***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 6 *****
Continuing discussion arguments.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 20 May 13 at 01:29
|
Just wanted to pick up a point made by GB in Vol4. PR. GB – you seemed to be saying that the LibDems have missed an opportunity to get PR implemented. I’d like to understand how you think there was an opportunity when they only have 57 MPs. The rest of Parliament would have voted against any proposal to introduce PR.
Until there’s a majority LibDem government (which will never happen, sadly) we will never get PR. There is nothing they could have promised to the Tories in this Government which the Tories would have traded for allowing the Libs to get PR through Parliament. It is pure and total fantasy to think otherwise. You can give the Libs stick over the tuition fee thing if you like, however I think those that do are still missing the point that they are in coalition and by definition simply can not keep all manifesto pledges in those circumstances.
I voted Yes to AV in the referendum. However, there’s a part of me that’s now happy we aren’t moving towards PR what with so many people seemingly buying the fantasies and soundbites of UKIP.
|
>> I voted Yes to AV in the referendum. However, there’s a part of me that’s
>> now happy we aren’t moving towards PR what with so many people seemingly buying the
>> fantasies and soundbites of UKIP.
>>
Why single out UKIP? Do you seriously believe that any party has much substance behind "fantasies and soundbites"?
If you are going to pick on anybody, then pick on the LibDems - the must unscrupulous, deluded and sanctimonious of them all. (e.g. the "Winning Here" deception which is standard tactics for them). Weasels.
|
>> Until there’s a majority LibDem government (which will never happen, sadly) we will never get
>> PR. There is nothing they could have promised to the Tories in this Government which
>> the Tories would have traded for allowing the Libs to get PR through Parliament. It
>> is pure and total fantasy to think otherwise. You can give the Libs stick over
>> the tuition fee thing if you like, however I think those that do are still
>> missing the point that they are in coalition and by definition simply can not keep
>> all manifesto pledges in those circumstances.
>>
Labour's manifesto also committed to a referendum on AV. Whether a majority for could have been achieved with a positive camapaign from the governinig party is a different question.
The result of last year's referendum has put electoral reform off the agenda at least until the end of the 2015 parliament.
I think there's a bit of a panic over UKIP at the moment. The levels of support in last week's County elections are not wildly ahead of those they've got in European elections. Once people are faced with real issues at an election I suspect they'll sink back to more normal support.
Yesterday's announcement about stopping pensions based on husband's contributions is being spun as pitched at 'Thai Brides'. On the face it looks far more wide ranging and and Govt is risking getting it's bum badly bitten by it's own supporters once the real impact emerges.
|
State pension should be stopped to *anyone* who is not resident in the UK. I understand there may be much outcry but it has a good economic reason. They may ( on the whole ) not have much disposable income, but they are contributors into UK economic activity, so the real cost of a pension paid to a uk resident is less.
I paid for my state pension you cry, its my right to take it where I like. In truth you didn't, you contributed a proportion to it, other UK residents also contributed to your state pension.
Edit, in answer to brompo's post, yes it affects partners who are uk resident/nationals as well.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 May 13 at 12:29
|
|
Would it be enforceable though Zero, or even legal?
|
>> Would it be enforceable though Zero, or even legal?
Anything's 'legal' if Govt can get primary legislation through both houses*. With an election appraoching I think they'll struggle with that one if it impacts on UK residents and/or expats who engender public sympathy - it's not just Thai Brides affected even overseas.
If they act under secondary powers there's scope for challenge in the courts that they are acting beyond their powers or in a way no reasonable Minister could.
* Subject to European Legislation which I dont think is relevant. A declaration of incompatibility with Human Rights can give and Act a nasty bite (viz 17YO youths in custody) but it cannot be struck down. I don't thin such a declaration is realistic in this case.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 7 May 13 at 12:47
|
>>
>> * Subject to European Legislation which I dont think is relevant.
Interesting, I would thought some angle of freedom of movement or persons and money etc? Would that not have any bearing at all?
|
>> Interesting, I would thought some angle of freedom of movement or persons and money etc?
>> Would that not have any bearing at all?
Was thinking about whether any 'Social' directive affecting pension provision might be engaged. I suspect any concession to UK residents will apply to those resident in EU avoiding any issues there.
|
|
Hmm I would have thought, you can take your pension in the UK but not in another EU country, would throw up some problems?
|
>> >> Interesting, I would thought some angle of freedom of movement or persons and money
>> etc?
>> >> Would that not have any bearing at all?
>>
>> Was thinking about whether any 'Social' directive affecting pension provision might be engaged. I suspect
>> any concession to UK residents will apply to those resident in EU avoiding any issues
>> there.
Well its legal to take away expats rights to vote
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22432306
|
|
Looking at the bottom of the report I don't think it will effect too many people.
|
|
Agreed, nut its an indication that you can taker away expats rights. Pension is just a logical extension surely.
|
|
Possibly but different ballgame when it comes to people's pension. Very few seem to worry about the right to vote, I bet they would bothered if you stopped a million pensions!
|
|
well of course they would, they sodded off to other parts counting on that as income.
|
>> Would it be enforceable though Zero, or even legal?
>>
How long until UKIP claims that one?
|
>> >> Would it be enforceable though Zero, or even legal?
>> >>
>>
>> How long until UKIP claims that one?
Damn! what have I done!
|
>> State pension should be stopped to *anyone* who is not resident in the UK
What? And have us also pay their health and social care costs along with heating allowance, TV licence, and various pension credits?
|
>> >> State pension should be stopped to *anyone* who is not resident in the UK
>>
>> What? And have us also pay their health and social care costs along with heating
>> allowance, TV licence, and various pension credits?
Stop those as well. Not living int he UK? you get nowt.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 May 13 at 13:16
|
>> but they are contributors into
>> UK economic activity, so the real cost of a pension paid to a uk resident
>> is less.
>>
>
Why does it make any difference where they live? Surely the pound sterling paid to an ex-pat has to be exchanged before it can be spent locally, and the pound will return to the UK?
If a foreigner uses the pound to buy a UK export, that's contributing to the UK economy, isn't it?
|
>> Why does it make any difference where they live? Surely the pound sterling paid to
>> an ex-pat has to be exchanged before it can be spent locally, and the pound
>> will return to the UK?
Its has contributed nothing to the economic or commercial process in the UK
>>
>> If a foreigner uses the pound to buy a UK export,
If they were that desperate for UK stuff they would still be living in the UK.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 May 13 at 13:57
|
>>If they were that desperate for UK stuff they would still be living in the UK.
Complete rubbish.
I just received an aid parcel containing marmite, cheese & onion crisps, HP sauce, Colmans Mustard, Digestive Biscuits, Twiglets, Marmite, Rice Krispies, Garibaldi Biscuits, Nescafe coffee.
I was *totally* desperate for this stuff. Bu I don't live in the UK.
|
>> >>If they were that desperate for UK stuff they would still be living in the
>> UK.
>>
>> Complete rubbish.
>>
>> I just received an aid parcel containing marmite, cheese & onion crisps, HP sauce, Colmans
>> Mustard, Digestive Biscuits, Twiglets, Marmite, Rice Krispies, Garibaldi Biscuits, Nescafe coffee.
