Brexit - The UK and the EU

[Thruth]

Eh, I understand the sentiment, but there are some truly marginalised people here.

We have an adopted sister from Kenya, and she rages on the sloth here too. She worked liked 8 jobs like the Jamaicans in Living Color sketches. Has no tolerance for any sort of entitlement mentality.

'Ow many job ya got?

 

[Grand Potentate]

I have no side first of all, and secondly the people who feel they are wasting their lives going nowhere while having an existence that 99.9999999999999999% of humans to ever live would kill for are exactly the people who I hope die in a fire.

Eh, I understand the sentiment, but there are some truly marginalised people here.

We have an adopted sister from Kenya, and she rages on the sloth here too. She worked liked 8 jobs like the Jamaicans in Living Color sketches. Has no tolerance for any sort of entitlement mentality.

Again, the fact that you don't like lazy bums and people who mooch off of society isn't in question. I still have no idea what positions you're attempting to uphold here and which politician that would lead you to vote for. No one is talking about redirecting middle class buyoffs to the poor.

 

[doghouse]

. No one is talking about redirecting middle class buyoffs to the poor.

I know, that's the problem.

Also I didn't say anything about lazy bums or mooching at any point in this discussion.

 

[Grand Potentate]

I know, that's the problem.

Also I didn't say anything about lazy bums or mooching at any point in this discussion.

oh ffs you know I'm generalizing. my attempts to engage you in some sort of discussion on this.

 

[doghouse]

oh ffs you know I'm generalizing. my attempts to engage you in some sort of discussion on this.

I've been engaging the whole time but you have been veering between two wildly polar extremes. You have to speak in real rational terms and not absurdity to have any sort of substantive discussion.

How is generalizing something that has zero to do with what we are talking about going to possibly carry the conversation forward? This isn't a welfare queen discussion, we are talking at most about coping with labor in a post industrial economy, but even that is a sideshow to what is driving Trump and a lesser degree Sanders, who actually is speaking to that a bit but is just wrong and regressive. Trump is living off people scared of them damn f'erriners.

 

[Scherensammler]

Striking assertions of PM with rebuttals of Tories and EU leaders

• David Cameron appeared on Andrew Marr Show to sell referendum deal

• He claims it is best for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union

• Here Political Editor James Slack compares the PM's claims to his critics'

Yesterday, David Cameron appeared on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show to sell his referendum deal. Political Editor James Slack compares the PM’s striking claims with the strong rebuttals of senior Tories, EU leaders and other experts.

CLAIM: What’s best for Britain is staying in a reformed European Union.

Response: Foreign leaders do not consider Mr Cameron’s reforms to have fundamentally changed the EU. For example, there are no changes to the rules on free movement. French president Francois Hollande said this weekend that the UK ‘will not be exempt from the rules of the single market’. He added: ‘There is not a planned revision of the treaties and no right of veto with regards to the eurozone’. German chancellor Angela Merkel said: ‘I don’t think we gave the UK too much.’

CLAIM: We’ll be safer inside the EU because we’re able to work with our partners, strength in numbers in a dangerous world.

Response: Several of the terrorists responsible for the Paris massacres were able to travel freely across Europe’s Schengen zone. Yesterday, Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith said being inside the EU ‘leaves the door open’ to the UK suffering similar attacks. He suggested migrants currently arriving in the EU would be given passports in the next few years which would allow them to end up in the UK without proper security checks.

CLAIM: What we’ve achieved [on restricting child benefit for EU workers whose children live overseas] is a big achievement.

Response: Eurosceptics point out that it falls far short of his manifesto pledge for an outright ban. Instead, the level of support will be linked to the cost of living in the child’s homeland. In a major concession to Eastern European leaders, existing claimants will keep their payments in full until 2020.

CLAIM: What I think I’ve achieved [on limiting EU workers access to tax credits for four years] is even more strong than the promises made in the 2015 Tory manifesto.

Response: Belgian PM Charles Michel said the UK had ended up ‘very, very far’ from its original demands for an outright four-year ban. Rather, migrants will initially receive nothing but will then have their payments reinstated gradually until they are paid in full after four years. Mr Cameron was yesterday unable to explain how this will work in practice. The changes – introduced under a so-called emergency brake - will not come into force until mid-2017. Any migrant who arrives before this date will be unaffected. Experts predict this could lead to a spike in the number of incomers between now and then.


CLAIM: If we were to leave the EU and we were to try to insist on full access to the single market, like Norway has for instance, every other country that’s got that sort of deal has had to accept the free movement of people and a contribution to the EU budget.

