jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (123 posts)

Obamas UK visit about UK's Referendum on Soveriegnty

  1. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    Just wondered what You think of o Barmy poking his nose in.
    Does it change anything? Do we have a coal or steel industry left anyway?
    Who is the biggest beneficary of this so called block. (Reminds me of the communist block of old russia. I wonder what those countries would prefer?)
    And what do we get from america?  Junk food sporning a culture of Obesity (mcDonalds, Burger King, Subway etc. Etc.)
    Cheap rubbish television that breeds ignorance such as slang talking and gang culture with trash talk. And we are losing our health manners and good ettiquette along with sense of identity and community.
    And what's so special about this so called "special relationship?, if they're so eager to push uk to the back of the line ("queue").Then there can't be much except they do seem keen to drag us into wars that some say have caused more harm than good.  (And sent UK in first!) Then tried to stop uk protecting the Falklands from Argentina. Yet went into Ghana, a commonwealth country without so much as a how do you do! (Damn cheaky Arrogant Americans - who wants em?  Even Russia only hate UK because when ISA say jump UK asks how high!
    So, I ask again. What's the point?

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Cheeky and arrogant? And I always thought that of the Brits. I will say though that Tony Blair hopped the first plane over here after 9/11. I always thought he used that tragedy to steer us into that war so I don't think we sent the UK in first.

      1. theraggededge profile image94
        theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        The related documents indicate that TB offered to support GWB in whatever action he wanted to take. It was an illegal war and the UK should not have been involved. The evidence of WMD was not there. The evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was not there. It was about oil and nothing else.

        Tony Blair is a traitor to his country.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Offering to support GW in any way would certainly go a long way in helping the war monger crowd gain traction with a president who was easily flustered by unexpected events. During the entirety of his presidency he stumbled at every unexpected turn. He was continuously shown to be a man without the ability to think on his feet and one who was easily manipulated by powerful forces. I remember watching an interview with Tony Blair. It kind of sickened me because he was talking about a moral obligation to engage in war. I think a moral obligation would involve attempting to avoid armed conflict, if at all possible.

          I do agree it was all about oil. However, this throwing blame around can easily go all ways. We, as citizens of the world, should spend less time blaming others and more time demanding that our governments conduct themselves with the same level of consideration and caution we demand of our citizens.

          I will say that I do find it interesting when Europeans engage in this blame game. They've historically meddled themselves around the globe and are, in my opinion, due much more of the blame for the mess the Middle East, the near East and Africa have become. We, as a global community, are still attempting to figure out how to clean up the fall out.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

            This is a great comment, where is the response?

            1. days leaper profile image49
              days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              All we have is the media spin which is often government led. Each country has it's own agenda. Can you send a reference to the Blair interview You saw. So that I can make a more informed comment?
              Blair had his own failures and I doubt anyone argued with GWB. And dont forget like Cameron is accused of prepping OB to support his campaign. The same could've happened with Blair in those interviews.
              Also. Consider the opinion may be wrong about not going to war. Look at it this way. Twin towers attacked and destroyed, albeit helped by lapse security. It still shows an "intelligent" muslim force/s that are against Western ways. Whether right or wrong. The well known saying violence leads to violence except against the most disciplined followers of "peace"
              Pardon the lack of response before, it was considered less serious, important etc. Than other good submissions that were given precedence.

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                DL, I will have to hand the baton over to L & L to provide that for you.

              2. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                It was a long time ago, so no. Not directly. I did google and this came up.

                https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tony_Blair … vade_again

                It isn't the same interview but it does reference his belief that he had a moral obligation to invade.

                1. days leaper profile image49
                  days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  L & L. Read the link. Raised more questions. Im now not sure Iraq was a total mistake. (A big change around, for me!). As far as the blame game. Well, I regret saying that. You will perhaps know, as a writer yourself, how momentum carries and sometimes the words write themselves. This is pretty much what happened. And I agree I should be more careful ..(but some interesting things came from it -eh?)  Truth is Sadam was trigger happy. On the other hand. Was he, in his own mind doing what Bush and Blair seem ro have been trying to do. In controlling/stabilizing the region? Although that doesn' explain SHs invasion of Kuwait. That was about oil as well.  And of course what does the western world currwntly use more of....?  So, it created a power struggle.   
                  Does that mean oil was what it was ALL about. Or was there actually a risk? Would Iran have used nukes on SH. If we hadn't interviened? And the muslims can't say stay out of it because they'd already attacked!  All that You know. It's relevance is in what happens if (hopefully when) UK exits The EU. Will we have this cooperation if something like this or worse happens again? That too will most likely come down to trade. Simply because that's just about The nations (it's leaders) are all about. As You know Im not big on history. But Im sure I watched a film some time back now. Re. The Blues and The Greys/ North v. South US. And Im sure the jist was much about The South struggling due to lack of funds, which in turn shortened the war.  If Im actually right with this.  Then I'm saying trade will always come into it (war & Peace) no matter what.
                  SH. (I THINK) was trying to put prices up to get more food for less oil. Which turns out noble enough if his people were dying. I'll say that for him. But of course, like Britain giving India hand outs. They've gone and made nukes instead! That's bad enough. Imagine if trigger happy Saddam had been given more.

      2. days leaper profile image49
        days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Hang on. I thought 911 was after Iraq. Have I got mixed up somewhere? Or at least Kuwait. (Ive had much hassle with severe illness though. And can only Thank Theragededge for carrying the torch on this all important question of Britains future on the global scale.  Thank You.

        About 911. Didn't The Americans not have security at their borders.  And so this is what staying in The EU is like. In a similar way we face disaster if things aren't tightened up.

        1. calculus-geometry profile image87
          calculus-geometryposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, while you were pining for the days when Brits lived like Downton Abbey before Burger King ruined it, you've gotten a little confused there
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

          1. days leaper profile image49
            days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. calculus-geometry profile image87
              calculus-geometryposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              2001 was the destruction of the towers.  The 11 in 9/11 means the 11th of September.   

              Between being a decade off the date of a recent event and lack of proper punctuation in all your posts, you're not exactly making the case for British superiority.