>>
>> I was *totally* desperate for this stuff. Bu I don't live in the UK.
Wow, you really saved the Uk economy there. Frankly I happily pay to keep you 8,000 miles away. What else do you need?
|
>> Frankly I happily pay to keep you 8,000 miles away. What else do you need?
Smarties, decent Corn Flakes, real milk, real bread, mature cheddar, sausages, proper bacon, several pints of 6X and a kebab.
I'll email you the address.
|
>>
>> >> Frankly I happily pay to keep you 8,000 miles away. What else do you
>> need?
>>
>> Smarties, decent Corn Flakes, real milk, real bread, mature cheddar, sausages, proper bacon, several pints
>> of 6X and a kebab.
>>
>> I'll email you the address.
I'll send you some home made bread, I'll take all the blue smarties out of the tube (you are over excited and hyper active as it is) and the dog found half a kebab yesterday. She is keeping it under her rug for later but I'll tell her its a good cause... As for milk and cheese you'll have to stick with Lama. Same goes for lama bacon and lama sausages.
|
You're so cruel.
(p.s. and the Cornflakes & 6X?)
|
>> You're so cruel.
>>
>>
>>
>> (p.s. and the Cornflakes & 6X?)
I'll send you some damp sawdust and ship you down some Coors light
|
>> >> If a foreigner uses the pound to buy a UK export,
>>
>> If they were that desperate for UK stuff they would still be living in the
>> UK.
>>
You are missing my point.
UK pounds are useless in the foreign country, they have to be exchanged for local currency, and bought by someone else who needs sterling, to buy UK goods or services.
The money will therefore return to the UK, to play its part in the UK economy in exactly the same way as if spent by a UK-resident pensioner.
|
|
And you are missing the point that they wont be buying anything from the UK. In whatever currency. They wont be using UK shops and services, huge chunks of the UK supply and logistic chain are not being used.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 8 May 13 at 11:07
|
>> And you are missing the point that they wont be buying anything from the UK.
>> In whatever currency. They wont be using UK shops and services, huge chunks of the
>> UK supply and logistic chain are not being used.
>>
What you say is true, but needs to be offset byt the fact that by living abroard, Pensioners are reducing the pressure on housing and (more significantly) on healthcare.
For example, A report by the Royal College of Physicians in September 2012.
"Hospitals 'can't cope' with rise in elderly patients"
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9538850/Hospitals-cant-cope-with-rise-in-elderly-patients.html
As I said earlier, the issue is not so clear-cut as some of the protagonists on this thread would like to make it appear.
Last edited by: Londoner on Wed 8 May 13 at 12:13
|
>> For example, A report by the Royal College of Physicians in September 2012.
>> "Hospitals 'can't cope' with rise in elderly patients"
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9538850/Hospitals-cant-cope-with-rise-in-elderly-patients.html
>>
>> As I said earlier, the issue is not so clear-cut as some of the protagonists
>> on this thread would like to make it appear.
Agreed, but I dont have (nor do I suppose the government) the data required to decide which is financially better. However you have to bear in mind, that in some countries the social and healthcare costs are charged back to the UK.
|
>> However you have to bear in mind, that in some
>> countries the social and healthcare costs are charged back to the UK.
...and if the healthcare problem gets too bad (i.e. too expensive to deal with abroad) they'll hot foot it back to Blighty urgent.
|
>> And you are missing the point that they wont be buying anything from the UK.
>> In whatever currency. They wont be using UK shops and services, huge chunks of the
>> UK supply and logistic chain are not being used.
>>
"They" (the pensioners) won't be, but someone will be. They will spend their sterling somewhere, exchanging it for local currency, and when the sterling returns it will be buying UK goods and services.
It's like swapping Tesco vouchers. Someone will spend them. No one takes them abroad and then burns them.
Conversely of course, a pensioner who stays in the UK might buy an imported car or other goods, and then on your argument the other country's economy will benefit. Do you want to ban that too?
|
|
I don't see much wrong with first past the post. The aspirations of the three main parties pretty much reflect those of the majority of voters, all PR would do is give is give us a few Green MP's who want to send us back to a middle age economy and some skinheads who are turned on by SS uniforms.
|
As Lygonos says above, older people incur health and social costs in the country in which they live.
Zero points out that those living overseas are not "contributors into UK economic activity".
Now, both viewpoints raise perfectly valid points, in the manner of the story of "The blind men and the elephant."
But where on balance does the truth lie? Do the savings from pensioners living overseas outweigh the costs -or vice versa? What do you estimate Lygonos? Zero?
|
I could talk only for me, and I'm not a state pensioner yet.
The only economic contribution I make to the UK is spending money there. If I am not there, then I am making no economic contribution.
I'd point out that neither do I or my family represent any economic drain to the UK, whether we are in the country or not.
However, nobody gave me the option of opting out of my NI payments, even though I did and do not use the education, health or any other benefits available.
So I don't see why the country should be able to opt out of my pension when it suits them. The fact that I am out of the country when I receive it does not seem relevant. I was in the country when I paid it.
On the other hand I do not agree with benefits to a spouse abroad based solely on the contribution of their partner.
|
UKIP leader Nigel Farage had to find refuge in a pub after he was swarmed by angry protesters as he left a press conference.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22559526
|
|
Oh God. Another damn martyr...
|
|
Radical left students mostly. Thank you folks - a few more votes generated for UKIP!
|
>> Radical left students mostly.
Ugly little beasts aren't they? That bullying chant of 'scum! scum! scum!' takes one back to the late-Thatcher period. Even then it begged the question of who the real scum were exactly...
Your Mr Vuvuzela seemed a bit taken aback Rastaman. But he didn't burst into tears as a normal person might.
|
>> Radical left students mostly. Thank you folks - a few more votes generated for UKIP!
They probably were. Getting shouted down by those sort of characters is just part of politics. It didn't justify the outburst about anti-English racism in Scotland or the hissy fit Nige threw when a BBC reporter robustly challenged him on his assertions.
UKIP has not got much idea about Scottish politics but has translated a handful of Membership requests from north of the Border into an incipient Membership surge. In fact the party has next to no understanding of Scottish politics as witnessed by it's policy of turning the Scottish Parliament into little more than a grand committee of Scottish Constituency MPs from Westminster.
Reports also suggest more of his new councillors showing their racist/xenophobic and worse colours. One in Worcester with a history of racist and anti-Semitic writing, a funder who has some odd beliefs about women in trousers and a whole cohort on Lincolnshire Council who won't sign up to an equality policy.
|
Let me get this right. Farage wants the UK to be "Independent" of the EU, but believes the UK should remain a single entity, meaning Scotland shouldn't have such self determination from the UK? Is that right? They think it bad for the UK economy to be part of the EU, but good for the Scottish one to be part of the UK? Goose/gander springs to mind.
www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/ukip-the-scottish-assault.20984852
Tough position for the UDIK leader to hold and expect support in Bonnie Scotland.
|
What a feeble bit of sophistry.
Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not (yet) part of the sovereign state of Europe.
Scottish independence is an unrelated debate.
|
>> The United Kingdom is not (yet) part of
>> the sovereign state of Europe.
