market? With these numbers in mind, who do you think has more leverage?

Now, the Net contribution from Britain in 2013, was £11.3 billion. That´s what 0,1% of their GDP? It´s a joke, compared to the privilege of having access to the largest economic zone in the world. By the way, many don´t know this, but Switzerland for example, pays to have access to the European Market, without restrictions. It´s not for free.

Even if Britain left, they´d still have to pay to have this privilege. So like I said, I don´t see much of a benefit leaving.

This ignores the fact that London is the financial capital of Europe, and was only recently overtaken by New York. It ignores the role the UK plays as a market for goods produced in the EU. You quote meaningless statistics about population size, suggesting that all Europeans are equal in their contribution to the European project. Follow that to its logical conclusion - all the EU needs to do to replace the UK is to add another country with an equivalent population, and consumption, importation of goods, access to labour opportunities, access to academic institutions, access to capital (I mean seriously, be sensible) and on and on will all remain the same.

It's Europhilic fantasy to suggest that the UK's contribution is .1%. Your statistics are quoted in a vacuum, and lacking any kind of deeper analysis. It looks like you've literally just pulled them off the front page of the Guardian and swallowed them wholesale ready to trot out on demand like a 'useful idiot'.

All this is before you consider the cost to the UK of implementing laws decided in Brussels (over 80% of all our laws at the last count), the cost to business of complying with EU directives, the cost of maintaining MPs in the EU parliament, the cost to the UK economy of the suppression of the minimum wage by large scale, low skilled labour, etc etc.

You quote a few figures, that you've read somewhere, and trot them out as though they are gospel, or somehow represent the entire argument. You say Switzerland pay for access to the free market. It's laughably naive to think we don't pay a FAR heavier price. Our incidental costs of membership are astronomical. A fixed rate, even if it were to come to that, would be infinitely preferable.

The UK's financial contribution IN HARD CASH, may indeed only be 0.1% of the EU GDP. But so what, that contribution is so inconsequential (not for the reasons you suggest) as to be irrelevant, and a total non-argument.

Edit: Thank you for the like, that's generous. I didn't mean to come on too strong, and terms like 'useful idiot' are not targeted at you personally, I use it in the general sense of the phrase. I hope it is clear (but given this edit, I recognise that it may not be) that there was no malice intended by my post, and that it was simply intended as a robust rebuttal.

[freeuser]

(03-11-2015 09:51 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

This ignores the fact that London is the financial capital of Europe, and was only recently overtaken by New York. It ignores the role the UK plays as a market for goods produced in the EU. You quote meaningless statistics about population size, suggesting that all Europeans are equal in their contribution to the European project. Follow that to its logical conclusion - all the EU needs to do to replace the UK is to add another country with an equivalent population, and consumption, importation of goods, access to labour opportunities, access to academic institutions, access to capital (I mean seriously, be sensible) and on and on will all remain the same.

It's Europhilic fantasy to suggest that the UK's contribution is .1%. Your statistics are quoted in a vacuum, and lacking any kind of deeper analysis. It looks like you've literally just pulled them off the front page of the Guardian and swallowed them wholesale ready to trot out on demand like a 'useful idiot'.

All this is before you consider the cost to the UK of implementing laws decided in Brussels (over 80% of all our laws at the last count), the cost to business of complying with EU directives, the cost of maintaining MPs in the EU parliament, the cost to the UK economy of the suppression of the minimum wage by large scale, low skilled labour, etc etc.

You quote a few figures, that you've read somewhere, and trot them out as though they are gospel, or somehow represent the entire argument. You say Switzerland pay for access to the free market. It's laughably naive to think we don't pay a FAR heavier price. Our incidental costs of membership are astronomical. A fixed rate, even if it were to come to that, would be infinitely preferable.

The UK's financial contribution IN HARD CASH, may indeed only be 0.1% of the EU GDP. But so what, that contribution is so inconsequential (not for the reasons you suggest) as to be irrelevant, and a total non-argument.