              1. days leaper profile image49
                days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                In my condition. I am in no way "a superior Brit." The fact Im up at this time of night shows Im having health issues. (2.20 am here in UK).
                I hope by moving that post and it's stupid comments, you may be somewhat appeased.
                As for the lack of punctuation. Im having enough problems making this s5neo's cursor stay in the right place. And the whole thing keeps jamming. Thanks for your post. Point to You, I think.  (In uk. It would be 11/9. And that still doesn't help my forgetfulness, or rushing -to get to bed. Sorry)

                1. calculus-geometry profile image87
                  calculus-geometryposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  LOL you deleted your post.  In any case, I'm a Brexit supporter.

                  1. days leaper profile image49
                    days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    :-)  of course. And with a lot of self reproach. I don't like innacuracies, even my own.  You were right to bring me up on it; even my careless punctuation.
                    Thanks. Goodnight.
                    Another Brexit supporter.

        2. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          I don't think any of us could have reasonably anticipated 9/11. I don't know that security at the border would have done any good.

          1. days leaper profile image49
            days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            If you leave the doors open you let the cold/wolf come in.
            I don't know what condolence I can say of this tradgedy. Obviously very close to all American & others hearts.
            But wasn't this forum about Britain. And whether it is best to be in or OUT of EU.  (Not including NATO though)

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              You brought up 9/11. I don't really think about it. It's in the past.  But, I see from your comments you want our money for your defense, but not our presence. LOL

              1. days leaper profile image49
                days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Not sure. What money for defence. The military is being cut. Cameron fooled int thinking an EU force is somehow the way forward. Not seeing that this will impose more control on uk. And so even less soveriegnty etc.
                We already pay some kind of racket protection money. This I can only see as getting worse.
                But all I meant was NATO is not under discussion in this referendum. In case people werent clear.

              2. theraggededge profile image94
                theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                LOL... What? Who's asking for US money for our (UK's) defence?

                1. days leaper profile image49
                  days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  I didn't get that either. Though I do see their so called special friendship is dependent on their having military bases over here!

    2. Matthew Hughes profile image79
      Matthew Hughesposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      This is a bit of an aggressive stance. In all due respect, the Americans maybe have made a couple of mistakes in the past, but then again so have we. Obama may not have any authority when it comes to internal UK issues, but he is a powerful ally and is attempting to offer support, he isn't setting demands or ultimatums.

      1. theraggededge profile image94
        theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        He's supporting the Remain campaign. That's all. Should David Cameron travel to the US and tell its citizens which way to vote?

        1. Matthew Hughes profile image79
          Matthew Hughesposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          He's supporting not enforcing. Cameron shouldn't tell the US how to vote but that's not what Obama is doing.

          1. days leaper profile image49
            days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            MH, Did You see it?  It was all. 'We (us) want to deal with a big block' -not a tiny worthless little island... And 'it may be 5 or 10 years before' big almighty americaA! 'Gets round to bothering to even talk to you if you leave eu block' ...bye! Frankly Britains Exit & this stance would free UK up to deal with enough other countries that we can't at press. Due to existing deals etc. That would keep uk going well enough!
            THEN hypocritically (some have said) went on about the "special" relationship between UK & US. What so long as uk are part of this 'western block' also known as "EU".  How long will that even dubious "special relationship": ( and i cant help thinking of monica Lewinski and Clinton, for some reason)  last if the two aren't even talking, trading etc. ?

            1. Matthew Hughes profile image79
              Matthew Hughesposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              I do agree with your when it comes to the "special relationship" stuff, there's nothing special about the relation between the US and the UK anymore, but I don't think that's a bad thing.  Who are you thinking when you say it'd let us deal with more countries?
              I don't think he came of threatening, I saw it more as him focusing on himself a bit too much.

            2. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

              Gee, your theme is that the U.S. wishes to undermine Great Britain, to what advantage? I apologize for Bush and his skullduggery regarging the 2003 Iraq invasion and how Tony Blair and the British were dragged along, many of us here were not particularly  keen about it.

              I like to think that we have been friends and allies over generations.

              1. GA Anderson profile image87
                GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Grrrrr.... you apologize for yourself for Bush, right? Geesh.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  GA, somebody has to, he has been the "master of disaster', and was primarily responsible for deteriorating relationships between the US and everybody else.

          2. theraggededge profile image94
            theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            But that's exactly what he was doing.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 … ean-union/

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

              While Obama may urge, the decision still rests with you and your society. No one has issued any threats nor ultimatums regardless of the course that you choose.

              1. theraggededge profile image94
                theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                I didn't say he'd issued any threats. However, he did use some questionable language, as in "Britain will go to the back of the queue in any trade negotiation with the US." Some people saw that as a threat that completely negated his previous remarks about a 'special relationship'.

                The problem is that people hear that and think they'd better do as he says or we'll be in trouble. What they fail to realise is that we don't need any trade deals to trade. The UK has been trading with China for decades, yet there is no deal in place.

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  I am beginning to have a better understanding of opposing sides in your debate.

                  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ay-EU.html 

                  I hope that this article from the "Daily Mail" is not seen as biased from your view.

                  So, every world leader would have an opinion on this matter if pressed to provide it.

                  The point from the BREXIT people seems to focus a lot on regaining sovereignty specifically related to the sieve of any open border you have to maintain as part of your EU membership.

                  So, if this situation is so disasterous for Britain, why would the decision, plebescite or such be so close. Upwards toward half of the country expressed the desire to remain, outside of fawning bureaucrats and their supporters, why are so many afraid to take this leap toward sovereignty?

                  The President's comments regarding future trade if Brtiain leaves the EU are not punitive, it is simply the reality of economies of scale and just the nature of business.

                  It appears that the alliance in total asks Britain to surrender too much of its sovereignty, and the BREXIT advocates are right, we here would not allow Mexican nationals unfettered egress over our southern border. Outside of Cameron's clear support for the alliance, what is it that Britain stand to lose if it leaves? There still are many that support the alliance in your country, why?

                  I ask again why can't you renegotiate the agreement, keeping the benifits of membership while dealing with areas that are clearly beyond the pale as far as British self determination goes? Is all or nothing the only alternative?

