[SPLIT from Flag Burning] The UK, the EU and English Independence

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
Colour does not factor into who is and who isn't a British person. I did once think it did, but when you consider that the whole of the ideal of the British identity is based upon multiple nations and multiple ethnic identities, it beggars belief that people are excluded from this union.

So you dismantle the Union then what? I’m English, great, you’re still going to have every immigrant coming into the country who thinks he is as well, all you have done is altered the label, nothing more. Remember up until less than twenty years ago most people would have rejected an Asian or African as British.

Unless a state takes the step of defining itself by the definition of a nation i.e. of common descent, as far as I know none does, then you will alter nothing at all.

Thinking it will be any different with an independent England is silly I’m afraid.

[Beorn]

So you dismantle the Union then what?

We go onto the next step of course. Extraction from the EU...and on. Or perhaps the other way round depending upon which party. Extraction from the EU and then dismantle the union.


I’m English, great, you’re still going to have every immigrant coming into the country who thinks he is as wellOf course. That would be the next step.


Thinking it will be any different with an independent England is silly I’m afraid.Have you seen the future then? :)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
Have you seen the future then?

I've seen as much of it as you, perhaps I'm less inclined to jump out of the pan and into the fire.

I have yet to see any pro-independence argument that convinces me things will be any different.

As I see it, reform the Union so that England has equal representation, beyond that I see no reason for it’s dismantling and several reasons to keep it.

[Beorn]

I've seen as much of it as you, perhaps I'm less inclined to jump out of the pan and into the fire.

There we go then. So to state that running the road of independence is just silly is to state you have seen the future, which you have not. :)

EDIT: It would be a case of jumping out of the pan and out of the fire into marginally safer territory. The EU is just the same as the Union; marginal representation and local governance in the hands of foreigners.


I have yet to see any pro-independence argument that convinces me things will be any different.Perhaps you shouldn't be looking at the bigger picture, but more the subtle differences.


As I see it, reform the Union so that England has equal representation, beyond that I see no reason for it’s dismantling and several reasons to keep it.That would be a start. But, where is the Union when Scotland has voted with its feet and fucked off? Not much use retaining a union without its creator.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
There we go then. So to state that running the road of independence is just silly is to state you have seen the future, which you have not.

The onus is on pro-independence parties to state why independence is better than Union, so far they haven’t convinced me that’s the case. So if that isn’t the case then it’s silly/stupid/ridiculous/crazy (pick what ever term you like), in my opinion, to follow a course of action that hasn’t been proven.


Perhaps you shouldn't be looking at the bigger picture, but more the subtle differences.

I’ve looked at it all angles, I used to be anti-Union, now I’m more neutral and don’t see a reason to demolish the institution, it’s served well enough the last three hundred years and only deliberate attempts to destroy it have led to it’s current predicament. Reform it, definitely.


That would be a start. But, where is the Union when Scotland has voted with its feet and fucked off? Not much use retaining a union without its creator.

Last I looked Scotland was part of the UK and I’m les than convinced that Alex Salmon is interested in Scottish independence, he’s happy playing King of his own dung heap up north, he’s not dumb enough to cut himself off from Westminster, loss of £20 billion a year, possibility of not having his nose in the Brussels trough? Can’t see that happening, he’ll play the Scots for idiots.

Anyway perhaps this discussion is best moved elsewhere, this is veering off topic after all.

[Beorn]

The onus is on pro-independence parties to state why independence is better than Union, so far they haven’t convinced me that’s the case.

Which it has been. No offence, but have you actually read up about the reasoning behind independence? I would suggest easing yourself in by starting here (http://www.thecep.org.uk/wordpress/). :)

The benefits are wide ranging, from as simple as being able to vote for English issues by English members, more monetary resources which can be placed into the system to benefit England and the English only, to simple and little issues like having your own English passport. The benefits are certainly there, and regardless of the scaremongering from the pro-Unionists along the lines of "the cost of an English parliament would cost more" (absurd, of course and is easily refuted), etc...


Last I looked Scotland was part of the UK

By a very tenuous hold, but it still has more independence than has been admitted.


...he’s not dumb enough to cut himself off from Westminster, loss of £20 billion a year, possibility of not having his nose in the Brussels trough?

