DeletedUser9470
the link is there for you to read my friend. taking a screenshot of the whole thing wouldnt highlight anything...
seems to me I am talking to a 5 year old.
Last edited by a moderator:
the link is there for you to read my friend. taking a screenshot of the whole thing wouldnt highlight anything...
seems to me I am talking to a 5 year old.
DeletedUser
Umm, Neo, I'm not sure you're understanding the import/export history of UK, nor even the stock of what trade deficit constitutes in the global arena.
For quite some time now, long before joining EU, UK has been a deficit country. In fact, World Bank defines UK as an advanced deficit country. This wasn't brought on by EU, it's been this way for since before 1980, but of course the 1980's really bent the bar, causing skyrocketing deficits. As noted by many economists, the recession of the 1990's was due to the deficits imposed during the 1980's, not due to their entry into EU.
Let me be bold in stating the politics in UK is a helluva lot of hyperbole, with very little actual substance. On one end you have George Osborne blaming the Labour party and warning of financial turmoil if the deficit reduction plan were to be abandoned, on the other end you have Ed Ball vilifying the deficit reduction plan and instead calling for the support of job creation, reforming financial systems and investing in jobs for the future as a means to bring down the deficit.
To be honest, both are blowing smoke and it's your responsibility, as citizens of UK, to read through the crap and get to the nitty-gritty. And the nitty-gritty here is --- trade deficit in the modern world is not a negative (risky, but not a negative). It indicates the nation is relatively strong, whilst a surplus indicates "stuck in the past." The problem comes about when interest rates rise in response to inflation, which may result in yet another property bubble bursting. That's when trade deficits become worrisome.
But the bite of what I'm attempting to indicate here, putting aside the edumacation I'm presenting here Neo, is that the EU is not at fault for the trade deficit. It's been UK all along; a result of economic tomfoolery in the 1980's, decreased manufacturing, living beyond their means, and a switch to brain over brawn (the last being a good thing, but takes time to mature). This is the same hardship experienced by every nation undergoing continued expansion whilst maintaining a high cost of living. Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have good living whilst providing cheap labour, just doesn't work. So, like the U.S. and Australia, UK is tasked to import far more than they export to maintain that lifestyle (translated, it means exploiting the work force of other countries, particularly China and India).
Sources:
http://www.worldbank.org/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...country-turmoil-minutes-warns-Chancellor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/the-uk-trade-deficit---does-it-matter
(and others not listed here...)
Edit: if you really want to note a major part of the problem here, pay attention to UK's €50+ billion annual military spending (3rd only to United States and China). This is a clear indication the military-industrial complex has a firm grasp of UK's governmental balls. Until that grip is disengaged, UK politicians will continue with their high pitched rhetoric.
For quite some time now, long before joining EU, UK has been a deficit country. In fact, World Bank defines UK as an advanced deficit country. This wasn't brought on by EU, it's been this way for since before 1980, but of course the 1980's really bent the bar, causing skyrocketing deficits. As noted by many economists, the recession of the 1990's was due to the deficits imposed during the 1980's, not due to their entry into EU.
Let me be bold in stating the politics in UK is a helluva lot of hyperbole, with very little actual substance. On one end you have George Osborne blaming the Labour party and warning of financial turmoil if the deficit reduction plan were to be abandoned, on the other end you have Ed Ball vilifying the deficit reduction plan and instead calling for the support of job creation, reforming financial systems and investing in jobs for the future as a means to bring down the deficit.
To be honest, both are blowing smoke and it's your responsibility, as citizens of UK, to read through the crap and get to the nitty-gritty. And the nitty-gritty here is --- trade deficit in the modern world is not a negative (risky, but not a negative). It indicates the nation is relatively strong, whilst a surplus indicates "stuck in the past." The problem comes about when interest rates rise in response to inflation, which may result in yet another property bubble bursting. That's when trade deficits become worrisome.
But the bite of what I'm attempting to indicate here, putting aside the edumacation I'm presenting here Neo, is that the EU is not at fault for the trade deficit. It's been UK all along; a result of economic tomfoolery in the 1980's, decreased manufacturing, living beyond their means, and a switch to brain over brawn (the last being a good thing, but takes time to mature). This is the same hardship experienced by every nation undergoing continued expansion whilst maintaining a high cost of living. Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have good living whilst providing cheap labour, just doesn't work. So, like the U.S. and Australia, UK is tasked to import far more than they export to maintain that lifestyle (translated, it means exploiting the work force of other countries, particularly China and India).