                  While I think that the President blathers on about WWII relationships which really aren't relevant to this discussion, I certain remember the aid US provided Britain in resolving the Faulklands affair back in the 1980's. There is a special relationship as we took your side over that of Argentina, when it was easier to stay non-aligned.

                  1. theraggededge profile image94
                    theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course. However, actively campaigning to the population of a country that is not your own is wrong. I really don't care how you justify Obama's interference... it is simply that, interference. Of course it was at the behest of DC & Co. but he should have refused. He could have said that he hopes we will vote to remain in the EU but that he would continue to work with us, whichever way it went. That's all he had to say.

                    The reason why approximately half the population want to remain in the EU is because they have never known anything different. They think they will be voting for the status quo, when nothing could be further from the truth. The European project has always been about closer integration. The EU wants its own government to be in control and for the countries who are part of it to give up self governance. The general public, either can't see why this could be a problem (all the power in the hands of a few), or they don't care. They also believe everything the media feeds them.

                    The main complaint is, "Oh we're not getting the facts. no-one is explaining it to us. We just want it laid out for us... moany moan." People are just too damn lazy to go do a bit of research, to sift the facts from the rhetoric. In the end, it won't be about facts at all. There's only one thing to vote on. Do people want to keep control of their country and parliament or do they want to give it away?

                    Cameron did try to negotiate an agreement. He still thinks he managed it. It was laughable. He didn't ask for very much and he came home with less. He insists on calling it a 'reformed EU', but none of  his negotiations will be ratified and will end up being binned. We aren't allowed in the UK to place restrictions on welfare benefits to migrants. We can't hold back benefits for two weeks, let alone six months or a year. He's asked that the in-work benefits be gradually increased over four years. It means nothing - a family in need is a family in need and we won't be able to withhold. the EU told him that whatever restrictions he puts on migrants, he should put on UK citizens as well. It's a farce. And every month the money flows out of the UK to Eastern Europe. Did you know that we have a monthly payment in the UK called Child Benefit? It's restricted to those earning under a certain amount but it's been paid for years and is meant to keep children out of poverty. It's not a great deal of money, but its a lot more than they get in Eastern Europe. The kicker is, a parent working over here, is allowed to claim for their children over there. At our rates. And all they have to do is produce a birth certificate. So we pay, while they live in another country.

                    Argentina/Falklands was on a knife edge - the US was initially going to support Argentina. We could and would have dealt with it ourselves, it might have taken longer but you know, Maggie and Ronald...Personally, I thought that the islands should have been given back to Argentina, but that's a whole other thread, and I'm not so sure I would agree with my younger self now.

        2. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Hello theraggededge, I hope you don't mind if I jump in again.

          Is it wrong that he is supporting the "Remain" camp? It does appear to be in our, (the U.S.), best interest for Britain to remain in the EU. Shouldn't our leader be pushing for our best interest?

          If the U.S. were involved in some decision that affected Britain's best interests, wouldn't you want your PM to make every effort to influence the outcome of that decision? I would say yes, PM Cameron should travel to the U.S. and make his nation's case.

          I have no problem with Pres. Obama's efforts, and I would suppose that the "Remain" camp doesn't either. So your objection can be said to be only because he is not supporting your perspective.

          GA

          1. theraggededge profile image94
            theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, it's wrong. He should take a neutral stance. The EU is not about America's best interest, it's about ours. If the UK does vote for Brexit, he (or your next president) still has to work with us - that might be awkward.

            And no, David Cameron, in turn, should not interfere in another country's affairs - there has been way too much of that going on, and see where that has got us.

            Should people (writers, journalists, politicians, etc) have a view that they wish to express, then let them do it. However, to actively campaign for a specific outcome in another country is misguided, and ultimately plain wrong. Especially if the result does not go the way you wanted.

            1. days leaper profile image49
              days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              Would not have minded too much had OB just said about best US interest. And left it at that. But instead of the threat about 5/10 years etc. Would've expected. More like 'every effort would be made to help accommodate the changes an exit may bring'. (err, You know. Like a special friend would!!!!!!!!!!)

  2. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    USA (NOT "ISA").  PS. Another word for "staunch ally"... mug?

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Has he been over there recently? Gotta check the news feeds to see what this has been all about.

      1. theraggededge profile image94
        theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        He's here. And has been recruited by David Cameron to spread more fear-mongering about BREXIT. In one sentence he told us we (UK & US) have a special relationship, and the next he's telling us we might as well forget trying to negotiate a trade deal with America should we have the temerity to reclaim our sovereignty and leave the EU.

        Of course, he won't be part of any negotiations because he'll have moved on by then, so all he's doing is propping up Cameron and his Remainian buddies. Trouble is, there are so many Brits who will blindly believe anything the conniving pair say.

        Anyone with half a brain knows that the UK and US can easily and quickly negotiate a working reciprocal arrangement - we import and export roughly the same amount to each other.

        Britain is shackled to the dinosaur EU. It costs us net £8.5 billion a year. We're the second largest contributor after Germany, yet we have very little influence over policy. Time to let go.

        Vote BREXIT big_smile

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Educate me, please I have heard that the British were never too keen about the EU from the beginning, sovereignty issues and such. For instance, Britain still uses Pound British Sterling, while the continent is awash in Euros. If I were you I would always be reluctant in surrendering ones options under pressure.

          There seem to be a US theme that prevails regardless of who the President happens to be.

          I say the same thing about superpowers of Wall Street/finance industry and the Military here. Bringing these two things under heel is well beyond the ability of any adminstration, so it appears.

          1. theraggededge profile image94
            theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            Well, we were stupid. Our Prime Minister at the time, Edward Heath, signed us up for the Common Market, which seemed like a jolly good idea. Free trade, easy transport of goods, citizens of Europe roaming around sans passports. Then someone pointed out that actually, Heath had signed us up for far more than we realised - so a referendum was called in 1975. The government threw everything at it, including the kitchen sink. The politically uneducated Brits dutifully did as they were told and voted In 2:1.

