You can't force happiness, nor peace.
If you are going to do any of those things, it must be backed by the will of the people.
It's not a strawman if that's exactly what you said. Tell you what, if you hold less ridiculous opinions, I'll hold them up to less ridicule, deal?
Debateable. You'll certainly have a lot of difficulty achieving either if you don't try at all.
Are you suggesting that the EU isn't backed by the will of the people? It certainly has its detractors, some of them sensible, but it isn't without sensible cheerleaders either, many across Europe support it (talk to Ukraine for a pertinent example) and there are many things it has achieved.
Have you ever even travelled outside the U.S? or even outside the Midwest? You trying to argue that the Queen has anything more than ceremonial powers with some lame dictionary terms was embarrassing.
Shame it isn’t, then, huh. You’d be in a much better position if your post is what I said. Just shut up.
Not what I was arguing, but what do you care about truth?
The only truth you are ever interested in is the one that aligns with your preconceived notions. Any opinion that deviates from your preconceptions is by definition invalid to you. Crowley already deftly tore your previous arguments to pieces. Stop telling him and anyone else to shut up. He contributes far more to this site than you ever have. Slow day on your alternative history forum?
Right back at you. You explicitly stated that the EU was wrong for trying to make everyone happy as it can't be done, thereby implying that they'd be right if they didn't try. Throwing that back at you as a ridiculous statement with some illustrative examples of other things that probably can't be done but that it's worthwhile trying to do is not a strawman.
I wonder if there's a word for a person who attempts to deflect an argument with improper dismissals. Because that's you, that is.
Ah well, I'll just add "strawman" to "FUD", "proof", "capital ownership" and "politics of the United Kingdom" to the list of things that you wilfully refuse to understand.
Not sure I ever said that. Need? Probably not. Broadly benefit from? Sure. That's a widely held opinion, so I'm not sure why you'd be "stunned" by it.
Flat out lie. That's exactly what you were arguing, with much tediousness.
You don't think losing access to a tariff-free market that currently makes up 50% of our trade would be an issue?
You don't think complicating our current assured freedom of movement across all of western and central Europe is anything to worry about?
You think jeopardising our diplomatic relationships with every major power as far as Russia and wilfully destabilising their political and economic infratsructure would be without consequence?
You don't think that having to rewrite practically every one of our regional agreements on trade, movement, policing and applicability of law, security, and more besides would inevitably cause problems and conflicts that would echo through years or decades?
Elaborate on "bollocks" please.
Ah so nice to see that so many good people oppose having a group of folks take away their right to vote for the country they thought they belonged to. The vermin be damned.
Who's taking away my vote?
I still have a vote for the UK Parliament (and by association, the Council of the European Union) and I still have a vote for the European Parliament. Neither are in imminent danger.
I don't have a vote for the European Commission, but equally I don't have a vote for the staff of the UK Civil Service. Nor do I have a vote for the UK House of Lords (if you want to argue for democracy and sovereignty I'd suggest you take a long hard look there first). And if you follow Tallest Skil's dictionary logic, for representation purposes it is essential that I have a vote in that bastion of UK political power, the Queen.
So "right to vote for the country (I) thought (I) belonged to"? I have pretty much the same amount of voting power in the EU as I do in the UK. Not a lot.
The study by the respected British Capital Economics research consultancy into "Nexit" - as a potential exit by the Netherlands has been termed - finds significant benefits over the next two decades if the country swaps its EU membership for a status similar to Switzerland or Norway.
"Any decision to leave the EU is first and foremost a social, cultural and political one. It must revolve around issues of national sovereignty, citizenship and freedom of determination," the report found.
"However, there are also good reasons to believe that a nation, untied from the bureaucracy of Brussels and able to make decisions for itself rather than have imposed one-size-fits-all policies, will benefit economically too."
The research has been seized upon by Eurosceptics to counter what they see as alarmist warnings from prominent business leaders and mainstream politicians of an economic meltdown if Britain left the EU.
"This report is significant because it has been produced by a credible City research group. It cannot be easily dismissed," said Douglas Carswell, the Conservative MP for Clacton.
"It shows we are no longer alone. It is not just us Brits who have come to realise that European integration is fundamentally flawed. We're very like the Dutch, a small country that has prospered by trading globally. Think what countries like ours could be in a different type of Europe."
While acknowledging risks to leaving the EU, Capital Economics concludes that the Netherlands, a AAA rated creditor country in the eurozone, is better out of the EU because the threat posed to its long-term wealth by the structural problems of the European single currency.
"There are, of course, risks to leaving the union - and these need to be recognised and addressed by anyone considering Nexit," the report said.
"But there are also significant risks to staying in a bloc with a fundamentally flawed currency. In this instance, our analysis shows that the Netherlands would be better off taking control of its own destiny, rather than sticking with the 'devil it knows'."
The report concludes that Dutch national income could increase by as much as €1,500 billion (£1.3 trillion) by 2035 bringing new wealth equivalent to between €9,800 (£8,134) per household each year.
Even if the Netherlands was unable to win a deal the same Switzerland or Norway, which are in the European single market but not members of the EU,"the economy would be better off out of the union than in", he report found.
The independent study was commissioned by Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch anti-EU Freedom Party, to assess the cost for the Netherlands of leaving the Union as he leads national opinion polls in the run up to European elections this spring.
"Contrary to what the scaremongers claim, our economy would not grind to a halt. We would earn billions more than right now," he said.
"In the beginning there is a transition period, for example, to switch from the euro to the guilder. But after that time, the economy will grow harder faster than now, ten per cent extra in 2024 and 13pc in 2035."
Dutch opinion polling by Maurice de Hond has found that a majority of 55 per cent support leaving the EU if it can be shown to lead to if this additional economic growth and job creation.
In 2012, Capital Economics won the prestigious Wolfson Prize for a study into how to manage an orderly break-up of the euro, at the height of the European debt crisis.
The 164-page study plays down the costs and turbulence involved in leaving the euro. "There are economic costs to leaving the EU, particularly in relation to replacing the single currency with a national one. But these costs are modest and manageable," it said.
Much of the economic growth forecast by leaving the EU, in a country dominated by the port of Rotterdam, comes by growing "exports to non-European markets faster by negotiating and trading with high growth emerging economies without being tied to a common [EU] trade policy".
Currently many EU free trade deals are on hold or mired in internal disagreement between free trade countries such as Britain and Netherlands and a more protectionist Latin bloc led by France and Italy.
The report on "Nexit", an expression merging the abbreviation for Netherlands and the word exit, also finds economic benefits to being outside the EU, including a reduction in business costs by "a minimum of €20 billion annually by 2035 through ﾑrenationalisingﾒ regulations in areas currently in the jurisdiction of Brussels institutions".
Overall the report concludes that the Dutch would be able to manage their economy "more effectively by having the freedom to set monetary and fiscal policy to fit Dutch national conditions, and not the euro-zone as a whole".
The study also finds"a reduction in public expenditure by a minimum of €7.5 billion annually by 2035 by not being bound by EU free movement laws and "through revising immigration policy to focus more tightly on admitting only those who make an economic contribution".
The study contradicts an official Dutch study previous studies on the benefits of EU membership, which calculated it was worth €2,000 Netherlands per person every year."
Hmm. What’s up with those characters? They’re in the original article, so it’s not a Huddler problem.