Jump to content
IGNORED

Brexit...


Hafnia

Referendum  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Matt I never said you couldn't vote that was the decision of your government not mine, I just agree with that decision which seems really sensible to me, which is why should anyone who doesn't live in this country be given a vote that changes the lives of people that do live here, and how has that affected your citizenship nothing has changed your still a citizen with the same rights you had before and after the vote.

i understood that, and for internal affairs I've been the first to hold my hands up and say I don't get a vote.

 

The rights of my citizenship however, are not the same after art 50 is implemented as I will no longer be an EU citizen (which, as I've explained multiple times, impacts my life dramatically) and therefore I should've been entitled to have a say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully for you it won't change that much, I know the house of Lords have said that Brexit bill has to include that all E.U citizens currently working in Britain should be protected, the problem is Theresa May doesn't want to add that to the bill, because I can only assume you wants to use that as a bargaining chip, which I find unscrupulous, if she now has to except the house of Lords ruling I feel sure that that sentiment would be reciprocated to British citizens in other E.U countries, so hopefully Matt for you the status quo will remain the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

I agree success shouldn't be something to be a shamed of, and it shouldn't be used as a weapon to try and beat someone who may not have been as fortunate as yourself.

And I assume you're referring to my posts with Rusty, you'll have to take my word for it I am fairly successful, I come from a working class family brought up on a council estate, parents never had a bean like most of the families in my estate, I still have five good friends that I see on a regular basis, it hasn't changed me cause it had my mates wouldn't associate with me.

And I personally think it shows lack of taste to boast about your wealth, I maybe wrong but that's me.

We share a similar background Palfy. No silver spoon for me. My father was born almost the youngest of 13 children to a second mate on a Grimsby Trawler in 1926. Their mother died of TB in 1936 and life was one hell of a struggle - only 6 children surviving into their teens.

 

My mother was also one of 6 children, born in 1929 who was desserted by her father in the war, (ran off to Manchester with his fancy woman) leaving my Gran to bring all six children up in a one bedroom rented house.

 

My father was just old enough to catch the end of ww2 and managed to get himself blown up in an ambush while driving a tank transporter in what was then Palestine. As a consequence he was only able to work sporadically, in between hospital visits throughout his life. We were reliant on his modest war disability pension, my mother working in what was then called the 'Home Help Service' and me working every school holiday from age 12 to make ends meet.

 

Somehow, though, I managed to pass the eleven plus exam and went to the local Grammar School - feeling totally out of place and out of my depth for the first year.

 

But sport is a great leveller and I turned into a decent 'keeper, trials with Millwall, Sheff Wed and Grimsby Town and was offered schoolboy forms with Grimsby Town.

 

When I left school aged 18 I wanted to go to uni and continue with Grimsby Town but we still needed the money so I joined the RAF as a student pilot aged 18 and the rest you know. Parents both dead now, no brothers or sisters and my wife is Malaysian. Hence the willingness to retire to Malaysia but still the connection with UK. Like you, I have many friends still from the village where I grew up and they would certainly let me know if they felt I was getting too big for my boots.

 

Any success I have had is not down to silver spoon syndrome or any inherent natural ability for that matter. Rather, it has been a sheer bloody minded refusal to admit defeat and the determination to give my family, especially my adopted baby girl, a better start in life than either I or my wife had.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We share a similar background Palfy. No silver spoon for me. My father was born almost the youngest of 13 children to a second mate on a Grimsby Trawler in 1926. Their mother died of TB in 1936 and life was one hell of a struggle - only 6 children surviving into their teens.

My mother was also one of 6 children, born in 1929 who was desserted by her father in the war, (ran off to Manchester with his fancy woman) leaving my Gran to bring all six children up in a one bedroom rented house.

My father was just old enough to catch the end of ww2 and managed to get himself blown up in an ambush while driving a tank transporter in what was then Palestine. As a consequence he was only able to work sporadically, in between hospital visits throughout his life. We were reliant on his modest war disability pension, my mother working in what was then called the 'Home Help Service' and me working every school holiday from age 12 to make ends meet.

Somehow, though, I managed to pass the eleven plus exam and went to the local Grammar School - feeling totally out of place and out of my depth for the first year.

But sport is a great leveller and I turned into a decent 'keeper, trials with Millwall, Sheff Wed and Grimsby Town and was offered schoolboy forms with Grimsby Town.

