Seanjd
Player Valuation: £30m
I know bits about him. Why do you use him as an example to link Nazism with the current EU, though?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The EU deal
- Thread starter davek
- Start date
- Status
I know bits about him. Why do you use him as an example to link Nazism with the current EU, though?
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
At the risk of derailing the thread, you are talking nonsense.
There was some confusion in policy between expulsion (which is what relocation actually was, given that most of the wealth of German Jews would have been / was confiscated) and extermination, but the Nazi state was clearly building up a system which would allow extermination to take place once a decision was reached. That is why the SS established the camp system, why they ensured they had full records of who was Jewish / part-Jewish and where they could be found, why the Einsatzgruppen were established (and then trained in murder during the euthanasia programme), why Hitler and other Nazi leaders repeatedly threatened the Jews if a war was to break out in Europe (which is of course something they were actively planning), and why there were repeated instances of Jews being abducted, tortured and murdered before 1941.
All that was decided at Wannsee was to switch on a machine that they had spent years designing; that is how they were able to kill so many people so quickly. Saying that they were forced into extermination because expulsion was no longer possible is daft - they made nowhere near the same preparations for expelling the Jews as they did for murdering them.
Of course, for the system to work tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Germans and their hangers-on had to either be personally involved in it or in a position to witness enough of it to realise what was going on - the guards of the camps, the railway workers (especially in the east), those engaged in business dealings with the camps, the census-takers, local government employees, Party officials, SS and SA men, most of the Army (again especially in the east).
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...e.html&usg=AFQjCNEV7bIN0eZDTiLjnRJAdSRok2njuA
thats an example not my views by the way just seeing how people can make a link.
Seanjd
Player Valuation: £30m
Yeah, I can see how people are making the link. I'm saying it's insanity.
daylightrobber
Player Valuation: £15m
You have more faith than me economically. The outers will tell you our terms won't change, that we won't be subject to tariffs. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Any goods that we exported to the EU will either incur the relevant tariff, or an EU competitor will enter the market on more preferential terms. If the EU wants to stay together after a Brexit, then the 500m citizens who remain members and who will expect trade terms to treat them favourably in return for their contributions will take priority.
You're absolutely bob on with the protections the EU offers though
If that's the case then explain Himmler's lettter to Hitler and Hitler's response.
http://ww2history.com/key_moments/Holocaust/Himmler_writes_crucial_memo
"Also significant is that Himmler states, in the context of the overall population of Poland, that ‘physically exterminating a people’ was ‘fundamentally unGerman’. An opinion, of course, that he was to change within the next two years.
Himmler gave his memo to Hitler who pronounced it ‘good and correct’. But, of course, the plan to send the Jews to Africa would never be realized – not least because it assumed that the British would shortly make peace, thus enabling passenger ships to travel south unhindered."
We buy £14.9 billion a year more of them than the buy off us, good luck if they pull that off without the same tariffs getting put on there goods.
uality rights do not come from the EU
A recent TUC report claims that withdrawing from the EU would turn the clock back on women’s rights by “decades”. Yet there is evidence that the EU itself has been moving in this direction for some time, not least through its ruthless austerity programmes.
TUC general secretary Frances O Grady claimed that her report proved that women had made gains in the workplace as a result of EU membership, ranging from protection against pregnancy discrimination to fairer pay, holiday and pensions.
However Labour MP Kate Hoey immediately pointed out that women would continue to be protected by British laws won by trade unions if this country left the EU.
“All the benefits for women on equal pay and equal rights have been won by the hard work and campaigning of trade unionists and campaigners for equality.
“Maybe the TUC should speak to Greek women workers and see how the EU has treated them before producing such a biased report,” she remarked, more about that later.
Claims by those supporting EU membership that women’s rights have been handed down by a benevolent European Union have gone largely unchallenged for many years.
The truth, of course, is very different. The fight for equal wages here dates back hundreds of years, including the fact that the TUC passed a unanimous vote in support of equal pay in 1888.
The Labour Party included a Charter of Rights for all employees in its 1964 manifesto, including the right to equal pay for equal work, and the Wilson Government introduced Barbara Castle’s Equal Pay Act in 1970.
This Act was the result of mounting pressure from British workers; including strike action by the Ford women sewing machinists at Dagenham in 1968 and vigorous campaigning by the National Joint Action Campaign for Women’s Equal rights culminating in a massive demonstration in 1969.
Pro-EUers ignore these developments and point to the fact that the Treaty of Rome which established the legal framework of the EEC in 1957 set out the principle of equal pay for work of equal value in Article 119 – now Article 141 of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
However highly-respected discrimination law expert Richard Townsend-Smith pointed out in 1989 that far from being an example of the progressive nature of the EEC it was included largely as a concession to the French “who already had equal pay legislation and feared that they would be at a comparative disadvantage”.
So we can thank French workers and their struggles for any equal pay laws not EU institutions.
It is also explains why the European Commission took out infringement proceedings against the UK in the Court of Justice in 1982 under the provisions of Article 119 of the Treaty that widened the scope of equal pay to cover work of equal value.
It is at this point that Europhiles in the Labour movement began to argue that any improvements in workers’ rights can only be won at a European level and abandoned the idea of using national structures to democratically change UK law.
They also point to the fact that the EU has passed considerable equality legislation as part of the Social Chapter including that on maternity protection, parental leave rights, part-time work, working time, workers with family responsibilities and child care.
Yet much UK social equality legislation predates the EU, for example the Race Relations Act 1965 and 1968, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Legislation on these issues had long been fought for by workers and their organisations.
The origins of the Equality Act 2010 grew out of campaigning by many groups and was given Royal Assent just before the General Election. It was one of the last measures to be enacted under the Labour government.
Hence the Equality Act 2010 was the result of 14 years campaigning by equality specialists and human rights organisations in Britain. The Act incorporates nine pieces of legislation including the above and the Race Relations Act 1976, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, Employment Equality (Sex Orientation) Regulations 2003, Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, The Equality Act 2006 Part 2 and The Equality Act (Sex Orientation) Regulations 2007.
The aim was to achieve harmonisation, simplification and modernisation of UK equality law.
Harold’s Wilson’s Labour government decriminalised homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967 and it was legalised in Scotland in 1981. The Labour government introduced civil partnerships in 2005 and the Tories introduced gay marriage in 2014.
Yet gay rights across the EU remain much more restrictive in many member states.
There also remains a significant gender pay gap in practice nearly 60 years after the adoption of the Treaty of Rome. In fact equality legislation varies wildly across all countries of the EU.
What Europhiles don’t want you to know is that, at 52 weeks, Britain has about the best maternity leave in Europe; the statutory minimum under EU law is 14 weeks.
More interestingly a new Maternity Leave Directive first proposed in 2008, raising the minimum leave to 20 weeks, was quietly withdrawn by the European Commission on July 1 2015.
EuroActiv.com says the Commission, under pretext of simplifying EU law under the 2014 REFIT exercise, wanted to kill the draft as an attempt to dismantle women’s rights and gender equality in the EU institutions.
According to the European Women’s Lobby officer Mary Collins: “Rising conservative and religious forces and far right political actors are impacting negatively on women’s rights and are calling into question the very notion of rights – especially sexual and reproductive rights – that were hard fought for by previous generations of women and men”. 3.
She went on to say that the economic crisis and austerity measures have been “used as an excuse” to dismantle gender equality across all member states citing Slovenia where women used to enjoy 100 per cent of salary while on maternity leave which has been reduced “by 90 per cent or maybe more” over the last years.
According to the EuroActiv report maternity proposals are the victim of the Commission’s “better regulation” axe-man Frans Timmermans.
Swedish MEP Malin Bjork said that “this threat to get rid of the Maternity Leave Directive is serious because it contradicts the European Union’s so-called commitment to gender equality and effective work-life balance for women and men in Europe.
“It will also create a dangerous precedent for the “better regulation” agenda (REFIT) which is sacrificing social standards in the name of administrative burdens,” she said (4)
The idea that an EU that has imposed austerity on millions, particularly in countries like Greece, and is enforcing mass privatisation and TTIP is somehow ideologically wedded to equality of any kind over the interests of corporate capital is absurd.
That's what the EU is. The industrialists who financed his way to power thought they could use and control Hitler but they couldn't. They want the same thing as before from an economic point of view but don't want a unified common people but rather a people they can split up into little groups so they can more easily control.
"“Let’s not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”"
- Wesley Clark
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Or we'd vote him out.....just imagine if some nutter within the Eu decided the same......Then we'd be screwed.....
Whistlin' Dixie
Player Valuation: £50m
As I said - Glass houses.
So I'm a bigot now? See, I was right.
And people wonder why the far right vote is on the rise, they complain about it with no sense of irony that their bleating and fascism of their own has left those who question with no choice but to join extreme groups to get their voices heard because the liberals can't help themselves but cast everyone who dissents into the 'fascist' box.
I'll refer you to your previous posts when you've replied to anything to do with muslim fundamentalism, the state of Israel as opposed to palestine, immigration, UKIP etc etc.
So you can take your pick. But here's one - https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/the-eu-deal.85043/page-24#post-4231046
So, will that do ya? The worst kind of racist appears to be some immigrant(s) who agrees with a white man about immigration; but only because they don't agree with you. No bigotry there then
Best not let any more in in case they too want to pull up the drawbridge, eh?
You don't have to be on the extreme right or even a centrist to be a bigot - I should know; you're calling me one and I've never voted for any party that purports to be to the right of socialism.
But I guess YOU determine what defines socialism, as well. If it's not your brand of socialism, it must be national socialism, eh?
daylightrobber
Player Valuation: £15m
Its not that simple though is it. The UK may not be party to negotiations and may well be presented with a take it or leave it deal that has been conducted at the pace the EU dictates. Tariffs are determined by the value of a commodity/how much the EU needs something - hence Norway getting a good deal on fuel. If the deal isn't accepted, then the terms may well be less favourable still, and there will be no choice but to abide by them. It is foolhardy to think that £14.9bn will make a difference and that Europe won't also open up to other markets if the UK doesn't want to play ball.
Apart from all this, there is an extreme arrogance at play here.
From the FT......
"Britain joined the EEC in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than we did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965."
Financially speaking, our years as members of the EU have been a huge success. Evidence suggests that membership of the EU is a significant reason why.
We've had the foot up, benefited, and now there is a downturn in the world economies some want out, claiming the it is the EU holding us back. Any deal following Brexit will suit those in the EU most
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
You keep saying that the Eu has the upper hand and that they may give us a take it or leave it offer. Why do you believe this is so? Why is it that you cannot understand that it is in the interests of the UK and the EU to do a deal? Why can you not fathom that if the EU were to be so stupid as to try to bully us, we too could just pull up the drawbridge and let Germany sell it's BMW's and Mercs to Albania or Slovakia?. Why do you think that the best tactic for someone leaving a club is for the club to punish them and show the world what a petty and obnoxious club it must be to only convince people to remain by threats and punishment. If that's how they would behave then I would definitely not wish to be part of it. If you are happy with the thought of living under threat then good luck with it......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I've not really seen too much of this tbh.....who's involved ?.....
- Status