If You Could Vote Again (Brexit)

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
421

Carryfast:
No the US war of Federal aggression was simply about State sovereignty ( as originally provided for within the Articles of Confederation ).While if you’d have asked the average Secessionist Soldier then ( just like their descendants and supporters to date ) they actually rightly preferred the idea of repatriating the slaves not holding them captive any longer.Bearing in mind that only slave owners got rich from slavery not the average working class farm worker and the war was fought by those workers not by slave owners.Not to mention that Lincoln only made slavery an issue after he saw that he could make political capital from it to help with his primary mission of imposing Federal US rule over the secessionist states.

It is total bunk to suggest they intended to repatriate the slaves (although presumably that, too, would be without consulting the democratic opinion of the slaves). The economy of the confederate states would have been crashed by a sudden outflux of black labour (just as, for example, South Africa found, when it tried to distill the blacks into so-called bantustans, that it simply created grievous shortages of labour that the white regime itself could not tolerate).

As for your idea of democracy.How does a majority made up of remote foreign politicians working for their own local interests and who we have no electoral control over and resulting foreign mandate,let alone unelected Politburo Commissioners,supposedly translate as more democracy not less.

But for you, even individual English parliamentary constituencies are “foreign” to each other. It’s true that democracies still have to achieve a reasonable settlement for all citizens (e.g. the 51% cannot simply vote the other 49% into gas chambers), but it cannot be via (ultimately) each individual having some sort of general veto over the will of millions of others, which is the tail wagging the dog.

And regards the EU, it’s like I’ve said to you before, the problem is not that Germany is disproportionately favoured, but that the British rich have colluded with the European rich to undermine the interests of the working class in all member states (including in Germany).

And by voting the Tories back in for another 5 years, the British electorate have once again (by a tiny margin) endorsed that class war agenda - even if we end up in a free trade deal with the US, which is the Tories main prize it seems, that will not be favourable to workers, but to the British rich who then have a facility to yoke the country into a trade deal which will be capable of embedding the private rule of the rich in the US and overriding (or at least financially punishing) future national democratic decisions in relation to the British economy and British resources (which was the main reason for the opposition to the TTIP deal between the US and EU).

422

Rjan:
It is total bunk to suggest they intended to repatriate the slaves (although presumably that, too, would be without consulting the democratic opinion of the slaves). The economy of the confederate states would have been crashed by a sudden outflux of black labour (just as, for example, South Africa found, when it tried to distill the blacks into so-called bantustans, that it simply created grievous shortages of labour that the white regime itself could not tolerate).

But for you, even individual English parliamentary constituencies are “foreign” to each other. It’s true that democracies still have to achieve a reasonable settlement for all citizens (e.g. the 51% cannot simply vote the other 49% into gas chambers), but it cannot be via (ultimately) each individual having some sort of general veto over the will of millions of others, which is the tail wagging the dog.

And regards the EU, it’s like I’ve said to you before, the problem is not that Germany is disproportionately favoured, but that the British rich have colluded with the European rich to undermine the interests of the working class in all member states (including in Germany).

And by voting the Tories back in for another 5 years, the British electorate have once again (by a tiny margin) endorsed that class war agenda - even if we end up in a free trade deal with the US, which is the Tories main prize it seems, that will not be favourable to workers, but to the British rich who then have a facility to yoke the country into a trade deal which will be capable of embedding the private rule of the rich in the US and overriding (or at least financially punishing) future national democratic decisions in relation to the British economy and British resources (which was the main reason for the opposition to the TTIP deal between the US and EU).

Exactly what evidence have you got that the majority of the more than 1,000,000 men who fought for the CSA could possibly have had any interest in slave ownership.As opposed to the far more credible accounts,handed down through the generations,which I also heard personally numerous times in numerous parts of the Southern States,that repatriation of the Afro population was always the most common wish among the average ethnic European person there.In which case under what grounds would an effectively kidnapped foreign population have to stay there let alone want to stay in a place which had meant so much suffering for them.Just as not many Jews wanted to stay in Europe let alone Germany after WW2.

foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 … -slavery/#

Which leaves the question if Germany could be given its country back after actually murdering millions of people in WW2 on a proven and unarguable mission of genocide.Then if the US war of Federal aggression was supposedly only about ending slavery then why couldn’t the Secessionist Sates be given their sovereignty after they’d been defeated and slavery been abolished as part of that defeat ?.You know the answer to that being that Lincoln was never on a mission to sort out the question of slavery at all.He was just a typical Federalist liar in that regard.It was simply a Soviet style imposition of Federal power against the right of self determination which still applies to this day and you know it being a supporter of it.

On that note yes I get it you are a full on fanatical believer in the Stalinist Soviet Socialist cause and you’d be happy to fight and use force to impose it.Whether it be supporting Thatcher’s locally undemocratic closure of the mining industry in mining areas of the UK.Or imposing foreign EU federal rule within the UK.IE you’re just another lying Blairite flying under any flag of convenience you think will get you want you want.

While I’m obviously diametrically totally opposed to you having been ashamed to say that I was once stupid enough to think that I was one of your fanatical lot before I knew better.

423

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

Exactly what evidence have you got that the majority of the more than 1,000,000 men who fought for the CSA could possibly have had any interest in slave ownership.

The issue of slavery is considered one of the main issues in the American Civil War. I’m not saying it was the only issue - and I’m not suggesting the unionist rich went to war purely for humanitarian reasons - but I would say it was a main issue.

As opposed to the far more credible accounts,handed down through the generations,which I also heard personally numerous times in numerous parts of the Southern States,that repatriation of the Afro population was always the most common wish among the average ethnic European person there.In which case under what grounds would an effectively kidnapped foreign population have to stay there let alone want to stay in a place which had meant so much suffering for them.Just as not many Jews wanted to stay in Europe let alone Germany after WW2.

But most slaves by that time had never set foot in Africa - many slave families would have been in the Americas for hundreds of years by the time of the civil war, with no remaining cultural connection to Africa (let alone familial connection) and no means of survival in a hunter-gatherer society, and almost all slaves would have been in the Americas for at least a generation (i.e. born in America).

Even their accumulated experience in agriculture or animal husbandry would have been worthless in areas with no central state to impose law and order and enforce property rights (and provide guns and soldiers), and with no existing infrastructure. If they had been shipped back in back in large numbers, most would in all likelihood have perished, and that itself is a reprehensible attitude.