Sources:
http://www.worldbank.org/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...country-turmoil-minutes-warns-Chancellor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/the-uk-trade-deficit---does-it-matter
(and others not listed here...)
Edit: if you really want to note a major part of the problem here, pay attention to UK's €50+ billion annual military spending (3rd only to United States and China). This is a clear indication the military-industrial complex has a firm grasp of UK's governmental balls. Until that grip is disengaged, UK politicians will continue with their high pitched rhetoric.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
yup donkey 1 and donkey 2 ( main parties ) are and have been blowing smoke up our ass for many years. Heck more people vote on TV shows than go to the polls these days and can you blame them ?
umm not that im blaming the EU for our excess in credit card spending far in excess of our salary i prefer that term instead of advanced deficit country... however whilst agreeing our military cost is far in excess of our needs atm its a similar cost to what the EU is costing us annually.
Direct and Indirect Costs of the EU
Estimates of the true cost of the EU are difficult to come by. MPs have called many times for a cost-benefit analysis, to prove or disprove the benefits of membership. Successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have refused, on the grounds that the "benefits" are self-evident. In truth they are afraid of what such a study would show. The Bruges Group have finally produced an authoritative study.
The total gross cost to the UK of EU membership in 2008 they estimate at around £65,000,000,000* - including:
The European Union costs us £65 billion gross every year.
That's about £1,000 each every year for every man, woman and child in the UK. And it increases every year.
Hmmm the Bretton Woods system huh ? im a gold standard man myself. Maybe thats better left for another thread but I think its doomed.
You see whilst running a deficit isnt a problem as youve pointed out it does get to be one when you cant pay the installments and become Insolvent like both the US and the UK and a whole lot of other countries playing this "i want it now but cant really afford it but stuff it ill take it anyway and stick it on the never never" game... Sure once the exploited countries which are massing a gigantic surplus as opposed to our deficit stop extending that credit or progress far enough for a home based economy there will be an almighty road-crash. Again.
Your right Hells you cant have your cake and eat it too and its not just the UK pigging out.
Like the Ostrich with its head stuck firmly in the sand whilst all manner of s is flying around and when he pops his head up to see if its all clear not only will the barn be gone but also the farm, fields, all his mates and probably his feathered ass too..
Not wishing to sound like a hippy but the whole thing is so messed up the only way out is to throw away the rulebook and start over... not that it will ever happen this side of the twilight zone and anyway the same lunatics would only be writing the new one.
This thread is getting too wide on points for me so im going to call it a a day there.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/CostOfTheEU2008.pdf
http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/research/BrettonWoodsHypothesis.pdf
http://www.economist.com/node/17414511
umm not that im blaming the EU for our excess in credit card spending far in excess of our salary i prefer that term instead of advanced deficit country... however whilst agreeing our military cost is far in excess of our needs atm its a similar cost to what the EU is costing us annually.
Direct and Indirect Costs of the EU
Estimates of the true cost of the EU are difficult to come by. MPs have called many times for a cost-benefit analysis, to prove or disprove the benefits of membership. Successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have refused, on the grounds that the "benefits" are self-evident. In truth they are afraid of what such a study would show. The Bruges Group have finally produced an authoritative study.
The total gross cost to the UK of EU membership in 2008 they estimate at around £65,000,000,000* - including:
- £28 billion for business to comply with EU regulations,
- £17 billion of additional food costs resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy
- £3.3 billion - the value of the catch lost when the Common Fisheries Policy let other countries fish in our territorial waters
- £14.6 billion gross paid into the EU budget and other EU funds.
The European Union costs us £65 billion gross every year.
That's about £1,000 each every year for every man, woman and child in the UK. And it increases every year.
Hmmm the Bretton Woods system huh ? im a gold standard man myself. Maybe thats better left for another thread but I think its doomed.
You see whilst running a deficit isnt a problem as youve pointed out it does get to be one when you cant pay the installments and become Insolvent like both the US and the UK and a whole lot of other countries playing this "i want it now but cant really afford it but stuff it ill take it anyway and stick it on the never never" game... Sure once the exploited countries which are massing a gigantic surplus as opposed to our deficit stop extending that credit or progress far enough for a home based economy there will be an almighty road-crash. Again.
