Thread: UK out of EU

I think it is good Great Britain voted to leave the EU, I think the United States of America should leave the UN and NATO since neither organization is for sovereignty or autonomous governments in free nations.

Originally Posted by razorjoe

I think the United States of America should leave the UN and NATO since neither organization is for sovereignty or autonomous governments in free nations.

Leave the UN? That is an excellent idea. Can you name other countries not in the UN, please?

Originally Posted by razorjoe

I think it is good Great Britain voted to leave the EU, I think the United States of America should leave the UN and NATO since neither organization is for sovereignty or autonomous governments in free nations.

There are certain political forces in our world with all kinds of ideas. If their political tendency keeps strenghtening, your wish might come true some day.

Originally Posted by Sailor

The voice of a reason, yes. And the same kind of messages we've been hearing from PM's of the other union´countries too. They speak with one voice in this. No need to over dramatize or make it ugly. Nothing happens before Britain officially claims resign. It is possible to start actions based on article 50 only after that.

But if, as i have reason to believe, Iceland will beat England in UEFA 16 later tonight, then the hell is loose
I'm looking forward. Already have beers waiting in the freezer.

Looks like Iceland may have an advantage over England https://euobserver.com/beyond-brussels/127983 . So, I was wrong leaving the EU has been done once before and note that it took 6 years and not 5.

Bob

Originally Posted by BobH

Looks like Iceland may have an advantage over England https://euobserver.com/beyond-brussels/127983 . So, I was wrong leaving the EU has been done once before and note that it took 6 years and not 5.

Bob

Iceland cannot be seen as example in both football or resigning union.
The country was never a member but had been negotiating about becoming one for about 5 years.
As they were not able to make a deal with union, their government decided to quit the negotiations. They also refused to arrange a referendum on this subject.

So it is just waiting something to happen now. Waiting for the official resign announcement from UK. I hope their leaders have a plan. People in both UK and union should be given a right to know what happens next and what there is to come. Who is in charge of the ship. I think uncertainty is bad, specially in the long run.

Originally Posted by razorjoe

I think it is good Great Britain voted to leave the EU, I think the United States of America should leave the UN and NATO since neither organization is for sovereignty or autonomous governments in free nations.

I've had a desire to learn more about the UN but had not devoted enough time to learning much about it first hand in a long time. Therefore, I don't know what of the following is fact vs. misunderstanding on my part; perhaps someone can clarify or correct:

In a general sense, my understanding is that the UN does not favor private property ownership and the UN "Agenda 21" instead outlines a goal to direct (others may say "corral") the global population into very large urban centers/mega cities discouraging rural living. Is this a true statement or can it be verified as info directly from the UN?

I favor private property ownership as well as rural living.

ChrisL

With England losing to Iceland tonight I feel it's time for me to bow out of this thread - not that it's anything to do with Brexit - that's GB and not England - no matter what the scots and NI say.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I've had a desire to learn more about the UN but had not devoted enough time to learning much about it first hand in a long time. Therefore, I don't know what of the following is fact vs. misunderstanding on my part; perhaps someone can clarify or correct:

In a general sense, my understanding is that the UN does not favor private property ownership and the UN "Agenda 21" instead outlines a goal to direct (others may say "corral") the global population into very large urban centers/mega cities discouraging rural living. Is this a true statement or can it be verified as info directly from the UN?

See, the onus is on you, or whoever told you that this is so to provide supporting evidence, not on others to tell you if any conceivable statement is true or false. This is because conclusions are derived from and follow the found evidence and not the evidence is searched in support of a conclusion.

In my native language there is a saying that illustrates this type of propaganda technique roughly translated as 'I'm going to say that your sister is a whore, then you try and convince everybody that you don't have a sister'.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I've had a desire to learn more about the UN but had not devoted enough time to learning much about it first hand in a long time. Therefore, I don't know what of the following is fact vs. misunderstanding on my part; perhaps someone can clarify or correct:

In a general sense, my understanding is that the UN does not favor private property ownership and the UN "Agenda 21" instead outlines a goal to direct (others may say "corral") the global population into very large urban centers/mega cities discouraging rural living. Is this a true statement or can it be verified as info directly from the UN?

I favor private property ownership as well as rural living.

ChrisL

Agenda 21 is 351 pages of legaleze, I was able to skim through about 16 pages of it and get a general grasp of what they're outlining - to that point it doesn't seem unduly restrictive, mostly it looks like guidelines to set up a more equitable trade so that developing nations are less hindered in the game of catch-up, and loose guidelines for creating eco-friendly land/resource management and environmental protections, and equalizing women's rights in countries where that is still not a thing.

In fact regarding private property one of the goals outlined was setting up a system that would allow more effective land management AND ownership - in particularly for women:

Consider
strengthening/developing legal frameworks for land management, access to land
resources and land ownership
-
in particular, for women
-
and for the protection of tenants;

Article 21 is a legal document, written by, and for, lawyers. Your trying to decode it is like me trying to understand a PhD thesis in quantum physics. But there are good summaries available.

The GOP's take on Article 21 (how we moved from Brexit to the GOP remains a mystery), can be summarised thusly:

Theorists argue that Agenda 21, a 23-year-old non-binding UN resolution that suggests ways for governments and NGOs to promote sustainable development, is the linchpin in a plot to subjugate humanity under an eco-totalitarian regime. One of its most outspoken critics, American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese, has described the resolution as “a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind”. (Source, highlight by me)

When I mentioned anti-intellectualism and conspiracy theories entering the political mainstream above, I had something like this in mind.

But, coming back to Brexit, the above nonsense is a prime example of fringe politicians exploiting people's being lost in an increasingly complex world. Take the anti-immigration stance the Leave campaign took. Turns out their "vote leave, and immigration will essentially stop" propaganda was a bunch of lies. Unless, of course, they want to forfeit access to the single European market. Which they do not. So, as anyone could have found out by spending two minutes on the internet, immigration will not be stopped, but instead, the UK will have less of a say over its rules, because those will be made by EU members.

[Edit: This is getting funner by the hour] In a new attempt at simultaneously lowering the bar for intellectual acumen and political honesty, Jeremy Hunt proposes the following: "The UK is very happy to continue with our £68 billion trade deficit with the European Union by continuing to trade with them, but in return for that we’re not prepared to accept free movement of people or contributing into the EU budget." I think Mr Hunt will find that leading European countries will find this proposal a bit, shall we say, odd? It bascially amounts to "let Germany and the Northern European countries take the brunt of free movement, and immigration, because we're just in it for the money."

Say what you will about the Guardian (and as a Conservative, I too find it a bit left leaning), they were spot on all along. As was the Economist. Any media owned by, or ever touched by, Rupert Murdoch? Not so much.