But he's certainly astute enough to realise that Westminster needs him more and the £20 billion would be more than doubled and exclusively Scottish if Scotland gained full independence.

The current talks of a referendum will only solve this little question mark I suppose.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
Which it has been. No offence, but have you actually read up about the reasoning behind independence? I would suggest easing yourself in by starting here.

The benefits are wide ranging, from as simple as being able to vote for English issues by English members, more monetary resources which can be placed into the system to benefit England and the English only, to simple and little issues like having your own English passport. The benefits are certainly there, and regardless of the scaremongering from the pro-Unionists along the lines of "the cost of an English parliament would cost more" (absurd, of course and is easily refuted), etc...

Two points.

Point one, I have looked at all sides of the argument over the last four years, and I have read more than just web sites.

Point two, that isn’t a pro-independence web site as far as I can see, it’s a campaign for an English Parliament within the UK, no problem with that, as I have wrote I am for a reformed UK, but I don’t see any point in a total dismantling of the UK.


But he's certainly astute enough to realise that Westminster needs him more and the £20 billion would be more than doubled and exclusively Scottish if Scotland gained full independence.

How would an independent Scotland qualify for the £20 billion of English tax payers money it receives annually under the Barnett Formula?:confused:

Most commentators I am aware of believe two things, one Scotland would be dirt poor outside of the Union, despite the SNP’s idiotic rhetoric about North Sea oil, second it’s doubtful if the Scots economy would be advanced enough to even qualify for EU membership.

Rest assured Salmon knows this as well.;)

[007]

Those who say we should abandon the Union Jack and British identity because immigrants claim both, well there are immigrants who claim to be English, Scottish and Welsh, in point of fact the Scots “nationalist” party SNP has pretty much stated any African or Asian getting off the plane at Glasgow airport is Scottish.

Perhaps we should abandon those identities as well?

A true British citizen is of English, Scots, Welsh or Ulster descent, for anyone else it’s just a piece of paper with nothing behind it.

Hear, hear! Why Wat rails against his British brothers instead of the alien EU is beyond me.


. Or perhaps the other way round depending upon which party. Extraction from the EU and then dismantle the union.


Extraction from the EU first or I will have to shoot you myself. :mad:


but when you consider that the whole of the ideal of the British identity is based upon multiple nations and multiple ethnic identities, it beggars belief that people are excluded from this union

Bollocks, only the indigenous people of Britain and the descendents of their colonists were eligible to be British

[Beorn]

...that isn’t a pro-independence web site as far as I can see..

I neither stated what it was or what it wasn't. I merely said that in understanding the benefits for independence which you couldn't see, the website would be a good place to begin.


How would an independent Scotland qualify for the £20 billion of English tax payers money it receives annually under the Barnett Formula?:confused: I didn't say they would. I implied that with their own economy, relying upon their own resources, etc.., they would and could see a double of that money and more.


...despite the SNP’s idiotic rhetoric about North Sea oilWhat makes you think their "rhetoric" is idiotic? If the Scots striked from the Union, but the weakened union between England Wales stood, then the oil would be a severe bone of contention, but if all countries struck independence the benefits would sway more to Scotland's advantage.


Hear, hear! Why Wat rails against his British brothers

British brothers?! I don't consider Amir Khan as any brother of mine. British is a political label.


instead of the alien EU is beyond me.I would be interested to have you point out where I became pro-EU. It doesn't cross your mind at all that the Union at present is merely the EU by another name? Do you think at any point in your lifetime the Scottish will willingly give back their hard fought devolutionary powers and return to the Union proper? I can't see it, so we will continue to have disproportionate representation and issues voted through by alien people (and by alien I mean Scottish and Welsh, because they certainly ain't English with English concerns at the fore of their mind). So go on a head and retain the union and fight the EU and wonder why it is you still end in the exact place you began.

[007]

British brothers?! I don't consider Amir Khan as any brother of mine.

Of course not, he's not British.





