The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Tom1234]

	Quote:	Castro
	The Churchill in me will never surrender, especially given a referendum and election campaign based on lies, smear and disinformation.

Can you use someone else? Churchill was a Conservative most of his life.

	Quote:	Castro
	Hopefully Labour can rebuild with a unity candidate and finally start holding these bloody Tories to account. We may have lost the Brexit argument.

I do find it slightly ironic that you chose to live and work in a country that is neither in the E.U. (through a public vote) and nor is run on Marxist principles.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	Tom1234
	I do find it slightly ironic that you chose to live and work in a country that is neither in the E.U. (through a public vote) and nor is run on Marxist principles.

I thought he moved for the chocolate and cheese, like everybody else.

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Why? Croatia didn't. Nor Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden.

Very good point. As with many such matters, the EU has habit of only applying its own rules where it sees fit! Denmark and the UK are the only countries with official opt outs, the rest are expected to join the Euro eventually. It's a legal requirement for new member states joining the EU.

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	amogles
	One thing that the SNP is not explaining very well is that if Brexit is a bad thing because all those bonds and connections that have grown over the last decades are dissolved, how then can dissolving all those bonds that have grown over centuries be a good thing? If a hard border between NI and the Republic of Ireland is a bad thing, how can a hard border between Scotland and England be a good thing? If queues of lorries in Dover are a bad thing, why are queues of lorries in Berwick a good thing? Scotland probably does more trade with England than with any other country. Do they want to sacrifice that? What about all the Scots who seek employment in England? Scottish independence may be a nice romantic notion, and I can see where they are coming from. But I'd like to see the SNP explain how all the things they were opposing until now will suddenly be good for Scotland.

Its just a drum for the SNP. As has been pointed out, EFTA membership could solve a number of potential issues, indeed as it could for the UK too. The SNP hasn't mentioned EFTA though, they keep talking about remaining in the EU as they think it gives them hope of a second indy ref.

There remains little appetite for Indy Ref 2 and neither independence in Scotland. Their deficit is simply too big. They enjoy lavish spending on public services together with the fact they don't have to pay for it (spending in Scotland is 13.6% higher per head and tax revenue collected 2.6% lower than the UK average).

Is that a reason not to have independence? No, as Brexit proved, economic arguments are not decisive. The difference with Brexit it though, where there are many unknowns, there is simply no getting away from the Scottish deficit. Simply put, if they carried as they are now, they would soon go bust without the rest of the UK.

[curley]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	..... there is simply no getting away from the Scottish deficit. Simply put, if they carried as they are now, they would soon go bust without the rest of the UK.

But they'd have the EU then and they may well consider that safer.

[TonyClifton]

	Quote:	curley
	But they'd have the EU then and they may well consider that safer.

The EU didn't look after Greece's deficit. Scotland would be no different. It's all hypothetical anyhow, Scotland are remaining in the UK for the foreseeable future.

[Castro]

	Quote:	Tom1234
	Can you use someone else? Churchill was a Conservative most of his life.

I am very comfortable invoking one of the founding fathers of the EU, and his Remain-leaning grandson.

	Quote:
	EU referendum: Churchill would back Remain, Soames says Sir Nicholas said: "The last thing on earth Churchill would have been would have been an isolationist - to want to stand apart from Europe right now at a difficult time. "There is something awfully un-British, in my view, about wanting to leave. I think we stay. I think 'Non' he would not think it is a good thing to leave. 'Oui', I think he would have wanted to stay." Source

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	curley
	But they'd have the EU then and they may well consider that safer.

Actually if Scotland were in the EU they’d have to comply with the Fiscal Compact... even Italy had to adjust their budget to meet the guidelines.

[Tom1234]

	Quote:	Castro
	I am very comfortable invoking one of the founding fathers of the EU, and his Remain-leaning grandson.

I think you could argue that NATO served and continues to serve the purpose of Churchill's vision of a United Europe for peace.

Indeed, the first Secretary General of NATO was Churchill's chief military assistant during WWII.

It was continued peace in Europe which Churchill wanted and not straight bananas.

	Quote:	Tom1234
	It was continued peace in Europe which Churchill wanted and not straight bananas.

Crikey, I thought most intelligent people had now figured out that that was another of Boris' whoppers.

This is still as much of a lie as it was when the tabs intentionally misrepresented it 25 years ago.

Straight out of the Trump and Boris playbook - tell a lie enough and people will start to believe it.

[Tom1234]

	Quote:
	Crikey, I thought most intelligent people had now figured out that that was another of Boris' whoppers.

What's Boris got to do with what Churchill wanted?