Your right Hells you cant have your cake and eat it too and its not just the UK pigging out.
Like the Ostrich with its head stuck firmly in the sand whilst all manner of s is flying around and when he pops his head up to see if its all clear not only will the barn be gone but also the farm, fields, all his mates and probably his feathered ass too..
Not wishing to sound like a hippy but the whole thing is so messed up the only way out is to throw away the rulebook and start over... not that it will ever happen this side of the twilight zone and anyway the same lunatics would only be writing the new one.
This thread is getting too wide on points for me so im going to call it a a day there.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/CostOfTheEU2008.pdf
http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/research/BrettonWoodsHypothesis.pdf
http://www.economist.com/node/17414511
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Unfortunately, Victor, you're relying on a report from the Bruges Group, which is a group of people posing as a think-tank who are quite open about their intentions. They have, and will continue to, present distorted reports in order to serve their agenda. That's the bite of it.
As to what specifically they present here are figures on costs (other sources provide different, far lower numbers, so while I'm extremely skeptical of the numbers provided in the Bruges report, I'm not inclined to research this particular aspect further, as it's a distraction from the greater picture), but the greater benefits are not in clear and obvious payback, it's in national and international benefits, such as not having to pay import/export taxes to/from other EU nation-states, greater international lobbying influence, contractual weight, etc, and that's what the Bruges Group is exploiting. Just as you wouldn't be able to explain which food item you ate resulted in how much of a weight loss, the greater benefits are not concrete numbers (unlike the expenditures).
Alright, let's cover other parts of the erroneous arguments presented in this thread:
Immigration
The UK 2006-2007 Economic Report on the Fiscal Impact of Immigration showed the nation hosting 300,000 unfilled jobs and immigrants providing £6 billion a year to the UK economy. In addition, this report demonstrated that two-thirds of all immigrants move back to their country of origin, after benefiting UK economy. --- http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf
I was also informed that UK's immigration policies are indepedent of EU (UK never signed into an agreement on such), so once again -- nothing to do with EU.
Legislation/Laws
One of the arguments posed here is the EU imposes too many laws (yes, including the erroneous claim that they impose immigration laws on UK). Politicians in UK throw out some rather dramatic numbers, going as high as 84% of all laws are imposed by EU. The actual figure is 15%, which is a trifling amount, and clearly not even remotely the bite is it made to sound like --- http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-062.pdf
Why the EU?
While it's easy to simplify this debate, it's a mistake to do so, as dichotomy of debate on this issue is dishonest. In the end, it's important to understand that EU is not a simple overlord government. The EU is comprised of people from all the different participating countries, and cooperation is required to make it work, because each nation differs in manner and demeanor, laws and preferences. This conglomeration of nation-states demands subtle compromise and even-handed application of policies. In the end, it is an additional tier, providing greater stability and resulting in the greatest economic footprint in the world. In short, it's complex.
A person going by the handle of Hunter, in a different forum, summed it up nicely:
As to what specifically they present here are figures on costs (other sources provide different, far lower numbers, so while I'm extremely skeptical of the numbers provided in the Bruges report, I'm not inclined to research this particular aspect further, as it's a distraction from the greater picture), but the greater benefits are not in clear and obvious payback, it's in national and international benefits, such as not having to pay import/export taxes to/from other EU nation-states, greater international lobbying influence, contractual weight, etc, and that's what the Bruges Group is exploiting. Just as you wouldn't be able to explain which food item you ate resulted in how much of a weight loss, the greater benefits are not concrete numbers (unlike the expenditures).
Alright, let's cover other parts of the erroneous arguments presented in this thread:
Immigration
The UK 2006-2007 Economic Report on the Fiscal Impact of Immigration showed the nation hosting 300,000 unfilled jobs and immigrants providing £6 billion a year to the UK economy. In addition, this report demonstrated that two-thirds of all immigrants move back to their country of origin, after benefiting UK economy. --- http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm72/7237/7237.pdf
I was also informed that UK's immigration policies are indepedent of EU (UK never signed into an agreement on such), so once again -- nothing to do with EU.
Legislation/Laws
One of the arguments posed here is the EU imposes too many laws (yes, including the erroneous claim that they impose immigration laws on UK). Politicians in UK throw out some rather dramatic numbers, going as high as 84% of all laws are imposed by EU. The actual figure is 15%, which is a trifling amount, and clearly not even remotely the bite is it made to sound like --- http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-062.pdf
Why the EU?