I would be interested to have you point out where I became pro-EU. It doesn't cross your mind at all that the Union at present is merely the EU by another name? Do you think at any point in your lifetime the Scottish will willingly give back their hard fought devolutionary powers and return to the Union proper? I can't see it, so we will continue to have disproportionate representation and issues voted through by alien people (and by alien I mean Scottish and Welsh, because they certainly ain't English with English concerns at the fore of their mind). So go on a head and retain the union and fight the EU and wonder why it is you still end in the exact place you began.

I've told you many times already that the EU is pushing the break-up of the Union with devolution for Scotland and Wales as a first step, in order to make it easier to swallow Great Britain. Anybody who works toward the break-up of the Union without first and far more importantly quitting the EU is helping the EU advance the destruction of our country.

The Union is not the EU by another name. :rolleyes:

[Beorn]

Of course not, he's not British.

Of course he is. He holds a British passport and is a British citizen. He was born in Britain under the governance of a British parliament and openly declares himself Pakistani-British, just as you claim an ethnic identity plus the political British title.

The only title Amir Khan cannot claim is that of ethnic English, or 'Englisc' as some like to say.


I've told you many times already that the EU is pushing the break-up of the Union with devolution for Scotland and Wales as a first step, in order to make it easier to swallow Great Britain. And I've never asked you for some evidence for this claim. Could you point me in the right direction, please?


The Union is not the EU by another name. :rolleyes:Really? Just a quick and cursory list of comparisons compound that theory.

- Government resides over a disproportionate system which benefits some nations at the expense of another nation.

- Unelected Foreign MPs rule and reside over a foreign country which neither benefits nor places particular interests and issues at priority.

...and on and on and on.

You want to be rid of the EU but want to save the current Union? :confused:

[007]

Of course he is. He holds a British passport and is a British citizen. He was born in Britain under the governance of a British parliament and openly declares himself Pakistani-British, just as you claim an ethnic identity plus the political British title.

The only title Amir Khan cannot claim is that of ethnic English, or 'Englisc' as some like to say.

Actually, bozos like him and our PC multikultists do claim that he can be ethnic English, it would be racist to deny him, after all. Everything you have just said about British citizenship would apply exactly the same to English citizenship as soon as England became the official name of the country with no other name available.


And I've never asked you for some evidence for this claim. Could you point me in the right direction, please?

I wouldn't have thought a politically aware fellow would need proof of a painfully obvious state of affairs. NuLabour's enthusiasm for devolution is Exhibit A. Their well-known attempt to divide England into regions which the NE voted down is Exhibit B. Surely you are aware that the EU issued maps showing the planned regions of Europe with England divided? I'll see about finding you some links if you aren't simply playing dumb as a debating tactic.


Just a quick and cursory list of comparisons compound that theory.

They do what? :p


- Government resides over a disproportionate system which benefits some nations at the expense of another nation.

- Unelected Foreign MPs rule and reside over a foreign country which neither benefits nor places particular interests and issues at priority.

...and on and on and on.



The EU is an alien monstrosity intent on ruling over Great Britain and usurping it's thousand year old sovereignty. The Union is a voluntary partnership between kindred nations who share the island of Great Britain. Without the problem of that unfair taxation formula and Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on English matters while English MPs are not allowed to vote on Welsh and Scottish matters, there'd be nothing to bitch about. I doubt that's a co-incidence although politicians can be extremely stupid. Looks to me like they planned it that way to annoy the English and fracture the Union further.


You want to be rid of the EU but want to save the current Union? :confused

The worst thing about the Union is that some of my tax dollars might benefit a Jock or Taff, with the Eu my country ceases to exist and it's entire gold reserves go to Germany.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wat Tyler
I neither stated what it was or what it wasn't. I merely said that in understanding the benefits for independence which you couldn't see, the website would be a good place to begin.

Right, but my point is that website doesn’t argue the benefits of independence, it argues the benefits of an English Parliament within a devolved UK.

I don’t need convincing of the benefits of the later argument, I fully support an English Parliament, what I don’t support (and I would add at this present time) is an end to Union.


I didn't say they would. I implied that with their own economy, relying upon their own resources, etc.., they would and could see a double of that money and more.

Yes but you wrote this:


But he's certainly astute enough to realise that Westminster needs him more and the £20 billion would be more than doubled and exclusively Scottish if Scotland gained full independence.