When I left school aged 18 I wanted to go to uni and continue with Grimsby Town but we still needed the money so I joined the RAF as a student pilot aged 18 and the rest you know. Parents both dead now, no brothers or sisters and my wife is Malaysian. Hence the willingness to retire to Malaysia but still the connection with UK. Like you, I have many friends still from the village where I grew up and they would certainly let me know if they felt I was getting too big for my boots.

Any success I have had is not down to silver spoon syndrome or any inherent natural ability for that matter. Rather, it has been a sheer bloody minded refusal to admit defeat and the determination to give my family, especially my adopted baby girl, a better start in life than either I or my wife had.

Rusty I sincerely apologise if you felt I was mocking your life the reality is I can tell you are decent guy, we are just different in our political views, what's the old adage never talk about politics or religion.

I applaud you for getting where you are from were you've been, and I hope when the time comes your good lady and yourself have a wonderful retirement surrounded by the people you love.

But I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on our political persuasions and shake hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

Rusty I sincerely apologise if you felt I was mocking your life the reality is I can tell you are decent guy, we are just different in our political views, what's the old adage never talk about politics or religion.

I applaud you for getting where you are from were you've been, and I hope when the time comes your good lady and yourself have a wonderful retirement surrounded by the people you love.

But I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on our political persuasions and shake hands.

No apology necessary Palfy. Similarly, I apologise if I wound you up a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

When I was studying meteorology on my pilots course in the RAF we had a dry old met instructor known as 'Jim the Met'

 

He would always spend the last few moments of any lessons telling jokes and generally shooting the breeze with us.

 

One day, as we were approaching this point towards the end of the lesson he looked at me and said, 'Rusty, have you noticed how all tropical storms are given female names? Do you know why that is Rusty?'

 

Me: 'No Sir'

 

Jim the Met. 'Because when they come into your life they are warm, wet and wild, but when they leave they take your house and car with them!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another perspective on the rights of British citizens...

 

Henry Stanley (as in "Dr. Linvingstone, I presume") escaped an orphanage school as a teenager; stowed away on a ship to the US; fought for the South in the Civil War; was captured and fought for the North; became an American citizen; was commissioned by a New York newspaper to report on Khartoum, to find Dr. Livingstone, and then to trace the source of the Nile; was commissioned by the king of Belgium to travel the Congo river; returned to Britain late in life and became a Member of Parliament. It seems history might have been different if current opinions about citizenship versus residency were in play.

 

Andrew Bonar Law (British prime minister in the 1920s) was Canadian.

Edited by Cornish Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not leaving Europe. That would be impossible without a major seismic event, we are simply leaving the political creation of a USE. But rest assured anyone who wants to be a USE citizen will be able to become one as it is only 22 miles away at the closest point (even closer if you use the demarkation point in the Chunnel.)

 

And for those of you who wish to be European citizens rather than Europeans. here is a little song for you.... and yes I like it and no I am NOT taking the piss.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlQZyTF_LY

Edited by Rubecula
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not leaving Europe. That would be impossible without a major seismic event, we are simply leaving the political creation of a USE. But rest assured anyone who wants to be a USE citizen will be able to become one as it is only 22 miles away at the closest point (even closer if you use the demarkation point in the Chunnel.)

 

Appreciate the sentiment Rubes but to me it's not about that. It's wrong to think about the EU in terms of Statism. The EU is the supranational level, a country is a national level, then you have regions, communities, neighbourhoods etc.

 

I think the EU is useful because I think it is the right level to act on issues such as human rights, environment, economic cooperation, security, etc .. Ideally some of those issues would even be decided at a global level instead of just European, but obviously the world is nowhere near ready for that. At the other end of the spectrum, it is me and my neighbour who get to decide what type of hedge will divide our yard :).

 

I don't get why the level 'country' is so important to some people as it is just another level of pooled sovereignty where institutions have the competence to act in certain areas.

 

Now I do understand how some people think it is too soon to transfer competences from one level to another (for example from country to EU) but that's why on major transfers of compentences in the EU, every country has a veto or at the very least an 'opt-out' possibility. (The reason I am pro-brexit is because the UK is using this option too much but if supranational cooperation is not your thing that's OK.)

 

Cornish-Steve said earlier in this thread that he identifies with being Cornish and will never swear allegiance to a flag. I couldn't agree more with such a sentiment.

