| > What you did is you submitted yourself to whackjobs like May or Johnson who apparently think that advisory referendum made them supreme rulers that can just sidestep the parliament I'm not British so I've done nothing but what I see as an outsider is a parliament that feels it can entirely sidestep the wills of the public. > Wonder why UK is talking about leaving EHRC if you want your human rights protected We'll I'd assume it's to avoid foreign control over their domestic affairs. I don't think any country should be subject to the moral judgement of other nations and I would like to point out that the UK offers some of the best humanitarian protection to it's people. I'd call this point a bit of a non sequitur. For instance, let's say I'm rich and I'm investing in a set of manufacturing companies. If I want to pull all of my money out of foreign markets and I state by pulling money from my off-shore cookie factories does this mean I hate cookies as a product? I don't necessarily feel that is the case especially if I still have investments in, or have future plans to invest in, domestic cookie production. > Criminal City as in main export goods of UK: LIBOR fixing, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. After 2008 there were genuine attempts at reform, all succesfully cockblocked and watered down by UK I've never head of this but I'd chalk this up as a job for Interpol if it's a set of people engaging in money laundering and tax evasion. This is again a non sequitur as every country has this. Switzerland, France, and other EU countries are if anything more guilty of this then the UK. (Yes I know Switzerland isn't technically an EU country but it was a founding member of the EFTA so I'm counting it as they are still subject to trade sanctions that have never been levied from my understanding) > And the rise of China and India is exactly why small countries are irrelevant. Sure, you get to feel all important for a while, but since you don't really have much to offer to a giant they can just steamroll over you. You have a lot to offer. You're main point of attraction is different cultural backgrounds and different legal precedents. Many eastern block countries have the perfect storm of intelligent people, good universities, and a strong set of natural resource that they could turn from shabby to economic powerhouses overnight if they where allowed to engage in some practices that haven't been monopolized by the EU. One such example was the British fishing industry. [0] > Thats what I don't get. You bitch and moan about how EU is evil and trying to destroy UK, for taking EU perks away and then you turn around and argue how evil and bad the EU is because it has nothing to offer... I don't feel that I'm bitching and moaning. I feel that I'm presenting my opinions on the topic. I'm going to have to pick this apart bit by bit because there's a lot crammed into this one section. > You bitch and moan about how EU is evil I don't think it's evil. I've never said that and I don't think I ever will say that. It's the same way I've never said the Mafia was evil. I don't agree with a lot of the things that both the Mafia and the EU engage in but can see exactly why they have done these actions and their arguments for why these things are acceptable. One such example is intimidation of people leaving the group -- the topic that started this discussion You made it a point to say: > taking EU perks away and then you turn around and argue how evil and bad the EU is because it has nothing to offer I find it very odd, and would never want to participate in a group, that would feel the need to intimidate people leaving it. For instance here in the States if one of these United States didn't want to be part of the union anymore I'd feel perfectly fine with putting it up to a vote for the people in that state. That's perfectly fine for me. I'd also be against any state attempting to "get back at them" or "teach them a lesson for going against the group". That's just bullying and I wouldn't expect it from anyone of polite company; that is behavior of children at play in an elementary school. The Mafia also made attempts to intimidate people who left their ranks. Now I understand it from a Mafia perspective as a Mafia is meant to be run as a corporation. It's not for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of Mafia's stake holders. For them, intimidation is a form of self-preservation in an attempt of it's members to do the best for themselves, not to go against the will of the public. What shocks me the most is that people are okay with hostile intimidation from the EU [1] but not from the Mafia when I feel it is more justified for a Mafia to do this then a government. A government is meant to services as a way for regulating the people. If the people aren't being regulated fairly then the government should either change to shape themselves in the image of the public's morals or be removed from their place as the model of governance for the public. Now I've never seen this happen without violent kicking and screaming, as we are seeing here with the EU. I don't support what the EU because it is a vengeful organization that want's it's fingers in all of the pies around the world. Not for the benefit of humanity, but instead for the benefit of a well segregated ruling class that looks down at many of you as mere peons. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/07/europe... |