Response: Norway has chosen to be part of the Schengen free movement area. Mr Cameron accepts this is not and never will be in Britain’s best interests. Vote Leave points out the EU has free trade deals in force (which do not entail membership of a customs union or limitless immigration) with at least 17 countries. These include: Colombia, Peru, Mexico, South Africa, Chile, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

CLAIM: If Britain were to leave the EU that might give you a feeling of sovereignty, but you’ve got to ask yourself is it real? You have an illusion of sovereignty but you don’t have power.

Response: As justice minister Dominic Raab points out, with 60 per cent of all our laws made in or derived from the EU, Brussels has ‘tested the democratic contract between the people and their lawmakers to breaking point’. Britain has no way of resisting many of the edicts handed down by Brussels but cannot vote the unelected officials responsible out of power. Sovereignty has, therefore, been given away.

CLAIM: What was agreed by 28 prime ministers and presidents of every EU country on Friday evening, that is in itself an international law decision, a treaty that will be deposited at the UN. It is legally binding, it is irreversible.

Response: The European Council’s own lawyer refers to the deal only as ‘a joint interpretation of certain provisions of the EU treaties’. Chris Heaton-Harris, a Tory MP who spent a decade as an MEP, said the document was not an instruction to the European Court of Justice and could be ignored. He added: ‘This deal is not the final piece and can be amended by others up to the point and past the point of our referendum. The deal can be changed while people are voting in the referendum.’

CLAIM: The prospect of linking arms with Nigel Farage and George Galloway and taking a leap into the dark is the wrong step for our country.

Response: Mr Cameron is going to have to link arms with some of the most bitter opponents of the Tory Party, including SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon (who wants to break the Union), Jeremy Corbyn (who is opposed to Britain having a nuclear deterrent) and the hard-left trade union baron Len McCluskey. As ex-defence secretary Liam Fox pointed out yesterday: ‘That is not a pretty picture’.

 

[Grand Potentate]

I've been engaging the whole time but you have been veering between two wildly polar extremes. You have to speak in real rational terms and not absurdity to have any sort of substantive discussion.

The election is about two wildly polar extremes.

How is generalizing something that has zero to do with what we are talking about going to possibly carry the conversation forward? This isn't a welfare queen discussion, we are talking at most about coping with labor in a post industrial economy, but even that is a sideshow to what is driving Trump and a lesser degree Sanders, who actually is speaking to that a bit but is just wrong and regressive. Trump is living off people scared of them damn f'erriners.

Well you haven't given me a single concrete specific to talk about so I have to nibble around the edges

Just go back Vague about Britain. We can be vague about America another time.

 

[doghouse]

The election is about two wildly polar extremes.


Well you haven't given me a single concrete specific to talk about so I have to nibble around the edges

Just go back Vague about Britain. We can be vague about America another time.

Nice dodge.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Nice dodge.

Learned from watching the best.

 

[doghouse]

Learned from watching the best.

Alright, I redacted a lengthy insulting post to try this one more time. If you deflect, generalize, or say something hyperbolic along the lines of "everything is terrible, ruined and/or fucked", then I'm pretty much exhausted of any patience.

Let's break this down into simple concepts.

I have no side first of all

I'm on no "side". I'm on the side of society as whole and no interest group and/or class. Okay, now we can move on.

Again, the fact that you don't like lazy bums and people who mooch off of society isn't in question. I still have no idea what positions you're attempting to uphold here and which politician that would lead you to vote for. No one is talking about redirecting middle class buyoffs to the poor.

I know, that's the problem.

There are no politicians talking about sending the middle class buyoffs to the poor. It's a problem. I'm not sure how much more clarity I can add to this.

It won't happen because the middle class is the biggest voting bloc, but it's just reason 1,945 I want to deport the middle class.

Also I didn't say anything about lazy bums or mooching at any point in this discussion.

Again, not sure how much I can expand on this. Has nothing to do with the conversation, that conversation being why extreme and damaging candidates and ideas are being taken seriously because we have failed to manage labor in a post industrial economy.