Nice way of ignoring hard numbers, when you don´t like the reality the represent. You´re still ignoring most of the things I said, that would be incredibly detrimental to Britain's interests. Even if Britain would leave, they´d still have to apply most of the legislation that the EU demands and this time without the power to lobby in Brussels, like Switzerland now has to do. They have to swallow, the same way Britain would have to. In what way, is that even remotely better, than the current deal? It´s ridiculous to state that things would change for the better. They would not.

I´m not saying that an exit of Britain would not hurt the EU, of course it would. But it would hurt Britain much more. That´s just a no-brainer. It´s like Salmond saying that if Scotland left GB, England would be worse off. A fucking joke. Both parties need each other and would endure pain from Brexit, but one of the two would suffer a much larger blow and it´s not the EU.

[Bushido]

^^

Britain is a huge export market for the likes of France and Germany.

EU or not, free trade will be maintained because it's in everybody's interests.

[Phoenix]

(03-11-2015 09:30 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

Now, the Net contribution from Britain in 2013, was £11.3 billion. That´s what 0,1% of their GDP? It´s a joke, compared to the privilege of having access to the largest economic zone in the world. By the way, many don´t know this, but Switzerland for example, pays to have access to the European Market, without restrictions. It´s not for free.

Even if Britain left, they´d still have to pay to have this privilege. So like I said, I don´t see much of a benefit leaving.

What about every other country that trades with the EU? Why does Britain need to be a member of the EU to trade with it? If the EU is the kind of place that would spitefully block trade with any seceding members, then it is malevolent and there should be more secessions not less.

Having the ability to control your own laws and borders, that is to say: 'be a country', is more important than worrying about trade sanctions from an malevolent neighbour.

[H1N1]

(03-11-2015 10:13 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:51 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

This ignores the fact that London is the financial capital of Europe, and was only recently overtaken by New York. It ignores the role the UK plays as a market for goods produced in the EU. You quote meaningless statistics about population size, suggesting that all Europeans are equal in their contribution to the European project. Follow that to its logical conclusion - all the EU needs to do to replace the UK is to add another country with an equivalent population, and consumption, importation of goods, access to labour opportunities, access to academic institutions, access to capital (I mean seriously, be sensible) and on and on will all remain the same.

It's Europhilic fantasy to suggest that the UK's contribution is .1%. Your statistics are quoted in a vacuum, and lacking any kind of deeper analysis. It looks like you've literally just pulled them off the front page of the Guardian and swallowed them wholesale ready to trot out on demand like a 'useful idiot'.

All this is before you consider the cost to the UK of implementing laws decided in Brussels (over 80% of all our laws at the last count), the cost to business of complying with EU directives, the cost of maintaining MPs in the EU parliament, the cost to the UK economy of the suppression of the minimum wage by large scale, low skilled labour, etc etc.

You quote a few figures, that you've read somewhere, and trot them out as though they are gospel, or somehow represent the entire argument. You say Switzerland pay for access to the free market. It's laughably naive to think we don't pay a FAR heavier price. Our incidental costs of membership are astronomical. A fixed rate, even if it were to come to that, would be infinitely preferable.

The UK's financial contribution IN HARD CASH, may indeed only be 0.1% of the EU GDP. But so what, that contribution is so inconsequential (not for the reasons you suggest) as to be irrelevant, and a total non-argument.

Nice way of ignoring hard numbers, when you don´t like the reality the represent. You´re still ignoring most of the things I said, that would be incredibly detrimental to Britain's interests. Even if Britain would leave, they´d still have to apply most of the legislation that the EU demands and this time without the power to lobby in Brussels, like Switzerland now has to do. They have to swallow, the same way Britain would have to. In what way, is that even remotely better, than the current deal? It´s ridiculous to state that things would change for the better. They would not.