Then we don't need independence from it, and we certainly don't need a political party to campaign hysterically for that fantastical "independence".
|
>> Then we don't need independence from it, and we certainly don't need a political party
>> to campaign hysterically for that fantastical "independence".
>>
The key word is "yet". The aim of the European movement has always been to create a single country out of the various nations. Despite what some eurosceptics might claim this is NOT A SINISTER PLAN. (Quite the reverse in fact, though that doesn't mean that one has to agree with it). You can't have failed to notice the consistent development to this goal over the years.
Obviously the EU is not there "yet". For opponents of the plan, the best time to act is BEFORE it comes about rather than after.
"Prevention is better than cure."
By your line of reasoning, Alanovic**, in the 1930's we should have waited until Hitler actually attacked before we started to re-arm.
**(sorry that I can't write the final letter of your name properly, but it isn't an English letter - a clue to your thinking maybe?) :-)
|
>> >> Then we don't need independence from it, and we certainly don't need a political
>>
>> **(sorry that I can't write the final letter of your name properly, but it isn't
>> an English letter - a clue to your thinking maybe?) :-)
Yes, it is a clue to my thinking perhaps. And not one I'm ashamed of.
An Internationalist outlook, supported by many years of study and some residence abroad, along with a large network of contacts in various countries and the ability to speak several foreign languages is no reason to accuse me of treason, as your post implies. I have the best interests of my own country at heart, and I believe them best served by remaining the the EU.
|
>> By your line of reasoning, Alanovic**, in the 1930's we should have waited until Hitler
>> actually attacked before we started to re-arm.
Missed the edit. I don't think that's a valid analogy, as I don't see anything to arm ourselves against in this case. As I say below, I see no problem in the UK becoming part of a federal Europe.
|
>> >> The United Kingdom is not (yet) part of
>> >> the sovereign state of Europe.
>>
>> Then we don't need independence from it, and we certainly don't need a political party
>> to campaign hysterically for that fantastical "independence".
No, but we might want to avoid being subsumed.
Hysterical? Fantastical? Ridicule isn't an argument either.
You think UK should stay in the EU? A perfectly valid opinion, assuming there's some thought behind it. Can't you accept that there might be other ones? Or at least a case to answer?
|
>> You think UK should stay in the EU? A perfectly valid opinion, assuming there's some
>> thought behind it. Can't you accept that there might be other ones? Or at least
>> a case to answer?
>>
Of course I can accept there are other opinions, that's why I'm debating the issue here (and in other places. In fact, if you'd read some of my previous posts on matters political, you'll know that I used to hold the opinion that we should leave the EU. I even voted UKIP in a European election many years ago before they were quite so wildly fashionable. I've since been persuaded otherwise by argument and reason, however. That's a pretty good sign that I'm open to other opinions and to debating my own. Those who accuse me of the opposite seldom show any signs of changing their opinion when bald fact presents itself against their beloved stand.
In terms of a case to answer, well I reckon the economic case is unanswerable by the outists, and there's a strong case, when you take a world view of things, for remaining politically part of the EU.
|
This isn't aimed at you, more of a general point. I think a less condesending tone might win more round to a stay in the EU. There is often more than a wiff of it, a attitude on occasion to others with a 'leave the EU' proposal, that they are a bit daft, not very worldy, easily led etc. And that they are so world, cultured and well informed etc.
That's not to say there are similar views points from those who oppose the EU that you are all closet commies in the pay of the EU. I used your (we not you personally) view point as it was the matter in hand.
|
>>Of course I can accept there are other opinions,
Fair enough.
I don't think it's binary, though it might turn out that way.
There's no absolute reason that there can't be a trading bloc, and/or a currency bloc, and/or a political bloc. That, in effect, is what we have now in a half-baked and dysfunctional form, in my opinion.
It's pretty clear to me that you can't sustainably be in the currency bloc and out of the other two. And that is already causing much pain and grief, and I can't see how that can be ameliorated without full political union or something close to it for the eurozone.
But unless we are in the euro, it makes little sense to me to take the other stuff lock, stock and barrel.
The current problems, to the considerable extent that they are not solely the fault of banking regulators (you can't blame banks, it's a market) are IMO down to pulling the trigger on the Euro without the political union.
So we still have the German people who think that all their money is theirs, and the mass of people in the peripheral states in easten, central and southern Europe who think they can retain political independence (their leaders, presumably, know better). National identity is not a trivial matter for some of these, certainly for nearly all the countries acceding or planning to, who have been embroiled in shooting wars not so long ago.
It's not just the "out" scenario that hasn't been convincingly thought through. The "in" one isn't fully understood either.
It's arguably pretty fatuous to ask the UK electorate to decide, on what is an emotional basis. But it might turn out to be as good a way as any.
There are probably too many moving parts for a reliable objective analysis, too much political influence for it to be articulated fairly, and it wouldn't necessarily give you a clear answer anyway.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 17 May 13 at 11:40
|
>>
>> So we still have the German people who think that all their money is theirs,
Could you explain this, what makes you think that?
|
>> >> So we still have the German people who think that all their money is
>> theirs,
>>
>> Could you explain this, what makes you think that?
Well, I haven't done an opinion poll if that's what you mean. But Merkel gets flak when she agrees the bailouts.
I think it's fair to say that there has been debate internally and with the ECB and other member states, as individual states, around the bailout funding. The implied premise of that is that it is in (mainly) Germany's gift, i.e. political union has not been created.
As a federal state however, it would be EU money, not German (and to a lesser extent others') money, and tax revenues would "belong" to the EU exchequer, not to Germany, UK, France...
Merkel may well have the federal vision, but is unlikely to stay elected if she embraces immediate de facto European unification (it's a different word from union, with a different inflection, don't you think?), handing the cheque book to the EU and ECB.
Unfortunately, that's what needs to happen. Unit labour costs in the Eurozone are still not converged, yet they are all stuck with the same exchange rate leaving the southern states uncompetitive and Germany in a relative boom. Had they separate currencies, they would have come much more into line.
The eurozone is unsustainable without continual transfer of cash from Germany to the periphery. At the moment that is being grudgingly given whenever things look critical, and the German people perceive that they are unfairly subsidising the rest.
Apologies if that is a statement of the bleeding obvious and I have missed your point.
|
I think perhaps I read to much into your earlier point that I quoted.
I think the often said that Germany wants to run the EU/take it over/make all the descsions etc is one often over played. Apologies I probably read something between the lines that wasn't there.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 17 May 13 at 12:28
|
>> It's pretty clear to me that you can't sustainably be in the currency bloc and
>> out of the other two.
Not that I'm saying it'd be a good idea for the UK, or as a general principle. But there is at least one country to which this applies.
The rest of your post I pretty much agree with entirely.
Where we differ, I imagine, is that I'd not be unhappy to see the UK as part of a Federal Europe.
