Britain and the European Union

[Karl]

Well if foreigners run infrastructure such as energy and transport then it clearly is relevant, as it is an erosion of the power of the government to influence key areas of the country they are meant to be governing.

They should not be 'influencing' anything beyond law and order. As long as the assets are bought and paid for legally, on a voluntary basis by those who own the assets from those that buy the assets. Unless the new owners are a threat to us, then they are welcome to buy whatever they want that can be legally sold.

 

The only time this becomes an issue is 'privatisation' or 'franchising'. This is where the state continues tax payer funding, but let's a company buy the asset, or is involved in some way with the operation of a franchised service such as trains. That means the businesses are not Laissez Faire free market and cannot decide how to operate and therefore are effectively still Government managed-not for the better in many cases, but it can work better in some areas than the open ended tax funded model previously existing.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Karl

[joeblast]

until the fraud is prosecuted, nothing changes

 

you dont hear much about iceland these days, do you....that's media control there for you, if good outcomes were the barometer then iceland's approach to bank fraud would be trumpeted from on high.

 

just like until hilary has some massive shackles for those massive cankles, its quite readily apparent that there are two sets of laws that exist, and if you're in the 99.99%, then those rules in the book will be thrown at you hard.

 

 

that said, the acronym PIGS doesnt exist for no reason, austerity is nothing be the jerking of the spiked chain by the leash handlers after the dog has walked a little past an arbitrary line drawn that the dog never knew about.

Edited May 27, 2016 by joeblast

[Karl]

until the fraud is prosecuted, nothing changes

 

you dont hear much about iceland these days, do you....that's media control there for you, if good outcomes were the barometer then iceland's approach to bank fraud would be trumpeted from on high.

 

just like until hilary has some massive shackles for those massive cankles, its quite readily apparent that there are two sets of laws that exist, and if you're in the 99.99%, then those rules in the book will be thrown at you hard.

 

 

that said, the acronym PIGS doesnt exist for no reason, austerity is nothing be the jerking of the spiked chain by the leash handlers after the dog has walked a little past an arbitrary line drawn that the dog never knew about.

 

It won't be prosecuted until the state let's banks act as any other business and effectively stops protecting its monetary drug dealer and utilising it to enact monetary/fiscal policies.

 

Not sure what you mean by your austerity quote-I like the description I just can't get my head around how you mean it. The reality of the situation is that some people (the banks) lent money to some other people (Governments) who couldn't pay it back and now some other people (the rest of us) are going to have to foot the bill.

 

Government refuse to accept they blew up the economy and point at the banks, but the Government runs the banks, makes policies through them and takes loans from them. The policies the Governments enacted through the banks resulted in a boom, the Government got more GDP, more tax revenue and high money velocity. It was a giant windfall that Labour (it could just have easily been the Conservatives) used to effectively buy votes. When the bust came they were spending and had borrowed far in excess of what they had allowed for.

 

The problem with Governments is that they have this mental block when it comes to Austerity. They fear that real austerity will get them kicked out of power and that cutting back will mean a loss of state control-it will. Then there are all their mates in the banking sector they must keep sweet in order that they can carry on borrowing at low rates - plus these are the same people who are likely not only useful allies, but likely to be family friends.

 

We have had little to no austerity in the UK. The defecit is increasing and more debt is added every day. The real austerity is being enacted in front of us all and heralded as a good thing-that's low interest rates and subsidised lending schemes. George is frightening everyone about falling house prices, higher interest rates and a falling pound, when, ironically that is what we need. In order to stop goosing the economy with cheap cash he needs to stop spending and borrowing. He needs to act radically to cut public services, pay and pensions. Of course, whilst he is in the EU he can talk about economic headwinds and problems in Europe, but the only economic headwind is coming out of his back side.

[joeblast]

give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes the laws

 

 

the owners of the oligarch class control the governments - you've got it backward

 

it is in their best interests to inflate the money supply, in guarantees a higher rate of return on the fraud.

 

you cant fully blame greece when their politicians were on puppet strings tied to the money, and the banks helped them fudge their books for 10 years straight so that they could be an eu member and get roped to the debt anchor.

 

the dog will do whatever its proclivity is to do, which invariably includes extending the amount of leash it has available to it.

 

but like sylvester changing the line in the sand, and standing in front of the new line, doggy is fooled into thinking it can catch sylvester and gets a nasty choke when he goes where he thought his leash would let him.   

 

boom shroom,

 

 

This time Alice waited patiently until [the caterpillar] chose to speak again. In a minute or two the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth and yawned once or twice, and shook itself. Then it got down off the mushroom, and crawled away in the grass, merely remarking as it went, ‘One side will make you grow taller, and the other side will make you grow shorter.’

