unbeliever Posted December 16, 2016 Author Share Posted December 16, 2016 No it doesn`t, but, by definition, it makes it relatively unimportant. I have never known any subject cause so much ill feeling, divisiveness, uncertainty, certain effect on inflation (if my business`s suppliers are anything to go by), increase in hate crime etc etc. Most people who voted leave are perfectly decent, but it certainly has given the far right wing low life a new confidence hasn`t it ? Basically, or a subject that was relatively unimportant to the great majority of people one would have to conclude that for most people, it would not be worth it. I suspect that it became higher priority when hope of change was offered and also when people came to understand how much authority the EU have over UK law. What price sovereignty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 I suspect that it became higher priority when hope of change was offered and also when people came to understand how much authority the EU have over UK law. What price sovereignty? Of course, but it was false promise wasn`t it ? They thought (not too deeply.....) "I`m not doing as well as I want, it can only make things better, and even if it doesn`t what have I got to lose ?". But it may make things worse, and almost certainly won`t make things better for them. Sovereignty ? What exactly do you mean by that ? Quite apart from anything else I know a few people who were quite happy (although they were wrong because in reality the EU has very little power over the British government) that the EU might act as a brake on the last two Tory governments ! But to an extent it`s irrelevant anyway because I can guarantee that the great majority of those who voted to leave the EU it had nothing to do with that whatsoever. It was immigration and, as you said, desperation over their circumstances, plus wanting to kick the establishment, particularly if they (wrongly) thought it was the Tories who wanted to stay in the EU. And I think you know that`s all true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted December 16, 2016 Author Share Posted December 16, 2016 Of course, but it was false promise wasn`t it ? They thought (not too deeply.....) "I`m not doing as well as I want, it can only make things better, and even if it doesn`t what have I got to lose ?". But it may make things worse, and almost certainly won`t make things better for them. Sovereignty ? What exactly do you mean by that ? Quite apart from anything else I know a few people who were quite happy (although they were wrong because in reality the EU has very little power over the British government) that the EU might act as a brake on the last two Tory governments ! But to an extent it`s irrelevant anyway because I can guarantee that the great majority of those who voted to leave the EU it had nothing to do with that whatsoever. It was immigration and, as you said, desperation over their circumstances, plus wanting to kick the establishment, particularly if they (wrongly) thought it was the Tories who wanted to stay in the EU. And I think you know that`s all true. The main message of the leave campaign was "take control". Sovereignty means we are in control of our nation. We've been losing it steadily since 1972. Now we're taking it back. Whether you agree or not, that's what was decided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Smith Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Of course, but it was false promise wasn`t it ? They thought (not too deeply.....) "I`m not doing as well as I want, it can only make things better, and even if it doesn`t what have I got to lose ?". But it may make things worse, and almost certainly won`t make things better for them. Sovereignty ? What exactly do you mean by that ? Quite apart from anything else I know a few people who were quite happy (although they were wrong because in reality the EU has very little power over the British government) that the EU might act as a brake on the last two Tory governments ! But to an extent it`s irrelevant anyway because I can guarantee that the great majority of those who voted to leave the EU it had nothing to do with that whatsoever. It was immigration and, as you said, desperation over their circumstances, plus wanting to kick the establishment, particularly if they (wrongly) thought it was the Tories who wanted to stay in the EU. And I think you know that`s all true. The main message of the leave campaign was "take control". Sovereignty means we are in control of our nation. We've been losing it steadily since 1972. Now we're taking it back. Whether you agree or not, that's what was decided. I note you didn`t disagree with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea, Japan, and the United States.Norway and Finland: Putin isn't interested, they're not historically part of the Russian sphere of influence. They're not hostile to Russia either. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They're not hostile to Russia, they do a fair amount of business with Russia. Geopolitically though, they have been bricking it awhile. Openly. They were screaming blue murder for a NATO show of force, after Putin moved a few divisions their way last summer, which NATO (mostly the Scandivanians, with a sprinkling of expeditionary Marines) gave them. But then, Trump since. Now they're bricking mountains. Openly. Very easy to find the links in Google news. Poland - the most likely to give them a bloody nose. But not currently hostile. I'll give you Ukraine. Though I note that they haven't retaken Crimea nor their eastern provinces, and are effectively in a stalemate. And the matter of MH117 and Russia' BUK launcher seems to have followed the same one-way track to stalemating/oblivion. Like Georgia below, probably hostile indeed, but pragmatically, jack all they can do about the situation. Georgia: your memory is looking a bit short. Rewind to 2008, play back. They're still under Putin's boot. Most likely hostile like the Ukraine, and still jack all they can do about it. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan: both run by kleptocrats, comfortably in Putin's back pocket. No hostility, fast-developing relationships. Mongolia: Putin is happy to let China keep it. No hostility there (and crucially, zero military capability). NK: same as Mongolia. China holds those reins, and China and Russia are best buddies these days. No hostility there: fatty doesn't send his test missiles or his dusty subs Putin's or Jinping's way. China (Jinping), Japan (Abe) and the US (Trump) are no enemies of Putin at all, very far from it. China and Japan, primarily for oil dependency reasons. The US, for realpolitik reasons (I expect, given the makeup of Trump's appointees for Defence and State, besides others). For all his technological shortcomings and military PR own goals, he's still well up on the scoreboard: the Russian sphere of influence is growing, not shrinking. The same can't be said of the US and the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hush Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 (edited) Norway and Finland: Putin isn't interested, they're not historically part of the Russian sphere of influence. They're not hostile to Russia either. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They're not hostile to Russia, they do a fair amount of business with Russia. Geopolitically though, they have been bricking it awhile. Openly. They were screaming blue murder for a NATO show of force, after Putin moved a few divisions their way last summer, which NATO (mostly the Scandivanians, with a sprinkling of expeditionary Marines) gave them. But then, Trump since. Now they're bricking mountains. Openly. Very easy to find the links in Google news. Poland - the most likely to give them a bloody nose. But not currently hostile. I'll give you Ukraine. Though I note that they haven't retaken Crimea nor their eastern provinces, and are effectively in a stalemate. And the matter of MH117 and Russia' BUK launcher seems to have followed the same one-way track to stalemating/oblivion. Like Georgia below, probably hostile indeed, but pragmatically, jack all they can do about the situation. Georgia: your memory is looking a bit short. Rewind to 2008, play back. They're still under Putin's boot. Most likely hostile like the Ukraine, and still jack all they can do about it. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan: both run by kleptocrats, comfortably in Putin's back pocket. No hostility, fast-developing relationships. Mongolia: Putin is happy to let China keep it. No hostility there (and crucially, zero military capability). NK: same as Mongolia. China holds those reins, and China and Russia are best buddies these days. No hostility there: fatty doesn't send his test missiles or his dusty subs Putin's or Jinping's way. China (Jinping), Japan (Abe) and the US (Trump) are no enemies of Putin at all, very far from it. China and Japan, primarily for oil dependency reasons. The US, for realpolitik reasons (I expect, given the makeup of Trump's appointees for Defence and State, besides others). For all his technological shortcomings and military PR own goals, he's still well up on the scoreboard: the Russian sphere of influence is growing, not shrinking. The same can't be said of the US and the EU. Most of those countries that you claim are not hostile to Russia have joined NATO because they are. Most countries that had been Iron Curtain are now mostly NATO. But like you say Russia's shere of influence is growing. Although not in Europe and I'm not sure that Cuba takes much notice these days either. Nor Iraq as far as I can see. That's the problem with places like Poland, East Germany, Hungary, The former Cz repiblics, Albania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc. You think they are on your side then all of a sudden they walk away with all the hardware and troops who you thought were on your front line. They not only do that but they join the other side. Putin talks tough but he hasn't got anything like the muscle Breznev had to back it up. A population equivalent to that of Russia and a massive amount of firepower came over to play for our team. And none of the above is any reason not to leave the EU. Edited December 16, 2016 by hush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 The main message of the leave campaign was "take control". Sovereignty means we are in control of our nation. We've been losing it steadily since 1972. Now we're taking it back. Whether you agree or not, that's what was decided. Except not very effectively because we still need to play in Europe, and at huge cost, which is apparently unexpected to brexiters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 Except not very effectively because we still need to play in Europe, and at huge cost, which is apparently unexpected to brexiters. To many the referendum wasn't about pounds, shillings and pence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 17, 2016 Share Posted December 17, 2016 To many the referendum wasn't about pounds, shillings and pence. as i originally said at the time cut off their nose to spite their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted December 17, 2016 Author Share Posted December 17, 2016 Other countries and regions have broken away from parent nations and super states before. The cry for independence is hardly new. Why is it okay for them and not for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts