5d ago

Leaked documents claim 'US wants to convince four countries to quit EU' in bid to 'Make Europe Great Again'

www.lbc.co.uk Leaked documents claim 'US wants to convince four countries to quit EU' in bid to 'Make Europe Great Again' | LBC

Donald Trump is allegedly attempting to persuade four countries to quit the European Union as part of his plan to “Make Europe Great Again.”

cross-posted from: https://lemmings.world/post/38211357

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

158 comments

Thanks for the feedback. I will try to scale down the nastyness but I have no idea how to be more correct. As far as I know my statements are correct. What do you think is wrong? E.g. in this thread, originally, the countries were supposed to be independent. Of course, some people have always wanted the EU to be a single country, but that's not how it was sold.
- Of course, some people have always wanted the EU to be a single country, but that’s not how it was sold.
  In 1993?! Or 1957?! Make the EU the EEC again!? The only good way to live is in the past? Back to the golden age of low consumer, worker and human rights! Less economic power and regulatory influence globally! Yay! /s
  How reactionary is that?
  But it's not just that. It's the other bad takes. They're nearly all yours.
  
  The EU is not the single source of good. Of course there are advantages, especially for countries with corrupt governments. But the EU is also corrupt, and giving the EU all that power will give that power to corrupt people.
  The Euro was introduced explicitly with conditions that each country pays their own dept which means that still at that time, the distinction of states was important.
  It’s the other bad takes. They’re nearly all yours.
  Are they wrong? Could it be that you just don't like them because they reveal problems of the EU that you don't want to solve?
  
  The EU is not the single source of good
  Straw man completely swerving my point.
  But it’s not just that. It’s the other bad takes. They’re nearly all yours.
  Are they wrong?
  Sometimes wrong by containing factual inaccuracies, sometimes wrong by containing selective truths and painting a misleading picture, sometimes wrong by drawing the wrong conclusions from accurate facts, sometimes wrong by consistently picking the most negative interpretation and defending it vigorously and ignoring anything else someone has said to derail the conversation from a balanced and nuanced discussion into one that solely debates your taking points.
  The EU is of course imperfect, but it's also the most responsible of the governments I've lived under and Brexit has been an almost completely unmitigated disaster that we brought on ourselves. It didn't even succeed on its sold terms because illegal immigration and dangerous boat crossings to the UK soared under the absence of the EU's "first safe country" rule, so we can't she everyone back over the channel any more, and the brilliant trade deals we would be free to sign around the world are few and far between and frequently on worse terms than the EU got. Why? Because we don't have the purchasing power and negotiating clout & experience of the EU.
  The people like you who can't do anything but talk down the EU because "MuH fReeDumb" cost our country EU investment, foreign investment, healthcare workers (during a recruitment and retention crisis), tax income, trading partners, shedloads of small export businesses, GDP, respect, soft power & influence and real power & influence. We used to have a seat at the top table. Now we sit outside the room. The single most stupid act of national self harm we could have taken short of starting a war.
  Whose freedom? Boris Johnson's freedom, that's who (and he would have been a much better prime minister without it). Not us, not ordinary people. We have the freedom to pay more and lose our rights.
  So no, your takes are crap and this one in particular is stupid.
  
  Straw man completely swerving my point.
  Sorry but what's your point? This reads as if it would be impossible without the EU.
  Back to the golden age of low consumer, worker and human rights
  Sometimes wrong by containing factual inaccuracies ...
  My main argument is that Trump is not under Russian influence because the billionaires would have never allowed it. That's a guess, but do you believe that it is wrong?
  Two other points are that China is outpacing the US and that the EU is not as independent as it seems. Do you see anything else? Where am I misleading with these facts?
  The EU is of course imperfect, but it’s also the most responsible of the governments ... Brexit has been an almost completely unmitigated disaster
  Wait a bit more. The EU is a tool of American influence. Brexit will shine when the EU reveals its true face.
  We have the freedom to pay more and lose our rights.
  They weren't your rights if you could lose them. Anyway, it's a race to the bottom and I wouldn't bet on GB finishing first.
  
  My main argument is that Trump is not under Russian influence because the billionaires would have never allowed it.
  Would never allowed what? A stupid and easily manipulated old man who thinks he's one of them and sticks up for them to be president? They love that about him. He let Musk dismantle regulatory controls just because he was rich and said nice things about him. And why do billionaires need to fear Russian influence? Billionaires only fear taxation of the rich, and Russia is not about to try to get Trump to do that! Russia is an oligarchy and the US oligarchs and plutocrats would love to run the USA that way.
  Wait a bit more. The EU is a tool of American influence. Brexit will shine when the EU reveals its true face.
  This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The EU is how you resist US influence. When you form a union, you become stronger than the individuals.
  And Brexit is a turd that is killing our economy. It will shine like Farage's sphincter.
  They weren’t your rights if you could lose them.
  This too is bullshit. Governments write rights into law and governments write rights out of law. By your logic there are no rights. WTF do we use the word for?
  You were looking for examples of you being incorrect. There's a good few right here.
  