I´m not saying that an exit of Britain would not hurt the EU, of course it would. But it would hurt Britain much more. That´s just a no-brainer. It´s like Salmond saying that if Scotland left GB, England would be worse off. A fucking joke. Both parties need each other and would endure pain from Brexit, but one of the two would suffer a much larger blow and it´s not the EU.

To address your points:

1. 'Nice way of ignoring hard numbers, when you don´t like the reality the represent. You´re still ignoring most of the things I said, that would be incredibly detrimental to Britain's interests.'

I addressed both sets of numbers you presented, and spent a good deal of time explaining why they were meaningless. I did the opposite of ignoring them, when I specifically addressed them - the advantage of written refutation is that evidence to that effect can be seen in my previous response, above. Quoting statistics is meaningless when you clearly don't understand the context in which they are provided.

2. 'Even if Britain would leave, they´d still have to apply most of the legislation that the EU demands and this time without the power to lobby in Brussels, like Switzerland now has to do.'

I trained as a lawyer, at the top law school in the UK, and spent many years studying EU Law and its impact on commercial, public, criminal etc areas of our (UK) legal system. What you state as fact is in no way clear to me. I do not understand how you have arrived at this premise or from where you derive your precedent. This point of yours appears to be staggeringly ignorant. Had you given any factual support for it, or shown any kind of understanding of how our legal system works, I could try to offer you a refutation based in fact. You haven't and I won't.

3. 'I´m not saying that an exit of Britain would not hurt the EU, of course it would. But it would hurt Britain much more. That´s just a no-brainer. It´s like Salmond saying that if Scotland left GB, England would be worse off. A fucking joke. Both parties need each other and would endure pain from Brexit, but one of the two would suffer a much larger blow and it´s not the EU.'

It's not a no-brainer, if you think something this complex could possibly be a no-brainer, then you clearly only have a cursory understanding of the subject matter. It is precisely because it is so complex that there is any debate, and that the dishonest and ignobly motivated can attempt to present it as a no-brainer and convince the ill-informed.

[freeuser]

(03-11-2015 10:28 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:30 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

Now, the Net contribution from Britain in 2013, was £11.3 billion. That´s what 0,1% of their GDP? It´s a joke, compared to the privilege of having access to the largest economic zone in the world. By the way, many don´t know this, but Switzerland for example, pays to have access to the European Market, without restrictions. It´s not for free.

Even if Britain left, they´d still have to pay to have this privilege. So like I said, I don´t see much of a benefit leaving.

What about every other country that trades with the EU? Why does Britain need to be a member of the EU to trade with it? If the EU is the kind of place that would spitefully block trade with any seceding members, then it is malevolent and there should be more secessions not less.

Having the ability to control your own laws and borders, that is to say: 'be a country', is more important than worrying about trade sanctions from an malevolent neighbour.

I´m not aware of the exact difference between EFTA for example and a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with Japan. I assume there are differences. Every trade deal is the result of a negotiation that goes on for years. The conditions are different for every deal. I know that Switzerland for example was also part of scientific and educational cooperation until the Swiss immigration referendum in February 2014 which changed things.

I understand the desire for more sovereignty but I think we´re moving towards a world of economic blocks, like NAFTA or ASEAN Free Trade Area. So in the future we´re probably going to see less control and a loosening of national sovereignty in some parts of the world at least.

[Phoenix]

I think if at least Farage gets a seat in the Parliament, we can consider this election a mild success. Him tearing into Leftists in British Parliament in the same way he does EU Parliament will be great to watch.

[Akula]

(03-11-2015 04:39 AM)MarcusAbbertini Wrote:  

I'm quickly beginning to realise that this place might not be for me and instead just full of people trying to direct there hate. The more I read "Everything Else" the more obvious the racist undertones become. I don't care if I get banned and I might actually be quite off the mark (I've been wrong before) but this thinly veiled racism is becoming more apparent with the more I read. It's a shame because I love the self improvement aspects of this forum and can't find that sort of talk condensed anywhere else online.

Sorry guy but I gotta call you out on this.