And I just don’t give any credibility at all to the idea that whites were intending to repatriate the huge black labour force, because to have done so would have impoverished them and destroyed the Southern economy - even if whites today say that was the intention, it is no less absurd.

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery

Your own source alludes to how crucial black labour was for the “exploitation of the land” - so that casts doubt on the idea that they intended to dispense with such labour. And as the author points out, slavery was a strength for the unionist side whilst it was a weakness for the confederate side, because the abolitionist vote would support the unionist side, whereas the prospect of abolition provoked internal weaknesses for the confederate side (limiting the available pool of soldiers, and creating demand for many eligible soldiers to be ■■■■■■■ in supervision of the slaves and ready to suppress internal rebellion).

As the author also points out, the willingness of the northern states to cream off and emancipate slave labour escaped from the south within the northern territory, shows that significant grievances did exist over slavery (and the inability of the southern states to enforce slavery without the cooperation of its neighbours - in other words, southern states wanted to control the laws and democratic will in the northern states). That too casts doubt on the notion that the southern states intended to dispense with slave labour (since, if they did, it would not have been a problem that blacks were fleeing to the north).

The real truth that the author is scratching at is that “nationalist” agendas (which here I’ll treat as equivalent to the notion of autonomous states), always founder when they want to control or enforce the cooperation of their neighbours on some issue that crosses the political boundary.

Which leaves the question if Germany could be given its country back after actually murdering millions of people in WW2 on a proven and unarguable mission of genocide.Then if the US war of Federal aggression was supposedly only about ending slavery then why couldn’t the Secessionist Sates be given their sovereignty after they’d been defeated and slavery been abolished as part of that defeat ?.

Because if they were given their autonomy back, the same issue would just rear its head again. Because, having abolished slavery, what would stop an autonomous southern state from reimposing it, and ultimately fighting the civil war all over again?

The reality is that Germany hasn’t been given it’s pre-war autonomy back, and if it tried to go down a road again that other European states didn’t agree with, the soldiers would be sent in again to relieve the German ruling class of control. That’s what WW2 has taught Germany, that any funny business over national sovereignty, and the soldiers get sent in again, and that those nationalist attitudes can and will be smashed - there won’t be a company of soldiers not riddled with bullets, there won’t be a house that doesn’t have a bomb come through the roof, and there won’t be a woman left unravaged by a foreign soldier. Bear in mind we still have tanks steaming through German villages in the 1980s on exercise, and that half the country still belonged to the Soviet Union.

That is really the beauty of nuclear weapons, that they show the ruling classes who want to divert internal tensions into external wars of aggression that they cannot win - it does not matter how much cost they impose on the other side, what counts is that they cannot themselves win and maintain their own social and economic fabric. It gives the world’s ruling classes a simple choice: mutual cooperation or destruction.

You know the answer to that being that Lincoln was never on a mission to sort out the question of slavery at all.He was just a typical Federalist liar in that regard.It was simply a Soviet style imposition of Federal power against the right of self determination which still applies to this day and you know it being a supporter of it.

On that note yes I get it you are a full on fanatical believer in the Stalinist Soviet Socialist cause and you’d be happy to fight and use force to impose it.Whether it be supporting Thatcher’s locally undemocratic closure of the mining industry in mining areas of the UK.Or imposing foreign EU federal rule within the UK.IE you’re just another lying Blairite flying under any flag of convenience you think will get you want you want.

But I didn’t support Thatcher’s closure of the mining industry. What I said was that a system of local vetoes was no solution to it (since it would create all sorts of problems of its own, and the miners could still have been defeated by other constituencies simply imposing sanctions on them or even by the majority of other constituencies declaring war and sending in the troops against them) - in fact, solidarity amongst the working class is the real solution, whereas the miners didn’t even have solidarity amongst themselves, and that’s why they paid the price.

While I’m obviously diametrically totally opposed to you having been ashamed to say that I was once stupid enough to think that I was one of your fanatical lot before I knew better.

I’m more inclined to think that it’s a case that once upon a time you saw sense before your mind became addled with this infantile nationalist nonsense. And you say we’re diametrically opposed, but actually we seem to differ little on the ends that we want to see.

424

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Which leaves the question if Germany could be given its country back after actually murdering millions of people in WW2 on a proven and unarguable mission of genocide.Then if the US war of Federal aggression was supposedly only about ending slavery then why couldn’t the Secessionist Sates be given their sovereignty after they’d been defeated and slavery been abolished as part of that defeat ?.

Because if they were given their autonomy back, the same issue would just rear its head again. Because, having abolished slavery, what would stop an autonomous southern state from reimposing it, and ultimately fighting the civil war all over again?

Based on exactly what proof.

Let’s get this right.Mid 20th century Germany carried out a programme of genocidal murder which killed millions but that’s ok we can trust them with taking back the sovereignty of their country within a period of around a decade or two. :open_mouth: While the Southern States get caught up in a side issue over slavery by the backward moral standards of the day in the 1860’s.But which Lincoln was proven to have no real objections to being part of those same moral standards.Which just like Lincoln you then want to take advantage of for your own agenda which was/is clearly all about wanting to impose illegal Federal rule on those states which still endures to this day more than 150 years later.Albeit in your case on an agenda of reverse racist hatred of ‘white rule’ and loathing of your own ethnic group and culture combined with corrupt control freak Soviet Socialism.As opposed to Lincoln’s case effectively just being the corrupt control freak Soviet Socialist type bit with his so called anti slavery agenda just being a cynical ploy to facilitate that. :unamused:

The rest of your arguments can be taken with the same credibility.On that note you also don’t seem to have any problem with the fact that the Soviet Union also murdered millions as part of its Communist agenda.Strange how you seem to apply the same predictable double standards in that regard too. :unamused:

425

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Which leaves the question if Germany could be given its country back after actually murdering millions of people in WW2 on a proven and unarguable mission of genocide.Then if the US war of Federal aggression was supposedly only about ending slavery then why couldn’t the Secessionist Sates be given their sovereignty after they’d been defeated and slavery been abolished as part of that defeat ?.

Because if they were given their autonomy back, the same issue would just rear its head again. Because, having abolished slavery, what would stop an autonomous southern state from reimposing it, and ultimately fighting the civil war all over again?