‘One side of what? The other side of what?’ thought Alice to herself.

 

‘Of the mushroom,’ said the Caterpillar, just as if she had asked it aloud; and in another moment it was out of sight.

Alice remained looking thoughtfully at the mushroom for a minute, trying to make out which were the two sides of it; and as it was perfectly round, she found this a very difficult question. However, at last she stretched her arms round it as far as they would go, and broke off a bit of the edge with each hand.

 

‘And now which is which?’ she said to herself, and nibbled a little of the right-hand bit to try the effect: the next moment she felt a violent blow underneath her chin: it had struck her foot!

a tangent only intersects at one line - when it intersects at multiple lines, there's invariably a mathematical function involved

Edited May 27, 2016 by joeblast

[Karl]

Not backwards. How did central banks and banking cartels come about ?

 

We didn't have cartels and central banks until the Governments made them legal. It is the Government which regulates banks because it's the Government that legalised their fraud.

 

Causality. The British Government created the cartel and the BoE in order to continue its war with France. It went to a pack of shysters and crooks to borrow money and those guys demanded a Central bank, taxation and a single currency in return.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Karl

[joeblast]

it seems you've forgotten george's deal from the 1600s

[Karl]

it seems you've forgotten george's deal from the 1600s

 

King George ? He wasn't on the throne until 1701 the BoE was already in operation by then.

[joeblast]

edward, perhaps?  kings dont exactly get well remembered. who was in the chair, in 1620 or thereabouts?

[Karl]

edward, perhaps?  kings dont exactly get well remembered. who was in the chair, in 1620 or thereabouts?

 

What's this a game of guess the bloody monarch. :-)

 

The BoE was 1694.

 

I don't know how far you want to go back, it's pointless to go back beyond Cromwell or we end up in pure monarchies with an entirely different system of currencies, financials and wars. If you go back to the early 1600s it was the East India Company and Royal charters.

 

 

[Apech]

edward, perhaps?  kings dont exactly get well remembered. who was in the chair, in 1620 or thereabouts?

 

 

James I

[Karl]

James I

 

Do you know what he did because Joeblast is making a quiz of it ?

[joeblast]

Do you know what he did because Joeblast is making a quiz of it ?

overextended himself (=the country) to the point where financiers presented him a loan shark payday loan, and

(2:20, the people, the comedic aspect of the link is what the people should have done and shoved the jujy fruits up the financiers and the king's collective asses) will pay for it, and what was given to the financiers was the ability to control the money supply, with interest attached to its creation.

 

similar to the creation of the federal reserve in 1913 -  england received that hundreds of years in advance

[Karl]

overextended himself (=the country) to the point where financiers presented him a loan shark payday loan, and those moolies over there (2:20, the people, the comedic aspect of the link is what the people should have done and shoved the jujy fruits up the financiers and the king's collective asses) will pay for it, and what was given to the financiers was the ability to control the money supply, with interest attached to its creation.

 

similar to the creation of the federal reserve in 1913 -  england received that hundreds of years in advance

 

Yes, but that's what the creation of the BoE was I just told you that. Before the BoE they issued war bonds that people could buy voluntarily, then they cashed them in for Gold when they were matured-presumably because the King had pilfered the defeated and stocked up his treasure house. However, we had a parliament after Oliver Cromwell beat the King. This was the beginnings of democratic Government and a tying up of all the loose ends that allowed people freedom.

[joeblast]

I hear what you're saying, but its silly to think that financiers and oligarchs are not one and the same in a great many areas, it was a great subversion scheme for the oligarchs to wrest it from just a single family and replace it with their own clique that carried the false democratic moniker

[Apech]

Do you know what he did because Joeblast is making a quiz of it ?

 

 

He wrote the Bible (joke).

 

Actually I wonder if he means Charles I - who lost his head somewhat.

[Karl]

I hear what you're saying, but its silly to think that financiers and oligarchs are not one and the same in a great many areas, it was a great subversion scheme for the oligarchs to wrest it from just a single family and replace it with their own clique that carried the false democratic moniker

 

They were not one and the same, that's the point of all the hoy poloy of Government laws. All that black stick, two houses and parliamentary laws.

 

If it's always the case that the oligarchs get hold of the Government, then you are left with three alternatives:

 

Either get rid of the oligarchs, get rid of the Government, or have the Government effectively become the oligarchs and impose communism.