I and a lot of people come on this forum because it's on of the last places we can all talk amongst ourselves without the PC Gestapo breathing down our necks. We all see how oppressive and Orwellian mainstream culture and Western society have become. You literally can't say anything these days in public without someone getting pissed off, and it seems like everyone has a "right to be offended." But we pretty much keep it real here.

Now you seem to be trying to shame us all and stunting debate (!) by using a term that many SJWs employ obsessively to try to shout down their opponents, whether they have legitimate points and arguments or now.

Being honest, the term racist is way overused. It's almost become a sort of meaningless term that is utilized more to shame people or stunt rational debate and a critical thought processes than anything else. And many of the people who drone on and on about it typically just do it trying to attack and silence their opponents, not to engage in a true debate. Just look at the Feminists and other SJWs in various internet spaces and how they act.

And to try to shame Teedub instead of breaking down your argument in the process?



As always we are happy to hear your arguments here on the forum, but man there are so few places where people can tell it like it is and from what you are writing/implying it doesn't jive with the typical give & take I/we're used to seeing.

[WalterBlack]

DELETE

[DjembaDjemba]

As someone who is a Canadian citizen and who's parents came to Canada on its points system (and who grew up in the UK), I'll chime in on the UKIP platform to reform immigration to a points based system.

Canada's system is a solid one for strong economic growth. Possibly the best system in the world when it comes to nation building with an economic outlook in the long term.

However a points system based on skills will immediately wipe out European immigration. Unfortunately for those who prefer European immigrants, people from around the world, especially the developing world have larger pools of elite educated people than Europe.

What a points based system simply based on education and skills essentially results in is that the UK will receive people from the elite parts of the 3rd world (the gated community folks from India, Nigeria, Russia etc). Those people are not the same folks you see scrubbing the washrooms and wiping the counter at McDonalds. These are multilingual, highly educated, and most likely already well off people. And they're smart, very fucking smart. And very cunning. After all they made it where it's very hard to succeed. And so are their kids. Their kids will overachieve, get good grades, will go to university and will be business leaders of the future in the country. This is a massive social change.

It's thing to letting in a few Poles, Ghanians, and Indians into the country to supplant the ageing population, half of whom turn chavs in a generation (probably still better than the average of the population as whole). Another is to bring in an elite group of immigrants from all over the world who are more or less guaranteed to succeed simply due to the fact that they're already creme-de-la-creme of their home countries. That is a wholesale structural change that will upend the UK society completely. This works very well in new-ish Canada (and Australia), but I'm not so sure about this tactic working for the UK.

It'll be interesting to see how the UKIP platform of points based immigration holds up to scrutiny going into the election.

[RedPillUK]

This recent speech by Nigel Farage might clear up a few things you guys are talking about.

He says immigration has shot up from 30,000 a year to 300,000 a year, due to the open borders of the EU.
This is unsustainable, and according to him, one house will need to be built every 7 minutes at that rate.

UKIP just want to lower immigration, not swap eastern europeans for asians or africans, race isn't to do with it.

I think some of this speech is designed to appeal to the left, by pointing out that if we leave the EU, and adopt a points system, we're actually being more fair to the rest of the world not just eastern europe.

Actually when he made that point about it being more ethical, and that right now we're DISCRIMINATING against the rest of the world and this will change that, big rounds of applause from everyone, I think you can even see the people behind him, especially the women and black dude, change their opinion. This is how you have to appeal to leftist mentality.

[Que enspastic]

What Djemba Djemba said, one of my first and most powerful impressions upon first getting down in London as an Australian - "where are all the Chinese/Vietnamese?". They are smart , at Melb Law School maybe 1/3 of the class (they speak with naturalised Australian accents), medicine 60%+, commerce 70%+

[Marlfox]

(03-11-2015 05:04 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  

As someone who is a Canadian citizen and who's parents came to Canada on its points system (and who grew up in the UK), I'll chime in on the UKIP platform to reform immigration to a points based system.

