= Сообщение: 4770 из 12549 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Robert Bashe 2:2448/44 17 Apr 17 12:02:32 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 17 Apr 17 12:02:32 Тема : Brexit, It giet oan! FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:2448/44+58f49b00 На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+58f3ee07 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+58f50268 ============================================================================== Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Sunday April 16 2017 at 23:41:
MV>>> You only see the thorns and even refuse to acknowledge that there MV>>> are rosebuds.
RB>> I try to take an even path. You seem to be a bit one-sided, and I try RB>> to balance things by presenting arguments on the other side.
MV> No, you only see the negative side. I have never ever heard you say MV> anything positive about the EU.
And when have you said anything negative about it? That's my point. I try to balance your positivism with a few facts on the negative side. If they didn't exist, there would have been no BREXIT, no problems with Poland and Hungary.
MV>>> Greece does not want to leave the EU and the problem is manageble.
RB>> Is it? The IMF appears to have doubts, and the only reason the EU RB>> still pours good money after bad is that it fears a domino effect if RB>> Greece goes bust.
MV> The reason money goes from the EU to Greece is because that is what we MV> do when a member of our family is down and out. We help them. We may MV> have togo on doing that for a long time. It is a manageable problem.
The interesting thing about this is that when the EU was formed, it was agreed that each member would be responsible for it's own economy and not receive bailouts from the other members. The Germans insisted on that. But that went over the board as soon as Greece threatened to bankrupt. And Germany is paying most of the bill for that, which - I assure you - doesn't sit well with many people here. The government is scared stiff that if Greece goes, the whole EU will unravel, and thus keeps pouring money into the country, much to the dismay of the German population. The whole Eurozone is in a crisis with no end in sight.
But except for the AfD, who do you vote for to change that? A "grand coalition" is certainly not the answer.
MV>>>>> again: "let them go". I see a future for the EU without the UK. MV>>>>> Now we can move on.
RB>>>> To what?
MV>>> To a better Europe.
RB>> Unfortunately very naive. All you mean is thatr we sacrifice still RB>> more personal freedom for the questionalbe benefit of (perhaps, but RB>> not necessarily) more security.
MV> The move towards sacrificing personal freedom for security does not MV> come from the EU, it comes from my own governments.
"Government", not "governments". And what a few of the most powerful EU members push through isn't necessarily the best for _all_ the members.
MV> It is my own governmemt that keeps changing the rules to give them MV> more power to play big brother. It is the EU that is trying to put the MV> brake on that.
;-) I can hardly keep from laughing. So why didn't you vote for Geert Wilders, or did you?
RB>> You're talking about a "United States of Europe", which is exactly RB>> what many of the EU members rabidly reject.
MV> It will happen. There is no other way.
Belief is not fact.
RB>> In the USA, "states rights" has been a major and sometimes violent RB>> political iussue since 1798 (the constitution),
MV> Nevertheless the US /is/ united. They have a federal government, they MV> have a federal police force, they have a federal army and they have a MV> federal supreme court. And that systems works well.
And everyone except for minorities speak english and have a common heritage. Compare that with Europe.
RB>> and there, most people came from one culture and spoke the same RB>> language.
MV> They did NOT come from one culture. And that is still visible. There MV> is still a China Town...
You obviously know little of American history. There are minorities in every country, like the Chinese-Americans in the States. Thgey were originally brought over in the 1850s as laborers on the West Coast. Some stayed.
RB>>>> This attitude of revenge is certainly not going to get us anywhere RB>>>> desirable.
MV>>> It is not revenge. It is looking after our own interest.
RB>> And trying to "punish" the UK for it's unrequited love.
MV> Not punishment, just no longer let them have the benefits of MV> membership.
Great. And how do you propose to get English goods to the EU - and I don't mean merely orange marmalade and Scotch whiskey - in your future? The EU benefits from the UK as much as vice-versa.
Are you aware that both the Mini and Rolls-Royce (to name two car manufacturers in the UK) belong to the German BMW company? And what are they supposed to do if your decire for a "hard" divorce pertains? Get their parts from presently non-existent UK manufacturers and somehow export the cars to the EU? There are plenty of other examples, but those two come to mind immediately.
MV> They think it is in their best interest to no longer be a member. They MV> want to get rid of the duties of membership. Ok... It is not in the MV> interest of the other members to let non members have the benefits of MV> membership, and so they will be revoked. You don't pay the MV> contribution, you don't eat at the club's table. What is wrong with MV> that?
Absolutely nothing - if you also throw out Sweden Denmark and Greece, all of which get "special deals" with the EU. For that matter, Poland did, too. Freedom of movement was restricted for several years after the Poles joined the EU, since the Germans were afraid the cheap labor would disrupt their economy. There have been special deals for quite a numbver of countries, not only the UK.
RB>>>> A kindly, peaceful separation, like an uncontested divorce,
MV>>> There is no such thing as an uncontested divorce.
RB>> You're dreaming. They happen every day.
MV> It will not happen with the UK divorcing from the EU.
You wish. That's revenge for unrequited love.
MV>>> I already mentioned an EU equivalent of the FBI.
RB>> ;-) What do you call Europol?
MV> Europol has no teeth. It is not a federal police like the FBI that can MV> operate EU wide and chase criminals across borders.
So? An EU arrest warrent must be implemented throught the EU - even if the "crime" is not one in the EU country in which the suspect resides. Now, just imagine that Hungary - to take an example - decides that you have "insulted" the country, which is punishable there by 10 years in jail. Hungary issues an EU warrent for your arrest (although your "crime" is no crime in NL), and you are extradited to Hungary. That's the way things work nowadays.
RB>> And the EU arrest warrent that has kept Julian Assange in the RB>> Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past 4 years?
MV> No, it is the British playing leap dog for the Americans thay keeps MV> Assange pinned down in the Ecuadorian embassy.
You have an interesting way of interpreting facts to your own advantage. Assange is the subject of an EU warrent issued by the Swedes, and that is the ONLY reason he is trapped in the embassy. The Americans could request his extradition, but have not yet sone so. It's all a Swedish - EU - affair. I agree that the US is putting pressure on the Swedes, but as yet this is a purely EU affair.
RB>> The English have nothing against him, and even the Swedes have never RB>> charged him (but are surely under masssive pressure from the USA to RB>> extradite him as soon as he touches Swedish soil).
MV> Exactly. The threat comes from the West.
But the arrest warrent came from Sweden. That's a fact, not fiction.