I do not accept the argument (this bit isn't aimed at you, Manatee, just as a contribution to the thread in general) that this would lead to some kind of dissolution or loss of national identity and tradition. I'm pretty sure the Scots still see themselves as Scots after 300 years of political union with three other nations. Croats are pretty much convinced they're Croats, even though there's only ever been a political entity called "Croatia" for about 20 years in the entire history of their people. They've only just gained that, and are about to be "subsumed" by the EU. It will have no effect on their concept of national identity, trust me.
|
>> In terms of a case to answer, well I reckon the economic case is unanswerable by the outists, and there's a strong case, when you take a world view of things, for remaining politically part of the EU.
I don't believe that the economic case is "unanswerable" EITHER WAY. I trust (Gasp!) the BBC on this. For example:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22442865
In the end, the economic case won't be what decides it. Maybe rationally it SHOULD, and there is the famous political cliche "It's the economy, stupid". However the actual question really is an emotional one: "Do you want a divorce". A couple may be better off economically by staying together but they will base their decision on splitting up on emotional grounds.
Conceptually, it's rather like the question I once debated : Would you accept being a slave for a higher standard of living? i.e. emotional versus material feelings of well-being.
Last edited by: Londoner on Fri 17 May 13 at 13:10
|
|
HE will have to change the name of the party now, clearly the UK part does not apply.
|
>> Where we differ, I imagine, is that I'd not be unhappy to see the UK
>> as part of a Federal Europe.
>>
Neither would I - a Social Democratic one. A decade ago I used to advocate a reformed EU as the best possible option. However, the neo-liberal dominance is getting even worse and the deomcratic deficit even greater so I've given up on it.
That is where WE differ! :-) :-)
|
>> . . . to accuse me of treason, as your post implies
Sorry, Alanovic. You are wrong and your response is unjust.
My original remark was "(sorry that I can't write the final letter of your name properly, but it isn't an English letter - a clue to your thinking maybe?) :-)" This includes the smiley symbol which most people on forums recognize indicates that the remark is not meant aggrssively.
It was implying nothing more sinister than EXACTLY the kind of personal background that you ascribed to yourself, i.e that you were probably someone with appreciation, experiences, links & affection for other countries and cultures. Naturally, this background would make you feel very opposed to the narrow unthinking patriotism (Jingoism, almost) that is the basis for so much Euroscepticism. Since I attack the EU from the Left, rather than the Right, I can agree with this.
I am also internationalist in outlook, though my credentials are not so good as yours. I've also lived in Europe learned the basics of three foreign languages - one of them at my own expense and in my own time. Mrs L is bilingual, from a foreign family.
|
Then I apologise for misreading your intent. Hoist by my own petard, regarding the smiley. I was berating someone else for that particular sin recently.
:-)
|
>> >> It's pretty clear to me that you can't sustainably be in the currency bloc
>> and
>> >> out of the other two.
>>
>> Not that I'm saying it'd be a good idea for the UK, or as a
>> general principle. But there is at least one country to which this applies.
"Sustainably" is the important word I think!
>>
>> The rest of your post I pretty much agree with entirely.
>>
>> Where we differ, I imagine, is that I'd not be unhappy to see the UK
>> as part of a Federal Europe.
Neither would I, in principle. I have a French friend, a cool pragmatic engineer who was in their submarines, who likes to say "If it's French, it will work very well in theory".
I don't think there's even a theory at the moment. Maybe it just has to evolve, though that can be painful.
>>
>> I do not accept the argument (this bit isn't aimed at you, Manatee, just as
>> a contribution to the thread in general) that this would lead to some kind of
>> dissolution or loss of national identity and tradition. I'm pretty sure the Scots still see
>> themselves as Scots after 300 years of political union with three other nations. Croats are
>> pretty much convinced they're Croats, even though there's only ever been a political entity called
>> "Croatia" for about 20 years in the entire history of their people. They've only just
>> gained that, and are about to be "subsumed" by the EU. It will have no
>> effect on their concept of national identity, trust me.
I can see that. I have noticed that national identity doesn't follow from the the country that one has always lived in, either. There are still many "Germans" in Hungary, and I think I have said before that I have a Hungarian friend who was born in Ukraine where his family lived; it never occurred to him that he wasn't Hungarian. His grandfather has lived in three different countries without moving house IIRC.
I'm disappointed in our leadership, or lack of it, and the lack of progress to a fully explainable future working model for the EU which currently has all the necessary conditions to self-destruct.
You have the 'outies' saying "This is all about a federal state. We will be governed from Europe. It's bad, you must vote against it".
Until the innies can say "This is all about being part of a brilliant federal state. It's good, for all the following reasons...let's be really happy and get on with it" there's something not quite right, and out now might be lower risk.
I don't accept unquestioningly the apocalyptic visions of life outside the EU, and they are not a reason to jump in the deep end.
|
>> "Sustainably" is the important word I think!
Yes, but there is one country managing to pull off the trick. Hasn't gone under yet and isn't showing any real signs of doing so. Perhaps the exception that proves the rule, but there it is. There is one example.
|
It is possible to have differences in unit labour costs and keep in step, in theory at least. I'm not much of an economist, but it depends in part of something called "comparative advantage". It's the theory that says everybody benefits from trade, it isn't a zero sum game.
Even with a disparity in efficiency country B may have a lower marginal cost of production in its speciality when opportunity cost in the more efficient country A is accounted for.
So for example, there may be an efficient complementarity (sorry, my term, there's probably a proper one) between say France's agricultural focus and Germany's industrial one.
Speaking of France, I wouldn't bet the house on that either.
|
Some interesting points being made here.
The problem for the pro EU lobby is that until now they relied on abuse of or ridiculing outies or associating them with apparent undesirables such as those who want to run their own country, insulting them by raising the all powerful racist/xenophobe/little englander chant did nothing to help the pro argument.
Those young protesters who hounded Nigel Farage with a ''scum'' chant in Scotland make the point too clearly, they have lost their argument immediately by abusing someone who has gone to great lengths to dissuade those who belonged to certain alleged extremist groups or parties from even joining UKIP...whilst other parties have them in their midst, the blinkering of people is staggering.
It wouldn't have been quite so bad if Farage was the typical policiian who never answers a question straight, unlike most of the mainstream crew he does.
Maybe now we can have some sensible argument without yah boo abuse or insulting huge swathes of the population or plucking figures from thin air from both political sides.
To be fair the Tories have now taken on board that the electorate might actually have a considered view in this (their own view as against told what to think/vote) and even Cameron has back pedalled from his original Loonies/Closet Racist generalisation, whereas Labour seem to still be anti democratic.
That will change i am sure when they eventually twig that a vote isn't automatically theirs or one of the other two stooges by default either...the penny dropped with the Tories finally a couple of weeks ago hence the increasingly frantic debate, i suspect the three parties will all promise referenda though promises about this have been made before and the publics trust is lost.
One thing i have no doubt about, not one of the three main parties would be considering offering an EU referendum had it not been for UKIP and its increasing success.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Fri 17 May 13 at 14:42
|
A referendum won't matter, GB. The EU will just ignore it, or tell us to vote again. They always do.
For example,
2001 Ireland - Nice Treaty
2005 France - EU Constitution
2005 Netherlands - EU Constitution
2008 Ireland - Lisbon Treaty.
They have quite a contempt for democracy. Messy business. Gets in the way of the project.
|
Thats probably how it will go London, it helps if the referendum countries prefects were equally disapproving of their naughty children not doing as they were told.