            Much later after several treaties that gave away even more control, and a name change, Britain was a fully committed member. Luckily, despite many of our politicians and large corporations telling us we'd be sunk if we didn't give up the £ and embrace the €, and for reasons beyond me atm, Britain declined so we saved ourselves from that debacle.

            All was lovely while each EU country's economy was much of a muchness, but when they decided to welcome in the ex iron curtain countries and their poor economies, it seems like every Janek and his pal upped sticks and came to the UK in search of work and welfare benefits.

            Now Europe is in crisis. Merkel blithely inviting refugees and economic migrants with open arms. Germany is in trouble as muslims go on the rampage nightly. Austria and Hungary are erecting steel fences to prevent migrants moving in. Switzerland - little neutral Switzerland - is in the process of deploying tanks. In six years time, those migrants will be entitled to an EU passport. Guess where many of them will be headed?

            It's a massive, convoluted problem, and if Brits don't wake up to what's happening and vote Out, we will never regain control of our laws, economy, borders and common sense.

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

              Thanks for the succinct and comprehensive background to one who is trying to figure all of this out.

              How will the desire to exit the EU play politically on the continent?

              Now I know why nations all the way out toward Turkey and probably Bangledesh are trying to get in to the EU, to water down the wealth and spread the poverty around. It is all snarled around NATO and it ties in to why Putin is nervous about Western encroachment.

              Despite the howling from our political right, the problems that you face in Europe has reached no where near the severity here in the U.S. If and when it does, I would certainly not hesistate to the show troublemakers the door. We are fussing here about taking on 10,000 Syrian refugees within a nation of 300 millions. That got to pale in comparison to how many Chancellor Merkel has taken in over the last couple of years into a smaller country both geographical and based on population.

              People exaggerate about the cry that we are being overrun by neighbor to the South, Mexico.

              I hope that you English remain firm in insistance of maintaining the traditions of civility that have been your hallmark across the globe and remove those that threaten that peace by whatever means necessary.

              1. theraggededge profile image94
                theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                And Obama is over here claiming that he saved the 'global economy'.

                "President Barack Obama boasted of his legacy during a town hall in Britain, asserting that he single- handedly saved the world during his presidency.

                “Saving the world economy from a Great Depression — that was pretty good,” Obama bragged when asked by a student in London what he wanted his legacy to be.

                He recalled that when he visited London in 2009, the world economy was in a “freefall” because of irresponsible behavior of financial institutions around the world.

                “For us to be able to mobilize the world’s community, to take rapid action, to stabilize the financial markets, and then in the United States to pass Wall Streets reforms that make it much less likely that a crisis like that can happen again, I’m proud of that,” he said.

                Obama also touted his Iran nuclear deal as “something I’m very proud of” asserting that he successfully stopped their nuclear weapons program without going to war.

                He griped that everybody forgot about his efforts in stopping the Ebola crisis, saving “hundreds of thousands of lives.”

                “I think that I have been true to myself during this process,” Obama said, insisting that the things he said while running for office “matched up” with his presidency.

                “I’ll look at a scorecard in the end,” he concluded. “Change takes time. Oftentimes what you start has then to be picked up by your successors or the next generation.”

                He added that the fight for change was like a relay race and that he was prepared to pass the baton to his successor.

                “Hopefully they’re running in the right direction,” he joked.

                http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … president/

                1. Alternative Prime profile image83
                  Alternative Primeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Despite the Blatant "Fact DENIAL" Right WING NutJob sites & Cable Channels like FOX Loser Snooze constantly engage in, President Obama did indeed "Save the GLOBAL Economy" and that's a well know FACT of Life for those of us who reside in the REAL World ~

                  Just One REASON WHY he'll go down in HISTORY as a TOP 5 American LEADER ~

                  1. days leaper profile image49
                    days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Blimey! Did he use a blue suit with a red cape on his back, and waffle on about "truth justice and the america-an wa-ay", meantime not having sexual relations with mon... err, loise lang or whoever?

                  2. days leaper profile image49
                    days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Well B.O.B. has marched off to Germany (i wonder if he Goose-stepped??)  In any case his rank pulling hypocrisy left a bitter taste in The Brexit camps mouth.
                    I just wonder what back handers are going on. This seems to have been a big suspicion about The EU since Edward Heath decided to sell out The UK to it.

                2. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Obama has not been perfect, but Breitbart is a rabidly rightwing publication and they are biased to the point of blaming Obama for a rainy day.

                  Like I said earlier, it is extremely difficult to get at the finance/banking industry. Their power, lobbying influence, and many of the senators and representatives that receive their money from these folks, which includes Hillary Clinton, makes a kevlar type protection for them.

                  I am not satified that what happened in 2008 cannot happen again, as the perps were never really properly punished in my opinion.

                  I think that the nuclear deal with Iran was as good a piece of diplomacy in the real world as any. If Netanyahu complained about it, it had to be good.

                  I would not be so gracious as to say that he 'saved the world' but if he did not staunch the hemorrhaging in 2009 with some of his policies, firmly resisted on the other side of the isle, things could have easily became much worse.

                  What passes for 'conservatism' here might well be considered fascism from your point of view. Of course, these people will find nothing but fault with Obama regardless of what he did or did not do...

                  1. theraggededge profile image94
                    theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Fair enough re Breitbart, but that article was very word-for-word what he actually said.

                    Many UK newspapers and commentators are rather surprised at some of his other remarks today. Especially the ones about US soldiers giving up their lives in two world wars - we think they gave up their lives in defence of freedom and independence. Whereas Obama implies (rewriting history) that they would have preferred Britain gives up any ambitions of ever being an autonomous country again. My grandfather would be spinning in his grave if he knew he'd spent 6 years in a German PoW camp for us to become an annex of a Germany-France alliance.

                    To be honest, I haven't much feeling either way for Obama and his policies in the states. US politics is all a bit complicated for me smile I have enough trouble keeping up with things on this side of the Atlantic.

                3. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Youre wasting your time addressing his fan club. Its GW fault.It goes without saying 0"s Greatest accomplishment is voicing his self proclaimed accomplishments. Even A visually challenged musician   can see that. You can do nothing but accept it. Look, if  we gotta accept Kim, Kanye and Caitlyn as our Royal Family Youre gonna have to accept the Eu.