And to wrap it all up

people who feel they are wasting their lives going nowhere while having an existence that 99.9999999999999999% of humans to ever live would kill for are exactly the people who I hope die in a fire.

is the absolute truth. The only way forward is to keep what is literally the best existence of all time in place while seeking improvements when possible, maintaining when not. Who am I a gonna vote for for? I don't know yet, depends on the nominees. If you told me 15 years ago to name the most unlikely act I would ever undertake, voting for Hillary Clinton was pretty high on the list, but here we are. If Rubio pulls something out of his ass, there is a chance there because I don't think he really will do anything positive or negative, just tread water. But I have deep reservations about a Republican Congress running unrestrained, I fully support divided government, and I'm sically very liberal, I'd run on a hookers and blow platform if I was trying to be President. If it's Rubio v. Hillary, I would say I would probably vote Gary Johnson, who I voted for in 2012. I don't feel like any vote is a wasted vote. If you are out there making your voice heard, you are participating, and that's the important part, because you are engaged and driving the dialogue.

 

[Grand Potentate]

Alright, I redacted a lengthy insulting post to try this one more time. If you deflect, generalize, or say something hyperbolic along the lines of "everything is terrible, ruined and/or fucked", then I'm pretty much exhausted of any patience.

Let's break this down into simple concepts.

First off, don't be so serious. Second, PM me your lengthy insults. It'll be like talking in the mirror. Also, please remember that I don't give a fuck about politics because they're pointless.

So I wanted to wait until the Nevada caucus was done before replying to see if it would bear out any of my talking points. And it has, to an almost universal degree. On to the meat and potatoes:

I'm on no "side". I'm on the side of society as whole and no interest group and/or class. Okay, now we can move on.

By side I was referring to political party, of which you had not declared. You sound undecided to a certain extent, which was part of the reason I was continually prodding you for info.

There are no politicians talking about sending the middle class buyoffs to the poor. It's a problem. I'm not sure how much more clarity I can add to this.

It won't happen because the middle class is the biggest voting bloc, but it's just reason 1,945 I want to deport the middle class.

Yes, I know that no one is talking about it which is why I was wondering why you kept bringing it up. It really serves little point to continue to harp on an idea that isn't going to come to fruition in this political election. I see this 'deport the middle class' rhetoric as intellectual wheel spinning to a certain extent.

Again, not sure how much I can expand on this. Has nothing to do with the conversation, that conversation being why extreme and damaging candidates and ideas are being taken seriously because we have failed to manage labor in a post industrial economy.

You brought up the reference to people not appreciating what they had or not working hard enough to get what they need several times, so that's why I referenced it. The conversation is about why extreme candidates have come to fruition and I'm honestly not sure what "managing labor in a post industrial economy" has to do with the bulk of people's problems with the current political environment. This looks like a union reference to me but I suspect you're coming at this from an angle I'm not seeing as relevant, given the previous course of our back and forth.

is the absolute truth. The only way forward is to keep what is literally the best existence of all time in place while seeking improvements when possible, maintaining when not. Who am I a gonna vote for for? I don't know yet, depends on the nominees. If you told me 15 years ago to name the most unlikely act I would ever undertake, voting for Hillary Clinton was pretty high on the list, but here we are. If Rubio pulls something out of his ass, there is a chance there because I don't think he really will do anything positive or negative, just tread water. But I have deep reservations about a Republican Congress running unrestrained, I fully support divided government, and I'm sically very liberal, I'd run on a hookers and blow platform if I was trying to be President. If it's Rubio v. Hillary, I would say I would probably vote Gary Johnson, who I voted for in 2012. I don't feel like any vote is a wasted vote. If you are out there making your voice heard, you are participating, and that's the important part, because you are engaged and driving the dialogue.

This gets to the root of where we're having the biggest disconnect. That second sentence is something that people voting in these primaries are fighting against so hard that they're literally willing to nominate a billionaire who says he wants to keep all the muslims out. Look at these poling numbers from tonight:

Trump notches another win as Rubio bids to elbow past Cruz

Six in 10 caucus goers said they were angry with the way the government is working, and Trump got about half of those angry voters, according to preliminary results of an entrance poll.

That's on the republican side. You think the democrats voting for Sanders are fundamentally different? People are fed the fuck up with what they're being served by the government. Its another reason I referenced life here vs. life in Africa, which you mentioned earlier. You think wage slaves in this country working over a hot oven or cleaning floors or slaving away at any of the million of menial jobs that this country needs to function on a day to day basis think that their lives are fundamentally better than people in awful countries? Because if you do, you need to get out there and talk to them more often. Life is shit for a LOT of people right now. Is it walk twenty miles with a basket of water on your head bad? No. Do you think that distinction matters to them? Suffering is suffering is suffering. Its all just a matter of degree.

I don't feel like any vote is a wasted vote.