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Actually if Scotland were in the EU they’d have to comply with the Fiscal Compact... even Italy had to adjust their budget to meet the guidelines.

The French didn't. They were above 3% for 9 years in a row.

[Blueangel]

For any British people who may be interested...

https://sussex.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/2...itons-abroad-1

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Tom1234
	It was continued peace in Europe which Churchill wanted and not straight bananas.

You have absolutely no idea of what Churchill would have wanted, you can't speak for dead men, so don't invoke them in you arguments. But do know that the straight bananas, BS is untrue, so stop that nonsense to be taking seriously.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	You have absolutely no idea of what Churchill would have wanted, you can't speak for dead men, so don't invoke them in you arguments. But do know that the straight bananas, BS is untrue, so stop that nonsense to be taking seriously.

From Churchill's speech on September 19, 1946, the University of Zurich here.

	Quote:
	Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America — and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well — must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!”

[Tom1234]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	You have absolutely no idea of what Churchill would have wanted,

Marton's cleared that one up.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	But do know that the straight bananas, BS is untrue, so stop that nonsense to be taking seriously.

There's no smoke without fire.

Why do you think the banana story came into being?

In 2008, an EU that regulated the shape of fruit (but not bananas specifically) was scrapped when it was discovered that a fifth of European fruit was being thrown away as it didn't meet the criteria.


It's all here on the EU website. (IP/08/1964)

That the law was passed in the first place was pretty disgusting.

So Jim Lad, who's writing bollocks now? I rather think it's you.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	You have absolutely no idea of what Churchill would have wanted

Unfortunately as marton pointed out, it is true that while Churchill liked the idea of a united states of Europe, he didn't like the idea of the UK being in it.

And in fairness, the EU is dysfunctional, possibly terminally so. Or that ultimately, like it or not, it's pretty clear that even if it was a 2% margin originally, it's probably grown at this stage, not least down to the surreal level of condescension that British remainers seem to have for their fellow citizens.

On the other hand, Churchill also said he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes", and I'm not sure one could use this endorsement today. And why not, because almost 75 years have passed and the World is a very different place now.

He was already a political dinosaur at the time he gave that speech, which was just before India became independent, followed by the rest of the British Empire. The UK would face near bankruptcy and repeated devaluations in the following decades and would only regain some level of stability after joining the EEC. The Cold war is long over and we're again in a multi-polar World were blocs and federations rather than nation states increasingly call the shots. Honestly, the penny really should have dropped when the US bitch-slapped both the UK and France for daring to act without their their permission in Suez.

So quoting Churchill now, suggesting that a policy that he thought prudent is even viable today, would be frankly as relevant as his following that Napoleon III would have espoused.

[marton]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	Unfortunately as marton pointed out, it is true that while Churchill liked the idea of a united states of Europe, he didn't like the idea of the UK being in it. And in fairness, the EU is dysfunctional, possibly terminally so. Or that ultimately, like it or not, it's pretty clear that even if it was a 2% margin originally, it's probably grown at this stage, not least down to the surreal level of condescension that British remainers seem to have for their fellow citizens. On the other hand, Churchill also said he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes", and I'm not sure one could use this endorsement today. And why not, because almost 75 years have passed and the World is a very different place now. He was already a political dinosaur at the time he gave that speech, which was just before India became independent, followed by the rest of the British Empire. The UK would face near bankruptcy and repeated devaluations in the following decades and would only regain some level of stability after joining the EEC. The Cold war is long over and we're again in a multi-polar World were blocs and federations rather than nation states increasingly call the shots. Honestly, the penny really should have dropped when the US bitch-slapped both the UK and France for daring to act without their their permission in Suez. So quoting Churchill now, suggesting that a policy that he thought prudent is even viable today, would be frankly as relevant as his following that Napoleon III would have espoused.

"Churchill also said he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"," Prime example of whataboutery.

Napoleon III's reconstruction of Paris was very successful and stands today.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Tom1234
	Marton's cleared that one up..

A 50+ year old speech tells you absolutely nothing about how someone would react about a situation today. You cannot speak for dead people.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	marton
	"Churchill also said he was "strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"," Prime example of whataboutery.

That was my point with regard to your citing Churchill, although it appears you missed it. Historical quotes can be very useful, but only in the most general terms, such as 'silent enim leges inter arma'. Taking specific advice from a 75 year old speech and basing your trade and foreign policy on it, on the other hand, is one of the more dumb things one can do.

	Quote:
	Napoleon III's reconstruction of Paris was very successful and stands today.

Fortunately the French have not been daft enough to adhere to his foreign policy advice with regard to the Germans.