Hopefully many more of our own people will have the blinkers removed when it all kicks off.
|
|
So those who think we should stay in the EU are blinkered are we?
|
>> So those who think we should stay in the EU are blinkered are we?
>>
Yeah, why not....same insult that has been thrown at those who think we should leave.
|
>> >> So those who think we should stay in the EU are blinkered are we?
>> >>
>>
>> Yeah, why not....same insult that has been thrown at those who think we should leave.
No they are just plain wrong.
|
>> So those who think we should stay in the EU are blinkered are we?
>>
Those who think the EU is a democratic movement are in many cases, doesn't bother me if 99% of people vote to stay in so long as its a fairly worded question and the votes not fiddled via the postal wheeze etc.
Be interesting to see if the results of a NO referendum were accepted by the EU, or if we have to keep voting till we give the right answer.
|
>> >> So those who think we should stay in the EU are blinkered are we?
>> >>
>>
>> Those who think the EU is a democratic movement are in many cases,
It doesen't need to be a democratic movement. We have national democracy.
|
We may have a democracy, but the EU is not.
Thats what i was referring to with the blinkered comment as you well know.
|
>> We may have a democracy, but the EU is not.
But it doesn't need to be, because everyone has national democracy.
|
>> But it doesn't need to be, because everyone has national democracy.
>>
We only have our national democracy up to a point....because the EU comes along and usurps some of it.
The lack of accountability is awful. The bureaucracy gone mad and the sheer inefficiency, if not corruption.
I don't want people fiddling and using my tax money to do so.
|
>> >> But it doesn't need to be, because everyone has national democracy.
>> >>
>>
>> We only have our national democracy up to a point....because the EU comes along and
>> usurps some of it.
but it doesn't. Who are more nationalistic than the French. Are they bothered? no they aint because they just carry on doing what they want. We could do the same. Dont blame the EU blame the people you elected.
>> The lack of accountability is awful. The bureaucracy gone mad and the sheer inefficiency, if
>> not corruption.
Thats not an EU exclusive.
>> I don't want people fiddling and using my tax money to do so.
Like MPs expenses you mean? blame that on the EU perhaps?
|
I'm with Zero on this. Instead of leaving, we should just not bother to follow any rules that we don't like. If anyone complains (i.e. the Germans) we simply point to the French and say that we are merely acting as good Europeans by copying the behaviour of one of the key founder members of the EU.
A point of information though. We don't have "national democracy" so long as we DO follow the rules. We only have about half a democracy. According to Factcheck (which is neither in the pro- or anti-EU camps):
". . .the following formula can be used to estimate the proportion of UK regulations and laws that stem from Europe:
(EU regulations & EU-related SIs) / (EU regulations & total SIs)
Using this it is calculated that: in 2007, 44 per cent of these laws and regulations stemmed from Europe; in 2008, 56 per cent did; and in 2009, 53 per cent did."
fullfact.org/factchecks/proportion_of_uk_law_made_by_eu-3073
In other words, our elected leaders are only making just under half of British law. The remainder comes from the EU. Maybe we should get rid of half the MP's in that case?
|
EU to ban olive oil jugs from restaurants
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10064787/EU-to-ban-olive-oil-jugs-from-restaurants.html
I don't suggest this sort of carp is exclusively down to the EU!
|
>> but it doesn't. Who are more nationalistic than the French. Are they bothered? no they
>> aint because they just carry on doing what they want. We could do the same.
>> Dont blame the EU blame the people you elected.
If the French choose to ignore rules and laws, that's up to them....I don't think that is the correct path.
I would prefer a system where the only rules and laws generated come solely from this country.
>>
>> >> The lack of accountability is awful. The bureaucracy gone mad and the sheer inefficiency,
>> if
>> >> not corruption.
>>
>> Thats not an EU exclusive.
No it's not, i'd agree. But it is nevertheless there when it needn't be and is arguably worse than what we can achieve on our own.
>>
>>
>> >> I don't want people fiddling and using my tax money to do so.
>>
>> Like MPs expenses you mean? blame that on the EU perhaps?
I don't want anyone fiddling things... and particularly not some unaccountable bureaucrat in Brussels.
|
>>I would prefer a system where the only rules and laws generated come solely from this country.
I don't mind where they come from, but there should be a legal way of accepting and not accepting them.
So that the UK elected Government of the day can take the European law as a template or recommendation and then accept it or not.
It makes no sense that we would need to campaign to have the law amended as we try to do, or ignore it as the French choose to do.
It is the level of detail that the EU tries to work at which is wrong, not the principle in itself.
|
>> It is the level of detail that the EU tries to work at which is
>> wrong, not the principle in itself.
>>
The principle IS wrong for me.
I do not want an Italian, a Belgian and a Pole (all chosen by me at random) making laws up that affect me.
I cannot imagine some/many French, Spanish or Bulgarians (all chosen by me at random) want a Brit choosing their laws either.
I have nothing whatsoever against any European races..(or any others come to that), but wish Britain to have control of its own destiny.
By all means have free trade, if some want political and monetary union, let them fill their boots..but it's not what I want and I'll vote in that manner.
|
>>The principle IS wrong for me.
If the approach is that the EU Govt drafts a law that they believe is necessary and then submits it to the UK Government for acceptance or rejection, then where is your issue?
It might be a good idea, either in and of itself, or because standardisation will help. Or it might be a dumb idea. But why wouldn't we listen to ideas?
And as I said, I thought fairly clearly, I truly don't care who suggests the law, just so its us who chooses to accept it or not.
|
Economics will out eventually.. not when times are good - because then no-on cares much but when times are bad.
Just wait for interest rates to start rising after 2015... then it will get interesting.
Most of the Southern EU States have economic models that don't work on a theoretical basis (let alone a practical one)- being too generous with welfare, cutting that and having nothing to replace it with - no new industries, no technology and no new markets.. 23% unemployment = real social unrest. 50% youth unemployment = revolution.
Ditto France.
And when the US stops QE as it will and inflation rears and interest rates go up - or we get prolonged deflation.. there is a real risk of the whole edifice collapsing under social unrest. Think Germany in the late 1920s..
A centralised state with monetary and political union will not work in those conditions.. See the Fall of the Roman/Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires. (And the UK one post 1945 - but that was managed decline). Given the inherent lack of democratic accountability in the EC, it will be very messy.
Of course, oil prices may collapse due to surpluses (Due to fracking) and we have a recovery as a result... in which case the crisis may be averted with widescale economic recovery a la Marshall Plan with Germany in the role of the US post WW2.. Don't expect it to happen but it might.
|
>
>> A centralised state with monetary and political union will not work in those conditions.. See
>> the Fall of the Roman/Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires. (And the UK one post 1945 -
>> but that was managed decline). Given the inherent lack of democratic accountability in the EC,
>> it will be very messy.
Oh here we go again, another MADF "the world will spin off its axis" gloom and doom prediction. The only thing that changes its the year. (as each prediction passes without global holocaust)
|
I am like an economist.
Eventually I will forecast until I get it right :-)
|
>> I would prefer a system where the only rules and laws generated come solely from
>> this country.