I disagree with this most of all.

 

[doghouse]

First off, don't be so serious. Second, PM me your lengthy insults. It'll be like talking in the mirror. Also, please remember that I don't give a fuck about politics because they're pointless.

It's a serious fucking issue. And you seem to care about politics more than anyone on this board.

So I wanted to wait until the Nevada caucus was done before replying to see if it would bear out any of my talking points. And it has, to an almost universal degree. On to the meat and potatoes:

Those are everyone's talking points. Congrats on being so prescient.

By side I was referring to political party, of which you had not declared. You sound undecided to a certain extent, which was part of the reason I was continually prodding you for info.

Again, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. I have no political party. Political parties are for ideologues who lack the intellectual capability to stand on their own merits.

Yes, I know that no one is talking about it which is why I was wondering why you kept bringing it up. It really serves little point to continue to harp on an idea that isn't going to come to fruition in this political election. I see this 'deport the middle class' rhetoric as intellectual wheel spinning to a certain extent.

This is how change happens. You talk about it. More people talk about it until it becomes part of the national dialogue. You can ignore it if you like, but I'm gonna bring it up because we need to address it.

The conversation is about why extreme candidates have come to fruition and I'm honestly not sure what "managing labor in a post industrial economy" has to do with the bulk of people's problems with the current political environment. This looks like a union reference to me but I suspect you're coming at this from an angle I'm not seeing as relevant, given the previous course of our back and forth.

Managing labor right now is the problem we have been discussing. If you don't understand that then I'm not sure what to say. It doesn't have anything to do with the unions, it has to do with the fact that western economies have entered a post industrial phase. To put it in simple terms, a lot of the old jobs are gone and they aren't coming back, and other jobs are valued differently, a lot of them for the worse. This is happening, there is no winding back the clock, change is inevitable. You can't just freeze in 1955, that isn't an option. This is also why most people who champion super left shit are actually regressive. The solution is to transition this workforce into the new reality, not stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la I can't hear you..."

We aren't leaving the middle class behind, it's getting cleaved in two between the skilled and the unskilled.

This gets to the root of where we're having the biggest disconnect. That second sentence is something that people voting in these primaries are fighting against so hard that they're literally willing to nominate a billionaire who says he wants to keep all the muslims out. Look at these poling numbers from tonight:

Trump notches another win as Rubio bids to elbow past Cruz



That's on the republican side. You think the democrats voting for Sanders are fundamentally different? People are fed the fuck up with what they're being served by the government. Its another reason I referenced life here vs. life in Africa, which you mentioned earlier. You think wage slaves in this country working over a hot oven or cleaning floors or slaving away at any of the million of menial jobs that this country needs to function on a day to day basis think that their lives are fundamentally better than people in awful countries? Because if you do, you need to get out there and talk to them more often. Life is shit for a LOT of people right now. Is it walk twenty miles with a basket of water on your head bad? No. Do you think that distinction matters to them? Suffering is suffering is suffering. Its all just a matter of degree.

Rambo, I'm going to say this one time, and one time only. Do not even think about fucking lecturing me on what people are going through. I am on the tip of the spear every goddamn day dealing with people who are marginalized and scraping by in life. Unskilled labor in this country is getting pounded into submission and a lot of the guys that work for me are barely surviving life. I can't pay any more than the market allows, we have had one single profitable year since the 2007 crash due to the insanely idiotic policies under the Obama administration and a feckless Congress who thought shutting down the country was a good idea, and it hurts me every day to see these guys struggle to keep going. I gave out around $50,000 in interest free payroll advance loans last year, I helped one guy save his house, and another guy save his car. We had to dip into our own pocket to give Christmas bonuses every year. I kept a bunch of people on over the holiday even though we didn't have the workload because there is no way I can lay someone off over the holiday. The last thing I'm gonna do is listen to some bullshit armchair socialist go on about how people are fucking "slaves" and "life is shit" for someone who has their health and a good family and a roof over their head and food in their belly. I've seen enough of your life posted here between wallets and fragrance and the fact you have a house to know you are blessed as shit, and to say things are fucked you can just carry your bitch ass to one of these other countries that you so adore. Otherwise you are just lobbing grenades from the sideline instead of being self actualized and making your life happen. You don't leave because you won't get benefits? Shut the fuck up, you don't get them here so that's no difference. You are just scared of making the leap.

I disagree with this most of all.

Not surprising. Except you don't care about politics, so maybe it is surprising.