 

My philosophy is to get the Government completely out of commerce and delimit their powers to purely justice and law. That's the only way to stop the bankers becoming rulers, you take away any connection that allows it to happen. We all know where we are then.

 

We have seen that no amount of democracy prevents the spread of government once it is allowed to roam into every area of our lives. It's inevitable that some people will try and capture Government power when it has a direct bearing on their lifestyle. No amount of glass steagall, nationalisation or regulation can stop it, the problem is that the Government is capable of enacting these legalities.

[joeblast]

I understand where you're coming from - its just a matter of fact that the financiers infiltrated the government and made it subservient to their wishes.

 

"government become the oligarchs" is where you have it backwards - the oligarchs became the government, and convinced the people that they have a say - keeping the connection hidden for quite a long time.

[Karl]

I understand where you're coming from - its just a matter of fact that the financiers infiltrated the government and made it subservient to their wishes.

 

"government become the oligarchs" is where you have it backwards - the oligarchs became the government, and convinced the people that they have a say - keeping the connection hidden for quite a long time.

 

I don't have it backwards as you have aptly demonstrated. Government was prior to Oligarchs taking control of it.

 

Where I said 'Government become the Oligachs' I was specifically meaning communism in which the Government officials appropriate the means of production.

 

Anyway, all that's by the by, we can rabbit on all day about what came first, but I'm more interested in what you think the solution is.

[joeblast]

eliminate all central banks of the world including the IMF, BIS, federal reserve, BOE, BOJ, et al.  return to sound money.  prosecute the fraud, prosecute 911 with a real investigation that targets the people in the us and israeli governments, throw the clintons and bushes in a deep dark prison and throw away the key....there's quite a lot of things that can be done.

 

but as the .000000013%  really enjoys their spot atop the sand pile and appear to be willing to kill to any lengths to maintain it, I think they are the ones who will need to ultimately give it up or have their cake eating moment.

[Karl]

eliminate all central banks of the world including the IMF, BIS, federal reserve, BOE, BOJ, et al.  return to sound money.  prosecute the fraud, prosecute 911 with a real investigation that targets the people in the us and israeli governments, throw the clintons and bushes in a deep dark prison and throw away the key....there's quite a lot of things that can be done.

 

but as the .000000013%  really enjoys their spot atop the sand pile and appear to be willing to kill to any lengths to maintain it, I think they are the ones who will need to ultimately give it up or have their cake eating moment.

 

Right, but how do you end the Central banks and return to sound money ( which I agree with of course) when the apparatus exists to resurrect it ?

 

They can't kill everyone. Their power depends on the people's acceptance of Government. Without the people's blessing there is no Government. Without any Government there is no government central bank or unsound money, by action of the market, which throws out bad operators. That's the ultimate democracy.

[Apech]

 

 

here we go!!!!!!!!.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Apech

[Karl]

http://www.thedaobums.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=4627]13288459_10153375822476599_1344005340_o.jpg[/url]

 

 

here we go!!!!!!!!.

Tease. I know where you are putting your cross anyway.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

So, I haven't followed this thread at all, I don't think.

 

What are the predominating opinions here? Stay or go? Why?

 

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

 

Looks tighter than I would like.

 

I am voting to stay -- unless someone shows me a stunningly cogent argument why we should not.

[Chang]

So, I haven't followed this thread at all, I don't think.

 

What are the predominating opinions here? Stay or go? Why?

 

https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

 

Looks tighter than I would like.

 

I am voting to stay -- unless someone shows me a stunningly cogent argument why we should not.

 

If you have a look through the thread you will find all of the arguments or references to them.

 

I am interested that you are voting to stay within the E.U. unless someone can show you a stunningly cogent argument why we should not. This suggests that you may have heard a stunningly cogent argument that we should remain within the E.U. If this is the case then please present this argument here, in this thread, for I have certainly yet to hear it.

[dust]

If you have a look through the thread you will find all of the arguments or references to them.

 

I was hoping I wouldn't have to. Lazy? Perhaps. But I don't regret trying...

 

 

I am interested that you are voting to stay within the E.U. unless someone can show you a stunningly cogent argument why we should not. This suggests that you may have heard a stunningly cogent argument that we should remain within the E.U. If this is the case then please present this argument here, in this thread, for I have certainly yet to hear it.

 

I've heard very few cogent arguments at all, though absolutely none from Brexit supporters.

 

I'll show you how I see it. A Brexit website, with a list of reasons to leave, and a Remain website, with a list of reasons to stay.

 

 

10 Reasons to Leave

 

1.     Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.  