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            ..
            If you added in the media branch along with the branch banks, the military branch and included the administrative branch, I'd be apt to believe Thats our current governments, leaving me to speculate WHO's heel theyre all under. (Im on My phone so pardon the unusual formats, and short replies.)

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

              That is the big question 'Who". These powers that be make Obama look like a shoeshine boy.

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Sometimes I wonder if JFK was our last President. Anyway ima butt outa their interesting thread.

      2. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        I think the news is that they're calling obama a hypocrite for high pressure. selling the EU to GB, when They believe The United States of Mexico would never negotiate their own sovereignty in such a way.

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Thanks PheonixV.

          I can expect other countries to covet their perogatives as do we, why would anyone not be surprized or concerned.

  3. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 7 months ago

    Time to get rid of the Union Jack and get a flag with pretty rainbow on it or a flag with Novus ordo seclorum on it.  Nationalism bad. Didnt you get the memo?

    1. days leaper profile image49
      days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Yes. From those that have no interest in what it is to be English, British etc. And often & in many ways. That is to say alot of foriegners!
      For one example. If two people go for a job in this country with roughly equal qualifications. One white, the other black. If the company does not employ the black guy it risks court action and fines for racism etc.  Whereas recently it was on the news about major cities in England not bringing Asian males to justice despite a large problem of grooming girls as young as eleven for sex and prostitution.  ...And the authorities were told but covered it up. And noew they actually want more in from Gov. Down by staying in EU This is most likely!

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Arent you worried about the pc police pulling you over? Theyll call you a conservative and quote What passes here as conservatism is basically fascism. You invade poland one time and they never let you forget. Just ungrateful we Keep the trains on time. If you ask me.

        1. days leaper profile image49
          days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          I was making vague reference to news items. Another if you wish.
          Such as an Asian male stopped by the proper police. And asked to breathe into that alcohol testing kit.
          Tends to get away with "is this cos I is black?"
          No matter what the result is. 2. There are some black areas that busses nor police will go to at certain times at night. Is that also true in US?
          As for invading Poland ...I have never invaded Poland and dont ever intend to!

          Seriously though (then Im off to sleep. It's 2.15 am here!)  The whole point includes being invaded. The arrogant immigrrants demanding to be let in should turn back and fight for their countries and their homes.  At the very base line. It is how the world keeps the population from growing out of control!

      2. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Let me guess, I guess the 'left' in Britain leans toward staying in the alliance, the conservatives want to leave it and assert national sovereignty.

        You have your national pride, but do not the Germans and French have theirs as well?

        Believe me, we have got enough economic problems here, we certainly do not need to bully anyone. Obama is just playing by the script of smooth sailing for all. The preponderant opinion in the country seems to be that Britain remain in the EU, with major adjustments to how the EU currently operates.

        1. days leaper profile image49
          days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          err, not quite. The ruling classes are devided. Left right and middle!  It seems those with something to gain from being in. From cheap/er holidays such as "diplomacy" and the rest. And those who have a job with uk being. eg. Members of European Parliament and their secretaries etc. Even those with holiday homes etc. All seem to generally want to stay in. Though Im sure there are exceptions... somewhere.
          As for a renegotiation. Better if we scrapped it all and start again! Currently, we can't even fish in our own waters. And buildings of historical importance to the crown, were claimed privately and upheld by the EU.

          FRENCH & GERMAN SOVERIEGNTY That's something we don't want!  Either they already had most of their laws etc. Sorted before setting up. It seems others were taken by surprise.
          Plus. Ever heard the saying: "one man's food is another man's piosion"! ?

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

            DL,

            Well if it is only the bureaucrats and those that benifit from the work of the bureaucrats, then the choice of stepping down from the EU would be easy work as supported in a plebescite, or by your citizens putting people in Parliment who would vote in this direction. With all of your passionate advocacy for leaving the alliance with all of the reasons your sovereignty is threatened, seems like the masses would support the move with the people demanding change, and get it done.

            I am a little confused, why would the same reasons for doing away with the alliance not be attractive to the French and Germans. Why would you not want them to be sovereign, is that not what you want?

            1. days leaper profile image49
              days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              Whether France, Germany or any-one else is or wants their Soveriegnty is entirely their own business. Im led to believe from good sources that the main problem is that other eu countries have already sorted their laws about benefits and so on. Whereas uk was wide open. And it's irritating because currently there's a couple of dozen countries saying we can't put our own laws, self protections right. While they, their citezens are benefitting (quite literally) all the while. It's bleeding the uk dry, and if it goes on uk wont be the 5th largest economy for much longer!
              The reason also includes what I said about Trade. One seller benefits at the expense of others.
              Remember, if you will the reports &/or lessons of WWII. Im sure you will understand. Your nation (i assume You're from the states. It's hard to look as Im already wrestling with this phone) -USA graciously helped with that one. We fought against an imposed army, for one thing. Dictatorship from external source was another abhorence. Well it is much the same now. Only without the bombs (for now at least) why should Cameron be allowed to reduce our armed forces and simultaneosly pay eu protection money for /to a european force (pos. Mainly french &/ german!)  What was all that suffering and sacrifice for if it happens / continues & gets worse anyway?

              You still have Chevrolet, Ford (I quite like the Fiesta. Would've considered it for a first car were I not too ill to drive). That's US firms going strong/reasonably so. From the top of my head. And Im no expert on cars!  When it comes to UK all that seems to come to mind is firms that were bought out, or are no longer. I like your point "free trade is not always fair trade" and would add that each country has or should have the right to keep it's workforce internally supported. If that's at all possible anyway. Advances in machinery, technology etc. seems to have made the making of things too fast. Mass production etc. Now fewer and fewer workers are required, ever increasing the competition for jobs. Those more willing to travel are those to countries with systemic back up. (Benefits policies) rather than from them! The tide therefore is an obvious and inevitable one. Like a Sunami, if allowed to continue!  The escape is as always simply put. An exit, or/and Brexit!!!