 

[Scherensammler]

David Cameron is having a tough time right now. Several leading political figures are campaigning to leave the EU.
The scaremongering has also begun, constant news are published about the economy, another worldwide crash if Britain should leave the EU.
And then there's this:
EU pulls plan to ban super-strength kettles 'out of fear it could cause Brexit'

To some Britons, this news might represent the biggest boost to the Remain campaign so far.

In a shrewd move from the European Union, the European Commission has paused a proposed ban on super-strength kettles because it fears it could drive Britain to leave the EU, according to reports.

The EC had proposed a ban on various high-energy appliances, including kettles and toasters, for environmental reasons.

It’s hard to argue with the use of the word ‘obsession’ here. We do love tea.

Britons knock back 62billion cups of the stuff per year.

 

[Fwiffo]

And who would stand in the way between an Englishman and his cup of tea?

 

[Fwiffo]

Stay or go, Britain and European Union are bound to lose

"The ugly truth is that there will be no winners in the Brexit vote, no matter which way it goes. If Britain waves goodbye to the EU, it is taking an enormous economic and political gamble that could easily go against it. Without Britain, which is more or less level with France as the EU’s second biggest economy, the EU would be a vastly diminished economic and political force. Already, the EU struggles to develop a forceful and coherent presence in world diplomatic, economic, security and military affairs. Without Britain, it would struggle more."

In American speak I believe the situation is called fubar.

 

[Scherensammler]

To me the EU looks more and more like the Mafia. Once you're in, you're in. If you try to get out you get hunted down.

I don't know the history of the EU referendum, but if it's similar to the Scottish one, I'm sure it was Cameron's attempt to get the subject off the table for a while.
If this new referendum turns out to be just like the Scottish one, Cameron will need to do a lot more than his usual scaremongering to make people vote pro EU.

 

[formby]

^
I suspect it will be close. I think the 'in' will win it though.

Unfortunately.

 

[Scherensammler]

^
I suspect it will be close. I think the 'in' will win it though.

Unfortunately.

I'm sure there will be some hefty support for Cameron in the media and he'll make passionate speeches across the land.
Just dawned on me that the French removing the migrants in Calais is an attempt to take that argument away from the OUT crowd. On the other hand, the incapability of the EU to handle the migration crisis might backfire anyway.
Perhaps Cameron should have waited until he knew who was going to campaign for OUT and wait for the polls.
There seems to be strong support for OUT, which would have given him more leverage for getting a better deal.
TBH, I still don't understand how a party who didn't get more than 35% of the total votes is in absolute control. Sounds like a fucked up system to me.

 

[formby]

I'm sure there will be some hefty support for Cameron in the media and he'll make passionate speeches across the land.
Just dawned on me that the French removing the migrants in Calais is an attempt to take that argument away from the OUT crowd. On the other hand, the incapability of the EU to handle the migration crisis might backfire anyway.
Perhaps Cameron should have waited until he knew who was going to campaign for OUT and wait for the polls.
There seems to be strong support for OUT, which would have given him more leverage for getting a better deal.
TBH, I still don't understand how a party who didn't get more than 35% of the total votes is in absolute control. Sounds like a fucked up system to me.

The British electoral system uses a first-past-the-post system. The UK is split up into 'seats' and the candidate with the most votes gets elected as a member of parliament. So say there are 600 seats, a political party could theoretically have an absolute majority with only 600 votes more than the next party(ies) (they win every seat by just one vote).

In the last election about 3 times more people voted UKIP than voted for the SNP, yet the SNP got 56 seats and UKIP 1. Outrageous really, whatever you think of UKIP.

The argument for this system is that it creates strong governments, because there is less chance of a hung parliament. This is of course, convenient bollocks, the real reason is that it suits the 2 major parties.

 

[Fwiffo]

Is popular vote all that much better? This was designed to keep crazy people out and big cities from overwhelming the rural vote. In Canada, we call the districts ridings, but it's the same system. Works well unless you're a fringe protest party who always ends up on the losing end.

Brexit anxiety stalks the Costa del Sol: ‘If we quit Europe, Brits won’t buy here’

“But the sad thing is that British people will just vote the way they are told to vote by the Sun or the Star or the Mail, because the majority won’t think for themselves or even bother to vote at all."

 

[Scherensammler]

The British electoral system uses a first-past-the-post system. The UK is split up into 'seats' and the candidate with the most votes gets elected as a member of parliament. So say there are 600 seats, a political party could theoretically have an absolute majority with only 600 votes more than the next party(ies) (they win every seat by just one vote).