  And why do billionaires need to fear Russian influence?
  The military would stop doing regime changes for them and fulfill Russian objectives, and the dollar would lose its influence which would hugely decrease their power.
  US oligarchs and plutocrats would love to run the USA that way.
  They already almost do. Whereas if Putin takes over, Russians would take their shares.
  When you form a union, you become stronger than the individuals.
  That's the promise. Have you seen the tariffs negotiation, compared to e.g. India? The US must have enough power over enough members that they can use the EU to control the rest.
  And Brexit is a turd that is killing our economy.
  The British economy is mostly London's banking. The EU is destroying their banking sector by confiscating the Russian assets. That alone made Brexit worthwhile.
  Governments write rights into law and governments write rights out of law.
  Right. It was hyperbole. There is something like a saying that it weren't rights but just privileges if they can be taken away that easily. To nitpick, if the entitlements came from government and not parliament they must have been privileges.
  Rights refer to entitlements determined by law and custom, while privileges refer to special advantages or opportunities granted by power
  
  In the UK, the government is formed by the party that has the majority of seats in Parliament. It's unusual for the government to not have near complete control over what gets passed in Parliament. There's also a principle in our unwritten constitution that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successor.
  So for example, when the LibDem/Con coalition of 2010-2015 formed, they passed a Fixed Term law saying that (instead of the prime minister being able to choose the election date as long as it was within five years), the election date would always be five years after the last one, unless two thirds of Parliament voted for a general election.
  You'd think that when the Cons gained an overall majority that, as usual, was under two thirds, they would have to stick to fixed terms, but no, of course not! They simply passed a new law revoking the old one.
  You seem to think that rights means something that's in the constitution, and Britain doesn't have a written constitution, nor does it seem there's a way of getting one, but the American constitution is illusory, because it binds only honorable presidents who pay attention to the supreme court and the supreme court ruled itself out of power when it ruled that trump couldn't be prosecuted for actions he took as president. Of course they left themselves room to call a Democratic president's act not official on the grounds that it was illegal or unconstitutional, but they were too busy ruling trump king to realise he was never going to party attention to their adverse rulings anyway.
  Tyrants are enabled by sycophants who deny it's happening right up until they support it happening. On which topic, your denial that Putin couldn't possibly have trump in his pocket because this or that group wouldn't have allowed it flies in the face of the facts that (a) absolutely it was known that Putin wanted trump to win because that would weaken America and strengthen Russia and (b) the people you mention that would have stopped it all really like an extreme right wing government.
  It was hyperbole.
  You mean it was wrong, but you don't accept that word when used about you.
  But this is a gish gallop on your part. Steve Bannon would be proud of you of he gave even one tiny shit about who you are.
  No, confiscating Russian assets did not destroy the EU banking sector, it just provided a bunch of cash to spend. The EU banking sector is doing very nicely post brexit. London used to be the main hub for European banking. Now we're not in the EU, not so much, and Frankfurt etc are thriving.
  Whereas if Putin takes over
  What? What an enormous straw man! Putin doesn't need to be US president when he has trump appointed to do it for him. And he wouldn't be eligible to be US president and the Americans wouldn't allow him to stand for either party, and they would rebel if he tried military occupation and it would be impossible for Russia to overcome the US military. But Putin isn't anywhere close to that stupid! He doesn't need to be US president, he just needs someone who will so what he wants. Enter stupid, nasty, thin-skinned, easily duped, flattery-swallowing, compromat-laden, racist, geriatric, easily influenced donald trump. Putin had this idea a long time, I suspect, but it was only really with the reach of twitter that he could pull it off.
  You're increasingly openly taking Putin's side of every point, which is probably why you set off my bad takes alarm in the first place.
  
  (a) absolutely it was known that Putin wanted trump to win because that would weaken America and strengthen Russia
  Most likely true, but doesn't give Putin influence over Trump.
  and (b) the people you mention that would have stopped it all really like an extreme right wing government.
  True, right wing, for their interests. If Russia would control Trump they would have pushed the Democrats.
  You mean it was wrong, but you don’t accept that word when used about you.
  It was wrong.
  No, confiscating Russian assets did not destroy the EU banking sector
  Yet. It just happened.
  he wouldn’t be eligible to be US president
  That's a strawman.
  You’re increasingly openly taking Putin’s side
  I am questioning a central assumption. But that's all. If I say that Putin doesn't have the assumed influence means taking Putin's side, then you can notice how important that assumption is to you.
  
  Sigh. The EU banking sector is not destroyed and seizing Russian assets did not destroy it. That's what Putin wants to be true, and it's what he gas announced to be true, by Putin is no more truthful than trump is.
  That’s a strawman.
  Lol, it was you who made it! I said trump is under Putin's influence and you said that this or that group would never allow Putin to take over. Putin doesn't need to take over when his deputy is already running the country and destroying a lot of what America stood for during my lifetime.
  
  would never allow Putin to take over. Putin doesn’t need to take over when his deputy is already running the country
  I mean that Trump is no deputy with not 'taking over'.
  If trump would be a deputy, the elections would have been pushed in different directions.

158 comments