ChatterBank0 min ago
If You're Against The Eu, You're Anti-Semitic.
Answers
From their website: "British Influence is the campaign to keep Britain in a reformed EU. We are a cross-party organisation who believes that Britain is better off in a better Europe." That's enough BS for me not to take them seriously.
12:37 Wed 28th Jan 2015
// When the €uro was created, our politicians adopted a wait and see attitude. //
True. I think the approach was 'It'll be a great idea to join the Eurozone, if it ever stops being a terrible idea'. Which so far it hasn't of course.
The only ones saying it was just a terrible idea were UKIP, which basically started out as a 'Let's keep the pound' campaign - that's why they still have the pound sign in their logo.
True. I think the approach was 'It'll be a great idea to join the Eurozone, if it ever stops being a terrible idea'. Which so far it hasn't of course.
The only ones saying it was just a terrible idea were UKIP, which basically started out as a 'Let's keep the pound' campaign - that's why they still have the pound sign in their logo.
“Like it or not if we left Europe we would still have the EU and would moreover be unable to have any say in it.”
Not really a problem. All the non-EU nations in the world (about 165 of them if I've counted correctly) “have the EU” and none of them have any say in it. If I’m right, some of them are very successful, far more so than any of the EU nations. And I certainly don’t think any of them are “effectively ruled by it”.
“…and the €uro hasn't really worked as hoped.”
No, it certainly hasn’t worked as hoped (by vain politicians aka “Euromaniacs”). But, as suggested by 3Ts, it has worked as forecast (by most sensible business analysts and economists).
The UK needs to spread its wings and seek partnerships with emerging markets and those that are not ruled by a bunch of inept unelected politicians who keep doing the same thing expecting different results. If it remains in the EU it will be hidebound to a moribund stagnant bloc which shows no signs of recovery, whose fiscal policy is fatally flawed, and whose leaders will not accept that fact.
Not really a problem. All the non-EU nations in the world (about 165 of them if I've counted correctly) “have the EU” and none of them have any say in it. If I’m right, some of them are very successful, far more so than any of the EU nations. And I certainly don’t think any of them are “effectively ruled by it”.
“…and the €uro hasn't really worked as hoped.”
No, it certainly hasn’t worked as hoped (by vain politicians aka “Euromaniacs”). But, as suggested by 3Ts, it has worked as forecast (by most sensible business analysts and economists).
The UK needs to spread its wings and seek partnerships with emerging markets and those that are not ruled by a bunch of inept unelected politicians who keep doing the same thing expecting different results. If it remains in the EU it will be hidebound to a moribund stagnant bloc which shows no signs of recovery, whose fiscal policy is fatally flawed, and whose leaders will not accept that fact.
"
New Judge
“Like it or not if we left Europe we would still have the EU and would moreover be unable to have any say in it.”
Not really a problem. All the non-EU nations in the world (about 165 of them if I've counted correctly) “have the EU” and none of them have any say in it. If I’m right, some of them are very successful, far more so than any of the EU nations. And I certainly don’t think any of them are "
165 other nations in the world are not Western European nations with close trading and diplomatic ties to their neighbours.
New Judge
“Like it or not if we left Europe we would still have the EU and would moreover be unable to have any say in it.”
Not really a problem. All the non-EU nations in the world (about 165 of them if I've counted correctly) “have the EU” and none of them have any say in it. If I’m right, some of them are very successful, far more so than any of the EU nations. And I certainly don’t think any of them are "
165 other nations in the world are not Western European nations with close trading and diplomatic ties to their neighbours.
@Ludwig
Only because I know what your posts are like can I see that as of humourous intent. The organisation themselves might view it as a false attribution, to make them look bad. Which makes you label-able.
@Svejk
The article is specific in a way you somehow avoided:
"Against the backdrop of rising anti-Semitism in Hungary, France and here in the UK (as demonstrated by the European Jewish Congress poll just last week) this is once again a battle that goes beyond Britain’s borders. A battle that we cannot win by retreating from the EU and having a conversation with ourselves."
The Svejk character was (Austro-)Hungarian. It would be rude of me to enquire as to your self-identified nationality or ancestry. All the same, was Hungary the trigger-word which inspired this thread?
That aside, "anti-Semitic if…" is in exactly the same form as "redneck if…", don't you think?
Guilt is built into the question, as in "Mr X, when did you stop beating your wife."
Fears of future European war are not entirely irrational, that part of the argument is sound. The assertion of rising anti-semitism is sound - activities of far-right politcal groups are on the record, so that is sound, too. Fears of a second holocaust: if anything I share them (unemployed and semi-useless, due to a health problem) but no extremists are stupid enough to announce plans for such horrors.
The inference that EU membership "prevents war" requires further thought. Britain can't be the plucky island on its own. Even in WWII, it never was - we were dependent on food supplies from the empire (which we no longer have) and from the US & Canada. We still manufacture things but only in a hanful of cities. Repeating WWII efforts would mean a couple of years' dependency on Can/US manufacturing.
In short, we're in no position to be the aggressor and we'd be a few years slack in becoming an effective defender. We are a soft target but with nukes.
If Germany's wealth is mainly due to trade, they can't be aggressor without shooting the pooch.
Finally, aggression by any other European country would likely be stamped upon by the US. If Russia tried anything along those lines, we'd be on edge about it. (A discriminatory attitude but, hey, they're a kleptocracy and we don't want their latest acquisition nearby).
Only because I know what your posts are like can I see that as of humourous intent. The organisation themselves might view it as a false attribution, to make them look bad. Which makes you label-able.
@Svejk
The article is specific in a way you somehow avoided:
"Against the backdrop of rising anti-Semitism in Hungary, France and here in the UK (as demonstrated by the European Jewish Congress poll just last week) this is once again a battle that goes beyond Britain’s borders. A battle that we cannot win by retreating from the EU and having a conversation with ourselves."
The Svejk character was (Austro-)Hungarian. It would be rude of me to enquire as to your self-identified nationality or ancestry. All the same, was Hungary the trigger-word which inspired this thread?
That aside, "anti-Semitic if…" is in exactly the same form as "redneck if…", don't you think?
Guilt is built into the question, as in "Mr X, when did you stop beating your wife."
Fears of future European war are not entirely irrational, that part of the argument is sound. The assertion of rising anti-semitism is sound - activities of far-right politcal groups are on the record, so that is sound, too. Fears of a second holocaust: if anything I share them (unemployed and semi-useless, due to a health problem) but no extremists are stupid enough to announce plans for such horrors.
The inference that EU membership "prevents war" requires further thought. Britain can't be the plucky island on its own. Even in WWII, it never was - we were dependent on food supplies from the empire (which we no longer have) and from the US & Canada. We still manufacture things but only in a hanful of cities. Repeating WWII efforts would mean a couple of years' dependency on Can/US manufacturing.
In short, we're in no position to be the aggressor and we'd be a few years slack in becoming an effective defender. We are a soft target but with nukes.
If Germany's wealth is mainly due to trade, they can't be aggressor without shooting the pooch.
Finally, aggression by any other European country would likely be stamped upon by the US. If Russia tried anything along those lines, we'd be on edge about it. (A discriminatory attitude but, hey, they're a kleptocracy and we don't want their latest acquisition nearby).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.