In the last election about 3 times more people voted UKIP than voted for the SNP, yet the SNP got 56 seats and UKIP 1. Outrageous really, whatever you think of UKIP.

The argument for this system is that it creates strong governments, because there is less chance of a hung parliament. This is of course, convenient bollocks, the real reason is that it suits the 2 major parties.

Thanks to a proper education I was aware how the British system works. And of course, it favours the major parties.

In Germany the conservatives are made up of the CDU (Christian democratic union) and the CSU (Christian social union).
The CSU only exists in Bavaria, where they constantly get the majority vote, thanks to the conservative rural areas.
As per agreement, the CDU does not campaign in Bavaria and the CSU stays in Bavaria.
Rumours have it that a lot of the civilian Nazis made it into those conservative parties after WWII, and I have no reason to doubt that. Both parties have strong ties with industry tycoons and have ruled Germany for several decades.
Kohl and Merkel alone combined get to 30 years, although they were always forced to share power with a coalition partner.
For many years that was the FDP, who defected Helmut Schmidt and the SPD (social democrats) in 1982 and made Helmut Kohl chancellor. After that, it went downhill for German workers. The government crippled the unions and workers rights, unemployment went up drastically and so did public debt. In about 12 years it went from 120 billion Deutschmark to roughly 1500 billion EURO!
After the reunification Western corporations took over the profitable (read: working) industrial sectors in the former GDR, leaving the shitty and heavily polluted factories for the government to fix.

The conservatives can rely heavily on their friends in the media business, mostly the Axel Springer group with it's BILD Zeitung (the most influential one, "read" by millions directly or indirectly, probably comparable to the "SUN") and the Burda media empire and of course Bertelsmann.

They were the main force behind the conservatives victories in the past, so there is a striking similarity between the UK and Germany.
Another similarity is the fact that the then SPD chairman Gerhard Schröder moved his former working class, left wind party more to the centre, just like Tony Blair did with Labour.
Both got into power for a short time (2 terms for Schröder), but kind of lost their base voters, because they had become "CONSERVATIVES LIGHT!"
Despite being the biggest net payer in the EU, Germany has been it's strongest supporter, which is surprising, given that it did quite well before with it's economy and a constantly strong Deutschmark.
Anyway, if there was a referendum in Germany, the conservative media would do everything to make the vote pro EU.
And I'm sure the same bombardment with horror scenarios will happen in the UK.

 

[formby]

Thanks to a proper education I was aware how the British system works. And of course, it favours the major parties.

In Germany the conservatives are made up of the CDU (Christian democratic union) and the CSU (Christian social union).
The CSU only exists in Bavaria, where they constantly get the majority vote, thanks to the conservative rural areas.
As per agreement, the CDU does not campaign in Bavaria and the CSU stays in Bavaria.
Rumours have it that a lot of the civilian Nazis made it into those conservative parties after WWII, and I have no reason to doubt that. Both parties have strong ties with industry tycoons and have ruled Germany for several decades.
Kohl and Merkel alone combined get to 30 years, although they were always forced to share power with a coalition partner.
For many years that was the FDP, who defected Helmut Schmidt and the SPD (social democrats) in 1982 and made Helmut Kohl chancellor. After that, it went downhill for German workers. The government crippled the unions and workers rights, unemployment went up drastically and so did public debt. In about 12 years it went from 120 billion Deutschmark to roughly 1500 billion EURO!
After the reunification Western corporations took over the profitable (read: working) industrial sectors in the former GDR, leaving the shitty and heavily polluted factories for the government to fix.

The conservatives can rely heavily on their friends in the media business, mostly the Axel Springer group with it's BILD Zeitung (the most influential one, "read" by millions directly or indirectly, probably comparable to the "SUN") and the Burda media empire and of course Bertelsmann.

They were the main force behind the conservatives victories in the past, so there is a striking similarity between the UK and Germany.
Another similarity is the fact that the then SPD chairman Gerhard Schröder moved his former working class, left wind party more to the centre, just like Tony Blair did with Labour.
Both got into power for a short time (2 terms for Schröder), but kind of lost their base voters, because they had become "CONSERVATIVES LIGHT!"
Despite being the biggest net payer in the EU, Germany has been it's strongest supporter, which is surprising, given that it did quite well before with it's economy and a constantly strong Deutschmark.
Anyway, if there was a referendum in Germany, the conservative media would do everything to make the vote pro EU.
And I'm sure the same bombardment with horror scenarios will happen in the UK.