 

So as far as US of E goes, I don't see that ever happening, because who would want that. The concept of the nation state is of the 20th century, not this one.

 

And yes, the fact that puts me on exactly the other side to Wilders and Le Pen, only further convinces me, and, no, Wilders and Le Pen will not gain power in their country. (Wilders is polling at 14% with noone willing to join him in a coalition, Le Pen is set to loose by about 20% in the 2nd round of voting in France).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

My view on the EU is that it started out as a noble theory but all it has proven is that human nature invariably means that the noble theory gets translated into selfish and unacceptable practice.

 

You say that you cant understand the 'country' level but it is that very level that has been the downfall of the EU imho. Each and every country member is using the EU to varying degrees to try to get the best deal for its own national interests and isnt really interested in the supra national level in any way, other than how it can be abused to improve its own national interests - or personal interests in the case of most of the people that are riding the EU gravy train.

 

Factor in the political integration that we in UK never agreed to by referendum and that is why, imho, the UK's national interests are best served by brexit. Other countries may advocate keeping the EU together (others dont) but it is not for any noble idealogy, rather it is because they believe their own national interests will be better served by remaining in the union, invariably at the expense of another country or countries.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that what one person or country receives without working for, then another person or country has to work for without receiving. This is a driver of great social injustice and welfare abuse. At the national level, that is considered by UK and now other countries to be sufficiently unjust (and a frequently taken opportunity for corruption - over 120 billion euros a year) that the EU is no longer fit for purpose.

 

A sad indictment on human nature, but nonetheless, the reality of the situation imho.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with Rusty. And the perfect example of why political integration will never work (versus national interests) is the 'euro'. A currency which is 'manna from heaven' for Germany but for some EU countries and particularly the southern countries, is a disaster. Not joining the euro was one of the best decisions taken by Britain since the second world war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cornish-Steve said earlier in this thread that he identifies with being Cornish and will never swear allegiance to a flag. I couldn't agree more with such a sentiment.

 

Maybe I can comment more on this since, at first blush, it appears to contradict my stance on Brexit.

 

I associate with my culture, my heritage. In past generations, that would have included language (as it still is for the Welsh, etc.). To some extent, these things reflect, and in turn are shaped by, our shared values. I would suggest that culture (including language) is the most natural and all-encompassing social group to which we belong. I'm Cornish. You might be Welsh, or Irish, or French, or Basque, or Catalan, ... Note that culture does not equate to country, since many countries were created quite arbitrarily: Some include multiple cultures, and some cultures span multiple countries.

 

Now, for some, there's another important grouping: personal faith. Let's take Islam as an example. This grouping transcends country, culture, and language and boils down to another shared set of beliefs. It can be in conflict with cultural groups, or it can be dominated by them. Do Muslims in London, for example, belong first and foremost to Islamic or English culture? In many cases, they do not conflict; at times, they definitely do conflict. Sometimes, a culture and a faith merge to create a new type of entity altogether. Evangelical Christians in the US, for example, have become intensely patriotic yet culturally very different from other Americans and other Christians.

 

The United Kingdom is a kind of suprastate, one in which the English culture, historically, has dominated and tried to crowd out, and some would say even destroy, the Celtic cultures. For example, the Welsh once followed the patronymistic form of names: Robert ap Richard, who was Richard ap Rhys, who was Rhys ap Huw, who was Huw ap Harry. But the English were having none of this and forced the Welsh to have surnames: ap Richard => Prichard; ap Rhys => Price; ap Huw => Pugh; ap Harry => Parry; etc. After centuries of this, there remains a lingering resentment: How dare the English culture try to suppress my culture and my language and my values! It's not all bad, of course, and many are proud to be British. But surely this is not the right way to build a suprastate - through coercion. Shouldn't we respect individual cultures? Can a suprastate achieve its potential when different cultures refuse to trust one another? My stance is that cultures must want to coalesce, and that means mutual respect. The EU, in my opinion, has failed to respect cultures. Sure, it recognized the Cornish as an official minority (thank you!), but it has not recognized the fact that the English and the Celts have values quite different from other cultures in Europe. Hence, they've made decisions that lead us to feel trampled on, that our culture and values are not respected, that we're just a cog in a wheel and don't fully fit. This lies behind my statement that I identify as Cornish: it's my culture. It demands respect - from the English and from the EU.

