The Pound is going down the Toilet

[mistermack]

We bow to your greater experience in these matters.

Bowing is all you're good for.

[Scot Dutchy]

The housing bubble will burst and your money will be almost worthless.

Yes, but the money stashed away in the British Virgin Islands is counted in US Dollars.

Yep the 1% know that.

[rainbow]

We bow to your greater experience in these matters.

Bowing is all you're good for.

[Forty Two]

I apologise for an uncalled for insult. However we have lived and breathed the Brexit debate for two years and more and your 'summary' seemed a bit glib to me - and possibly to the Dutchman - can't speak for him.

No worries.

I was surprised by the Dutchman making a comment about me not knowing anything about the EU or Brexit, but then not suggesting that anything I wrote was actually wrong.

There are good reasons not to enter the EU, and hence there can be good reasons to leave it. I think a lot of the conversation got lost in political posturing, because there can be both good arguments to Remain, and good arguments to Exit. It's not an obvious thing either way.

For example, are the countries that haven't yet joined the EU crazy for not wanting to join? Surely there are meritorious reasons for some of them that are beyond racism or xenophobia or nativism?

In an overarching sense, during my lifetime I have always noticed the UK being less "European" than continental countries are. Of course, GB is in Europe, but in the sense of philosophy, law and economics, it seems there is a split at the channel, to some extent. So, it did not surprise me that the UK, or some significant faction thereof, itched to leave the EU.

Your points were valid enough as far as they went but while the economic issues are of course important (and I think you underestimate them), there are wider issues to do with nationalism, a perceived retreat from 'progress' towards something bigger and better than nation states and a retrenchment into parochial and self serving suspicion and fear of the other.

This is true, and of course the idea is that a wider, larger "Europe" would be better than squabbling nations. I get that. But, at the same time, the structure of the EU government is somewhat concerning. There are issues of its bureaucracy, lack of transparency and anti-democratic nature that might suggest to some that a United States of Europe might not be an improvement.

We will be poorer without doubt - and perhaps for longer than many suspect, but we will, more importantly, be less than we were.

Well, time will tell. But, I don't see why that has to be the case. Britain doesn't stop trading by leaving the EU, and there are plenty of markets around the world.

[Scot Dutchy]

You still not have learned anything apparently.

[Forty Two]

Most of the EU's legislative work is done behind closed doors, in committee, away from prying eyes of constituents and citizens.

And all of it will then be tabled, debated and voted on in the very public European parliament. Procedurally no different to how any other government functions.

Not exactly accurate, as the power lies in the European Commission. The EU Parliament is not a Parliament in any real sense, as they have no right to propose laws. Instead it is a façade, created to make the EU look democratic, rather than give the public a choice over those who makes their laws. The Parliament does vote and can make amendments on laws proposed by the Commission, but the Commission must accept any of the amendments proposed for the changes to become effective, showing where the power lies. The Commission is made up of unelected commissioners.

Once something becomes an EU law, the Parliament has no ability to propose a change to this law. All the power is given to the Commission. The public’s elected representatives do not matter in the EU. It’s a ‘club’ to push through laws which would be rejected by national Parliaments. Once the Parliament approves an EU proposal, it is sent to the European Council.

The European Council votes in laws which are then basically commands from the EU to member nations. And, they are effective without having to be ratified by the member nation, and if it's something the UK or some other member doesn't like, or doesn't work in that country, then it's tough luck. It's massive ceding of sovereignty.

I.e., a law gets created and debated behind closed doors by bureaucrats. It gets put to a vote by the Parliament as is, and they can't add any amendments or changes, except if the Commission wants them. The Commission is not democratic, and the democratic will of the member states is not much of a factor, and the Parliament is much weaker than a typical Parliament.

Brexit probably will hurt the UK in the short term, but it may well be a benefit in a few years.

Or, more likely not. There are sound economic reasons why the EU has grown from six to 28 member nations, 27 of which nations prefer to remain part of it, and why others are clamouring to join.

Indeed. It's not a clear economic issue.

[Forty Two]

(Edit: response to the Dutchman's last post)

Your posts are full of contradictions and emotional froth really aren't they? It is a shame really because I bitterly regret our leaving the EU and agree with your position if not your arguments. One minute it is good riddance to the UK - you are all so much better off without us and the next we are utter idiots for deciding to leave.

What on earth do you mean by we couldn't stand being equal to everyone else? And whatever you are getting at that was 52% of the total turnout in any case.

Please offer evidence of corruption. The international audit of corruption here: http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm gives the UK a score of 10 - equal to Germany and in the lowest 10% score wise internationally. Quite a few EU countries score higher. Just because you don't like the UK's class system - or its hangover, does not give you the right to throw any old shit at it.

The UK also scores in the top 10% internationally for its level of democracy incidentally - another bit of shit you threw at the country.

We will be poorer when we leave but we won't be a 'third world country' to quote you. We will still be rich by most comparisons and the eventual outcome a few years down the line is still an unknown.

Your posts would be far more credible if your anger and indeed fury directed against the country you decided to betray wasn't so obviously boiling in every post you make on the subject. There is room for balanced discussion on the issue.

Well said.

[Forty Two]

You just dont see it do you. How can it be democratic? One party gets double the seats for half the votes of another party and that is democracy. You have a second chamber that is not even elected.

Two words: European Commission.

