Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "EU summit: 'I cannot say whether there will be a solution', Merkel says as third day begins" video.

Unfortunately that also gets rid of much of the money.
3
@ioannisperiptero9626 Netherlands and Sweden according to google. Now the uk has left, there are only 9 net contributor to the EU budget, the rest take out more than they put in.
3
@ioannisperiptero9626 this is like discovering the small print of your insurance policy does not actually protect you against the current disaster.
2
@scottpascal3099 you must understand that Poland does serve a purpose in the eu. The eu is organised as a microcosm of globalisation. In other words, it is a low wage economy, where EU manufacturing can move, to make products at low cost to sell to the wealthier regions of the EU.
2
@ioannisperiptero9626 the frugal four contribute the 2nd, 3nd,6th and 7th largest amounts to the eu budget. We got rid of the insurance policy because the premiums were far too high, the conditions to onerous, and there was little chance of a payout when there is a crisis. Had we remained a member, the EU would be dealing with the frugal five, as the uk would almost certainly have been asked to pay in and not take money out.
1
@valentinewang745 you can be reassured that those currently sipping champagne in Brussels, will only take from you the very minimum consistent with maintaining their imperial ambitions and federal ideals. Be assured they feel your financial pain and thank you for the contributions you have made to their banquet.
1
@Cl0ckcl0ck per capita is not relevant as it is the absolute amount paid that matters. I am only using google data. It is really dies not matter as the frugal four contribution is still significant.
1
@BesteKanaal1 support for brexit is not dependent on being a Russian troll. Brexit is about escaping from the parasitic grip of the eu. It is unlikely that its supporters would wish to be associated with the Russian government which operates like the Mafia.
1
Looking at the make up of the EU, with only 9 of the 27 states being net contributors to the EU budget, it is clear that the EU is a political project rather than an economic one. I suspect the final goal is a federal super state plutocracy that stretches across all of europe, from sea to shining sea. Of course this will involve subsuming all European states, including russia. This is empire building on a scale that matches that of Alexander the Great or the Roman emperors. The frugal four maybe feeling a little disillusioned as they no doubt were more interested in an economic union.
1
@goldencoast8896 considerable faster than you.
1
Rio De I think that even those who are vertically challenged ( small in stature ) will have a veto, if they are the ones who are paying the bills.
1
Why stop there, just get rid of all those who take out more than they contribute to the EU budget, that's 18 of the remaining 27 member states. Great for EU profitability, not so good for eu empire building.
1
@frank Smith that's the trouble with a pyramid selling scam, the quality of those joining the scheme goes down over time. Because the EU has yet to federalise, it is a myth that what is good for one state is good for all. It is a stretch even for a federation like the US, where federal funds are distributed according to corrupt political whim, if this requires confirmation consider how hurricane relief funds have been allocated in the US.
1
@frank Smith Deep Christian values, is that what racism and bigotry is now called? I think you have something in common with the republican voters of the deep south in the USA. Though I must admit I do have a problem with so called same sex marriages, which just seems to be a redefinition of the word marriage in a completely unnecessary fashion, but my objection is purely linguistic.
1
@scottpascal3099 there are 18 member states that are net recipients from the EU budget.
1
@frank Smith the EU has never been deflected from its federal ambitions, they have always been creeping forward in an unrelenting fashion towards a federalist super state. The fact that the eu has incorporated so many states that are net beneficiaries from the eu budget, shows this is a political project, rather than an economic one. The goal appears to be incorporate all of europe under one federal government. This imperial ambition even includes subsuming Russia and all the former satellite countries of the Soviet Union. Of course the talk is of Russia joining the EU as a member state, but sooner or later it would be absorbed and controlled by a common federalist government. It is an dream and ideology that dates back centuries, even before the Roman empire. The state leaders who subscribe to it, have such massive egos, they each assume that they will be the default titular leader of the resulting all powerful federal government. Even Putin has flirted with the idea. Maybe it is something to do with the shape of the land mass, but there is some attraction to turning the whole of europe, from sea to shining sea, into one big power block. Of course the project requires trampling over, and destroying, the sovereignty and cultural differences of all the nations in europe to create one homogeneous people whose loyalty would be to the Federal Government. I suspect that this is the dystopian nightmare future that at least some of the political elite in the EU are planning.