 

As a Christian living in the US, I disagree strongly with the new evangelical Christian culture. I also have a natural distrust of patriotism. The person and the values I pursue through faith make it crystal clear: love my enemies; do good to them that seek me harm; pursue gentleness, patience, kindness, and self-control; never forget to help the poor, the sick, the different, the despised, the immigrant, and the needy - no matter where in the world they may be. Such things, for me, are far more important than any government policy. If the government victimizes immigrants, I shall strive to help them. If the government pulls healthcare coverage from millions, I'll do what I can to help those affected. If the government builds distrust of Muslims, I shall get to know and befriend more of them. (If evangelicals discriminate against gays, I shall stand up for them and help them.) So, I could never pledge allegiance to any national flag, because it would be a lie: When there's a clash between country and faith, faith will win every time - so why publicly suggest otherwise? Admittedly, this is a little more clear-cut for me than for most, because the clash is not between my inherited culture (Cornish) and my faith (Christian): the third entity here is the country in which I live. Yes, of course I respect it - the country should expect that - but I will not blindly follow or pledge allegiance.

 

So this is the big picture. In the context of the EU, it must respect cultures and has more to learn in this area. Moreover, the EU will not achieve its full potential until every culture it represents wants to belong. These conditions are not met in Britain right now, which is why I supported the vote to leave. Economic community? Yes please! United States of Europe? Not until we're ready, which is probably decades away. And when it comes to personal faith, this is important, too. In this area, though, the EU appears to have done a better job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My stance is that cultures must want to coalesce, and that means mutual respect. The EU, in my opinion, has failed to respect cultures. Sure, it recognized the Cornish as an official minority (thank you!), but it has not recognized the fact that the English and the Celts have values quite different from other cultures in Europe. Hence, they've made decisions that lead us to feel trampled on, that our culture and values are not respected, that we're just a cog in a wheel and don't fully fit. This lies behind my statement that I identify as Cornish: it's my culture. It demands respect - from the English and from the EU.

 

So this is the big picture. In the context of the EU, it must respect cultures and has more to learn in this area. Moreover, the EU will not achieve its full potential until every culture it represents wants to belong. These conditions are not met in Britain right now, which is why I supported the vote to leave. Economic community? Yes please! United States of Europe? Not until we're ready, which is probably decades away. And when it comes to personal faith, this is important, too. In this area, though, the EU appears to have done a better job.

 

I agree with almost everything you wrote, I just disagree with the conclusion regarding the EU.

 

The EU very clearly stays away from rulemaking on anthing related to language and culture. As it is a supranational organisation, and there is no cultural homogenity within its borders, it has no competence, nor reason, to act on these matters. The principle that the EU doesn't act in these local matters is a specific constitutional principle of EU law, which illustrates its importance. (as a side note: regions are also represented in the EU in the important advisory board "Committee of the Regions", which I assume has a Cornish member).

 

The EU is supposed to only act in the fields where there is a clear common goal among its members (free trade, environment, security, ..) and because in those fields I feel my objectives align with the Swedes, the Dutch, I don't feel (culturally) threatened when the EU does act in those fields.

 

Now, it could be that the EU passed regulation on something it thought to be within its competence, and possibly this regulation had an impact on the cultural identity of a certain region in Europe. But of the top of my head I can't think of any. Quite to the contrary, I can think of a few examples where the EU restricted its own goal to create a fully integrated Single Market, by protecting local products such as the Cornish Pastry. Can you give an example that made you conclude the EU doesn't respect the heterogenous nature of Europe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The United Kingdom is a kind of suprastate, one in which the English culture, historically, has dominated and tried to crowd out, and some would say even destroy, the Celtic cultures. For example, the Welsh once followed the patronymistic form of names: Robert ap Richard, who was Richard ap Rhys, who was Rhys ap Huw, who was Huw ap Harry. But the English were having none of this and forced the Welsh to have surnames: ap Richard => Prichard; ap Rhys => Price; ap Huw => Pugh; ap Harry => Parry; etc. After centuries of this, there remains a lingering resentment: How dare the English culture try to suppress my culture and my language and my values! It's not all bad, of course, and many are proud to be British. But surely this is not the right way to build a suprastate - through coercion. Shouldn't we respect individual cultures? Can a suprastate achieve its potential when different cultures refuse to trust one another? My stance is that cultures must want to coalesce, and that means mutual respect. The EU, in my opinion, has failed to respect cultures. Sure, it recognized the Cornish as an official minority (thank you!), but it has not recognized the fact that the English and the Celts have values quite different from other cultures in Europe. Hence, they've made decisions that lead us to feel trampled on, that our culture and values are not respected, that we're just a cog in a wheel and don't fully fit. This lies behind my statement that I identify as Cornish: it's my culture. It demands respect - from the English and from the EU.