Well alas, thats never been the case since the end of the second world war and the development of the untied nations and world trade regulations. But that to one side, what rules and laws that have been foisted on you by the Undemocratic Republic of Europe, has made your life a misery? Tell you what, lets just settle for worse in any way
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 18 May 13 at 18:38
|
As you well know Zero, what WP and others are arguing about is what happens if the EU achieves complete statehood, with Britain just a province within it, rather than the sparring which has taken place up to now - impactful though that has been ***.
We are all coming to the realization that the UK is at a decision point in it's relationship with the EU. The project will forge ahead with or without the UK. Where we are now is equivalent to being semi-out, with all of the disadvantages that the pro-EU lobby claim, i.e. key decisions being made by an inner core in which the UK has no voice at the table.
If things carry on as they are, we won't leave the EU in one great dramatic act. Rather, we will stay where we are while the EU leaves US as it sails off into the distance towards greater EU integration.
OTOH, if we DID engage fully with the EU (cue all the cliches about "being at the heart of Europe") then we'd have to join the Euro of course, give up the famous rebate, opt in to Schengen, adopt the FTT, and give up all the other opt-outs. In addition to the monetary union of the Euro, we would also have to adopt whatever level of fiscal union was in place by then also (remember Cameron's famous veto at the Brussels summit in December 2011). The ECB would set our interest rate - and by then God knows how much of our economic policy.
Some people would prefer this set-up of course. But let's not kid ourselves that the EU, taking decisions based on the overall necessity of the Union (and that's putting the absolute best spin on it) would consider the needs of the UK as much as if those same decisions were being taken in Whitehall rather than Brussels.
*** Example. "NEW EU laws, regulations and rulings have cost Britain an extra £5billion over the past two years."
tinyurl.com/clhq8xb
But these hit everyone, you might say. Well you already said yourself that the French ignore anything that they don't like. They are not the only ones. These measures hit the UK disproportionately.
Last edited by: Londoner on Sat 18 May 13 at 22:06
|
>> As you well know Zero, what WP and others are arguing about is what happens
>> if the EU achieves complete statehood, with Britain just a province within it, rather than
>> the sparring which has taken place up to now - impactful though that has been
>> ***.
Oh! I see! pardonne moi! I thought we were talking about current reality rather than unsubstantiated guessing.
Should the referendum vote then read "Do you wish to leave the Eu based on what you fear the worse case scenario may be in 20 years"
And honestly, you seriously want to quote crap form the Daily Express?
By Bye, thats your credibility in this debate sailing down the river.
|
>> Should the referendum vote then read "Do you wish to leave the Eu based on
>> what you fear the worse case scenario may be in 20 years"
That's exactly the point, isn't it? Not necessarily the worst case, but the future.
Londoner was spot on with the variable implementation of directives.
The Insurance Mediation Directive is a case in point. UK gold plated it, and tied everybody in knots with it. I was also working in Greece at the time, and they just didn't bother.
UK makes a rod for its own back. Greece ignored it. Ireland basically made the directive law as it stood. UK made it massively more prescriptive and complicated.
|
>> >> Should the referendum vote then read "Do you wish to leave the Eu based
>> on
>> >> what you fear the worse case scenario may be in 20 years"
>>
>> That's exactly the point, isn't it?]
No its not. You cant vote on unknowns.
|
We might be at cross purposes. I can't see it's about anything but commitment, or otherwise, to a future direction, whether for good or ill.
It's a process, not an event.
|
the process is not defined. No-one has suggested that that a vote to stay in the EU is a vote for the euro for example. And no-one has suggested that a vote for the EU is a vote for this super form of federalism, the EU super state, that everyone seems, quite frankly to be making up.
Wont be long before we get the "its all a German plot" rubbish being spouted again. And that, is what saddens me. People will be voting against, based on idiotic tripe like that.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 18 May 13 at 23:23
|
|
Are you serious? Of course it's about federalism and an EU superstate.
|
|
You like to spread that fear yes, but its not.
|
>> You like to spread that fear yes, but its not.
No, not unless you want to fear it. But it's true. Far more dishonest to promote the EU while denying its obvious purpose. Mischievous at any rate.
|
>>UK makes a rod for its own back.
We are truly world leaders at this.
I worked for 6 years on an ESA project. The German engineers were a joy to work with; pragmatic, but always looking to reduce uncertainty. The English engineers were painfully petty, box ticking, and just hard work and obstructive.
|
>> We are truly world leaders at this.
Yeah, British masochism and general sluggish stupidity. It's awful.
Zero is right too. He can see that the Vuvuzela crap is perhaps well-meaning, but just wrong.
Chapeau to both of you, and I mean it.
|
>> No its not. You cant vote on unknowns.
>>
>>
Course you can.
And people do - at every election!
Name one winning party, at one election, which that actually did exactly what they said they would do when elected?
Elections are fought on lies and empty promises...
|
>> Oh! I see! pardonne moi! (sic) I thought we were talking about current reality rather than unsubstantiated guessing.
It probably is "unsubstantiated guessing" in your case because you don't bother to seek out any information other than what buzzes around in your head.
>> Should the referendum vote then read "Do you wish to leave the Eu based on what you fear the worse case scenario may be in 20 years"
The clear aim of the EEC for the original Treaty of Rome, and reiterated by the EU constitution Lisbon Treaty, is "ever closer union". In practice this means working towards FULL POLITICAL UNION. Are you seriously pretending that you don't know that? If so then kindly remove yourself from this debate until you have learned something about the EU.
( and if you are going to use French in order to look clever, at least use it properly or you just look like a poser )
>> And honestly, you seriously want to quote crap form the Daily Express?
>> By Bye, thats (sic) your credibility in this debate sailing down the river.
What a pathetically childish argument! The truth is the truth, whatever the source.
At least I quote sources. I very rarely see you quote anything other than "Zero says".
Last edited by: Londoner on Sat 18 May 13 at 23:33
|
|
. forget it.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 18 May 13 at 23:41
|
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/16/berlin-opposition-policing-optout-britain
"Berlin signals opposition to EU policing and justice opt-out by Britain".
QUOTE
The tough line in Berlin indicated that Britain would face an uphill task in EU negotiations over the next year.
While stressing that British participation in EU-wide police and counter-terrorism operations was crucial, senior government officials in Berlin questioned whether the Cameron government should be allowed to pick and choose where to co-operate with its EU partners.
...
Berlin served notice that it could block the British push.
"The British have always been like that. They've always asked for an extra sausage," said a senior German government official. "The mistake we made was we gave it to them … I find that not good. We will make that clear. You can depend on that."
END-QUOTE
Like I said up-thread, we can't stay in this half-in & half-out position. We have to make a decision either way.
At least most of us will know what we are voting for.
|
>> >> . forget it.
>> >>
>>
>> Lost.
Talking about your council seat again?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 19 May 13 at 13:02
|
>> >> >> . forget it.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> Lost.
>>
>> Talking about your council seat again?
>>
No, I didn't lose it - I just didn't win it :-)
|
>>you just look like a poser
Mmmm, isn't that "poseur"?
|
>> a poser
>>> Mmmm, isn't that "poseur"?