Its already happening.

Plus we have to listen to people like Junker telling British Eurosceptics that they should visit war graves to remind themselves of the peace that the EU has brought?

Does this cretin not realise that practically every village, certainly every town and city in Britain has a war memorial (Cenotaph) and most churches of that age, have stained glass windows commemorating the war dead? There is NO European country that had done more for European peace than the British.

How offensive can you possibly be.

 

[Scherensammler]

Wait, isn't that the same guy Cameron didn't want to become EU president?
BFF with Angie from East Germany, who got him the job. That says it all.
The EU is only good for money grabbing and money laundering and tax fraud. All committed big style by multinational corporations and banks. It has become so much easier when the EURO was introduced.
The UK has been lucky to avoid the EURO, a currency that is affected by the economies of 27 countries, ranging from top 7 countries like Germany, France and (surprisingly) Italy down to Greece and Luxembourg.
While it's nice that you can get to the Netherlands to look at the tulip fields or buy some dope without being checked at the border, I actually didn't mind when, back in the days when borders meant something, a friendly border patrol asked me for my passport. I even had my car searched twice (in the early to mid 90's), once in Italy, the other time in Sweden. In both cases my car was packed with stuff, so it made sense to search it. The Italians seemed more worried about drugs (they used a sniffer dog), while the Swedish were looking for illegal amounts of booze.
When I moved to Scotland in 2014 my car was packed again, to the roof actually, and I was not controlled at all.
Not when I entered the Netherlands and got on the ferry, and not when I arrived in Newcastle. There was a female officer going around, peeking into the cars, but that's it. They did check a few cars with UK number plates, which says a lot about UK citizens or maybe the UK customs.

In Germany we only have a few WWI memorials, that's it. Since we didn't win, all we get are the yearly repeated tales of how bad we were back then. Seems like we have to convince the rest of the world we won't try again. Well, at the moment we got different worries. Plus the US have taken that role now.
In the Scottish referendum my boss voted No! for financial/ economical reasons, but there was a point during the campaign where he said it would be best to get rid of the English rule.
So maybe the In! crowd will overdo it with the scaremongering and the stubborn Brits will say F***U! and vote Out!

 

[Grand Potentate]

How a Brexit Could Save Europe from Itself

 

[Scherensammler]

How a Brexit Could Save Europe from Itself

While it makes sense, it's not likely to happen. Every type of media in the UK is for the IN campaign.
Especially the BBC seems to be highly biassed again, in the same way they were biassed in the Scottish referendum.
I have been off work and therefore away from the radio, but when I paid a visit there was a short report about the campaign in the news.
Boris Johnson (who is an OUT supporter) was barely quoted, while the stupid gibberish of David Cameron (the usual scaremongering, uncertain future, job losses and so on...) was played in full.
Plus he has the full support of all the other leaders of big EU economies, especially that of Merkel, although that bitch might be in for a treat in tomorrow's 3 state elections. If the latest polls are right (and I hope they are) her party is going to loose a lot of voters. Which could cause a small revolution within her party. A lot of party members are very unhappy about her handling of the migrant crisis.

There have been quite a few articles where the authors claim that the EU is just one of the steps towards a "New World order",
and with all those upcoming trade treaties (negotiated in private) it could easily be true.
So if things get really tough for the In crowd I'm sure the powers that profit from it will help them out. A little crisis here, a small financial collapse there. The British pound is at his lowest exchange rate against the Euro for at least a year.

 

[prince nez]

Yes yes all good and well old chaps but will the British sausage really have to be renamed the Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tube to comply with EU regulations??

 

[Fwiffo]

Thank God Cameron protected this:

Unseen City: Martin Parr reveals the Square Mile’s secrets

 

[Fwiffo]

This is scathing.

How David Cameron fumbled the Brexit ball

"A referendum, to be valid, needs to ask a basic existential question that every voter understands. Britain’s relationship with Europe is not at all like that. Every aspect of the country’s life is so tied up with its EU connections, in such complex and inextricable ways, that any yes-or-no question is bound to become entangled in noise and distraction. It makes as much sense as holding a referendum on whether your country should have a court system, or a sewage system: People will vote on whether they think judges are politically biased, or whether they enjoy the smell of excrement."

"But Mr. Cameron, in what may be the worst political miscalculation in modern Europe, fumbled the ball very badly. He has made a weak case; Labour Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn, who used to rail against the EU as a right-wing capitalist plot, has made an even weaker one. Charismatic anti-Europe figures such as London Mayor Boris Johnson have seized the spotlight, and their cause, despite lacking any sensible argument, now has an even chance of prevailing."