Your politics are like your justice system is adversarial and this filters down into your society in the form of conflict or are you unable to see that? Your society is split and class is so important or are you unable to see that? Like plenty of Brits you cant see it. Everyday life in the UK conflict plays a role. In the work place and schools. Your kids are some of the unhappiest on the planet. Your workers have no say in the company they work for.
How is not corrupt? The old boys clubs are not corrupt? Why are not the 1% paying the taxes they should? They move money all over the place in tax avoidance. The corrupt index does not take into account that sort of practices.

The Dutch 1%, of course, pay the taxes they should, and would never dream of moving money around. Continental Europeans moving money around and creating tax havens.... perish the thought... Switzerland deals only with countries outside of Europe, and the Dutch and other Europeans would never use Caribbean Islands to hide wealth and avoid taxation. Perish the thought. It would be so gauche.

The British common law and justice system are among the greatest legal developments in the history of mankind, clearly far superior to a system based on the legal and moral values of Napoleon Bonaparte. The Continental system had to be dragged kicking and scratching into basic principles that the British common law had recognized since round-about Magna Carta and the later English Bill of Rights. Things like trials by jury of peers, and presumptions of innocence and such - burdens of proof on the prosecution - basic due process.

And, the whole notion that the "Adversarial" system of justice is somehow worse than the continental "Inquisitorial" system is simply a misunderstanding of how the system works. The Adversarial system provides far more protections to the accused, and allows the accused to test the evidence. Nothing wrong with the court or an investigating office testing the evidence too, but there is no reason why the defendant in a criminal case ought not have the full panoply of rights to have access to the evidence, test the evidence, confront witnesses against him or her, and to otherwise hold the prosecution to its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is nothing wrong with the accused being able to keep his mouth shut and not assist the prosecution in securing a conviction.

Not a third world country? Sorry what will you be? Your health service will be only for those who can pay for it especially after it is sold off to the Americans. The same will be true of education. Your infrastructure needs renewing mind post Brexit it will be hardly needed. The housing bubble will burst and your money will be almost worthless.

It's easy to talk like that when you live in a tiny, rather inconsequential welfare state that sucks of the teat of other nations and sits in a secure bubble, without the necessity of providing for its own defense. Try being an actual real nation and a player on the world stage, like the UK still is, and try having to do some heavy lifting economically, politically and militarily around the world. At least the UK is a relevant country which matters. The Netherlands is a drop in a bucket, which would not be noticed if it disappeared. Enjoy your bubble and your sanctimonious finger pointing, and go become a German state if it makes you happy.

[Rum]

You still not have learned anything apparently.

Well not from the spluttering spray of spleen and venom that goes into your posts, that is for sure.

[Scot Dutchy]

You still not have learned anything apparently.

Well not from the spluttering spray of spleen and venom that goes into your posts, that is for sure.

Or the pathetic nonsense of yours.

[Scot Dutchy]

42 You really should read more. The bile you write is just so untrue that I am not going to waste my time answering all the shit. The adversarial law system is the worst in the world. Just look at the number of miscarriages of justice that occurs.
Do you know what the Commission does and what is its responsibility? I doubt it. The Commission is the oldest institution of the EU and was the quatermasters of the EU in the beginning. Its powers are being moved to the parliament. It will eventually be phased out.

The Netherlands still keeps it feet dry unlike other countries.

[Forty Two]

42 You really should read more. The bile you write is just so untrue that I am not going to waste my time answering all the shit.

You won't because you can't. Nothing I wrote was untrue. You often confuse your own opinions and value judgments as truths. You should work on that.

The adversarial law system is the worst in the world. Just look at the number of miscarriages of justice that occurs.

You can prefer whatever system you like, but you've never substantiated this allegation of yours that the adversarial system has excessive miscarriages of justice compared to the Inquisitorial system. http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewc ... ntext=uclr "Even more importantly, there has been great reluctance
in the Netherlands to admit that the Dutch inquisitorial process could
somehow be prone to wrongful convictions, despite increasing evidence
that it has systemic weaknesses in practice. " This law review article shows, with citations, the fact that the Dutch really stick their heads in the sand about their own system. There is a dearth of research on their part on this issue, but no dearth of people like you who declare their system to be superior.

Do you know what the Commission does and what is its responsibility? I doubt it. The Commission is the oldest institution of the EU and was the quatermasters of the EU in the beginning. Its powers are being moved to the parliament. It will eventually be phased out.

The Netherlands still keeps it feet dry unlike other countries.

Yes, I do know what the Commission does, and I take it your "phase out" comment is a tacit admission that I'm correct about it. Saying "you're right, 42, but it'll be changed..." would have been a quicker and more honest way to get to the point.

LOL, feet dry. You have a country that's smaller than San Bernardino County, California. I should hope you can deal with your important issues there.

[Scot Dutchy]

Another load of shit. Away you go.

[Jason]

You still not have learned anything apparently.

They tested that line for Vader in Empire, but it didn't go over as well as:

[Forty Two]

Another load of shit. Away you go.

Look at all the miscarriages of justice in the Netherregions! And, look at the systemic defects! Hey, at least I have a valid university paper on the topic, published in a law review journal, backed up with citations and sources.

You just have your own ass, and what you've pulled from it, along with your ridiculous bias that permeates everything you talk about (that Dutchland Uber Alles).

A Dutchman has no business criticizing the UK system. The UK is a far superior system, and the British system that was spread all over the world has lifted more peoples up out of squalor than anything the Dutch ever did. The Dutch are just a bunch of self-righteous supremacists.