Canada's system is a solid one for strong economic growth. Possibly the best system in the world when it comes to nation building with an economic outlook in the long term.

However a points system based on skills will immediately wipe out European immigration. Unfortunately for those who prefer European immigrants, people from around the world, especially the developing world have larger pools of elite educated people than Europe.

What a points based system simply based on education and skills essentially results in is that the UK will receive people from the elite parts of the 3rd world (the gated community folks from India, Nigeria, Russia etc). Those people are not the same folks you see scrubbing the washrooms and wiping the counter at McDonalds. These are multilingual, highly educated, and most likely already well off people. And they're smart, very fucking smart. And very cunning. After all they made it where it's very hard to succeed. And so are their kids. Their kids will overachieve, get good grades, will go to university and will be business leaders of the future in the country. This is a massive social change.

It's thing to letting in a few Poles, Ghanians, and Indians into the country to supplant the ageing population, half of whom turn chavs in a generation (probably still better than the average of the population as whole). Another is to bring in an elite group of immigrants from all over the world who are more or less guaranteed to succeed simply due to the fact that they're already creme-de-la-creme of their home countries. That is a wholesale structural change that will upend the UK society completely. This works very well in new-ish Canada (and Australia), but I'm not so sure about this tactic working for the UK.

It'll be interesting to see how the UKIP platform of points based immigration holds up to scrutiny going into the election.

I agree with a lot you have said, but, I think you have:

1. Underestimated the calibre of immigrants who come to the UK. Many definitely conform to the description you give but don't forget the sons/daugthers of Russian oligarchs, Arabian Princes and African rulers all pass through private/boarding school, in the UK, and then through Oxford/Cambridge/Sandhurst. Far more than those that pass through Canada/Australia and perhaps even US combined. Of course many don't stay afterwards...

If you look at averages, due to the point systems, the quality of those who come to the Australia/Canada is most likely greater (I can't speak with any authority on this as I have only visited these countries) but that doesn't mean the "creme de la creme" emigrates there (and nowhere else) necessarily.

2. Understimated the calibre of the "native" (European in the case of Canada/Australia/US) population of these countries. Just simply because of a numbers game how many natives of the same calibre are required to match those of the immigrant populations? If 1 in 10 immigrants from Ghana/India are world beaters then you only need 1 in 100, 1 in 200 from the native population who are equivalent?

If the disparity was that great and more importanly that great in favour of Indians/Africans etc then why the brain drain towards UK/CAN/AUS/US? Why isn't Ghana full of 24/7 shop clerks from Lousiana/Thunder Bay/Essex sending money home?

P.S. Don't sleep on the Eastern Europeans, paticuarly the Polish, they demonstrate (often more so) alot of the attributes you ascribe to the other immigrant populations.

P.P.S Don't forget that Euorpean immigration to the UK isn't limited to a few obvious (and Eastern European) countries (Poland/Slovakia etc. etc.).

There is a large number of Spanish and Portugese and Greeks who come here to study and work (paticualry the former).

*Edited to correct my terrible spelling*

[Feisbook Control]

(03-11-2015 10:13 AM)freeuser Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 09:51 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

This ignores the fact that London is the financial capital of Europe, and was only recently overtaken by New York. It ignores the role the UK plays as a market for goods produced in the EU. You quote meaningless statistics about population size, suggesting that all Europeans are equal in their contribution to the European project. Follow that to its logical conclusion - all the EU needs to do to replace the UK is to add another country with an equivalent population, and consumption, importation of goods, access to labour opportunities, access to academic institutions, access to capital (I mean seriously, be sensible) and on and on will all remain the same.

It's Europhilic fantasy to suggest that the UK's contribution is .1%. Your statistics are quoted in a vacuum, and lacking any kind of deeper analysis. It looks like you've literally just pulled them off the front page of the Guardian and swallowed them wholesale ready to trot out on demand like a 'useful idiot'.