While it's easy to simplify this debate, it's a mistake to do so, as dichotomy of debate on this issue is dishonest. In the end, it's important to understand that EU is not a simple overlord government. The EU is comprised of people from all the different participating countries, and cooperation is required to make it work, because each nation differs in manner and demeanor, laws and preferences. This conglomeration of nation-states demands subtle compromise and even-handed application of policies. In the end, it is an additional tier, providing greater stability and resulting in the greatest economic footprint in the world. In short, it's complex.
A person going by the handle of Hunter, in a different forum, summed it up nicely:
"The EU is an opportunity for the Member States of Europe to develop the continent of Europe, and ensure that our lifestlyes, culture, economies and ideologies can survive. United, Europe is the world’s largest economy (by a hair), divided, we are on the border of Russia, a world superpower (on whom we rely for a large amount of our energy), and are bordered by relatively unstable states, or alien ideologies, to the South and East. The UK is no longer the British Empire, but a small island off the West Coast of a series of small countries. Without the European Union, there is nothing to stop others determining our future through the enjeux and games played by the international superpowers (of which Brazil, India and China are now members). The European Union is every European country’s best chance not only at a decent lifestyle, but at determining our own future, our own democracy, our rights and regulations, our ideologies and, ultimately, our survival."
DeletedUser16008
Ok Hells lets get back on track then, pull up a thread on Bretton Woods etc and ill happily debate it properly, i must confess i don't really think much of The Bruges Group myself, it was the first one I pulled up as alternate source..
Immigration
Ok im, going to keep this short and sweet I would take all Gov reports with a pinch of salt if I were you, mores the point that report there was done during the Labor years under duress at a time there was a public focus on the influx in immigration... Its self serving and hides the reality... first off it is based on mostly assumptions and estimates coupled with a huge chunk missing from various sectors construction for one & those job figures are just plain wrong.
Your referring to Common Travel Area agreement we and Ireland share but to put it in perspective.
Under European law special rules apply to visitors to the UK who are nationals of a country within the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA) or of Switzerland. The EEA includes EU countries and some which are not part of the EU but whose citizens have the same rights of residence in the UK under European law. Nationals of all these countries are allowed to live and work in the UK without having to obtain a visa. To exercise their right to live in the UK, nationals of these countries must either work in the UK or be able to support themselves and their families financially without having to rely on help from the government. Nationals of these countries do not require a permit to work in the UK and are entitled to the same working conditions as UK citizens.They are also entitled after a certain period to claim benefits as any other UK citizen... as European law supersedes UK law there is nothing that can be done "technically" about curbing immigration on EU or the EEA.
Legislation/Laws
Its not so much the imposition of laws but the fact that they can supersede our sovereign law, I have never claimed there is a torrent of laws such as 80% imposed on us but in all honesty if it were 1% it would be too much for me ... again its a Gov paper your providing and we are all too aware its exactly the same kind of think tanks you highlighted with Burges earlier that are commissioned to write these things with a conclusion thats required, put on the official stamp and call it the truth... its probably more like 50% not 15% even that paper concedes that it doesn't take into account Agriculture and a mass of other areas. Im not saying its all a lie but i am saying its far from complete.
Very nice sum up by hunter but again I would disagree its essential for our survival, thats very over dramatic, neither am I paranoid of Russia, China, India etc. Democracy doesn't exist in its true form in Europe or anywhere else for that matter its more Fascist & no more so than in the UK unfortunately.
I dont buy this Global BS nor the pro super-state argument. Sure It makes sense looked at through the eyes of politicians & business on a never ending quest for increased power and/or profit but long term its unsustainable and doomed to failure... after the states of Europe will come other combined states across the world until we have indeed a world Government and it will be Fascist and Totalitarian sold as "for our own good" Human nature will guarantee that Hells and you know it...
The stand has to start somewhere and I prefer to draw the line early rather than late. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but people are like ants, mostly predictable & totally manipulable & there are plenty out there who are excellent at using it for their own ends.
One footnote regarding the Military Industrial Complex as it constantly comes up as a major factor/player in world events and agendas... please dont ignore the Media & Propaganda dept that backs it up, to my mind it is this that is far more dangerous.