Which, to me, implied you believed Scotland would continue to receive that annual £20 billion, or so, it receives of English tax payers money under the Barnett Formula.

We’ll take that as a misunderstanding.

However, my point still remains that Scotland would be immeasurably poorer outside of the UK.


What makes you think their "rhetoric" is idiotic?

For a start they are basing their economic future on a resource that most experts believe will become unviable for extraction in less than twenty years.

Second Scotland has no cast iron right over North Sea oil, despite the claims of the SNP. Any negotiation for the end of the Union would, doubtless bring, oil into the debate, England would not likely allow Scotland to walk off with the lions share.

Anyway we are branching off the subject, create another thread Wat if you want to talk about this more.:)

[Beorn]

Actually, bozos like him and our PC multikultists do claim that he can be ethnic English, it would be racist to deny him, after all.

They would be breaking the law clearly set out by the UN. They can claim to be English citizens and have the rights and privileges that citizenship entails, but they can certainly not act aggressively towards an ethnic people and begin to subvert, alienate or otherwise degrade the ethnic populations identity and rights to identity.


I wouldn't have thought a politically aware fellow would need proof of a painfully obvious state of affairs. NuLabour's enthusiasm for devolution is Exhibit A. Their well-known attempt to divide England into regions which the NE voted down is Exhibit B. Surely you are aware that the EU issued maps showing the planned regions of Europe with England divided? I'll see about finding you some links if you aren't simply playing dumb as a debating tactic. I am well aware of it, but I was not aware of how it was construed to be a policy of the EU to do so. I personally can't see how it benefits them.


The EU is an alien monstrosity intent on ruling over Great Britain and usurping it's thousand year old sovereignty.
How old is Great Britain? ;):p


The Union is a voluntary partnership between kindred nations who share the island of Great Britain. If by "voluntary" you mean it was voted through parliaments at great cost, and was openly rebelled against across the nations involved, then, yes, the Union is "voluntary".

[007]

They would be breaking the law clearly set out by the UN. They can claim to be English citizens and have the rights and privileges that citizenship entails, but they can certainly not act aggressively towards an ethnic people and begin to subvert, alienate or otherwise degrade the ethnic populations identity and rights to identity.

You've simply got to be kidding. :rolleyes:


I am well aware of it, but I was not aware of how it was construed to be a policy of the EU to do so. I personally can't see how it benefits them.

It's much easier to swallow and dominate Great Britain if you break it into bite sized pieces. The fact you haven't seen this is precisely why one needs to be very careful when tampering with a working system. I trust you are aware that the EU itself no longer pretends to be merely a trade agreement?


How old is Great Britain? ;):p

Well, of course the Union is not a thousand years old, but England Scotland and Wales are.


If by "voluntary" you mean it was voted through parliaments at great cost, and was openly rebelled against across the nations involved, then, yes, the Union is "voluntary".

Let's not get carried away with the amount of resistance to the proposition when it was first made. It's no surprise at all that some people at the time were not in favour of it, nothing ever achieves 100% support, but it has clearly been a very successful partnership. Nothing like what the EU has in mind for us if we don't get the hell out.

I'm surprised that you whinge about the amount of money which Scotland draws from Westminster but never complain about the vast amounts that go to the EU. :confused:

I'll be keeping an eye on you. :cool:

[Beorn]

The fact you haven't seen this is precisely why one needs to be very careful when tampering with a working system.

It's not that I haven't witnessed the EU attempting to split us into regions for their own nefarious ends, it's more the statement that devolution and independence can benefit the EU.

England gets independence--->Leaves the EU (or doesn't re-enter)---->EU loses.


I'm surprised that you whinge about the amount of money which Scotland draws from Westminster but never complain about the vast amounts that go to the EU. :confused:I ahve done in the past. You need only search through my posts on here, Stirpes, Skadi and every other forum I frequent to know this. It just seems at this moment in time I am finding the conversation geared more towards gaining freedom for my nation and people. I figure this is the number one priority.

[007]

It's not that I haven't witnessed the EU attempting to split us into regions for their own nefarious ends, it's more the statement that devolution and independence can benefit the EU.