All this is before you consider the cost to the UK of implementing laws decided in Brussels (over 80% of all our laws at the last count), the cost to business of complying with EU directives, the cost of maintaining MPs in the EU parliament, the cost to the UK economy of the suppression of the minimum wage by large scale, low skilled labour, etc etc.

You quote a few figures, that you've read somewhere, and trot them out as though they are gospel, or somehow represent the entire argument. You say Switzerland pay for access to the free market. It's laughably naive to think we don't pay a FAR heavier price. Our incidental costs of membership are astronomical. A fixed rate, even if it were to come to that, would be infinitely preferable.

The UK's financial contribution IN HARD CASH, may indeed only be 0.1% of the EU GDP. But so what, that contribution is so inconsequential (not for the reasons you suggest) as to be irrelevant, and a total non-argument.

Nice way of ignoring hard numbers, when you don´t like the reality the represent. You´re still ignoring most of the things I said, that would be incredibly detrimental to Britain's interests. Even if Britain would leave, they´d still have to apply most of the legislation that the EU demands and this time without the power to lobby in Brussels, like Switzerland now has to do. They have to swallow, the same way Britain would have to. In what way, is that even remotely better, than the current deal? It´s ridiculous to state that things would change for the better. They would not.

I´m not saying that an exit of Britain would not hurt the EU, of course it would. But it would hurt Britain much more. That´s just a no-brainer. It´s like Salmond saying that if Scotland left GB, England would be worse off. A fucking joke. Both parties need each other and would endure pain from Brexit, but one of the two would suffer a much larger blow and it´s not the EU.

The problem people in the UK (and some other places) have with the EU is the sly and uncompromising nature of the Eurocrats. I am sure very few people have a problem with trade between nations, with the free flow of goods and information, etc. People have been trading since the beginning of time, and that's a good thing. That is how the Common Market was originally pitched.

Yet the Eurocrats have now tacked on a whole lot of other stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with trade, and they've made it an all-or-nothing situation. They are the hard-headed idiots. Lots of countries all over the world trade with one another without having to get intimately involved in all manner of local decisions, so why is this blatant power grab so fundamentally necessary for Europe?

An analogy is that people don't have a problem with patronising one another's businesses. What they don't want is people to come into their homes and tell them which colour the carpet should be or what should be served for dinner that night. It is absurd to suggest that if you won't let someone come into your home and dictate such details that you can't conduct commerce down the street during business hours. Yet that's the exact way the Eurocrats put it.

[Que enspastic]

Delete

[Bushido]

(03-11-2015 10:01 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

The problem people in the UK (and some other places) have with the EU is the sly and uncompromising nature of the Eurocrats. I am sure very few people have a problem with trade between nations, with the free flow of goods and information, etc. People have been trading since the beginning of time, and that's a good thing. That is how the Common Market was originally pitched.

Yet the Eurocrats have now tacked on a whole lot of other stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with trade, and they've made it an all-or-nothing situation. They are the hard-headed idiots. Lots of countries all over the world trade with one another without having to get intimately involved in all manner of local decisions, so why is this blatant power grab so fundamentally necessary for Europe?

Therein lies the fundamental problem. For Britain, the EU was always supposed to be a capitalist project. For France and Germany (but especially France) it is a socialist project. It's all about dragging everyone else down with them and giving us their red tape to hinder our industries.

One blatant example of the socialist drive is how French farmers have always been the biggest beneficiaries of the Common Agricultural Policy, while other European countries have been forced to fund this. Cheaper imports from outside the EU are penalised in favour of protecting French farmers.

Another case would be the ridiculous Human Rights legislation that was passed at the beginning of this century. The vast majority of Brits were opposed (not to mention that we already had effective legislation) and yet it was forced upon our courts. The EU is an undemocratic institution ran by socialist nutcases.