Based on exactly what proof.

Because we know there was wide support for slavery! Your own source acknowledges that there was a grievance due to the northern states creaming off slaves and setting them free.

Let’s get this right.Mid 20th century Germany carried out a programme of genocidal murder which killed millions but that’s ok we can trust them with taking back the sovereignty of their country within a period of around a decade or two. :open_mouth:

So are you pursuing the line that it is possible to have sovereignty even as a member of the EU? Indeed, are you pursuing the line that having your capital city carved in two by foreign powers, and a bloody big wall through the middle, is consistent with having regained sovereignty within a decade or two (I mean the Berlin wall didn’t start going up until 1961, getting on for 20 years after the end of the second world war)? You can surely see that you are heading for a snooker here.

While the Southern States get caught up in a side issue over slavery by the backward moral standards of the day in the 1860’s.But which Lincoln was proven to have no real objections to being part of those same moral standards.Which just like Lincoln you then want to take advantage of for your own agenda which was/is clearly all about wanting to impose illegal Federal rule on those states which still endures to this day more than 150 years later.

But I’m not taking advantage of Lincoln “for my own agenda” - I’ve never mentioned him. Nor have I said anything in defence of the real motives of the unionist side. I’m simply saying that everything you allege about the confederate side is nonsense - they weren’t fighting for freedom, they were (what we could call in modern terms) a set of apartheid states.

Albeit in your case on an agenda of reverse racist hatred of ‘white rule’ and loathing of your own ethnic group and culture combined with corrupt control freak Soviet Socialism.As opposed to Lincoln’s case effectively just being the corrupt control freak Soviet Socialist type bit with his so called anti slavery agenda just being a cynical ploy to facilitate that. :unamused:

But the ink was barely dry on Marx’s writings at the time of the American Civil War. The real picture painted by the unionists was of national consolidation, not unlike what Britain did with Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, where regions have been brought under common control and on an equal footing (the fact that there has been grassroots rebellion and resistance since has more to do with class war).

And I haven’t got any “loathing” of my ethnic group, nor a resistance to whites participating in rule. What I’m not is a white supremacist or someone who believes whites were born to rule.

The rest of your arguments can be taken with the same credibility.On that note you also don’t seem to have any problem with the fact that the Soviet Union also murdered millions as part of its Communist agenda.Strange how you seem to apply the same predictable double standards in that regard too. :unamused:

But I haven’t been defeding the Soviet Union, although in both the Soviet and Chinese case, the majority of deaths have been attributable to economic mismanagement during massive social and economic upheaval, rather than pitched battles, civil wars, and executions.

And the real agenda behind most people who refer to such deaths, is to demoralise those pushing for peaceful reform and to discourage the prospect of revolution as menaces which reinforce the demand for reform. It is not because, when push comes to shove, the capitalist system is any less willing to inflict suffering or killings on internal opponents, as shown by the US-backed Pinochet regime in Chile for example.

426

“Debt” is the latter-day slavery, with “personal debt” being “personal slavery” of course.

I’m amazed that in an age of irreligiousness by the general population - there still seems to be this “Honour” thing of “Repaying debts” - even when one cannot afford to, or would rather murder/suicide the entire family, “Unable to face the shame of being broke” in a consumer, “Keep-up-with-the-jones’” world.

Has anyone seen a Debt Collector around a Muslim’s house?
I ask, because Muslims seem to frequent other places they are not supposed to be at - like Strip joints, Amusement Arcades, and Betting shops… :open_mouth:

As far as the main source of “Debt retaining Respectability”, I am reminded of the main plot line for “The Merchant of Venice” - often… :smiling_imp:

427

Rjan:
Because we know there was wide support for slavery! Your own source acknowledges that there was a grievance due to the northern states creaming off slaves and setting them free.

So are you pursuing the line that it is possible to have sovereignty even as a member of the EU? Indeed, are you pursuing the line that having your capital city carved in two by foreign powers, and a bloody big wall through the middle, is consistent with having regained sovereignty within a decade or two (I mean the Berlin wall didn’t start going up until 1961, getting on for 20 years after the end of the second world war)? You can surely see that you are heading for a snooker here.

But I’m not taking advantage of Lincoln “for my own agenda” - I’ve never mentioned him. Nor have I said anything in defence of the real motives of the unionist side. I’m simply saying that everything you allege about the confederate side is nonsense - they weren’t fighting for freedom, they were (what we could call in modern terms) a set of apartheid states.

But the ink was barely dry on Marx’s writings at the time of the American Civil War. The real picture painted by the unionists was of national consolidation, not unlike what Britain did with Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, where regions have been brought under common control and on an equal footing (the fact that there has been grassroots rebellion and resistance since has more to do with class war).

And I haven’t got any “loathing” of my ethnic group, nor a resistance to whites participating in rule. What I’m not is a white supremacist or someone who believes whites were born to rule.

But I haven’t been defeding the Soviet Union, although in both the Soviet and Chinese case, the majority of deaths have been attributable to economic mismanagement during massive social and economic upheaval, rather than pitched battles, civil wars, and executions.

And the real agenda behind most people who refer to such deaths, is to demoralise those pushing for peaceful reform and to discourage the prospect of revolution as menaces which reinforce the demand for reform. It is not because, when push comes to shove, the capitalist system is any less willing to inflict suffering or killings on internal opponents, as shown by the US-backed Pinochet regime in Chile for example.

Now we’re supposed to believe no state instigated and sanctioned murders or working a dissident slave labour force to death in the gulags were ever carried out by the Soviet Union in the name of Communism.On that note you obviously conveniently think that Communist scum like Stalin and Lenin and the politburo were born to rule.In addition to applying double standards regarding right colour rule trumping wrong colour rule in South Africa.You also obviously seem to have missed the point that all that took place well within a period over which all the American secessionist states could have been given back the right to govern themselves without Federal government interference.On that note they were clearly fighting for their freedom to rule themselves.With the evidence proving that the issue of slavery was clearly being used as nothing but a pawn by Lincoln and correctly viewed by the secessionist states as a side issue and a Trojan Horse, being used to re write the whole contract between the states,in favour of Lincoln’s control freak aims,on that same basis.Which explains why those with no interest in slavery whatsoever gave their lives to stop the tin pot dictator.