Immigration
Ok im, going to keep this short and sweet I would take all Gov reports with a pinch of salt if I were you, mores the point that report there was done during the Labor years under duress at a time there was a public focus on the influx in immigration... Its self serving and hides the reality... first off it is based on mostly assumptions and estimates coupled with a huge chunk missing from various sectors construction for one & those job figures are just plain wrong.
Your referring to Common Travel Area agreement we and Ireland share but to put it in perspective.
Under European law special rules apply to visitors to the UK who are nationals of a country within the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA) or of Switzerland. The EEA includes EU countries and some which are not part of the EU but whose citizens have the same rights of residence in the UK under European law. Nationals of all these countries are allowed to live and work in the UK without having to obtain a visa. To exercise their right to live in the UK, nationals of these countries must either work in the UK or be able to support themselves and their families financially without having to rely on help from the government. Nationals of these countries do not require a permit to work in the UK and are entitled to the same working conditions as UK citizens.They are also entitled after a certain period to claim benefits as any other UK citizen... as European law supersedes UK law there is nothing that can be done "technically" about curbing immigration on EU or the EEA.
Legislation/Laws
Its not so much the imposition of laws but the fact that they can supersede our sovereign law, I have never claimed there is a torrent of laws such as 80% imposed on us but in all honesty if it were 1% it would be too much for me ... again its a Gov paper your providing and we are all too aware its exactly the same kind of think tanks you highlighted with Burges earlier that are commissioned to write these things with a conclusion thats required, put on the official stamp and call it the truth... its probably more like 50% not 15% even that paper concedes that it doesn't take into account Agriculture and a mass of other areas. Im not saying its all a lie but i am saying its far from complete.
Very nice sum up by hunter but again I would disagree its essential for our survival, thats very over dramatic, neither am I paranoid of Russia, China, India etc. Democracy doesn't exist in its true form in Europe or anywhere else for that matter its more Fascist & no more so than in the UK unfortunately.
I dont buy this Global BS nor the pro super-state argument. Sure It makes sense looked at through the eyes of politicians & business on a never ending quest for increased power and/or profit but long term its unsustainable and doomed to failure... after the states of Europe will come other combined states across the world until we have indeed a world Government and it will be Fascist and Totalitarian sold as "for our own good" Human nature will guarantee that Hells and you know it...
The stand has to start somewhere and I prefer to draw the line early rather than late. If I'm wrong I'm wrong but people are like ants, mostly predictable & totally manipulable & there are plenty out there who are excellent at using it for their own ends.
One footnote regarding the Military Industrial Complex as it constantly comes up as a major factor/player in world events and agendas... please dont ignore the Media & Propaganda dept that backs it up, to my mind it is this that is far more dangerous.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Common Travel Area applies for the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland only, and is deemed a de-facto right, but non-UK citizens/subjects can be removed (deported) from UK at any point, without explanation or due process. Read the fine print.
Let's be honest here. Between 1946 and 1962, British immigration laws were extremely lax, partially as a necessity to reinvigorate the workforce after WWII. In 1962, 1968, 1971, 1981, and a few others since, immigration laws were imposed that greatly restrained entry into UK. This was partially due to not needing immigrants as much, but also due to a general discomfort from citizenry. After all, UK used to rule over these various people, and now they were being allowed to live and work on a relatively equal basis (i.e., a combination of xenophobia and snobbery).
The last part you mentioned is partially correct. The Immigration (European Economic Ara) Regulations of 2000 were imposed by Parliament, not EU. In addition, as you indicated, entry into the UK is conditional. If you're not producing, not adding to UK's economy, you're out. Seriously, that's they way you want it.
You may not like the immigrants, but the laws are very clear, in that immigrants do not get to stay in the UK if they are not working --- legally. Now, as to illegal immigration, UK is (as well as I know) the only EU nation that strictly monitors entry into the country. If illegal immigrants are coming into UK, that's not the fault of EU. However, your earlier arguments were not dwelling on illegal immigrants, and were instead arguing about legal immigration, which I amply demonstrated has nothing to do with EU, and therefore it's a moot point of contention in this thread.
I reviewed reports from both parties, under their respective administrations. The reports fluctuated between 15% and 20%, with the latest (the one I provided) indicating 15%.