1
@frank Smith you must explain the acronym KJB, it is not one with which I am familiar. Which part of western life do you think I hate? As an atheist, I do not understand the mentality of those who have religious beliefs, even less so when their expression of those beliefs are at odds with the tenets of the religion to which they say they subscribe. For example, I find it difficult to rationalised the beliefs of the Christian Republican pro-lifers who carry a gun to church, and support the NRA. Religion and politics do not mix. Democracy and religion is often incompatible, hence the states that are undemocratic theocracies, such as Iran.
1
@frank Smith I think you are being a little disingenuous, while at the sane time being factually correct. I agree that the uk house of lords should be abolished as it is a last remnant of a feudal system. However its powers are limited being only a review body for legislation. The church input into uk laws is now very limited and their position is extremely benign compared to the rabid far right religious groups in the US. Church and state maybe notionally separated in the US, but from a practical point of view the Christian far right, an oxymoron if ever there was one, has significant influence in US politics, to the point where the US might be regarded as a Christian theocracy. Their old testament views are a mirror of some of the worst Islamic states. I refer to taking guns to church, supporting the NRA and wishing to arm teachers to stop school massacres. There is an inconsistency in being pro life and yet supporting capital punishment.
1
@frank Smith the house of lords is a really well financed retirement home for useless politicians, who regard it as a way to supplement they already huge gold plated pensions.
1
@frank Smith scrutiny is often a codeword for obstruction originating from vested self interest. I have yet to see it used for anything positive. It is invariable hand wringing after the event or a preemptive "I told you so" before it. Englishness covers a wide spectrum of characteristics. Do not expect consistency between all its facets.
1
@frank Smith maybe you would like to edit your comment so that it makes sense and becomes comprehensible.
1
@frank Smith "my it be high or low" ?????? "Actvie" ?????
1
@frank Smith is that liberalism? it sounds more like the early days of political correctness.
1
@frank Smith I think there is a reason why liberalism is so wishy washy and undecided. It is because the liberal ideology is the absolute middle of democracy. It attempts to please everyone and offend no one. You will no doubt disagree, but I have a theory about the organisation of politics and government. I have written about this at length, so I will try not to bore you with the details, just a simp!e summary. Basically, I do not view the political spectrum as linear, going from the far right to the far left, but as a circle, with the extreme left and right converging together at the 6 o'clock position. This is justified by the observation that the policies of an extreme left or right wing government are for all practical purposes indistinguishable. This puts democratic governments hovering between the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock position, with liberalism dead centre at the 12 o'clock position. Democracies are inherently unstable, tending to lurch towards the extreme left or right. This is because it is easy to give away democracy at the ballot box, but much harder to regain it from the oppressive, totalitarian, dictatorships that evolve in the 6 o'clock position. To get back to the point, this makes liberalism lack direction, with a tendency to be pulled back and forth in a fever of indecision and political correctness. So keen not to offend anybody they irritate and offend everybody, in a fashion reminiscent of the most pious and pompous Church of England vicar.
1
@frank Smith I think you give the Church more credit than it deserves. Both the monarchy and the church are anachronisms dating back to a feudal past. Neither has any real power, though the system is just to support the role of the house of lords. Today parts of the monarchy are an embarrassment and it is difficult to justify the existence of an unelected house of lords when discussing democracy. Critics always point to the lack of democracy in the uk resulting from the lords. The uk lacks a written constitution, which makes the legal position of our government ambiguous and flexible. This maybe a source of stability, as like a reed the laws bend in the wind, rather than breaking as a result of protests.
1
@frank Smith sorry I am having a problem understanding your colloquial English. I do not understand what crime you were accused.
1
@frank Smith no it appears to be a deficiency in my Oxford English dictionary.
1