|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2022 12:02:08 GMT
I very much doubt the Irish feel any gratitude at all for the money the Conservative Government lent them. well thats the Irish for you - they were quick enough to take the money but to show any gratitude for the largesse from the UK... Maybe you didn't read my post, Doc. There was no largesse. There was a commercial loan, not largesse. And it was a loan the UK insisted on enforcing to the letter, to suck as much marrow from the bone as was possible. Fair enough, that was what was agreed. But the other lenders didn't insist on it. So, don't pretend the UK was doing Ireland a favour. Now, the tables have turned and the Irish are insisting that the UK recognise its agreement to the letter. Karma, or what? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 20, 2022 14:06:57 GMT
People never learn. The EU doesn't have any money to invest. All the money comes from member countries. It's a very clever wheeze - they bribe us with our own money.  It was very clever of you to deduce that the money the EU uses comes from membership fees rather than Ursula Van der Leyen's post office savings account, Snuggles. Would that money have ended up boosting the Irish economy if it weren't for the EU? Would the UK now have a £21 billion trade surplus in goods and £13 billion surplus in services with Ireland if it weren't for the EU? No. The EU created that wealth with its members' membership fees. Firstly, itwas you who claimed that the EU invested money in Ireland - when the EU doesn't invest any money. It redistributes budget contributions from its members - or what's left after it's paid all its employees their massive tax-free salaries and expenses and built a palace or two. But the money that the EU "granted" Ireland is nickels and dimes compared with what the adoption of the euro cost Ireland. They now have a 240 billion euro debt which is one of the biggest debts per capita in the world. Will they ever pay it off? Only by nicking taxes paid to other countries via their tax haven status. Sorry, darling, but you've been wrong on every single thing you ever said about the EU. There's no point in carrying on digging. Are you by any cnance the late "Kim". You have many of her traits - ignorance, persistence, innumeracy and female (just).  Kim was one of the reasons I gave up on the last forum - the posts simply brought the forum into disrepute. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2022 14:18:14 GMT
Sorry, darling, but you've been wrong on every single thing you ever said about the EU. There's no point in carrying on digging. Are you by any cnance the late "Kim". You have many of her traits - ignorance, persistence, innumeracy and female (just). Kim was one of the reasons I gave up on the last forum - the posts simply brought the forum into disrepute. Why do you keep pushing me away, Snuggles? I only want to be your friend.  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 20, 2022 19:10:23 GMT
I do not understand this. Polls are used now to show how much people wish to rejoin the EU and how this is a democratic principle yet in 1971-72 when the polls were showing a 2 to 1 majority not to join these polls were ignored and all Remainers say we were taken in democratically. It is an outlook seemingly specific to those who support the EU and rather hypocritical. I see how it's going to play out now. The polls are going to continually show high levels of support for fixing the relationship with the EU (maybe through rejoining the SM and CU), but you lot are going to claim that it is perfectly okay to deny democracy because democracy was denied 50 years ago (according to you). Meanwhile, you're to be found on other threads saying that the sons are not responsible for the sins of their fathers. It seems that its okay to deny the pro-EU sons democracy for the (supposed) democratic sins of their fathers, though. I have been accused of having torturous logic but this takes the biscuit. The problem is that if polls are a measure of what the public want, and you are saying it is, then we should never have joined. All you need to do is acknowledge that fact to be consistent but in the main most of you say we were taken in democratically. Now perhaps you can point out where I have said we have no responsibility for the sins of the fathers, what I have said if you are going to operate on a sins of the fathers type scenario then that would apply to all peoples and all countries. As well as acknowledging mitigating circumstances an example would be slavery whereby the sacrifices of Britons to stop slaving activities was quite considerable with the loss of some 2500 lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2022 19:27:09 GMT
I see how it's going to play out now. The polls are going to continually show high levels of support for fixing the relationship with the EU (maybe through rejoining the SM and CU), but you lot are going to claim that it is perfectly okay to deny democracy because democracy was denied 50 years ago (according to you). Meanwhile, you're to be found on other threads saying that the sons are not responsible for the sins of their fathers. It seems that its okay to deny the pro-EU sons democracy for the (supposed) democratic sins of their fathers, though. I have been accused of having torturous logic but this takes the biscuit. The problem is that if polls are a measure of what the public want, and you are saying it is, then we should never have joined. All you need to do is acknowledge that fact to be consistent but in the main most of you say we were taken in democratically. Now perhaps you can point out where I have said we have no responsibility for the sins of the fathers, what I have said if you are going to operate on a sins of the fathers type scenario then that would apply to all peoples and all countries. As well as acknowledging mitigating circumstances an example would be slavery whereby the sacrifices of Britons to stop slaving activities was quite considerable with the loss of some 2500 lives. So, when/if the polls start consistently showing that 60% (plus) of the public thinks the Government should act to undo the damage (whether by joining the SM and CU or or otherwise), you'll be in favour of that? And you won't raise any objections on the basis that it is fair to be undemocratic since that supposedly happened 50 years ago? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 20, 2022 19:32:00 GMT
I have been accused of having torturous logic but this takes the biscuit. The problem is that if polls are a measure of what the public want, and you are saying it is, then we should never have joined. All you need to do is acknowledge that fact to be consistent but in the main most of you say we were taken in democratically. Now perhaps you can point out where I have said we have no responsibility for the sins of the fathers, what I have said if you are going to operate on a sins of the fathers type scenario then that would apply to all peoples and all countries. As well as acknowledging mitigating circumstances an example would be slavery whereby the sacrifices of Britons to stop slaving activities was quite considerable with the loss of some 2500 lives. So, when/if the polls start consistently showing that 60% (plus) of the public thinks the Government should act to undo the damage (whether by joining the SM and CU or or otherwise), you'll be in favour of that? And you won't raise any objections on the basis that it is fair to be undemocratic since that supposedly happened 50 years ago? 52% six years ago trumps 60% tomorrow (if you want it to hard enough). |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 20, 2022 22:13:25 GMT