As for me persuing a line it’s clear that West Germany and later re unified Germany had more sovereignty over its own government in 1965 up to the signing of the Lisbon Treaty than the US secessionist states have had from 1865 to date.It’s only relatively more recently that the EU has predictably gone for ‘closer union’ and surely you’re not suggesting that the reason Germany has less sovereignty now as part of that than it had in 1965,is because it’s seen as a greater risk now of going on another genocide spree than it was in 1965.

This is all about anti nation state Soviet style control freakery in the form of an EUSSR and you know it being on the side of it.With Soviet Socialism and even US Federalism and ironically German Federalism and Yugoslav Federalism all being responsible for more suffering,death and destruction than the American secessionist states ever were.Oh wait in your view colour also matters.Snooker you potted the zb cue ball and Brexit won the match two years ago. :unamused:

428

Winseer:
“Debt” is the latter-day slavery, with “personal debt” being “personal slavery” of course.

I’m amazed that in an age of irreligiousness by the general population - there still seems to be this “Honour” thing of “Repaying debts” - even when one cannot afford to, or would rather murder/suicide the entire family, “Unable to face the shame of being broke” in a consumer, “Keep-up-with-the-jones’” world.

Has anyone seen a Debt Collector around a Muslim’s house?
I ask, because Muslims seem to frequent other places they are not supposed to be at - like Strip joints, Amusement Arcades, and Betting shops… :open_mouth:

As far as the main source of “Debt retaining Respectability”, I am reminded of the main plot line for “The Merchant of Venice” - often… :smiling_imp:

I think the obligation to repay commercial debts (above all other concerns) is nothing but a narrative of ruling class morality - they say they are entitled to interest because of the risk taken, but when the said risk actually materialises they refuse to accept lightly the forfeiture of the principal, forcing the risk back onto the debtor.

And I haven’t heard of any cases of murder-suicide created by the guilt of commercial debt. Usually what debtors rue is the loss of income they expected would be available to service the debt, plus the lack of further access to credit to bankroll their lifestyle (having grown accustomed to living beyond their current means), and quite possibly the forfeiture of the very assets which it turns out they could not afford. And, if they are reduced to penury, the stress and harassment caused by debt collectors and bailiffs. It is very rarely pure guilt about being unable to repay creditors that gives people sleepless nights or has them slay their families.

I make a very clear distinction in my mind about the moral obligation that arises from being in receipt of kindness or mutual assistance (which I would be loath or totally unwilling to accept if I wasn’t virtually sure of being in a position to reciprocate or repay), and the total lack of any moral obligation that arises from commercial dealings with moneylenders.

Not to say I’d gamble with a bank’s money any more freely than with my own, and other than a mortgage I don’t see that taking on debt is ever justified (and simply leaves you vulnerable to exploitation in other respects), but I wouldn’t feel any guilt or embarassment as some do in informing a bank that a change in my circumstances had meant that they too would be experiencing a change in the circumstances of repayment!

429

There have been arguments about gambling establishments accepting money via consumer credit in order to be gambled away in their establishment…
For example, someone draws out £250 per day on a credit card (limit not important, you keep making the withdrawals until the card is maxed out…)

The Bank is happy, because they get charged 4% for “Cash advance fee”, even though deep down they know exactly why a person would be willing to pay this amount as “commission” for the convenience of cash. NO “Compliance Checks” are done to ensure the money thus drawn down isn’t “misappropriated” into something unseemly like Gambling, Vice, Smuggled goods etc. even thouh the lender knows damned well that it is likely the ONLY thing worth “paying for cash” to be part of.

The “receiver of the cash” is happy, because they don’t give a toss where the money about to be spent/lost in their establishment comes from - providing it is NOT traceable back to them, thus averting any kind of social and financial liability over the acceptance of such cash.

So what happens? - The card user donks away £250 per day on FOBTs in bookmakers shops.
Who are these people? - Not even the regular horse racing punters, as it turns out. Betting shops turn away those who want to bet more than a couple of quid each way on a horse - whilst flinging the doors wide open for the Chinese Cleaner, Arab Barman, Asian Cabby, and Brudder Caravaner who only have the one thing in common "They come with a big wad of cash, clearly beyond their means to lose, and lose it all they will surely do - and in less than a few minutes at that.

Once this money is all gone, the “lender” will try and flip what started out as an unsecured loan to “secured” by attempting to confiscate Cabby’s Skoda, Barman’s BMW, Cleaner’s domestic assets, and Brudder’s caravan… I would imagine that they get the furthest along with the “Re-possess car” angle, personally.

The more astute “borrower” will realize that “possession is 9/10ths of the law” and should a borrower have no assets/nothing to show for the often huge sums they’ve run up on the plastic and lost - then they can just walk away from that “debt”, especially if you are a person who “shouldn’t really be borrowing” for one reason or the other to begin with.
It is actually the Gents who’ll more often blow their stack in public, whereas the Ladies are not averse to donking it all away on these “online bingo” type things one hears of.

Thus, the ones able to walk away the easiest, I’d say are the Caravaners (“No fixed address”) followed by any Muslims (“Who’s borrowed some money from you? - We don’t and won’t support in this community your attempted re-possession of that loan!”) and then the Ladies (Dump current boyfriend, pretend to get friendly with non-top-shelf lad who will rather foolishly pay down your credit card out of all the pennies he’s saved by not getting out that often, let’s say…) This leaves as the final “debtor” who has nowhere to run, nowhere to hide as the Asset-owning working man who will now see those assets confiscated, and any relationship they are in come to an abrupt end likely as well. These, are the people I suggest that then go on to Murder/Suicide over the entire issue of “Borrow a large sum, donk it all away, get what you thought was out-of-reach stuff you owned confiscated by the lenders/bailiffs”

It DOES go on, but it’s often brushed under the carpet, thus taking attention of the two main issues here: “Too easy for people to spend beyond their means” and “too easy to spend that money on something that has nothing to show for it at the end”, such as gambling. The same can be said of foreign holidays, depreciating car purchases, and of course using the “cash advances” to pay down other forms of credit. ALL these things get the behind-the-scenes seal of approval from the original lenders, when they really bloody well should NOT of course.

Another positive aspect to Brexit is that UK lenders will lose some access to the “Easy Money” culture of the ECB. If it’s their own savers money they are lending out, then some “Tightening up” of lending will happen post-Brexit, which cannot be a bad thing to those who find it all too easy to max out yet another credit card, and essentially waste that money, only to find that “enforcement” WORKS for the lenders more often than not.

It doesn’t always have to involve “Murder suicide” of course. Maybe the family just breaks up, and “perp” ends up in jail. Over what? What amounts to an unpaid gambling debt, which isn’t supposed to be enforceable in law in this country. If the Pie Crusts, actual gambling regulars, and cultures averse to gambling - can all walk away with minimal damage - then how come there are so many oh-so ordinary victims involved?

It is high time the Politicians started to explain to people in debt that “Instead of going on some kind of crime spree - why not do debt walkaway instead?”

For anyone who is loaded to be banging the drum like Shylock “Debts must be repaid, kill someone if you have to”, and “must have my pound of flesh” arguments - should make the general public realized just how much of their enemy the “Establishment” really is.

Even the Labour party, Socialist Left Wing Extraordinaires - do NOT advovate “Debt Walkaway”.
Why IS that?
“Must pay your debts - it is honour at stake” is surely not a secular concept any more than it is a Muslim or Christian one. It is a Jewish one, but that’s another story I won’t get into today.

The EU staying together helps these establishment figures. Brexit should begin to unwind the hangman’s grip that “creditors not responible to anyone or anything” have on this country. :bulb:

430

The remainers soon won’t have an EU to remain in. :smiling_imp:

Slovenia has suddenly woken up and turned the clock back to 1990 having found out that the EUSSR is as bad as Tito’s Yugoslav Federation. :smiley:

youtube.com/watch?v=mB4tUdzHks8

431

BBC R4 today weds after the 07-00 news had an interesting piece about cross border checks etc. I daresay many will dismiss anything the Beeb says, others will dismiss anything that does not fit with their views, but some others may find it an eye opener.

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

432

The Right-wing governments are lining up one by one across Europe. Slovenia seems to be the latest to elect an Anti-EU government of the RIght.

I wonder if anyone has considered these nations clubbing together with old Britannia Majestic here, and forming our own “Northern European Union” or what I believe Churchill was really referring to when he spoke of “The United States of Europe” - that is, one with GB at its center, running the show, experienced in “Empire Running” built-in from the start. :sunglasses:

The longer the EU take in “letting go” of Britain, let alone the other malcontent states - the more it is going to end up costing them when it finally happens.
The Cashflow is the only thing keeping this Dead “20th century experiment in Anti-Democracy” walking as it is. The EU don’t even have a fighting force they could attack our own rather muted forces with these days, after all. It really is a case of “Oh Yeh? - You and who’s army?” when it comes to pushing other nations about, rather than carrying on with this culture of “Appeasement” for God-knows what reason I’m clearly not qualified to see…

I never understood how the 1% Elites could swing over another 47% to vote bloody Remain in 2016 FFS…
Surely we should all be thinking that getting back pennies in the pound for every quid we hand to Brussels - would be better spent on “Home Interests”, even if not necessarily all upon the NHS, or other favourite “moneypit” issue…

There are other ways of raising cash as well of course… Re-patriating the foreign aid budget (over £12bn per year already)
and Re-nationalizing all the sold-off “family businesses” that are now owned by foreign concerns. What are those owners going to do about it? They can’t very well come over here and tear up our train tracks, knock down our water processing plants, and de-populate our hospitals - can they? Last I heard, the EU wanted MORE rights for Continentals working within the NHS after all… I don’t see them “boycotting Blighty” just because Godfather EU demands it of them!

Then there is “Knock down all your power plants, and become totally dependent upon EU imported energy, which we literally can switch off at a moment’s notice, and bring you to your knees…”

Perhaps we might re-consider our soured relations with Russia, as I’m pretty damned uncomfortable watching Tilbury, Grain, Kingsnorth, and next - Littlebrook all getting demolished, all but the latter already destoyed by this point. :open_mouth: :open_mouth: :open_mouth: :open_mouth: WTF are we DOING? :open_mouth:

Kingsnorth 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT6xfASdeOs
Grain 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fT2RA9J4ag
Tilbury 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcdbmfe604o
(And they are just the ones that were visible from where I live!!) :frowning: :frowning:

Fix relations with Russia, or the EU will have a stranglehold over the UK - and that is how they’ll prevent us from leaving.

“Slaves to Electricity Supply”.

After fixing relations with Russia, I don’t think Russia would mind much if we were buying all their cheap natural gas, whilst re-natioanlizing our (currently) foreign-owned utilities for a quid each. :smiling_imp: :smiling_imp:

433

Winseer:
I wonder if anyone has considered these nations clubbing together with old Britannia Majestic here, and forming our own “Northern European Union” or what I believe Churchill was really referring to when he spoke of “The United States of Europe” - that is, one with GB at its center, running the show, experienced in “Empire Running” built-in from the start.

:confused:

Which would completely defeat the object of Europe rightly returning to a seperate sovereign nation state based system.Churchill’s ideological Empire based thinking all being part of the problem here not the solution.On that note we know exactly what the muppet meant by Unites States of Europe just like Heath.Having shown his true colours in the way he dealt with the issue Irish secession.Only reluctantly giving up when it suddenly dawned on him that real people were needlessly dying.All for nothing more than his stupidity of holding on to his bs vanity project at all costs against the justified wishes of the Irish people for the right to self determination.

Ironically the Irish government then selling out all those who died for that cause to the same Churchill inspired nightmare vision of a USE as the UK did,in all its Spinelli and Kalergi plan glory.Which Churchill was obviously well aware of regardless of all his bs anti communist spin let alone double standards of ideological Federalist when it suited him and phony Nationalist when it didn’t. :unamused:

434

Eyah Carryfast.

theguardian.com/media/2018/ … rdie-greig

New pro-remain editor of the Daily Mail.

What did I tell you the ruling class would do if they felt right-wing Brexit wasn’t going anywhere and it looked like Corbyn was going to gain the upper hand with a left-wing Brexit? I said you’ll see the Daily Mail turn back to remain.

435

Rjan:
Eyah Carryfast.

theguardian.com/media/2018/ … rdie-greig

New pro-remain editor of the Daily Mail.