In this modern age, economy is the true measure of power. With economic might, you can go so far as to dictate who runs another country (just take post-war U.S.S.R., China, and United States as examples of early-stage economic flexing). You may wish to dismiss it as political hype, but the hostilities in the middle-east and central America are largely due to economically rich nations dangling carrots. The recent downfall of many dictatorships in the middle-east is an indirect result of U.S. loss of economic influence (less economic and political support for dictators) alongside the middle east's rise in economic influence (which resulted in a more educated citizenry, the bane of a dictatorship).
I read the ongoing debate and reviewed multiple reports (from all sides, including so-called non-partisan), the bulk of UK's nationality laws, and EU's imposition on UK and other nation-states. There are a number of issues about EU that make me feel uncomfortable, but the arguments presented in this debate are not those issues. UK and Germany are major contributors to EU and therefore are provided significant influence in the actions and dealings of the European Union. This rides me in two ways, one of which is great because those nations who want to impose greater influence on other nations can do so via EU. But, it also indicates that the nations with the most financial power can lord over those nations with lesser financial power. The rules and regulations of the EU attempts to limit both ends, whilst encouraging economic growth.
As stated in many reports I read, EU is a social experiment. It's never been done before. My personal position is, rather than advocating secession from EU, the appropriate action would be to further develop EU, iron out the wrinkles. I strongly suspect both UK and Germany are doing just that, which is the reason for their contributions, well and above the required dues. It's an investment and it's still under development.
In grossly simple metaphor, EU is a child and UK is one of its parents. If you wish your child to grow up to be a responsible adult, you can't abandon it, you need to nurture, support it and ensure none of the other parents talk bad about you in front of the child. *smirk*
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser9470
hell, must admit, awesome posts, I m convinced.
theres one thing though that i just cant put my finger on.
UK is EUs parent, well step parent, but UK is also my parent.
and at the mo, it seems to me, UK is asking me to take out a loan, to make my step brother rich, when im already paying off my parents debt.
maybe my step brother can sort something out for himself?
he will have to anyway, when i go under...
soon...
theres one thing though that i just cant put my finger on.
UK is EUs parent, well step parent, but UK is also my parent.
and at the mo, it seems to me, UK is asking me to take out a loan, to make my step brother rich, when im already paying off my parents debt.
maybe my step brother can sort something out for himself?
he will have to anyway, when i go under...
soon...
DeletedUser
Hehe, I'll have to get back to you on that one Neo.
DeletedUser
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.
James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Source: Yes, Minister - Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall (1980)
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.
James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Source: Yes, Minister - Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall (1980)
DeletedUser25707
A great quote from 30+ year old TV series...
But I like another quote even better:
James Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: [laughs]
James Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, may I?
[sits]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?
James Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh, really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
James Hacker: Well, why did the French go into it, then?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition.
James Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race.
Source: Yes, Minister - Season Two, Episode Five: The Devil You Know (1980)
But I like another quote even better:
James Hacker: Europe is a community of nations, dedicated towards one goal.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: [laughs]
James Hacker: May we share the joke, Humphrey?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, may I?
[sits]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Let's look at this objectively. It is a game played for national interests and always was. Why do you suppose we went into it?
James Hacker: To strengthen the brotherhood of free Western nations.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Oh, really. We went in to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans.
James Hacker: Well, why did the French go into it, then?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition.
James Hacker: That certainly doesn't apply to the Germans!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, no. They went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race.
Source: Yes, Minister - Season Two, Episode Five: The Devil You Know (1980)
DeletedUser9470
bumped!
Recent happenings:
-Greek PM stepped down to let Germany control the country
-Sarkozy saying greece should never have been a euro state yet it was France who insisted in Greece being a Eurostate in thefirst place because it was the birth place of democracy.
-Sarkozy telling Cameron to sut up and keep his nose out of it in rushed, shambolic G20 Meetings.
-Berlusconi steps down because of trillions of dette
-Germany now runs Greece and Italy.
-Mercozy now putting uk on the touchline with threats of war flying around
-Obama now sticking his nose in it (who tf does he think he is?)
I posted op on 2nd of february of this year, as a warning, and a load of noobs came out of their holes crying foul.
The reason why i Bumped this? to rub the noobs noses in it with a finger and a big smile.
You were warned, yes you were...
How long before UK at last pulls out of Europe?
What are the chances war will actually break out?
Why didnt we learn the first and second time round? never trust Germany!