It's easier for the EU to dictate to Wales than to the UK. After Wales has had it's own parliament for a time, they might even welcome being ruled direct from Brussels. It will be presented to them as "freedom" even though the EU will not actually give them more freedom than Westminster, quite the contrary. Alec Salmon intends to remain in the EU even as he agitates for more "freedom" from Whitehall.


England gets independence--->Leaves the EU (or doesn't re-enter)---->EU loses.

There's no question of re-entry, we will have to insist on leaving in either case. It will be much easier to do that as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland than as a truncated country in the process of massive constitutional change.




I ahve done in the past. You need only search through my posts on here, Stirpes, Skadi and every other forum I frequent to know this. It just seems at this moment in time I am finding the conversation geared more towards gaining freedom for my nation and people. I figure this is the number one priority.

Glad to hear it, but the most urgent priority is getting the hell out of the EU monstrosity before it's too effing late. The danger the EU poses to our nation puts any danger the Union poses, even granting your worst case scenario, in the shade.

[Beorn]

The Union and the EU are one and the same. Two monsters eating away at each other whilst snacking upon the nations it wishes to possess. You smash the union you will have to renegotiate your entry into the EU. I doubt the newly reinstated England would wish to relinquish its new found freedom to the EU when it can quite clearly go it alone, not to mention we would not qualify under the Copenhagen criteria anyway.

[007]

The Union and the EU are one and the same.

No. The one is a partnership of the nations which inhabit Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However much you dislike it, it's effects on England are simply not comparable with the effects of the EU. For example, rather than some of your tax dollars going to Jocks and Taffs, the entire gold reserves of the UK will go to Germany for "safe-keeping". The difference is orders of magnitude worse. England will cease to exist. Your orders will come from Brussels.



You smash the union you will have to renegotiate your entry into the EU.

No, you won't get away that easily, you will still have to insist on leaving. Only now you are in the midst of massive governmental re-organization with the EU's hand on the tiller.


I doubt the newly reinstated England would wish to relinquish its new found freedom to the EU when it can quite clearly go it alone,

Most of these "independence" groups make no bones about staying in the EU.


not to mention we would not qualify under the Copenhagen criteria anyway.

How so?

[Beorn]

No. The one is a partnership of the nations which inhabit Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you could ever call it that in the past, it is certainly not the case today. A partnership would imply partners all pulling in the one direction, now, I don't know about you but that is simply not the case now.


However much you dislike it, it's effects on England are simply not comparable with the effects of the EU.

Nonsense. Of course they are. Unless you really wish to completely blind yourself to facts or enter into a course of justifiably rationalising one upon the other?


For example, rather than some of your tax dollars going to Jocks and Taffs, the entire gold reserves of the UK will go to Germany for "safe-keeping".

I say let them have it. We already had one fucking clown (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece) sell off half the reserve, why not let the circus join in too?


The difference is orders of magnitude worse. England will cease to exist. Your orders will come from Brussels.

England already doesn't exist. It has no devolved assemblies and no prominent member of the British parliament will even lower themselves to admit the place exists. One prominent MP even said English is a byword for racism. (fancy that) And you want me to believe that the EU are worse if not the same as what currently rules over me and my nation?


No, you won't get away that easily, you will still have to insist on leaving.

Not at all. We need only repeal the 1972 European Communities Act (after consultation via referendum with the English people - do you think they might say no?;)) and the link to the EU is severed with only minimal duties and treaties to honour. Two years past that and England would be absolutely free of the EU.

I wonder how UKIP would go about it? :rolleyes:


Most of these "independence" groups make no bones about staying in the EU.

Huh? It's all they ever bang on about, and rightly so.


How so?

I'm no lawyer (obviously) and am certainly sticking my head out here to invite a chop, but I was trying to work out how we could be excused(read:avoid pressure) from rejoining and how we could in fact scupper our own chances of being considered, and came across the little requirement that all prospective members need to adhere to acquis communautaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquis_communautaire).

[007]

If you could ever call it that in the past, it is certainly not the case today. A partnership would imply partners all pulling in the one direction, now, I don't know about you but that is simply not the case now.

Regardless, the Jocks and Taffs are not busily engaged in the abolition of the country itself, (except those who support the EU, of course)that would be killing the golden goose




Nonsense. Of course they are. Unless you really wish to completely blind yourself to facts or enter into a course of justifiably rationalising one upon the other?

