It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F... E.U.

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
If you are an ordinary European person this does not apply to you. It instead applies to the members of your countries that are E.U. politicians.

The recent demonstration that what you originally said about the European Union never becoming a dictatorial superstate, and member states (note the use of the term state) remaining sovereign, was a blatant lie, when it was announced that Hungary would be ordered! to except a migrant quota, that its citizens and government did not want. Sorry for the long opening sentence.

This latest display of your disregard and contempt for the will of the people you claim to represent, also confirmed that the vote by the population of the UK to depart from your tyranny was the right one. I hope Hungary and many others now follow the UK lead. The people of Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania are also among those who will not take being forced to accept people who they do not want in their countries.

Those things, telling as they are, are not the reason for this post. The chief French criminal responsible for negotiating on behalf of the E.U. in the talks to decide the terms of the U.K.s withdrawal from the E.U., is tasked with getting an agreement on what the U.K. should pay to extract itself from the corruption. A political divorce settlement if you will.

Here's the thing. When French soldiers surrendered and deserted en masse, twice , in the face of German plans for European domination, The U.K. along with others spent huge amounts in money, suffering and blood to save Europe from this fate. More was spent again protecting Europe from The spread of communism, and the E.U. has the gall to try to force the U.K. to pay a financial price to leave a Federal Europe we never voted to join.

The next time Germany decides it is destined to rule Europe (third time lucky?) you will get no help from us, if I have any say in it. My country has paid you in full, and then some, you greedy, corrupt, ingrate foreign bastards.




posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Just a quick correction...
It's not like a divorce settlement...
It's just the remaining amount we would have paid for the years we are still in...

But other than that I agree, we shouldn't pay them a penny...

What are they gonna do if we don't?

They're already hardlining on every single position from trade to immigration...

I do think we have some true f*cking imbeciles negotiating for us though...

David Davies seems like a bitch...
& Theresa May is clueless.


But alas, we knew it wouldn't be easy when we voted out.
So be it.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408
I completely agree. We could not have a worse crop of politicians for the situation we are in, than we have now.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Politicians don't have to deal with the 'fallout' of their actions. The EU headquarters is in Belgium, the building architecture is that of an unfinished construction.

Hiding in plain sight...



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Just a quick correction...
It's not like a divorce settlement...
It's just the remaining amount we would have paid for the years we are still in...

But other than that I agree, we shouldn't pay them a penny...

What are they gonna do if we don't?

They're already hardlining on every single position from trade to immigration...

I do think we have some true f*cking imbeciles negotiating for us though...

David Davies seems like a bitch...
& Theresa May is clueless.


But alas, we knew it wouldn't be easy when we voted out.


So be it.


I think , you're wrong on two counts there : first , we have committed to pay what bills were expected until we leave . The 60-100 billion they are asking for is a further payment , or would be if we were going to pay it .

Which brings me to the second point , Davies and May are not prepared to stump anything further than what we owe as normal members until 2019 .
That is not clueless , they are standing up for this country against them . There are going to be EU shillings on this site , and CulturalResistance has a clear view which is agreed this end too .

I think we should support Davies and May from here on , and thank goodness we haven't got Labour giving us a soft turncoat brexit , as they have shown they beleive in now . Corbyn has shown his colours , he is a traitor , very possibly an EU thorn in the government's side . Davies is a good negotiator actually and there appears to be an actual hardcore he is part of which will not sell out to the EU against their own country , our country , Great Britain .



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The establishment in both the UK and the EU are committed to the European state project. It is the people who aren't, narrowly. Few of those negotiating the exit have thier heart in it. The plan is clearly to do some theatre then settle with a very expensive deal that still keeps us half entangled, leading to another ref in a decade then if needed another. Eventually the public will be beaten with propaganda into compliance. With a combination of propagandising the young and dilution of national identity through immigration they've won already. Just waiting on us dissenters to die off already. Tick tock.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Great title.
Yes...F-E.U.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
It's not like a divorce settlement...


If the UK was not a contributor to the EU budget, but say a beneficiary, would the EU e paying the UK to leave, on the basis that we've got used to receiving piles of cash? Of course not.

The fact is that without the UKs money the EUs financial capability to work is compromised - they need us to continue paying so they can work out what to do. While they are attempting to extort money from the UK they are not even thinking about how to cut the budgets! Same old, same old.

Besides, the size of the bill is unknown and varies from a reasonable £47.25 (the price of the last round of drinks) to £100 billion. What's in the equation? Well, paying the pensions of non UK citizens because they have worked for the EUis one of the demands. Anyway this is a good source of info on the bill

The EU is demonstrating a lack of brains in the severance talks, IMHO. By insisting the UK agree how much cash they will hand over before talks about the things that matter (trade, people, relationships), they are exposing themselves to be arrogant fools.
edit on 7/9/2017 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Quite the polemic OP.
Loved every word. Well done!



reply to: CulturalResilience




posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
This is a subject on which feelings naturally run high, so we shouldn't get things mixed up if we can avoid it, because it is complex enough already.

Warning: This post has factual information. Reader discretion is advised.

The recent row over mandatory accommodation ("quotas") doesn't concern migrants, it concerns refugees. There is a big difference: migrants just pitch up on spec; refugees are fleeing persecution.

(NOTE 1: For clarity's sake: A new arrival who is fleeing persecution is defined in law as an 'asylum seeker'. They make a legal claim for asylum, which is assessed, and if their application is successful, they become a 'refugee'. As I understand it, the people at the centre of this EU row are refugees, i.e., they have successfully claimed asylum and have the right to abide in the EU.)

The combined nations of the EU are being asked to divide 120,000 refugees between them. It's a big-looking number, but it's the equivalent of a middle-sized English town. Distributed between 28 member nations.

