Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Defeating May’s deal could mean no Brexit, UK’s Conservative party is warned" video.

May's deal is a betrayal of the country. It contains the backstop trap, set by the EU, to keep the UK in the EU customs union. If ratified, it will turn the UK into a vassal state and allow the RoI to rule NI without having to pay for it, the bill remain with the UK tax payer. It is the very worst option, a very bad deal worse than no deal. It would be better to withdraw the article 50 application and attempt to destroy the EU from the inside. A second referendum will set the precedent for a third at a later date, for a brexit when the UK is better prepared to leave. If forced to remain in the EU, the UK must prepare to leave by making itself more self sufficient. We must elect the most Eurosceptic government and send Eurosceptic MEPs to the EU parliament. Inside the EU, the UK can put a stop to EU superstate ambitions and prevent the formation of the dangerous EU military.
11
littlebighorn this is not be best strategy or typical British behaviour. In the end it is likely to be counter productive. Better to use their own weapons against them. The second referendum sets the precedent for a third. Better to ensure we have a government that will prepare the UK to leave, while at the same time wreak as much havoc inside the EU as possible.
1
@JohnDoe-kv3cm so what are they going to do when 50% of the population hates the EU and wish to see it's destruction? If they are going to punish the UK for want to leave, then they will also need to deal with many other member states. Being forced out of the union is not a threat, it is what we want. You are being naive, the EU will try and keep the UK in the union while it can extract money from it.
1
littlebighorn the last time UK citizens really opposed there government was the English civil war (1642-1651). The closest we came to civil war was maybe the poll tax riots. If we are living in different times it is because we have imported migrants from other cultures who are more use to overthrowing their government's through violent revolution, some thing many Western governments will come to regret. Civil war is not the way to beat the EU, if forced to remain then the UK will have the power to make the EU regret it. The UK could force the EU to reform to become a loose collective of sovereign nations, cooperating only on issues of mutual interest of trade, a common market. The UK must oppose all attempts at further integration and the formation of an EU super state. The remainers do not understand that far from making the EU stronger, integration will result in its violent downfall.
1
@Alfa&Omega 00000 kick the UK out is no threat that is what we want.. The UK has always been a net contributed to the EU budget so your claim that the UK leeches off the EU is clearly nonsense, as you will find if the UK leaves without a deal and not paying the EU anything. For the the privilege of EU membership we get a small fraction of our money back, but are for how we may spend it, not exactly a good deal.
1
@Alfa&Omega 00000 had the UK received the reparations it was owed by Germany after the war, the UK might not have been so sick in the 70s. It was during this period that the tools an infrastructure that the UK had been using throughout the war years finally stopped working. Unlike germany, the UK was not rebuilt withall new equipment after the war, it continued to use he pre war tooling. Add to this, the social/ communist infiltrated trade unions who were being financed be Russia and the UK was not in a good position. ( Russian interference in western politics is not new, the Russians were doing their best to undermine the allies during the cold war. The UK was vulnerable because the war had cost it so much).
1
@Alfa&Omega 00000 the UK did not receive money from the Marshall plan, in fact the UK had to repay the debt to the us that lease lead produced. The UK spent most of its pre war wealth standing against the Nazis. An organisation that most Germans embrace while they were winning. It seem only right that Germany pays for the damage their aggression produced.
1
@swanky_yuropean7514 this is true about $2.7 billion, however it had a post war debt to the US of £21billion which was not paid off until 2006. The numbers are complicated by the need to correct the numbers for inflation. Both the numbers above are 1945 figures. However what ever the amount, either a loan or a gift, the loan was certainly the largest part by a good margin, it was between the US and the UK, it was not reparations paid by the guilty party, Germany.
1
@swanky_yuropean7514 it was the rebuild of its infrastructure that gave Germany the advantage, the UK continued to use pre war tooling and infrastructure. While it appears that the US Gave the UK some money, they took in return patents for radar, Cathode ray tubes, penicillin and a number of other UK inventions. I believe they also replaced the pound with the dollar as the reserve currency.
1
@fractalwalrus5409 the UK empire was in decline after WWI, the cost of WWII finished the job. We could speculate about the vast human potential that was lost in the world war. To a certain degree a process of natural selection was in operation, concentrating the weaker of character in those that survived by avoiding the conflict. This is not a reflection on all who survived the war, just those who managed to avoid the conflict by conniving self-interest.
1
@fractalwalrus5409 it sacrificed it's empire and wealth to fight German aggression. While the reasons for WWI was not as justifiable as that of WWIi, both cost Britain a great deal. In a more enlightened age colonialism is not acceptable, it is unfortunate that France and the other EU states, including the EU itself, have not yet realised that it is wrong. So while we remember the British empire, I doubt if many want it back.
1
@fractalwalrus5409 glad you think so, maybe the uk should have been a beneficiary from the EU budget from the start of its membership, rather then being one of the largest contributers. We will happily take the money now, back dated, cash or cheque.
1
@fractalwalrus5409 the spell checker is adding words i did not write. When i read my last post i did not understand the begining. My point is that the eu want it both ways, they want to imply the uk was on its knees when it joined the common market, at the same time it wants to imply that the uk was a large and powerful economy and therefore should contribute to the EU budget. Both of these cannot be true at the same time. Since joining the EU, the UK has slipped down the economic ratings. What is true is that the UK sacrifice a large part of its wealth and position in the world in its fight against Nazi Germany.
1
@fractalwalrus5409 if you will use acronyms then you cannot be surprised that you have confused me. My point was about the history of the UK within the EU and why the EU might want to keep the UK within it. Your point was?
1