"Mr. Cameron would be remembered as a politician who, a year after his greatest electoral victory, used the most cynical whim to plunge his country into chaos and destroy his political legacy."

 

[Scherensammler]

destroy his political legacy

That made me smile...

They had a report about what is called "tampon tax", which, in a deal with the EU has now been abolished. Yay!
Apparently, due to EU regulations, the minimum VAT on things like tampons was 4%. Not any more! Victory!
Now, a quick comparison to German prices revealed that even with 4% discount, tampons in the UK cost almost double.
People who got in contact with the station were very upset about the fact that the EU has more say than the UK in even such small matters.

 

[Fwiffo]

Nigel Farage 'frustrated' over UKIP policy-making - BBC News

Existentialist questions for UKIP

 

[Scherensammler]

There was a small fight over the steel industry in the UK which suffers from import of cheap Chinese steel.
Some "OUT" supporters blamed the EU for not having higher tariffs on Chinese steel imports.
As it turned out it is the UK government that blocked those so far.
Either way, I find politician talk interesting. Something like the phrases: "We will do everything we can to help the (British) steel industry/ (British) workers"! or "We are committed to solve the crisis"!

 

[Scherensammler]

The campaigning for the referendum has officially started.
Well, it already started before, when the government spent 9.4 million pounds on a leaflet promoting the stay in the EU.
Other than that, all sorts of people and institutions chimed in to join the scaremongering crowd of the IN campaign.
Most noticeably the IMF and president Obama. Looks like the elites are desperate to keep the UK in the EU.

 

[Fwiffo]

If only they were smart like the colonial Canadians to mandate a "clear majority" so it's not 50.0001% that causes them to leave.

I was sitting next to an Oxford chap at a dinner two weeks ago and he will vote remain. Not that I needed to encourage him any.

 

[Fwiffo]

Most noticeably the IMF and president Obama. Looks like the elites are desperate to keep the UK in the EU.

Duke and duchess and Prince Harry to host dinner for Obamas

Is that what he's doing? You mean the President isn't going to Kensington Palace just to meet the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge?

 

[Scherensammler]

Well, as it says in the article: "press conference with David Cameron"!
I'm pretty sure the EU will be mentioned.
For all those who want to get rid of that douche Cameron, voting "OUT" is their best opportunity.

 

[Fwiffo]

UK more effective at fighting terror inside EU

Nothing like national security as a motivator.

 

[Scherensammler]

I'm sure the US are actually really worried about the EU breaking up, which would make it so much harder to find an agreement over all those shady, secret trade treaties like TTIP and TISA.
But I struggle to see why the UK needs the EU to fight terrorism. So far the UK government has done the bidding of the US government since and even after Blair, see bombing raids in Libya and now Syria.

Right now there's a massive campaign of scaremongering in all media going on and Obama fits right in:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-in-britain-to-tell-voters-to-remain-in-the/

 

[formby]

I'm sure the US are actually really worried about the EU breaking up, which would make it so much harder to find an agreement over all those shady, secret trade treaties like TTIP and TISA.
But I struggle to see why the UK needs the EU to fight terrorism. So far the UK government has done the bidding of the US government since and even after Blair, see bombing raids in Libya and now Syria.

Right now there's a massive campaign of scaremongering in all media going on and Obama fits right in:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-in-britain-to-tell-voters-to-remain-in-the/

Obama argument makes perfect sense in regards to American Foreign policy. It is easier for the Americans to deal with power blocks than individual powers. Fair enough.

It should have been pointed out more strongly however, that Britain's interests aren't subservient to what is convenient for America, especially when concerning matters of national sovereignty.

He's been prompted to lay-it-on-thick by Cameron, but the buffoon that is BoJo has blown the opportunity by personally attacking Obama.

 

[Scherensammler]

He's been prompted to lay-it-on-thick by Cameron, but the buffoon that is BoJo has blown the opportunity by personally attacking Obama.

It was more than "laying on thick", it was closer to an open threat. But, TBH, if people knew more about those trade deals in question, they'll find leaving the EU in this case would be a blessing.
And yes, the "part Kenyan" remark by Boris Johnson wasn't wise.

 

[Fwiffo]

Leading City name back Brexit

Even the Square Mile endorses Brexit... astounding. Wait do you still count when you're former CEO?