What did I tell you the ruling class would do if they felt right-wing Brexit wasn’t going anywhere and it looked like Corbyn was going to gain the upper hand with a left-wing Brexit? I said you’ll see the Daily Mail turn back to remain.

I never had the slightest doubt that the Cons as a Party,maybe with a few cowardly wavering exceptions like Davis and IDS,are for remain not leave.As expected of an ideologically Federalist rabble that actually took us into the Federalist zb pile.While Corbyn is pushing for a clarification of the withdrawal bill that keeps us tied to the EU single market and everything which goes with it in the form of EU rule over the country.It’s clear in this case that what you actually mean is the same old alliance of Left Wing and Right Wing remain and which is winning out just as before whether it be Heath,Thatcher,Major,Callaghan,Jenkins,Blair,Cameron,May,Hammond,Starmer and Corbyn.

Which explains why Hammond tabled the EU Referendum Act as a ‘non binding’ document and it’s also why our so called ‘Leave’ MP has been cornered,by the question why,into a confirmation that,contrary to Cameron’s bs,the ultimate method of holding the government to account ( regarding Brexit ) will be a General Election.In which case the Remainers need to be careful what they wish for.

While don’t count your chickens yet in thinking that a significant part of the Labour and the Con vote won’t see through this amateurish Con/Lab remain alliance plot and prefer to vote for a Batten led UKIP if/when push comes to shove.Bearing in mind that UKIP can still cause havoc to May’s and Corbyn’s laughably obvious remain agenda given some well targeted campaigning in strategic constituencies.Hopefully with the most effort going into bringing down the total waste of space coward Davis.

As for Corbyn don’t be surprised if Starmer throws him under the bus now that Corbyn has obviously given Starmer and Ummuna what they want in the form of carte blanche to get the Blair project back on track.With the Brit working class vote possibly not being as easy to fool as the French one was in voting like sheep for Macron instead of Le Pen under the guidance of the self appointed Socialist political commissars. :unamused:

On that note you’re doing as good a job as any in helping the UKIP vote.What with you being a Remain voter telling Leave voters,that staying under the EUSSR’s jackboot,clearly engineered by your fellow remainer Starmer,rather than leaver Hoey,equates to so called ‘left wing’ Brexit.While also don’t remember you making any distinction between left and right wing remain before you supposedly changed sides.IE you were obviously voting to remain in exactly the same EU as Cameron and May ( and Blair ) were in the referendum so why are you suddenly applying double standards in that regard now and what changed since ?.

As I said with remainers May and Hammond in the top jobs and Starmer as shadow Brexit minister,all clearly allied,just as Heath and Thatcher and Callaghan and Jenkins were,in keeping us in the EU,who are you trying to fool.Left wing Brexit you’re avin a larf.When what you’re really all about is using the Trojan Horse,of what is a disadvantageous trading relationship to the point of it being an economic liabity to us,all to maintain EU rule over us.At least so long as you perceive an advantage for Socialism in that.While your obvious opportunistic plan to replace UKIP MEP’s with Labour EU puppets at home as part of that will also hopefully backfire spectacularly in the inevitable approaching GE and a Europe increasingly turning to Nationalism and away from control freak Federalism anyway.

436

Boris Johnson today reported as saying:

“He said the Brexit talks were heading for “meltdown” and Leave supporters may not get the deal they expected.”
Those who believed the promises of a clean and easy Brexit probably realize already that many of the politicians` promises were as reliable as all politicians promises are…but, hey ho, service as normal then.

Mr Johnson warns the UK could remain “locked in orbit around the EU” and claimed the Irish border issue - one of the main sticking points in talks with Brussels - had been allowed to dictate “the whole of our agenda”.
“It’s so small and there are so few firms that actually use that border regularly, it’s just beyond belief that we’re allowing the tail to wag the dog in this way,” he said.
Hmmm, about 30,000 people cross the border every day to work according to factcheckni.org.
The border compares to the often cited Norway Sweden borders like this:
It has currently about 275 crossings compared to the 80 S/N (and there the countries allow each other`s police cross border access, not likely in Eire/N.I. ? And there are 6,000 daily truck crossings.

Boris again giving a good strong speech to his fans, totally divorced from the reality of the world as it exists.

437

Franglais:
Boris Johnson today reported as saying:

“He said the Brexit talks were heading for “meltdown” and Leave supporters may not get the deal they expected.”
Those who believed the promises of a clean and easy Brexit probably realize already that many of the politicians` promises were as reliable as all politicians promises are…but, hey ho, service as normal then.

Mr Johnson warns the UK could remain “locked in orbit around the EU” and claimed the Irish border issue - one of the main sticking points in talks with Brussels - had been allowed to dictate “the whole of our agenda”.
“It’s so small and there are so few firms that actually use that border regularly, it’s just beyond belief that we’re allowing the tail to wag the dog in this way,” he said.
Hmmm, about 30,000 people cross the border every day to work according to factcheckni.org.
The border compares to the often cited Norway Sweden borders like this:
It has currently about 275 crossings compared to the 80 S/N (and there the countries allow each other`s police cross border access, not likely in Eire/N.I. ? And there are 6,000 daily truck crossings.

Boris again giving a good strong speech to his fans, totally divorced from the reality of the world as it exists.

It’s obvious that like the rest of them Boris is more loyal to his Party of remainers than the country.You know the same party that took us into the EU.So who are you referring to as his ‘fans’ him being a Conservative first and foremost led by committed remainers.While we’ve already established the fact that crossing the UK border at Cairnryan and Heathrow for example would be no different after Brexit,for CTA and UK status,than it is now.The only change would be the status of EU travellers and goods crossing at those same points again just as applies now in the case of non EU and non CTA and the remainers know it.As for Boris’ Conservative bunch of traitors good luck with ignoring the majority who voted for Brexit.Do you really think that we’ll all just say that’s ok let’s allow the remainers to ignore and reverse the referendum vote. :unamused:

438

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

I never had the slightest doubt that the Cons as a Party,maybe with a few cowardly wavering exceptions like Davis and IDS,are for remain not leave.As expected of an ideologically Federalist rabble that actually took us into the Federalist zb pile.While Corbyn is pushing for a clarification of the withdrawal bill that keeps us tied to the EU single market and everything which goes with it in the form of EU rule over the country.It’s clear in this case that what you actually mean is the same old alliance of Left Wing and Right Wing remain and which is winning out just as before whether it be Heath,Thatcher,Major,Callaghan,Jenkins,Blair,Cameron,May,Hammond,Starmer and Corbyn.