              I nearly forgot. As far as "if only the buerocrats etc. ..."  Here I meant to include. ..And their dependents. And as voting for a politician has never really been about their actual political abilities, or goodness me if it was ever about their honesty! It usually has more to do with their influence, and popularity appeal, and how much spin they can put on things whilst keeping it as real as possible to the much un-educated masses. (Who often vote on the same lines as their favoutite family members anyway. That's howTony Blair got in. Lefty's didn't realise his policies were swinging to the right. Whilst those who did saw that the historical right were making a right old mess of things. And so they had an alternative!)
              So. No. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Pìty as then I would have saved us from all that rhetoric.

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                DL, I guess that if the union is not at all advantageous to Britain relative to the drawbacks, of course you should exit. I am getting the impression from you that all of the other members, I am using the example of the most economically prosperous, not the poorest because we know what their motivations are, have set up the rules prior to the union so that no can tell them that they cannot making use of the fishing holes in their own geographic areas?

                So listening to you, it seems like surrender of sovereignty associated with EU Membership is all encompassing, too much so. Is Britain reduced to a mere vassal as just a part of a whole?

                On the military scene, from this side of the Atlantic it is hard to judge this. I think that our military has an excessive budget and has its hands into too many pies around the world. That 'sovereignty' for us proves quite expensive and we on the American left would like to see this reduced and responsibilities that we have been proudly reserving  to ourselves as 'globocop'on the world scene be disseminated amongst our allies. I thought that the whole idea of shared military obligation is to reduce your relative costs.

                Your thoughts about the Second World War and the military and political realities then are not affecting your judgement about this matter, today, I hope? You don't trust the Continent, the English see themselves as aloof from their eternal squabbling  that you have been drawn into over two global conflicts during the last century. Do I sense a little distrust of this 'new Europe'?

                I confess, I don't know much about cars either except for the fact that I expect them to operate once the ignition key is engaged.

                I believed that all of our major automakers went bankrtupt and reorginized. The capitalists here say that competition is tough and inevitable. And while I don't have a great deal of love for the moneychanger class, reality is hard to ignore. Short of tariffs imposed on inports how do you compete with cars made at low costs of labor or from societies whose governments heavily subsidize industries? These countries are free to retaliate by imposing tarriffs on your manufactured goods that reaches their shores. What is the solution? With all the robots, outsourcing for labor and such, how do you keep your heads above water? The Fred Flintstone model of the rock quarry is gone forever, and the middle class jobs that they produced. Henry Ford's 20th century marvel of the assembly line now gives way to robot manufacturers, that don't need raises, medical care, do not form unions and can work 24/7 without complaint. The real jobs go to relatively higher skilled people who need to know how to program the computers and maintain the machines..

                As a foundation of capitalism, the trend is more and ever more efficient producing, more at lower cost, with greater profit margins to the corporate entity. Where is there room for consideration of human labor and its trials during all this?

                I think that we have all crossed a threshold where there is no going back....

                1. days leaper profile image49
                  days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  I agree with much of what you have written, albeit sometimes from a different angle.  eg. I do hope the one foot out the door of eu becomes both feet on 23 june '16. And we don't look back!
                  Also. I believe the new europe you speak of is a myth. You've graciously admitted that it is hard to view it from a uk perspective. But if You need more convincing try this Utube link.  Nigel Farrage UKIP is speaking to the european parliament. Note also how the germans behave, having to be quietened by the mediators!
                  https://youtu.be/hI5_pMvLZd8

                  1. Credence2 profile image87
                    Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    I saw one fellow interrupt during the speech, I could not necessarily identify him as German, just picking up a word or two prior to the translator stepping in.

                    The raggededge spoke of a Germany still holding decades old guilt from its role in WWII for even desiring autonomy, but otherwise wanting to always be in charge? Is that what you most of you see this 'partner'?

  4. theraggededge profile image94
    theraggededgeposted 7 months ago

    I'm watching an interview with Obama right now... and he's parroting the 'if you raise the drawbridge and carve a moat around ourselves'. That's our government's words. There is nothing wrong about wanting to control your own borders. Nothing. At the moment, we have to let anyone from Europe into the UK and, although we do have the power to refuse anyone with a criminal record, countries like Romania don't keep their databases accurate and up-to-date, so it's not very effective.

    Re trade agreements, it's taken 40 years for the US and EU to construct a trade agreement... and it still isn't done. Obama and Cameron talk with forked tongues.

  5. aware profile image71
    awareposted 7 months ago

    A lot of Americans want to focus on the Americas. North central and south. We have vast resources. And no Islamic States next door.the U.K. is being overrun  by Islamic immigrants. Good luck with that. Your a small nation.

  6. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    Credence2 wrote:
    "Do you see yourselves as so distinct from the Continent that there are fewer points of concurrence in all your economic goals and objectives?"

    Trade is a competition not fitting to common goals.  Everyone with a car to sell is competing with each other to sell their car. If there isn't enough buyers to go round then some-one is going to be stuck with a car they don't want, depreciating in value all the while!  This is also similar to what happened to The UK car industry. Others were better so UK cars slowly vanished for the most part. Now I can't think of one that is fully British owned. There were a half a dozen or more back in the 70's /80's.

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

      I understand your example, but this reality is global. What do you think happened to America's top three automakers? EU has reduced trade barriers between members. The concept of free trade, not always fair trade mind you, has changed the auto industry irreparably. Competition from Asia and Europe has forced automakers to compete in a global market, forcing them to reduce costs to compete. This, in turn, presented labor in that market here with new challenges, and adverse alternatives.

      I don't know if there is any escape to the scenario that you are painting...

  7. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    Credence2 wrote:
    Seems like the consensus of opinion, at least according the article, is 'mend it, don't end it'.
    __________
    Seems like the only way to mend it is to end it.

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

      That, days leaper, is unfortunate. It leaves very little alternative. Is this the opinion for most of citizens of Great Britain?

      1. theraggededge profile image94
        theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        "The campaign for Britain to leave the European Union has a narrow lead over the rival "In" campaign, according to a poll published by opinion poll firm ICM on Tuesday.