While Britain has often dragged the other members into liberalising European markets such as telecommunications and the energy sector, many have downright disobeyed the rules and mostly got away with it. France is not the only such perpetrator but they are the worst and most arrogant. The French government has intervened time and time again to keep its industries French - so much for free market rules. See the case of Suez for one such example of many: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...68423.html

One of the last straws for me was the not-so-subtle attempt to tax the City of London on every transaction. It is a blatant attempt to take down our most successful industry in favour of moving it somewhere such as Frankfurt.

The EU has gone way beyond its remit and needs to be cut down to size. Unfortunately, Britain has little influence on reforming it so the more prudent course of action would be to get out and keep a free trade agreement. Our businesses will breath a sigh of relief.

[MarcusAbbertini]

(03-11-2015 02:24 PM)Akula Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 04:39 AM)MarcusAbbertini Wrote:  

I'm quickly beginning to realise that this place might not be for me and instead just full of people trying to direct there hate. The more I read "Everything Else" the more obvious the racist undertones become. I don't care if I get banned and I might actually be quite off the mark (I've been wrong before) but this thinly veiled racism is becoming more apparent with the more I read. It's a shame because I love the self improvement aspects of this forum and can't find that sort of talk condensed anywhere else online.

Sorry guy but I gotta call you out on this.

I and a lot of people come on this forum because it's on of the last places we can all talk amongst ourselves without the PC Gestapo breathing down our necks. We all see how oppressive and Orwellian mainstream culture and Western society have become. You literally can't say anything these days in public without someone getting pissed off, and it seems like everyone has a "right to be offended." But we pretty much keep it real here.

Now you seem to be trying to shame us all and stunting debate (!) by using a term that many SJWs employ obsessively to try to shout down their opponents, whether they have legitimate points and arguments or now.

Being honest, the term racist is way overused. It's almost become a sort of meaningless term that is utilized more to shame people or stunt rational debate and a critical thought processes than anything else. And many of the people who drone on and on about it typically just do it trying to attack and silence their opponents, not to engage in a true debate. Just look at the Feminists and other SJWs in various internet spaces and how they act.

And to try to shame Teedub instead of breaking down your argument in the process?



As always we are happy to hear your arguments here on the forum, but man there are so few places where people can tell it like it is and from what you are writing/implying it doesn't jive with the typical give & take I/we're used to seeing.

Fair enough mate, I was just highlighting the points I thought were quite obviously racist. Like I mentioned in my post I might have gotten the wrong end of the stick after reading this straight after the thread with the racist fraternity kids in America. Every bloody thread I read in "Everything Else" just seems to have what appear to be fairly intelligent men spewing hate in every direction. My first mistake was probably venturing outside the Game, Travel and Lifestyle sub forums.

[H1N1]

(03-12-2015 07:32 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

Therein lies the fundamental problem. For Britain, the EU was always supposed to be a capitalist project. For France and Germany (but especially France) it is a socialist project. It's all about dragging everyone else down with them and giving us their red tape to hinder our industries.

I'm totally on the same page as you on your whole post, but I wanted to comment on this bit. It's not strictly true, in as much as the TEEC (debated as European Communities Act 1972 in the House of Commons) did actually make clear to those willing to read it that this would turn into a socialist project. Of course, it appears that our politicians at the time had either not read it, or had designs on greater powers on the world stage. It is very clear from the following quote from Enoch Powell that to those prepared to read and think, the consequences for Britain in joining were clear. As ever, dishonesty, incompetence, and public laziness were the prime factors behind the ratification of the Treaty of Rome.

The quote:

"It shows first that it is an inherent consequence of accession to the Treaty of Rome that this House and Parliament will lose their legislative supremacy. It will no longer be true that law in this country is made only by or with the authority of Parliament...The second consequence...is that this House loses its exclusive control – upon which its power and authority has been built over the centuries – over taxation and expenditure. In future, if we become part of the Community, moneys received in taxation from the citizens of this country will be spent otherwise than upon a vote of this House and without the opportunity...to debate grievance and to call for an account of the way in which those moneys are to be spent. For the first time for centuries it will be true to say that the people of this country are not taxed only upon the authority of the House of Commons. The third consequence...is that the judicial independence of this country has to be given up. In future, if we join the Community, the citizens of this country will not only be subject to laws made elsewhere but the applicability of those laws to them will be adjudicated upon elsewhere; and the law made elsewhere and the adjudication elsewhere will override the law which is made here and the decisions of the courts of this realm."