 

So this is the big picture. In the context of the EU, it must respect cultures and has more to learn in this area. Moreover, the EU will not achieve its full potential until every culture it represents wants to belong. These conditions are not met in Britain right now, which is why I supported the vote to leave. Economic community? Yes please! United States of Europe? Not until we're ready, which is probably decades away. And when it comes to personal faith, this is important, too. In this area, though, the EU appears to have done a better job.

This is what I find so hypocritical. "Britain" chose to leave. Except it didn't. England, being the majority population of a collective of countries, did along with Wales. For all the people complaining about the EU and how they control things, how unfair it is, this is exactly what Britain is for the Scots and Northern Irish. So in terms of fairness, we should let them leave Great Britain and join the EU as independent states, right? How about Gibraltar with a 95% vote to remain? Is that going to happen? Of course not, it's not in "our" interests...

 

All hail democracy... :dry:

Edited by Matt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

Oddly enough Matt, I do agree with your sentiment here. The fact of the matter is that UK voted as the UK to leave EU and brexit is happening. We joined the EU as the UK and we must leave the EU as the UK. If, subsequently, Scotland becomes independent and applies for EU membership and meets the membership criteria and is accepted into the EU, then I would only be disapointed that Scotland had left the UK. Once they had left the UK and we had reestablished the fine wall built by Hadrian, then I would wish an independent Scotland the very best of luck.

 

Whilst I strongly believe that a united UK is best for all the countries that form the UK, I would respect democracy and if the democratic decision was for Scotland to become independent, then so be it. I wouldn't like it, I would think it a poor decision but I would respect it and do my best to make it work.

 

Why can't the Remainers that are trying to sabotage Brexit respect democracy and do the same?

 

My own view is that England and Wales should have their own referendun to see if they want to form a separate union. I think the Scots and N Irish would feel very exposed if that happened.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough Matt, I do agree with your sentiment here. The fact of the matter is that UK voted as the UK to leave EU and brexit is happening. We joined the EU as the UK and we must leave the EU as the UK. If, subsequently, Scotland becomes independent and applies for EU membership and meets the membership criteria and is accepted into the EU, then I would only be disapointed that Scotland left the UK. Once they had left the UK and we had restablished the fine wall built by Hadrian, then I would wish an independent Scotland the very best of luck.

 

Whilst I strongly believe that a united UK is best for all the countries that form the UK, I would respect democracy and if the democratic decision was for Scotland to become independent, then so be it. I wouldn't like it, I would think it a poor decision but I would respect it and do my best to make it work.

 

Why can't the Remainers that are trying to sabotage Brexit do the same?

 

My own view is that England and Wales should have their own referendun to see if they want to form a separate union. I think the Scots and N Irish would feel very exposed if that happened.

I can agree with most of that except the bold - why is challenging the decision, to make sure what happens is actually for the best rather than steamrolling ahead, considered "sabotage"? I call it self-preservation and common sense.

 

Got an escalated appointment regarding my permit this afternoon :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rusty747

I can agree with most of that except the bold - why is challenging the decision, to make sure what happens is actually for the best rather than steamrolling ahead, considered "sabotage"? I call it self-preservation and common sense.

 

Got an escalated appointment regarding my permit this afternoon :)

Because it is the demonstrated will of the people. And 'challenging' the will of the people as you put it is tantamount to saying that some people think they know better than others. Once we even start to go down that route then democracy is dead.

 

You talk about what is for the best, but a majority have already decided that Brexit is best for them.

 

The people have spoken. Now, Brexit must happen. To challenge it is to challenge democracy and is, imho, unconstitutional.

 

Good luck with your permit Matt.

Edited by rusty747
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the Gibraltar one that confuses me. Admittedly, I don't know that much about it but I seem to remember that, in the past, Gibraltar voted 98% in favour of remaining part of Britain rather than becoming part of Spain. Remaining in the EU would seem that there is more chance of the latter happening as 'country' boundaries start to disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...