        Forty-six percent of voters were in favour of a so-called Brexit against 44 percent who believe Britain should remain in the 28-member bloc, not counting undecided voters, ICM said.

        The online survey, conducted between April 22 and 24, took place during a visit to Britain by U.S. President Barack Obama when he called on the country to back its EU membership at a referendum due to take place on June 23."

        http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai … KKCN0XN1W9

        The power is with the undecideds.

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

          I guess that we all just sit and wait as to the course that your voters select as the way forward, thanks...

      2. days leaper profile image49
        days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        The raggededge has that one.

  8. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    The Raggededge wrote:
    Germany and France are the drivers of the EU, always have been. Germany seems to need to disassociate itself from its past by giving up any notion of sovereignty, but at the same time they cannot allow themselves not to be in charge. France is happy enough to follow Germany. Strange that.
    ________________________
    Yes. Quite strange.  Though we freed the French from occupation. The likes of celebs like Clarkson to name one-ish. Lording it over them at every given opportunity (if You watch Top Gear repeats) hasn't helped any friendship to form. And history shows uk as being something of an invader in its time, as Im sure You're aware.
    Whereas Im guessing between the two. It isn't like this now. Or perhaps it's something of a whitewash. Like Merkel keen to show they've changed. Trying to force her population to welcome in immigrants with wide open arms. Though from what I gather it hasn't quite gone her way.

    1. theraggededge profile image94
      theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      The Brits have had a on/off relationship with France for centuries. We have saved their bacon many times. We've even saved their architecture. In turn, they have backed us up in many tricky spots. However, they did not want us in the EU in the first place - they knew we would always be the fly in the ointment.

      By the way, Baden-Powell was the founder of the Boy Scouts... you probably meant Enoch smile

  9. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    PS. "Working out how to clean up the fall out"
    If this means going in and meddling some more. You can't then criticise anyone else for trying.  But Im too young to remember this. And again would need more information.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      If you are too young to remember perhaps you should research and have a better understanding of the subject matter before posting multiple criticisms of other countries' actions. The Brits have a lot to apologize to the world for. I don't remember hearing any apologies. I know you aren't too young to have heard the news about the men from South Africa who were abused during the reign of terror in their country and who have finally won the right to their day in court. You shouldn't be too young to know about the mistreatment of the Irish during the last century when they were fighting for their independence.

      As I previously stated. The blame game can be fun and make one feel self righteous but what does it actually accomplish that is good?

      1. days leaper profile image49
        days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        You tell me, you"re playing it. I metely state that Blair got suckrd into helping US interests whilst the rest of europe were against war. Certainly initially. And while Americans enjoyed petrol pump prices of something like 50p or cents. It shot up to over a pound here. (Did we have to buy it from america after helping?)
        As far as the Ireland conflict goes. Seems like you've swallowed a lot of Southern catholic propaganda there. The north being mostly protestant. When this was strong in uk wanted to remain separate. The South wouldn't have that and went about bombing alot of innocent civilians until the government caved (with american interference of course) and gave a power sharing.
        Stillit was nice not to be bombed for awhile, until of course uk got drawn in to helping out against the muslim extremists (which Im actually all for. Because once committed to a task, one has to see it through) But killing Sadam was a mistake. Murder even. Surely life inprisionment was survice.  I have no time going on a wilde goose chase for these Blair interviews you say exist. I offered to read if you could provide. You clearly can't so how am I supposed to study even more? Dont get at me for your failings!
        Certsocsci(open) -would've been more but for illness!

        1. theraggededge profile image94
          theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          DL, please don't do this. The NI conflict was nothing to do with Southern Ireland. It was Catholic against Protestant, not region against region.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

          LL is referring to an earlier time which began during the 'Great Potato Famine', when the British Government exploited Ireland for its produce, while allowing Irish people to die of starvation. It was not a good installment in British history.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fam … Ireland%29

          1. days leaper profile image49
            days leaperposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            I defer to your greater knowledge. Thank You for the correction. I even prefer your eloquent way of saying things than my hot headed ... over to You.

      2. theraggededge profile image94
        theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        I don't wish to start an argument, but you are doing exactly the same thing here. No-one blames the current generation of German people for what some of their forefathers did.  No-one blames the current generation of American people for what some of their forefathers did. They are people just like us. The current generation of Brits are not responsible either, for what their predecessors did. All we can do is to try to put things right.

        We *can* blame Tony Blair for his actions because he is still here, still profiting from his deceit, and still talking BS.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          No argument. I agree with you. I'm simply attempting to point out how pointless it is to point fingers of blame when all of our countries have acted in ways the citizens, themselves, would not have

          1. theraggededge profile image94
            theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            Oh, okay, governments. Indeed, someone pointed out to me that the problems in Syria are, in fact my fault because it was my government, which I elected who caused the problems. I didn't vote this lot in and I don't see them as my representatives at all.

            I sincerely believe that the Arab Spring was the root cause of all this... and the AS was pushed by all the Western governments via subversive organisations. Those dictators, dreadful though they were, were a thin red line between civilisation and anarchy. Some countries/people require a despot to keep order - democracy simply doesn't work for them.

            The UK voted against military action against Assad back when the war began, for which I am glad. At that time they were talking about supplying weapons to the 'rebels'. Of course those 'rebels' became ISIS. Gadaffi, over and over, warned the West that they were supporting terrorists - no-one listened and it was dismissed as the ravings of a mad man, yet he was right. Libya was a rich and settled country until the Arab Spring. So was Syria.

            Iraq was a different kettle of fish. Saddam had began trading oil in Euros instead of US$. GWB & co, did not like that at all, so something had to happen in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq. "What we need is another Pearl Harbor". That wasn't the only reason - the US govt had been angling for regime change in Iraq for donkey's years. All they needed was an excuse, then 9/11 happened.

            "We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power.... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home" The Strategic Studies Institute. That's when weasel Blair stepped in to help.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f … an_Century

  10. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    https://youtu.be/Z0XNcPNXS1Ii
    And yet no white dare even say the N word for fear of arrest -or persecution. N for naughty by the way!