[Constitution45]

The outsourcing of population growth to foreigners, let alone the work force is going to have dire consequences. A lot of people miss this out in the immigration debate, but as a country we need to focus on realigning bad attitudes or problems with our education system, that results in British people not doing the grunt work or manual professions.

I still doubt the position taken on this that "British people are lazy" its true many are but then again you still have a lot who do want to work in the labour market but get pushed out because of low wages. How can you tell one group of people for years that they should expect higher pay and better work conditions and then turn around and say that you should compete with the slave wages coming from the East.

As for the outsourcing population growth, its akin to get getting someone and paying them to replace you on your wedding night and honey moon included. Eventually you will see a bulk of the country who have different ideas, values and they will have a big say on how the country is supposed to be governed. Give it ten or twenty years down the line but this is what you will essentially start to see and already can do in some places i.e. Tower Hamlets (East London). How can it realistically be opposed, as it is something which we have more in one ways encouraged it over the years.

[Akula]

(03-12-2015 07:48 AM)MarcusAbbertini Wrote:  

My first mistake was probably venturing outside the Game, Travel and Lifestyle sub forums.

Heh, truer words have never been spoken/written. EE can be a minefield sometimes and a true graveyard for guys getting banned - many times guys who have great insights on game but get all caught up in XYZ thread and have a meltdown. Look at guys like Hencredible Casanova, Cardguy and Krauser. The list goes on and on.

I think the crazy part is that although in general most of us are pretty "red pill" and get the joke of how rampant, self-serving and destructive Feminism & the anti-male/femininity/traditional values/nature culture has been in the west the past 50 or so years, many times it's hard for the average guy to connect the dots and see how the SJW complex is really everywhere - in academia and the schools, in the mainstream media, the workplace and of course among the political set. These people all work in tandem, so it's not just the Feminists...it's an entire complex (many call it the Cultural Marxists, - whatever it is it exists, and needs to be torn down). When one realizes this, it follows that whenever this huge leviathan of repressive mainstream culture speaks that one should pause to think and reflect and evaluate when someone cries "racism", "sexism", "homophobia" etc.

People are so used to clamming up and not voicing their opinions in the West in the public realm so as to not "offend" anyone that it's akin to the former Soviet Union where many people were either spying on each other or just plain afraid to say anything that went against the Party.

People are essentially taught to be "victims" in the UK and the Anglosphere & EU. The party lines on who is "bad" and who is "good" is horribly skewed against anyone not being perceived as a victim. It's gotten so out of hand that you literally can't say most things even mildly controversial, most particularly in work & social environments. So in the West now the truth is the last thing many people, and the media in particular, care about.

Indeed it sometimes seems that all the powers that be want to do it look good, to not cause conflict, keep their profitable business running, keep on selling newspapers, etc. Forget what really matters (family, friends, freedom of speech & association, etc.) - indeed it appears the average person is willing to forego the freedoms we once had to either make a buck or just simply live in peace sometimes.

Look at what it took for #Gamergate to come about - bunch of guys who were apolitical literally couldn't even play a f*cking videogame without some SJW crazy/tranny popping out and telling them they were exclusionary, racist misogynists and that games needed to change. So when pushed into a corner they fought back (and are still being called all sort of things by our corrupt, lying mainstream media and the SJW crowd (really one and the same)).

Anyway, I see a lot of this SJW / PC though police stuff all over the UK just like it's in the US, so it's difficult to be optimistic about this country or anywhere else in the West these days. It is what it is. Just improve yourself and be your best.

Rant over - now back to the thread.