Wassafuggindifferencefachrissakes? C'est la même fuggin chose innit.
|
The EU project, sold to some of us as a "Common Market" is, of course and always has been, about the creation of a European State, with all that it means.
A European currency, European parliament, European laws and jurisprudence, European armed forces, European police, with the members, (former nations) being incorporated into "regions" of Greater Europe.
If that is what you want, I accept that is a point of view which would cause vehement support of the greater integration of Great Britain within the hegemony of a European Super State.
All other arguments are really details, important details, but nevertheless are not truly central to the core idea - do you think that GB should be a region of Europe, or do you think GB should continue as an independent nation?
You know where I stand!
|
>
>> European armed forces,
Who won the first and second world war? wasn't the British forces me ole son.
>> All other arguments are really details, important details, but nevertheless are not truly central to
>> the core idea - do you think that GB should be a region of Europe,
>> or do you think GB should continue as an independent nation?
How about, "in these times of globalisation, and the resultant threats to the economy and resources, should Great Britain remain an important and active part of a regional power and trading block, that has to date brought peace, stability and prosperity to its members"
Or is that too much detail for you, I know UKIP is not great on detail, thought I'd give you a hand.
|
>>that has to date brought peace, stability and prosperity to its members"
>>
Surely you ARE joking?
|
|
No. Check your history.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 19 May 13 at 15:31
|
>> No. Check your history.
Ho ho. Very droll.
Do you think the rest of us came up in the last bucket? The most ardent Europhile couldn't truthfully agree with your statement.
Even the institution itself is insolvent now, Greece has already officially defaulted. France's own employment minister said a while back IIRC that France was "totally bankrupt". We know about Spain and Portugal. Keep your eye on Italy.
None of this is the fault of the EU of course, it must be those nasty bankers!
|
>> >
>> >> European armed forces,
>> Who won the first and second world war? wasn't the British forces me ole son.
No, not on their own, not by a long shot...but...Britain took a lead role, a significant role that without its input, may well have had considerably different consequences for the whole world.
In WW2 for example, the war could not have been won without the Yanks...however, our input for the 2 years they were not in it, was absolutely crucial.
With a European army, as opposed to a British Army, Hitler would have walked all over everyone.
Nowadays, you cannot rely on much of Europe to turn up and fight. If our elected Govt decides to fight somewhere, our forces go and do as they are told. If they were swallowed up in a European Army they more than likely wouldn't end up fighting anywhere.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 19 May 13 at 16:42
|
>> In WW2 for example, the war could not have been won without the Yanks.
Hmm.
The war could not have been won without the Russians.
|
|
Or the Japanese. If they had kept out of it, so too would the USA. There would have been a red flag over Houses of Parliament in 1945. Only one consolation: the Americans would never have got their money back, but I suppose they would have walked in on the West Indies etc. Which is what they bid for initially as quid pro quo for lend lease etc.
|
>> >> a poser
>>
>> >>> Mmmm, isn't that "poseur"?
>>
>> Wassafuggindifferencefachrissakes? C'est la même fuggin chose innit.
>>
>>
May, wee. :-)
|
An 'interesting' thread started today on the Spain expat forum titled Conservative-UKIP Coalition for 2015 :)
Mary (mrypg9) is the left-leaning 'heavy weight' on there (among others) her dog, Azor, is a R/Ridgeback:
www.expatforum.com/expats/la-tasca/155385-conservative-ukip-coalition-2015-a.html
|
>> No. Check your history.
Good idea. I did. Between 1945 and 1957 European nations were not fighting each other. What kept the peace during those years? It can't have been the EEC/EU - it didn't come into existence until the Treaty of Rome of 1957! Even then, the new organisation only consisted of six members. All the non-member countries weren't fighting each other either.
For the EU to claim credit for peace in Europe is typical spin. It attempts to airbrush out of history the division of Europe into two armed camps, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, which maintained a balance of power. Once the Soviet threat disappeared, you will notice how war broke out again in Europe in the form of the wars in Yugoslavia.
Don't just take my word for it - take the word of Timothy Garton Ash, journalist and Professor of European Studies at Oxford University... and a passionate pro-European.
QUOTE
We cannot prove it was European integration that kept the peace in western Europe after 1945. Others would claim it was Nato and the hegemonic system of the cold war, with the US functioning as "Europe's pacifier"; others again would cite the fact that western Europe became a zone of liberal democracies, and liberal democracies don't go to war with each other. Several things happened at once and historians can argue about their relative weight. Anyway, central and eastern Europe did not live at peace after 1945: witness the Soviet tanks rolling into East Berlin, Budapest and Prague, and the "state
of war" declared in Poland in 1981. Moreover, Europe--in the sense of the EU and, more broadly, the established democracies of Europe--failed to prevent war returning to the continent after the end of the cold war. Twice it took US intervention to stop war in the Balkans. So what are we so proud of?
END_QUOTE
Source: Prospect Magazine, Febuary 2007.
Last edited by: Londoner on Sun 19 May 13 at 17:34
|
>> Don't just take my word for it - take the word of Timothy Garton Ash,
>> journalist and Professor of European Studies at Oxford University... and a passionate pro-European.
Yes lets
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/16/flight-paths-britain-and-poland-diverge
Now tell me that the EU did not play a part in the successful integration of post war, post iron curtain economies. Your mate here seems to think it did.
Sure Nato kept he military divide in place, but it was the economic success and stability of the EU that caused the fall of the wall and the integration of ex warsaw pact countries into europe. The Balkan wars were a natural fall out of the void left by communist support, but even one of those countries is now in Europe. American force did little to resolve the conflict (as in truth did any Nato countries) in effect they just beat themselves into a standstill. Pre 1914 conflict was resolved. Couldn't have happened without a united europe.
|
Nuclear weapons are what has kept the major nations from going to war with each other, not the EU. There's nothing like a bit of mutually assured destruction to keep the peace.
That and an increasing unwillingness among the populations of all the major nations to accept the casualties that would result from even a conventional conflict. Look at the opposition to Afgan where the total death count is less than many a single day in WW2.
|
>> Nuclear weapons are what has kept the major nations from going to war with each
>> other, not the EU. There's nothing like a bit of mutually assured destruction to keep
>> the peace.
They didn't, really. The allies would never have used it in a conventional war
>> That and an increasing unwillingness among the populations of all the major nations to accept
>> the casualties that would result from even a conventional conflict.
Willing enough to accept the casualties from the Falklands dispute.
>> Look at the opposition to
>> Afgan where the total death count is less than many a single day in WW2.
Which shows The war needs to be seen to be just.
|
>> They didn't, really. The allies would never have used it in a conventional war
>>
>>
They would if the alternative was to be invaded. Any war between nuclear powers would have itchy fingers poised over the buttons and the response time to a missile strike by the other side would be so short that any hint of escalation could easily result in a "Shoot now, ask questions later" reply.
|
>>
>> >> They didn't, really. The allies would never have used it in a conventional war
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>> They would if the alternative was to be invaded.