    This is what I was looking for. A response to Your Telegraph article. Displaying the price of peace!
    https://youtu.be/6-3X5hIFXYU
    As of these snippetts. Im now thinking not only we were right to go to war. But didn't go far enough.

    I hope with brexit that agreements can go on as an individual basis. Such as our authorities will work with yours, if yours reciprocate.
    Makes sense really!

  11. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    Re. Other countries. Refer 1. To Thereggededge re. China.
    Another example, countries like Iceland (need to check) that aren't part of EU but trade with it. With more opting out there would be pressure on eu to ease some of ot's rules, costs etc. Isn't that why individuals having more than one choice of say Supermarkets is a good thing. Assuming that it fllows that competition brings cost down. (Although energy companies seem to price fix in more ways than one!)
    EU claimed free trade. But that became within the eu. And though Im not the best person to ask. It sounds like there were "agreements" not to deal with competitors. (Another stifling eu restriction)
    Finally. Though my head was spinning after dialysis. A few weeks back now I just got in to see the main news. And something was being suggested about something had gone on in Holland that the news caster said gave an indication as if to say they might leave if we did.
    (Sorry
    Dont know how to find news item. Still looking. Will post if i find it)

    EU is too complicated by far!
    https://youtu.be/O37yJBFRrfg

  12. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    Creedance 2. Re. Linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ay-EU.html
    What is the existing trade agreement?  Im not a member of any political party. Doesn't mean I can't vote? Of course. First had to register but again not as a member of any party.
    Although I know I can't influence the policies of a party not being a member. But looking at UK politics today, neither can the members -most of them! They can suggest something but it still has to be voted for. I could write to a politician on something and if s/he agrees they're likely to bring it up anyway. They want my vote.
    So, OB is saying he wont take British money, and won't accept UK wares etc. even no-one else sells it or can beat our price, quality etc.
    The saying 'only in America' comes to mind.
    But Please explain how this seems logical. Isn't money more important to politicians than votes??? What have I missed?

    1. theraggededge profile image94
      theraggededgeposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      We currently trade with the US under the World Trade Organization. The EU, however, is trying to negotiate an en bloc deal with the US, TTIP. Very controversial. It means that, among many other things, contracts are open for tender between the relevant countries. For example, if we go ahead with HS2, under TTIP we might have to consider bids from the US, as well as the EU - this works both ways and I'm not sure if the US likes the idea of its big contracts going abroad.

      Not quite sure I understand how your right to vote is connected with trade agreements?

      Anyone can trade with almost anyone and no trade agreement is necessary. Trade agreements formalise buying and selling arrangements between countries, reciprocal deals, tariffs are negotiated, access to markets, etc. They take an age to complete. Meanwhile business carries on as usual. As I mentioned, we import tons of Chinese goods to the UK with no formal trade agreement in place, as far as I know.

  13. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 7 months ago

    TheRaggededge: Here! Here!

    Im stuck in a slum. The landlord doesnt keep up the cleaning etc. Unless it is legally forced to.  Then Im travailed round via hospital transport and see all these comparitive mansions specially built posh areas just to accommodate immigrants.  Who are often health tourists. And it seems that my area is being largely ignored in order so resources can go towards this.
    How long before it's taken for granted and things are left out, rubbish on the street etc.
    Im not looking for pity etc
    But it does seem that this country has it's prioroties wrong!

  14. AnnaDanishek profile image60
    AnnaDanishekposted 6 months ago

    I am intrigued how Brexit would influence the property market in Spain. It is extremely popular with Britons. According to https://tranio.com/spain/analytics/tour … 2016_5029/ the British bought over one in five homes in Spain sold to foreign nationals, who accounted for 46,728 transactions (13% of all sales) last year. I guess Spain will suffer a lot if the UK make a decision to leave. The pound is going strong against the Euro so to buy a house in Spain may be affordable. But leaving the EU would probably change everything.

    1. days leaper profile image49
      days leaperposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      I agree. Probably would have to adjust to a lot.  Change does that.
      I'm more concerned as to why Brits are emigrating.  And wonder if it something to do with the many changes caused by the masses of immigrants that are causing the homogenous to go without jobs, longer healthcare waiting lists, struggling to get the necessary housing to cover their basic needs, etc., etc.

      1. theraggededge profile image94
        theraggededgeposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        British people have always emigrated - not in vast numbers, of course. Retired people find the warmer climate beneficial. Spain is a favourite.

        It's a definite possibility for us if the UK continues to flush itself down the toilet. Got to get two teens through college first. We'll be looking outside of the EU for some quiet corner where we can fit in with the community.

  15. theraggededge profile image94
    theraggededgeposted 6 months ago

    Anyone who wants to know more about the EU, its power, its undemocratic structure, the effect on member countries, and its relationship with sovereign governments might like to watch this:

    Brexit: The Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k

    It's quite watchable and entertaining.

  16. days leaper profile image49
    days leaperposted 6 months ago

    Re. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k
    yes. Thanks the raggededge. I read this.  Could hardly believe the eu evil buying up good food by lorry loads and dumping it to rot. Despite all those people starving in povetty. Just so they can put the price up.
    Im now more for out than i evet was...

  17. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 6 months ago

    This is good that Britain is trying to break free of the EU.  What is damaging to the pro-EU is that Switzerland and Denmark are the two wealthiest countries in Europe and have remained outside of the EU.  The film focused on Switzerland, (mentioned Denmark). 

    At about 1 hour + into the film they stuck to the economic debt, that's good.  I think you can except the "Remain" campaign to get even more hysterical about leaving the EU, as support for Brexit is waning.  The EU system is very opposite to democracy, and it would be to your advantage economically to leave. 

    The State of Texas is pressing to secede from the United States of America. I read that if it does secede it would be the 13th largest economy in the world.  The main thing is it would be free from the US Feds, which is totally corrupt...and free from the Globalist agenda.  Its not hard to imagine what the greedy and corrupt are after.  -   Haha, and they wouldn't have to abide by stupid laws allowing transgenders and perverts in women's and girl's bathrooms and locker rooms that the disgraceful Obama Administration is pushing.

 
working