Recent happenings:
-Greek PM stepped down to let Germany control the country
-Sarkozy saying greece should never have been a euro state yet it was France who insisted in Greece being a Eurostate in thefirst place because it was the birth place of democracy.
-Sarkozy telling Cameron to sut up and keep his nose out of it in rushed, shambolic G20 Meetings.
-Berlusconi steps down because of trillions of dette
-Germany now runs Greece and Italy.
-Mercozy now putting uk on the touchline with threats of war flying around
-Obama now sticking his nose in it (who tf does he think he is?)
I posted op on 2nd of february of this year, as a warning, and a load of noobs came out of their holes crying foul.
The reason why i Bumped this? to rub the noobs noses in it with a finger and a big smile.
You were warned, yes you were...
How long before UK at last pulls out of Europe?
What are the chances war will actually break out?
Why didnt we learn the first and second time round? never trust Germany!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Obama would love to have to save you on an election year!
DeletedUser
noobiness is a chronic disease that can't be cured, neo.....tough luck.....
DeletedUser
So, while you were proven wrong (even confessed as much) on EVERY contention you made in your original post, you make a new post, posing additional (and largely unrelated) charges (some of which are distorted in presentation and at least one of which is an outright lie), and think to justify your initial gross ignorance by demonstrating your track record for gullibility? Apologies if I can't quite fathom where it is you think your balls dropped and now you're qualified to call "others" a bunch of noobs.
Btw, you do realize there's no such person as Merkozy, right? Besides your misspelling, obviously on that point alone (but not only that point), no threat of war was ever posed.
As to Greece, part of the reason Greece is under such hot water with the EU is that it was discovered they had falsified their economic numbers in their initial application to join the EU. As such, the EU had them by the proverbial balls. Either they (Greek government) were to institute the changes demanded, or they (Greece) would be removed as a member of EU for essentially lying in their application.
The rest isn't worthy of a response. Neo, just like last time, you came to the table not knowing what the hell you're talking about and loaded up with spoonfed propaganda. I have a recommendation for you --- until you can learn to use utensils (research), serve yourself (read & learn), and are no longer required to wear a bib (able to discern facts from propaganda), I suggest you not try and eat at the "big boys" table.
Thanks, now run along...
Btw, you do realize there's no such person as Merkozy, right? Besides your misspelling, obviously on that point alone (but not only that point), no threat of war was ever posed.
As to Greece, part of the reason Greece is under such hot water with the EU is that it was discovered they had falsified their economic numbers in their initial application to join the EU. As such, the EU had them by the proverbial balls. Either they (Greek government) were to institute the changes demanded, or they (Greece) would be removed as a member of EU for essentially lying in their application.
The rest isn't worthy of a response. Neo, just like last time, you came to the table not knowing what the hell you're talking about and loaded up with spoonfed propaganda. I have a recommendation for you --- until you can learn to use utensils (research), serve yourself (read & learn), and are no longer required to wear a bib (able to discern facts from propaganda), I suggest you not try and eat at the "big boys" table.
Thanks, now run along...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser22493
Saying no to EU was the best thing Norway has ever done. We had 3 votes on this prior to the financial crisis, and all were voted down. It even seemed stupid back then, and now I don't hear the pro-EU's chanting so loud anymore.
DeletedUser28032
We should have either joined back when we were originally asked (I think Macmillan was prime minister at the time though i am probably wrong) and had a say as to how it was run or stayed out of it all together. Cameron says its the wrong time for us to leave but to be honest i think that with everything thats going on at the moment its a pretty good time to leave before things get worse.
Also Hell's right theres no chance of a war breaking out.
Also Hell's right theres no chance of a war breaking out.
DeletedUser
The problem with Europe goes back to some centuries ago... and was never solved.
The where some guys that tried to solve the Europe people problems around the story times:
Roman Empire; (well those guys got in problems with Asterix and Obelix)
Napoleon Bonaparte;
Adolph Hitler.
(just this ones since they are the ones that got through many centuries of story and are know all around the world... without need to check anywhere else)
And they all failed because they found out that each place in Europe gets to move around from some side that nobody can predict.
Now we not only have the problem about the ideas that fly around every place in Europe... but we have the side of the companies.
Why do the British people that call into any help line from a phone company have between 6-7 in 10 possibilities of there call will be answered by someone on Bangladesh or India?
Why over 80% of our factory structures where moved overseas since the 90?
And then there are the "cash cows"...