2.     Freedom to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of our citizens.

3.     Freedom to control our national borders.

4.     Freedom to restore Britain’s special legal system.

5.     Freedom to deregulate the EU’s costly mass of laws.

6.     Freedom to make major savings for British consumers.

7.     Freedom to improve the British economy and generate more jobs.

8.     Freedom to regenerate Britain’s fisheries.

9.     Freedom to save the NHS from EU threats to undermine it by harmonising healthcare across the EU, and to reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens. 

10.   Freedom to restore British customs and traditions.

 

 

12 Reasons to Stay

 

1. Jobs - Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs.

2. Exports & investment - The EU buys over 50 per cent of UK exports (54 per cent of goods, 40 per cent of services).

Over 300,000 British companies and 74 per cent of British exporters operate in other EU markets.

American and Asian EU firms build factories in Britain because it is in the single market.

3. Trade - The EU negotiates trade agreements with the rest of the world. Outside the EU Britain would have to renegotiate trade deals alone. While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal.

4. Consumer clout - British families enjoy lower mobile phone roaming charges, lower credit card fees, cheaper flights and proper compensation when flights are delayed or cancelled. These sorts of benefits could not be achieved by Britain alone.

5. Clean environment - Through commonly agreed EU standards, national Governments have achieved improvements to the quality of air, rivers and beaches. Good for Britain and good for Britons holidaying or living abroad!

6. Power to curb the multinationals - The EU has taken on multinational giants like Microsoft, Samsung and Toshiba for unfair competition. The UK would not be able to do this alone.

7. Freedom to work and study abroad – and easy travel - 1.4 million British people live abroad in the EU. More than 14,500 UK students took part in the European Union’s Erasmus student exchange scheme in 2012-13. Driving licences issued in the UK are valid throughout the EU.

8. Peace and democracy - The EU has helped secure peace among previously warring western European nations. It helped to consolidate democracy in Spain, Portugal, Greece and former Soviet bloc countries and helped preserve peace in the Balkans since the end of the Balkans War. With the UN it now plays a leading role in conflict prevention, peacekeeping and democracy building.

9. Equal pay and non-discrimination - Equal pay for men and women is enshrined in EU law, as are bans on discrimination by age, race or sexual orientation. This benefits Britain and British people who live in other EU countries.

10. Influence in the world - As 28 democracies, and as the world’s biggest market, we are strong when we work together.

Britain is represented in many international organisations in joint EU delegations – giving Britain more influence than it would have alone. The EU has played a major role in climate, world trade and development.

11. Cutting red tape - Common rules for the common market make it unnecessary to have 28 sets of national regulations.

12. Fighting crime - The European Arrest Warrant replaced long extradition procedures and enables the UK to extradite criminals wanted in other EU countries, and bring to justice criminals wanted in the UK who are hiding in other EU countries.

Eurojust helps UK authorities work with other EU countries’ to tackle international organised crime such as drug smuggling, people trafficking and money laundering.

 

 

Well, yes. The Leave arguments are vague and unsupported by any kinds of numbers. The Stay arguments are concrete and explicit. And even if the Leave arguments were descriptive and well-supported, the individual points would not interest me as much as the Stay ones. I will respond to the Leave arguments very briefly.

 

 

1.     Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.  

         -- answered in (3) from Stay

2.     Freedom to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of our citizens.

         -- at the cost of not being in the EU, though...

3.     Freedom to control our national borders.

         -- in terms of Europeans. We have complete freedom when it comes to non-EU nationals, which is what most are worried about. But I'm not worried either way, as you know.

4.     Freedom to restore Britain’s special legal system.

         -- what's wrong with the way it currently works?

5.     Freedom to deregulate the EU’s costly mass of laws.

         -- vague. What?

6.     Freedom to make major savings for British consumers.

         -- like...?

7.     Freedom to improve the British economy and generate more jobs.

         -- haha!

8.     Freedom to regenerate Britain’s fisheries.

         -- perhaps, though I don't really believe that the UK would have been any more competent than the EU in this regard in the last few decades..

9.     Freedom to save the NHS from EU threats to undermine it by harmonising healthcare across the EU, and to reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens.

         -- I'm not entirely sure what they mean by "harmonising" but I think "save" is probably a bit strong. We can't save the NHS from ourselves. And we already spend less on welfare to EU migrants than France, Germany, Denmark, etc.

10.   Freedom to restore British customs and traditions.

         -- haha.

 

Every point starts with "Freedom". They really want me to believe that we're not free, don't they? I feel free. And I feel freer as a part of the EU than I would without it.

Edited May 29, 2016 by dustybeijing