Someone must have believed the Tories were for Brexit, because the majority of Brexiteers voted Tory!

Corbyn isn’t seeking to keep us tied to the single market in the sense of keeping the status quo. He has rejected the EEA option - and once again, Starmer is showing himself to be a charm, wearing down the Blairite wreckers with logic and party democracy!

Corbyn’s proper agenda is two-fold, firstly abolishing free movement, and secondly regaining democratic control over the economy.

While don’t count your chickens yet in thinking that a significant part of the Labour and the Con vote won’t see through this amateurish Con/Lab remain alliance plot and prefer to vote for a Batten led UKIP if/when push comes to shove.Bearing in mind that UKIP can still cause havoc to May’s and Corbyn’s laughably obvious remain agenda given some well targeted campaigning in strategic constituencies.Hopefully with the most effort going into bringing down the total waste of space coward Davis.

Speaking generally, a return of UKIP would be a good thing electorally, because it splits the Tory vote more than it does Labour.

But also speaking more subtly about policy, Labour needs the support of more Labour Leavers, to buttress it’s left-wing Eurosceptics. There’s no point working class Brexiteers abandoning Labour, and then complaining that the bloody party is a hive of Blairites and Remainers. And, almost incredibly, criticising personally the most Eurosceptic leadership of the Labour party since 1983, who are in open warfare with the Remainers! I’m at the point that I’m asking myself what is wrong with people’s brains.

As for Corbyn don’t be surprised if Starmer throws him under the bus now that Corbyn has obviously given Starmer and Ummuna what they want in the form of carte blanche to get the Blair project back on track.With the Brit working class vote possibly not being as easy to fool as the French one was in voting like sheep for Macron instead of Le Pen under the guidance of the self appointed Socialist political commissars. :unamused:

Has he given Starmer what he wants (that being something different from what Corbyn and McDonnell want)? I can’t count a single instance where the Blairites are getting what they want either on policy or just the narrative generally. And I can’t point to a single occasion on which Starmer has said anything in the Blairites’ favour - if he is a friend of the Blairites, do they need enemies?

On that note you’re doing as good a job as any in helping the UKIP vote.What with you being a Remain voter telling Leave voters,that staying under the EUSSR’s jackboot,clearly engineered by your fellow remainer Starmer,rather than leaver Hoey,equates to so called ‘left wing’ Brexit.While also don’t remember you making any distinction between left and right wing remain before you supposedly changed sides.IE you were obviously voting to remain in exactly the same EU as Cameron and May ( and Blair ) were in the referendum so why are you suddenly applying double standards in that regard now and what changed since ?.

But I’m not a Remain supporter anymore - as far as I’m concerned it’s either reform or revolution with the EU, and I don’t mean reform in the nature of a few sops that don’t fundamentally alter anything, I mean radical reform.

And about “left and right wing Remain”, I accept that I didn’t make a distinction, and the scales have fallen from my eyes. There is no legitimate left-wing Remain position any longer, in the sense of simply remaining with the status quo. Don’t get me wrong, if my only choices were between a Tory-led, right-wing Brexit on the one hand, and Remain on the other, I’d still support Remain as the least-worst option.

But those are clearly not the only choices anymore - and in fact, the way things are going, the real choice is going to be a Remain or a BINO under the Tories, and a real change in the EU relationship under Corbyn.

And you mark my words, it’s looking like the Tories will soon swing back to the centre, and the right-wing rags will start pumping pro-Remain propaganda and seek to cream off Labour’s Blairites from it’s right wing, and if the working class aren’t behind Corbyn, Brexit will go from dead in the water to Davy Jones’ locker.

As I said with remainers May and Hammond in the top jobs and Starmer as shadow Brexit minister,all clearly allied,just as Heath and Thatcher and Callaghan and Jenkins were,in keeping us in the EU,who are you trying to fool.

But Callaghan and Jenkins were on the right of Labour. The left-wing of Old Labour never were. And think what you will about Starmer - the fact is, Labour has a leadership thrown up by the grassroots, who are there to challenge the Labour’s right-wing enemies within.

Left wing Brexit you’re avin a larf.When what you’re really all about is using the Trojan Horse,of what is a disadvantageous trading relationship to the point of it being an economic liabity to us,all to maintain EU rule over us.At least so long as you perceive an advantage for Socialism in that.While your obvious opportunistic plan to replace UKIP MEP’s with Labour EU puppets at home as part of that will also hopefully backfire spectacularly in the inevitable approaching GE and a Europe increasingly turning to Nationalism and away from control freak Federalism anyway.

Labour is a socialist party - there’s no “trojan horse” about it, Labour’s socialist agenda is what it says on the tin. And I welcome the turn against the EU in other member states, because it means Corbyn will have friends in pushing for radical reform, whereas the EU bureaucracy (so far as it resists change) will have enemies in every single member state. Because I do think the Tory liberals who have a stranglehold on it, and who have a stranglehold in most member states, need to be smashed.

Whereas the Tories here have no supporters anywhere in any other member state, and they have neither the interest nor the intent in pursuing reforms that are favourable to the working class.

439

Franglais:
Boris Johnson today reported as saying:

“He said the Brexit talks were heading for “meltdown” and Leave supporters may not get the deal they expected.”
Those who believed the promises of a clean and easy Brexit probably realize already that many of the politicians` promises were as reliable as all politicians promises are…but, hey ho, service as normal then.

Mr Johnson warns the UK could remain “locked in orbit around the EU” and claimed the Irish border issue - one of the main sticking points in talks with Brussels - had been allowed to dictate “the whole of our agenda”.
“It’s so small and there are so few firms that actually use that border regularly, it’s just beyond belief that we’re allowing the tail to wag the dog in this way,” he said.
Hmmm, about 30,000 people cross the border every day to work according to factcheckni.org.
The border compares to the often cited Norway Sweden borders like this:
It has currently about 275 crossings compared to the 80 S/N (and there the countries allow each other`s police cross border access, not likely in Eire/N.I. ? And there are 6,000 daily truck crossings.