It's you who refuses to examine the facts. Like I've already told you, the EU is busily engaged in dismantling the very nation of England and making it into a mere province of the United States of Europe. Obviously, despite all your hyperbole, Wales and Scotland together cannot eclipse England within the Union. The EU is an active threat to the very existence of the country, the Union is not.




I say let them have it. We already had one fucking clown (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1654931.ece) sell off half the reserve, why not let the circus join in too?

:rolleyes:




England already doesn't exist. It has no devolved assemblies and no prominent member of the British parliament will even lower themselves to admit the place exists. One prominent MP even said English is a byword for racism. (fancy that) And you want me to believe that the EU are worse if not the same as what currently rules over me and my nation?

I want you to pull your head out of your ass and take note of the fact that the EU already rules over your nation. That's why it's in the state it's in, not because of the Union The traitors in Parliament insist that England doesn't exist because they are planning to slice it up into bite-sized pieces. Classic divide and conquer




Not at all. We need only repeal the 1972 European Communities Act (after consultation via referendum with the English people - do you think they might say no?;)) and the link to the EU is severed with only minimal duties and treaties to honour. Two years past that and England would be absolutely free of the EU.

I wonder how UKIP would go about it? :rolleyes:



Huh? It's all they ever bang on about, and rightly so.

Perhaps they do as you say and I haven't seen it since I consider the whole thing to be a waste of time better spent on a much greater threat. The EU promotes this sort of thing precisely to distract us from their takeover. They want the place divided so they encourage people to do it for them. Saves them the trouble of doing it later and having to take the blame.



I'm no lawyer (obviously) and am certainly sticking my head out here to invite a chop, but I was trying to work out how we could be excused(read:avoid pressure) from rejoining and how we could in fact scupper our own chances of being considered, and came across the little requirement that all prospective members need to adhere to acquis communautaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquis_communautaire).

So what? We're already members. Do you really believe that the people who told the Irish to keep voting until they get it right will actually demand that an "independent" England re-apply? No, we will have to withdraw, quite firmly. Of course it can be done, but it will be much easier to do it before subjecting the country to the turmoil of separation from the Union. All that will do is weaken our hand and give the EU the opportunity to apply the stick and carrot to the sub-units rather than having to tackle the entire country united. Frankly, any prospective leader who advocated such a dangerous course of action would not be fit to govern.

Surely you don't think NEULabour promoted devolution in beneficent aquiescence to the wishes and aspirations of the people?

[Beorn]

The traitors in Parliament insist that England doesn't exist because they are planning to slice it up into bite-sized pieces. Classic divide and conquer

And it doesn't cross your mind that an independent England would be in a stronger position to repel that ultimate scenario than if we were to remain in this union. I'll say it again, as respectfully it seems not to have been heard the first time, but an independent England would not only require a new government, but also a referendum upon if England should join the EU.

An independent England is not in the EU. The EU cannot touch an independent England.


Surely you don't think NEULabour promoted devolution in beneficent aquiescence to the wishes and aspirations of the people?Whether they did or did not does not matter anymore. The plan, by whatever method it was hoping to achieve, has backfired terribly for them. Scotland is potentially very close to having a referendum to declare independence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8228599.stm) from the Union and the loss of what was Labours stronghold would signal the end of Labour in power, in British politics, for an unknown amount of years. The fact that the loss of Scotland would signal the end of the Union anyway. Just imagine, never again will the English have to listen to the warbling of some genocidal Scotsman or the waffling of a Frenchman telling us what to do.

Agincourt all over again. 'Fuck off you cunts'. *two fingers up*. :thumb001:

[007]

And it doesn't cross your mind that an independent England would be in a stronger position to repel that ultimate scenario than if we were to remain in this union. I'll say it again, as respectfully it seems not to have been heard the first time, but an independent England would not only require a new government, but also a referendum upon if England should join the EU.

An independent England is not in the EU. The EU cannot touch an independent England.

I heard you clearly the first time, but you're wrong. Try to imagine the EU demanding that the second largest net contributor to their coffers apply for re-admission like some penniless ex-communist Eastern European country who has never been a member before. It's risible.