Sometime ago the British govern bailed out a bank that was crashing down. After they started to pay back the govern, right after the Bank of England sayed that they would stop with the quantitative easing, that bank stated that "if the Bank of England stops the help to the british banks, we will move our headquarters to Singapure, leaving at least 45000 british people without jobs".
So now we have the problem that companies have more power than governs.
So trying to join some european heads that push for each side is something that was never complete and always failed... and now we have new players on the field.
But we have already saw that each country tries to defend his "borders" with anything they can.
Even now Britain is still defending there points but they have eyes on what´s happening on the other side of the channel.
The difference? France and Germany cannot print extra money like it´s happening for over 2 years now in England. Since the BCE didn´t got into that choice.
Who made the right choice? Probably China that is buying some of the industries that still have there main bases in Europe and US.
On the other side, UK stayed out of the Euro but many stores (big and small) accept payments in both. So for the tourism industry the euro was a good point.
The where some guys that tried to solve the Europe people problems around the story times:
Roman Empire; (well those guys got in problems with Asterix and Obelix
)Napoleon Bonaparte;
Adolph Hitler.
(just this ones since they are the ones that got through many centuries of story and are know all around the world... without need to check anywhere else)
And they all failed because they found out that each place in Europe gets to move around from some side that nobody can predict.
Now we not only have the problem about the ideas that fly around every place in Europe... but we have the side of the companies.
Why do the British people that call into any help line from a phone company have between 6-7 in 10 possibilities of there call will be answered by someone on Bangladesh or India?
Why over 80% of our factory structures where moved overseas since the 90?
And then there are the "cash cows"...
Sometime ago the British govern bailed out a bank that was crashing down. After they started to pay back the govern, right after the Bank of England sayed that they would stop with the quantitative easing, that bank stated that "if the Bank of England stops the help to the british banks, we will move our headquarters to Singapure, leaving at least 45000 british people without jobs".
So now we have the problem that companies have more power than governs.
So trying to join some european heads that push for each side is something that was never complete and always failed... and now we have new players on the field.
But we have already saw that each country tries to defend his "borders" with anything they can.
Even now Britain is still defending there points but they have eyes on what´s happening on the other side of the channel.
The difference? France and Germany cannot print extra money like it´s happening for over 2 years now in England. Since the BCE didn´t got into that choice.
Who made the right choice? Probably China that is buying some of the industries that still have there main bases in Europe and US.
On the other side, UK stayed out of the Euro but many stores (big and small) accept payments in both. So for the tourism industry the euro was a good point.
DeletedUser
The problem with printing more money, as Germany found out during the great depression, is it increases inflation too much. Eventually, the workers in Germany back in the 1930's were making thousands of Deutschmarks a week, and still couldn't feed their family. Infact, I had a teacher show the class a 1million Deutschmark bill. It's worthless other than a collectors item. It's been tried before.
I believe a French king actually devalued foreign coin in France so he could pay back debts. Of course... that won't happen... unless you're in China.
DeletedUser28032
The other problem with reducing the value of the Euro is that your not not just lowering the value of your curreny but most of Europes too
DeletedUser9470
i got anonymous rep saying "great opportunity to put forth good points..." followed by a load of trash.
so the coward who wrote this anonymously can please come forward and bring afore mentioned good points then.
good points for me:
GB pulls out of europe and probably wont ever takepart in a merkozy type alliance ever again.
more than likely if there is a future joint eco force alliance it will be headed by GB.
bad points? erm well none, europe crashes but who gives a crap about that? germany convinced all europeans that the euro would make them all hard working rich people.
well it did exactly that for germany, all the others must be doing something wrong! or were they all taken for a ride?
o yee new one from europe today:
water does not hydrate!
lol
evian are probably consulting sales teams on how to sell bottled sand right as we speak..
so the coward who wrote this anonymously can please come forward and bring afore mentioned good points then.
good points for me:
GB pulls out of europe and probably wont ever takepart in a merkozy type alliance ever again.
more than likely if there is a future joint eco force alliance it will be headed by GB.
bad points? erm well none, europe crashes but who gives a crap about that? germany convinced all europeans that the euro would make them all hard working rich people.
well it did exactly that for germany, all the others must be doing something wrong! or were they all taken for a ride?
o yee new one from europe today:
water does not hydrate!
lol
evian are probably consulting sales teams on how to sell bottled sand right as we speak..