well thats the Irish for you - they were quick enough to take the money but to show any gratitude for the largesse from the UK... Maybe you didn't read my post, Doc. There was no largesse. There was a commercial loan, not largesse. And it was a loan the UK insisted on enforcing to the letter to suck as much marrow from the bone as was possible. well for a start: 1 - the UK didn't have to offer to bailout Ireland in the first place and.. 2 - if Ireland felt the terms were that bad why did they grab that bailout with both hands? ...answers on a postcard..  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 20, 2022 22:41:07 GMT
I have been accused of having torturous logic but this takes the biscuit. The problem is that if polls are a measure of what the public want, and you are saying it is, then we should never have joined. All you need to do is acknowledge that fact to be consistent but in the main most of you say we were taken in democratically. Now perhaps you can point out where I have said we have no responsibility for the sins of the fathers, what I have said if you are going to operate on a sins of the fathers type scenario then that would apply to all peoples and all countries. As well as acknowledging mitigating circumstances an example would be slavery whereby the sacrifices of Britons to stop slaving activities was quite considerable with the loss of some 2500 lives. So, when/if the polls start consistently showing that 60% (plus) of the public thinks the Government should act to undo the damage (whether by joining the SM and CU or or otherwise), you'll be in favour of that? And you won't raise any objections on the basis that it is fair to be undemocratic since that supposedly happened 50 years ago? No becasue I always accepted that polls were indications of public opinions not definitive measures of that will. I accept that Heath had a mandate to take us in, just, although some statements gave the impression greater permission would be sought and a greater degree of acceptance considered both by the electorate and by parliament. All I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who say becasue the polls show something they want it must be followed as the will of the people when it is only an indication of that will not an accurate measure of it. We have had the measure in 2016, we have several times as well when that measure could be challenged with groups specifically basing their potential support on cancelling Brexit. If we had followed the polls then Brexit would never have happened, I know that is what you wish but realistically that is not democratic. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2022 23:08:48 GMT
So, when/if the polls start consistently showing that 60% (plus) of the public thinks the Government should act to undo the damage (whether by joining the SM and CU or or otherwise), you'll be in favour of that? And you won't raise any objections on the basis that it is fair to be undemocratic since that supposedly happened 50 years ago? No becasue I always accepted that polls were indications of public opinions not definitive measures of that will. I accept that Heath had a mandate to take us in, just, although some statements gave the impression greater permission would be sought and a greater degree of acceptance considered both by the electorate and by parliament. All I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who say becasue the polls show something they want it must be followed as the will of the people when it is only an indication of that will not an accurate measure of it. We have had the measure in 2016, we have several times as well when that measure could be challenged with groups specifically basing their potential support on cancelling Brexit. If we had followed the polls then Brexit would never have happened, I know that is what you wish but realistically that is not democratic. Ah, I should have been clearer. What I was meant was: do you accept that the Government should hold a referendum if the polls consistently come back with 60% (plus) results. Surely, you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 20, 2022 23:16:52 GMT
We could agree to make it advisory only if that helps.
Also, I've got this bus...
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2022 23:24:29 GMT
Maybe you didn't read my post, Doc. There was no largesse. There was a commercial loan, not largesse. And it was a loan the UK insisted on enforcing to the letter to suck as much marrow from the bone as was possible. well for a start: 1 - the UK didn't have to offer to bailout Ireland in the first place and.. 2 - if Ireland felt the terms were that bad why did they grab that bailout with both hands? ...answers on a postcard.. You described the UK's minor contribution to Ireland's 'bailout' as largesse. It was nothing of the sort. It was a commercial loan given at high interest rates. The agreement didn't allow Ireland to pay the loan off early. Ireland surprised everyone by fixing their economy very quickly and putting itself in a position where it was able to repay the loans it got from several different sources early. All the other lenders, including the EU, agreed to take an early repayment. The only party that refused was the UK, because early payment would have meant the loss of interest payments. Apparently, that caused a lot of anger in the Irish media, because all the other lenders accepted early payment, and it looked like the Conservative Government was trying to take advantage of Ireland's misfortune. But, an agreement is an agreement and Cameron was entitled to insist that Ireland stick to the strict terms. And Ireland stuck to what was agreed. As I said, Karma be a bitch! Because now the Irish are insisting the UK stick strictly to the terms of its agreement with the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 20, 2022 23:29:25 GMT
Oh no, did your karma just run over their dogma?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2022 23:30:37 GMT
Oh no, did your karma just run over their dogma? I'm highly impressed with this post. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 20, 2022 23:44:13 GMT
Oh no, did your karma just run over their dogma? I'm highly impressed with this post. It's an old joke. The secret is in the timing... |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 20, 2022 23:47:36 GMT
I'm highly impressed with this post. It's an old joke. The secret is in the timing... Encore! Encore! |
|
Kim was one of the reasons I gave up on the last forum - the posts simply brought the forum into disrepute. 