Whether they did or did not does not matter anymore. The plan, by whatever method it was hoping to achieve, has backfired terribly for them. Scotland is potentially very close to having a referendum to declare independence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8228599.stm) from the Union and the loss of what was Labours stronghold would signal the end of Labour in power, in British politics, for an unknown amount of years. The fact that the loss of Scotland would signal the end of the Union anyway. Just imagine, never again will the English have to listen to the warbling of some genocidal Scotsman or the waffling of a Frenchman telling us what to do.

It hasn't backfired, it's going precisely according to plan. If Scotland withdraws from the Union and then Wales, then Cornwall, and Wessex...

[Beorn]

All of which doesn't matter because England is free and independent and the EU can't touch us. :)

Let Cornwall have their independence. If they so wish it and want to go from being ruled by one big brother to being ruled by another big brother that is up to them, not you or I. As for Wessex gaining independence...well that does sound enticing. I have always fancied a more regionalised England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_Regionalist_Party
http://wessexregionalists.blogspot.com/

[007]

Wat, you are either the most naive bloke I've ever met or you are consciously working to advance the EU partition agenda.:spy:

[Beorn]

How the hell am I being naive?

[007]

How the hell am I being naive?

Do you want a comprehensive list?
Thinking that the Union is more dangerous than the EU.
Thinking that the EU will demand that it's second largest net contributor re-apply with cap in hand for re-admission just because it jettisoned two smaller sub-units
Thinking that NEULabour didn't want Scotland to secede
Thinking that NEULabour has any plans other than to advance the EU's agenda
Thinking that the current mess the UK is in is due to Scotland and Wales rather than the EU
Shall I continue?

[Beorn]

Thinking that the Union is more dangerous than the EU.

That is a matter of opinion of course, but seeing as the Union will not give us - the people - a referendum on leaving the EU, then the only viable option is to dismantle said Union and kill two birds with one stone.


Thinking that the EU will demand that it's second largest net contributor re-apply with cap in hand for re-admission just because it jettisoned two smaller sub-units

It would have no choice. Did yuo not read where I stated the legal part?


Thinking that NEULabour didn't want Scotland to secede

Again, an opinion, but I don't just randomly come to conclusions without evidence, so expect some threads when I can relocate certain evidence.


Thinking that NEULabour has any plans other than to advance the EU's agenda

Are you sure you have the right person now?


Thinking that the current mess the UK is in is due to Scotland and Wales rather than the EU


Please, I would love to have you highlight the quote of that exact statement.


Shall I continue?

If you want. :)

[007]

That is a matter of opinion of course, but seeing as the Union will not give us - the people - a referendum on leaving the EU, then the only viable option is to dismantle said Union and kill two birds with one stone.


You are presenting a false dichotomy. There are much better options available. Dismantling the Union requires electing a government willing to do that, so just elect a government willing to leave the EU. You can worry about dissolving the Union later if it bothers you so much. This will ensure you get the support of people like myself who will vehemently oppose doing it the other way. It would be madness to do the EU's work for them and then belatedly start to oppose them after the fact.


It would have no choice. Did yuo not read where I stated the legal part?

1. You never posted anything about the legal status of a member of the EU which partitions itself.
2. The Irish voted No to the EU Constitution, legally it's now as dead as a doornail. The EU's response was to tell the Irish to try again.


Are you sure you have the right person now?

Yes, you just claimed that NEU Labour had blown it with Scottish devolution implying that NEULabour has plans to rule in Britain which letting Scotland go would stymie. Their only plans are to advance the United States of Europe. Giving Scotland "independence" is part of that plan.


Please, I would love to have you highlight the quote of that exact statement.

It's not a quote. :rolleyes: You rattle on about the Union and give examples of it's defects and problems which are actually the fault of the EU.



If you want. :)

There's loads more, but I'm inclining to the belief that you are not naive...you are consciously aiding the EU's agenda. :sherlock:

[Beorn]

No offence but we are going round in circles and I am getting dizzy and feel I need to stop.

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2591/avatar362434.gifhttp://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2591/avatar362434.gifhttp://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2591/avatar362434.gif

[007]

Fine with me, Wat :spy:.