They wouldn't, the Nato forces tactical commanders wouldn't have release authority, because the Yanks would fear a strike on the homeland. Thats what MAD means. No-one has the balls to use it in any form.
|
>> They didn't, really. The allies would never have used it in a conventional war
In a conventional war, absolutely correct.
If there had been a Warsaw Pact invasion of the west, NATO was under no illusion that they would be able to stop it by conventional means. The NATO plan was to buy time for negotiations by holding on for as long as possible. The WP would be warned that a "proportionate" battlefield nuclear response would be made if the advance was not halted.
Ultimately, both sides knew that any invasion by the WP would be futile as long as NATO retained both nukes and the will to use them.
As a young lad working for the MOD during the cold war, I found all this shocking at the time. Looking back on it now it has a grim logic to it.
|
As I said, Garton Ash is a passionate pro-European. It's not surprising that he should advocate that Britain adopt an engaged approach to the EU more like that of Poland.
Nor is Poland's approach surprising either, given this quote from the very article that you cite: "Berlin also contributes most to an EU budget from which Poland is – and, under the seven-year deal agreed in February, will continue to be – by far the largest single beneficiary. History, shmistory: getting a load of money from Brussels certainly helps a nation to love the EU. "
>> Now tell me that the EU did not play a part in the successful integration of post war, post iron curtain economies. Your mate here seems to think it did.
All I was doing was refuting your implication that the EU was the major cause in post-WW2 peace in Europe. I cited Garton Ash because he explains it so well. Presumably you have to admit to agreeing with him that "We cannot prove it was European integration that kept the peace in western Europe after 1945. "
>> but it was the economic success and stability of the EU that caused the fall of the wall and the integration of ex warsaw pact countries into europe.
I fully agree that the re-integration of the ex-Warsaw Pact countries into the the wider european economy was helped by the EU. It helped, for example, VW group to modernize Skoda.
Your claim that the EU caused the fall of the Berlin Wall is more contentious. I'd like to see your evidence, if you have any.
Most people think that it was a political event caused by the collapse of authoritarian communism, magnified in the tensions of an artificially divided Germany.
You still haven't answered the question - what kept the peace between 1945 and 1957 before the EEC or EU even existed?.
|
>> You still haven't answered the question - what kept the peace between 1945 and 1957
>> before the EEC or EU even existed?.
I dont need to answer it, its really clear, the same reason for the break between WW1 and WW2. The need to regroup and rebuild and relaunch hostilities. WW1 never finished, and who is to say WW2 would never have finished in the same way had Europe not taken steps to prevent it. The fear from a common enemy - Russia - helped there of course.
So you tell me what brought down the Wall and the fall of the Warsaw pact if it wasn't caused by economics?
And you, like everyone else here, have not answered the "in what way has the Eu negatively impacted on your life" question.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 19 May 13 at 20:20
|
>> So you tell me what brought down the Wall and the fall of the Warsaw
>> pact if it wasn't caused by economics?
It was economics. The divergence of western market/mixed economies from the control economies of the communist bloc, nothing to do with whether those mixed economies were in the EU or not.
The Americans estimated that the Soviet Union spent up to 50% of GDP on "defence".
Post Gorbachev and the fall of communism, the estimates were revised to 75%. They were incredibly inefficient.
|
>> I dont need to answer it, its really clear, the same reason for the break between WW1 and WW2. The need to regroup and rebuild and relaunch hostilities.
Other than a madman, after what Europe had just been through in WW2 (and WW1), you would not have found anyone in post-WW2 Europe wanting to "regroup and rebuild and relaunch hostilities."
>> WW1 never finished
Actually it did, and the revulsion to the slaughter of the "war to end wars" was so great that no one had any appetite for more of it. The Great Depression, the rise of totalitarian fascism, and leadership of Hitler had more to do with WW2 than your rather unconventional theories.
|
>> Actually it did, and the revulsion to the slaughter of the "war to end wars"
>> was so great that no one had any appetite for more of it. The Great
>> Depression, the rise of totalitarian fascism, and leadership of Hitler had more to do with
>> WW2 than your rather unconventional theories.
Actually it didn't. You seem to have a rather revisionist idea there, not shared by any other historian
Now study up and find out WHY there was the great German depression, the rise of fascism and Adolph Hitler. It didnt just pop out of thin air you know. Tell you what, I'll give you a clue.
The treaty of V..........
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 19 May 13 at 22:13
|
I've been following this thread with increasingly furrowed brow. Some are worse than others, but there seems a general tendency to think that one thing leads to another, stands to reason, and if so-and-so hadn't happened then another specified thing would or wouldn't have happened.
History doesn't really work like that, or 'work' at all in any schematic way. The future is always open-ended. Even after the event, it can be seen not to have been really inevitable.
Has no one heard of 'the beat of a butterfly's wing in Australia' leading by roundabout routes to a horrible war, or Denmark winning Eurovision?
Fairly interesting arguments here and there. But they haven't made me paranoid about the EC. It would take a fair amount to do that.
|
Oh really, Zero . . . . ;-)
In Germany in 1932 it looked far from inevitable that the fascist tide was unstoppable. In the elections on November 6th 1932, though still the largest party (but with just 33% of the vote), the NSDAP lost 34 seats (to 196) and 2 million votes.
As William L. Shirer says in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" Ch. 6,
"For the first time the great Nazi tide was ebbing, and from a point far short of a majority. The legend of invincibility had been shattered. Hitler was in a weaker position to bargain for power than he had been since July".
As AC says, "The future is always open-ended. Even after the event, it can be seen not to have been really inevitable. "
As for your answer to my question up-thread .....
QUOTE
>> You still haven't answered the question - what kept the peace between 1945 and 1957
>> before the EEC or EU even existed?.
I dont need to answer it, its really clear, the same reason for the break between WW1 and WW2. The need to regroup and rebuild and relaunch hostilities. WW1 never finished, and who is to say WW2 would never have finished in the same way had Europe not taken steps to prevent it.
END-QUOTE
All I can say is . . . . keep 'em coming! :-) The idea that we were in Europe were going to "regroup and rebuild and relaunch hostilities" until the EU came along as a knight in shining armour to save us all is just too funny.
I haven't laughed so much at a forum thread in years.
|
You didn't checkout the Versailles treaty then.
Never mind. you sound pretty happy in your ignorance so its not a problem.
|
>> Never mind. you sound pretty happy in your ignorance so its not a problem.
Ah tut! tut! I know it's late but surely you can find something nastier than that to say. You've had a lot of practice over the years, after all.
Yeah, I know about the Versailles Treaty. It must cause you fits to even think about it. According to the history books it ended World War 1 - you know that war that you said DIDN'T end!
>> WW1 never finished
>> Zero, Sun 19 May 13 20:19
LOL!
Like I said, keep 'em coming funny guy!
|
WW1 officially ended 03rd October 2010.
That was when Germany completed the last of its obligations from the Treaty of Versaille. (reparations payments)
|
Clearly you are unable to appreciate its content then, the effect on Germany and the subsequent US veto of the League of nations, which nearly every historian agrees laid the foundation for WW2.
So laugh away ole son. Its fine by me really. you carry on digging.
|
Politics/putting the world to rights thread. Vol 5 - Alanovich