Boris again giving a good strong speech to his fans, totally divorced from the reality of the world as it exists.

For the Tories, their only real agenda is to gain the ability to strike free-trade deals to undercut and attack the British working class - and those deals will almost certainly involve free movement of workers with countries with lower labour standards and poorer workers.

They will be satisifed if they make concessions to the EU on everything except that - they’ll carry on paying into the budget, they’ll carry on accepting ECJ supervision, and so on, even though the Tories have renounced all these things. If they weren’t in hock to the DUP, they’d already have settled the whole problem by cutting NI loose and save the British state billions a year in subsidy.

And as far as the Tory liberals in the EU are concerned, they will be happy with whatever the Tories do, so long as it does not undermine them or give Britain an unfair advantage within the single market. Because if Britain becomes like Haiti and workers are impoverished, so much the better for maintaining the integrity of the EU and gaining support of the rest of the EU citizens.

440

Rjan:
Someone must have believed the Tories were for Brexit, because the majority of Brexiteers voted Tory!

Corbyn’s proper agenda is two-fold, firstly abolishing free movement, and secondly regaining democratic control over the economy.

Speaking generally, a return of UKIP would be a good thing electorally, because it splits the Tory vote more than it does Labour.

But also speaking more subtly about policy, Labour needs the support of more Labour Leavers, to buttress it’s left-wing Eurosceptics. There’s no point working class Brexiteers abandoning Labour, and then complaining that the bloody party is a hive of Blairites and Remainers. And, almost incredibly, criticising personally the most Eurosceptic leadership of the Labour party since 1983, who are in open warfare with the Remainers! I’m at the point that I’m asking myself what is wrong with people’s brains.

Has he given Starmer what he wants (that being something different from what Corbyn and McDonnell want)? I can’t count a single instance where the Blairites are getting what they want either on policy or just the narrative generally. And I can’t point to a single occasion on which Starmer has said anything in the Blairites’ favour - if he is a friend of the Blairites, do they need enemies?

But I’m not a Remain supporter anymore - as far as I’m concerned it’s either reform or revolution with the EU, and I don’t mean reform in the nature of a few sops that don’t fundamentally alter anything, I mean radical reform.

And about “left and right wing Remain”, I accept that I didn’t make a distinction, and the scales have fallen from my eyes. There is no legitimate left-wing Remain position any longer, in the sense of simply remaining with the status quo. Don’t get me wrong, if my only choices were between a Tory-led, right-wing Brexit on the one hand, and Remain on the other, I’d still support Remain as the least-worst option.

But those are clearly not the only choices anymore - and in fact, the way things are going, the real choice is going to be a Remain or a BINO under the Tories, and a real change in the EU relationship under Corbyn.

And you mark my words, it’s looking like the Tories will soon swing back to the centre, and the right-wing rags will start pumping pro-Remain propaganda and seek to cream off Labour’s Blairites from it’s right wing, and if the working class aren’t behind Corbyn, Brexit will go from dead in the water to Davy Jones’ locker.

But Callaghan and Jenkins were on the right of Labour. The left-wing of Old Labour never were. And think what you will about Starmer - the fact is, Labour has a leadership thrown up by the grassroots, who are there to challenge the Labour’s right-wing enemies within.

Labour is a socialist party - there’s no “trojan horse” about it, Labour’s socialist agenda is what it says on the tin. And I welcome the turn against the EU in other member states, because it means Corbyn will have friends in pushing for radical reform, whereas the EU bureaucracy (so far as it resists change) will have enemies in every single member state. Because I do think the Tory liberals who have a stranglehold on it, and who have a stranglehold in most member states, need to be smashed.

Whereas the Tories here have no supporters anywhere in any other member state, and they have neither the interest nor the intent in pursuing reforms that are favourable to the working class.

The only Brexiteers who voted Conservative were those who trusted committed remainers May and Hammond to deliver Brexit let alone an ideologically Federalist Party in the form of the Cons to support what can only be the Nationalist idea of secession.A bit like those who think that Thatcher supported Leave at any time.Yes agreed there were a lot of them unfortunately don’t ask me why.But Socialists feeding off and gaining from the stupidity of the electorate in voting like sheep for the two big treacherous players is nothing new.The fact that you really think that Socialists have anything to offer the European Nationalist vote being another example of that.

While your agenda is all about Labour trying to get away with the same trick twice.So tell us exactly what’s the difference between Blairite Remain v Starmer’s so called Leave ( remain in all but name ) ?.Bearing in mind that the statement that Labour intends to maintain full access to the EU single market together with all the ‘‘shared institutions’’ and ‘‘regulations’’ which go with it.Feel free to define the difference between Blair’s idea of ‘‘shared institutions’’ and ‘‘regulations’’ v Starmer’s.Or for that matter how remaining under EU ‘institutions’ and ‘regulations’ ( by definition those being created by EU QMV and unelected Commissioner dictat ) meets the definition of ‘Brexit’ in any way shape or form.Or for that matter how can that possibly mean any opt out of free movement ‘regulations’ which as a Socialist you can’t possibly believe in anyway.

When the only obvious result of your EEA light plan is that you’d have conveniently removed UKIP’s PR elected European presence and with it any say of UK politicians whatsoever in resisting those ‘institutions’ and ‘regulations’.

As for UKIP splitting the Tory vote what does it matter if voting UKIP replaces a powerless gutless coward Tory MP,who’s following the May remain Globalist line, with a UKIP MP who follows the Batten line.On that note no you haven’t changed sides you’re the same Callaghanite Socialist,claiming the same god given right to speak for the working class,as you were when you voted remain just as he was and your hero Starmer is.While it’s Hoey who is the left wing Nationalist successor to Shore,Heffer and Benn.Remind us what you said about her.Oh wait ‘too controversial’ yes too Nationalist.

On that note ironically I’d rather remain in an increasingly Nationalist Europe, maintaining UKIP’s presence in the EU parliament as part of that.Than trust Corbyn’s Socialist idea of ‘Brexit’.Which is obviously all about maintaining EU soviet style rule,while also cutting us off from any move towards Nationalism in Europe.Good luck with that zb wit plan in a Europe no longer interested in following your imposed ‘rules and regulations’ including your open door immigration policies.Let alone anyone believing that any Socialist like you would ever turn against Spinelli’s vision of an EUSSR.