(NOTE 2: The reason it is being imposed is because the EU didn't foresee the current mid-east crisis when it drew up its original plans for asylum seekers. This was that arrivals had to claim asylum in the first nation they entered. During normal times, this would be workable. However, since the Mediterranean has turned into the mid-east's primary escape route, it means that Italy and Greece have ended up as 'holding pens', absolutely swamped - the word is appropriate, here - with incomers. (N.b., not all of those incomers are asylum seekers, and not all of them are refugees. Sorting out which is which is going to take years).)

The current situation is really not fair on Italy or Greece. Greece, in particular, has enough on its plate already. So the proposal is to distribute those refugees evenly. It works out at around 4,250 refugees per member nation. It's not very much to ask.

If Poland, Hungary, and the rest, really want shot of the EU, they can quit. But, even though they have quite far-right governments that make a big deal out of restricting immigration (not the same thing as asylum, but they don't care about that), I bet they won't. Because, as Britain has discovered a bit late in the game, EU membership has a lot of benefits.

Meanwhile, Italy and Greece are just as over-run as they were before, but now a little bit of pressure has been relieved.

As for the general principle, this isn't a federal Europe. Such a thing is a long way off, if it could ever arise at all. Clearly, there are national sovereignty questions raised by the asylum quota, and these are worth arguing over. But in terms of 'where do you draw the line?', this isn't where you draw the line. Not yet, at any rate.

TL;DR - Some right-wing governments are making a song-and-dance about turning away a relative handful of poor sods who have lost everything. It's a horribly sad situation, and Britain's (mainly anti-EU) press isn't covering itself in glory with its coverage.
edit on 7-9-2017 by audubon because: clarification



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: justwokeup

Perhaps you're right , or perhaps not , because the UK establishment is distinct from other European establishments in other countries .

There is every possibility that , the Uk establishment wants the door shut against this new entity, the EU, vying for its power .

When the conservative party ( an obvious uk establishment bastion) dropped the EPP in 2009 , the UK establishment operating through the party , gained its independence again . Otherwise it would have just lost more and more ground to the newcomers .
edit on 7-9-2017 by GeneralMayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
a reply to: Hazardous1408
I completely agree. We could not have a worse crop of politicians for the situation we are in, than we have now.



Just thank god we dont have Jeremy Corbin negotiating for us


That would be a fate worse than death



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
It's not a fee to leave the EU. It's our share of spending commitments we'd already agreed to and signed up for. Subtle yet very important difference.


Plus during the campaign the Remain campaign did repeatedly say that we would be liable to pay this money if we left. If folks didn't want to pay it, they shouldn't have voted for it.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The EU is demonstrating a lack of brains in the severance talks, IMHO. By insisting the UK agree how much cash they will hand over before talks about the things that matter (trade, people, relationships), they are exposing themselves to be arrogant fools."



I don't think they care how they look to be honest, they are doing what they are supposed to do - setting out to get the best deal for the 27 member countries. That's what the EU does, gets the best deal for itself.

And they've got the UK bent over a barrel. We have very little leverage, they have all the power, so they're going to get their way.

I understand it looks like arrogance, but you could also just say it's a strong organisation using it's power and leverage to get the best deal for its shareholders.
edit on -05:00pm27930America/ChicagoThu, 07 Sep 2017 15:27:56 -0500249 by Painterz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

They keep calling it a divorce .....But


No court order regarding a financial settlement can be made before decree nisi (conditional order in civil partnership dissolution) and will not be final and binding until the divorce proceedings are completed by the making of a decree absolute (final order in civil partnership dissolution)


So why don't the EU play by the rules .... or do they think they are above rules



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

They stop being refugees when they don't apply to stay in the first safe country they arrive at. They then become migrants.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
They stop being refugees when they don't apply to stay in the first safe country they arrive at. They then become migrants.


I think that's right, but it doesn't apply to the 120,000 refugees in this legal row.

I should add, I think the total number of refugees subject to the quota turned out to be more than 120,000 - but not by a huge percentage. I've only been paying occasional attention to this entire debacle.



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia
So why don't the EU play by the rules .... or do they think they are above rules


Yes, that's right. The EU can make the rules up as it goes along. They can also change the rules if they have the will. The fact that they are intransigent probably reveals their state of mind.

Ho hum. The EU will kill any goodwill that could exist with the UK post Brexit, and then we'll see how things pan out. Who needs Spanish tomatoes and French wine when there is so much choice elsewhere. It cuts both ways of course, but who will be more nimble?



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
It's not a fee to leave the EU. It's our share of spending commitments we'd already agreed to and signed up for. Subtle yet very important difference.


Plus during the campaign the Remain campaign did repeatedly say that we would be liable to pay this money if we left. If folks didn't want to pay it, they shouldn't have voted for it.


No , I'm going go out on a limb and say , these statements are entirely wrong.

The bill , which the EU has still not decided how much it wants , is a settlement payment for leaving the EU . We're committed to pay what we have agreed to pay in advance , ie what we would normally pay year by year .

This 'final settlement' the EU wants is something else than what should normally be paid .

I'm going to ask , why are you putting wrong information down , opposite to the obvious truth ? If your info is correct then back it up please . Or acknowledge correction . This should be a very simple matter .



posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz

I don't think they care how they look to be honest, they are doing what they are supposed to do - setting out to get the best deal for the 27 member countries. That's what the EU does, gets the best deal for itself.

And they've got the UK bent over a barrel. We have very little leverage, they have all the power, so they're going to get their way.


As the second largest contributer to the EU budget I should think the other

25 nations will be more than a little concerned about the very large shortfall

in their future spending!



And the likes of Juncker, Macron, Barnier, Merkle et. al ... will be more than

a little anxious about their gold plated pensions?


Juncker will be very worried about his wine cellar!!!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join