PDA

View Full Version : USA's concerns about an EU Referendum


Fareastdriver
9th Jan 2013, 20:12
Looks like the President wants the UK to stay in the EU.

BBC News - UK risks 'turning inwards' over EU referendum - US official (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20961651)

When the US Supreme Court has its decisions overturned by some organisation called The Americas Court of Human Rights I will listen to him.

Nervous SLF
9th Jan 2013, 20:36
I suspect the U.S. only wants the U.K. to stay in so it can tell the U.K. what to say in the best interests of the U.S. With the U.K. already seemingly doing everything the U.S. wants about everything the U.S. suggests,( I know the term "special" relationship is bandied about but it seems very one sided to me.) Perhaps the U.K. should just apply to become the newest U.S. State? I used to really enjoy visiting the U.S. and I had many great times there, I still enjoy meeting U.S. visitors to N.Z. - thought I had better get that in before I am accused to being a U.S. hater.

G&T ice n slice
9th Jan 2013, 20:39
complete cods-twaddle

Leaving the EU would mean we would all have to be ever more outward-looking, finding better markets in LatAm, Africa, Asia and not trundle along relying on the 'single market'

We would also get the chance to rid ourselves of all the 'economic' (read sponging benefit-seeking) migrants

yotty
9th Jan 2013, 20:42
The US and the UK could strike a deal here. We could advise the US about Gun Law and they could advise us about EU referendums!:}

Keef
9th Jan 2013, 21:32
:D :D :D :D

vulcanised
9th Jan 2013, 21:36
If Obama is agin it then I'm for it.

I'm all for it anyway.

brickhistory
9th Jan 2013, 21:43
If Obama wants you to do it, the fine print should be studied very carefully.


As to remaining in the EU, from an outside observer, why? What are the advantages? Very few that I can see, but I see it from afar. For a poorer nation, it's a great deal. For those that pulled ahead, not so much.

It does seem, however, to be a concerted effort to weaken/destroy individual national sovereignty in the name of pan-European...er, what?

And for those that enjoy, the U.S. Thank you. I'd also read really carefully the fine print about joining. We seem to be striving mightily to emulate the worst of the European system(s).

Lonewolf_50
9th Jan 2013, 22:07
I don't care what the UK chooses to do. Whatever is in the UK's interests is where Mr Cameron ought to move. What those interests are doubtless varies by faction within the UK its self.

Asking for some understanding here:

1. What advantage is it to the UK to go single currency, rather than retaining the pound? The "single currency" move by other European nations, of varying sizes, seems to have reduced political flexibility in monetary policy. That's a down side. What's the up side?

2. What other features of further EU integration appeal to the people in the UK, and what features appeal to the pols in the UK?

3. If the UK chooses to leave the EU, how does that help, and how does that hurt, the UK's long term aims and objectives?

Being in or out of EU has BFA to do with being in or out of NATO ... so IMO, as an American, the "official" spoke with mixed messages.

Or even with forked tongue.

Polikarpov
9th Jan 2013, 23:26
An excellent riposte from one Mr. (or Ms.) "Autonomous Mind":

Open Letter to Philip Gordon US Assistant Secretary for European Affairs (http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/open-letter-to-philip-gordon-us-assistant-secretary-for-european-affairs/)

Snippet:

Would it be acceptable to you and your fellow United States citizens that over 70% of the laws and regulations they were forced to comply with across all 50 states were created by a supranational government comprising layers of complex political and judicial structures, mostly unelected and unaccountable, and made up of delegates from not only the US, but Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru?

galaxy flyer
10th Jan 2013, 00:09
US gun laws are our business; UK's EU referendum is yours. It's your country, hasn't been mine since 1776.

GF

merlinxx
10th Jan 2013, 05:49
Guns. Wonder what your SEALs & Delta would do without a British owned German company known as H&K :ugh:

Krystal n chips
10th Jan 2013, 05:53
" Leaving the EU would mean we would all have to be ever more outward-looking, finding better markets in LatAm, Africa, Asia and not trundle along relying on the 'single market'

We would also get the chance to rid ourselves of all the 'economic' (read sponging benefit-seeking) migrants "


I was amazed to read your that, presumably in your haste, you failed to include the return of celebrating Empire Day along with the revival of the BBC Home Service and Light Service.

ExSp33db1rd
10th Jan 2013, 05:54
We would also get the chance to rid ourselves of all the 'economic' (read sponging benefit-seeking) migrants

Wanna bet ? Dream on.

G&T ice n slice
10th Jan 2013, 08:46
I was amazed to read your that, presumably in your haste, you failed to include the return of celebrating Empire Day along with the revival of the BBC Home Service and Light Service.

Well, it was a quick comment.

I look forward to the reintroduction of a proper currency with Pounds, Shillings & Pence, ha'pennies and farthings.

I look forward to reopening all the viable coalmines, although I would insist that no person under the age of ten years would be employed therein.

I look forward to reestablishing the employers rights to hire & fire and set wages, although I would insist on a minimum wage of 7/6d weekly, 10/6d for a time served tradesman, with supplements & additions to reflect skills. And a maximum wage of 1 guinea/week.

I look forward to the reintroduction of the death penalty for all appropriate cases (subversion, actions against the Crown, murder, sheep stealing, robbery with violence, theft of any item or items with a value exceeding 5/-)

Naturally I also would look forward to re-establishing the Empire and ensuring that the happy smiling natives were properly governed by Englishmen.

I would look forward to recreating the Merchant Navy to properly link the outposts of empire and Royal Navy to properly guarantee movement over the oceans and enforce English interests.

I would look forward to the reintroduction of National Service for young persons of the lower social orders, permitting us to expand the British Army, reintroduce the British Army of India, and all the other colonial regiments. Scots, Welsh, Irish all banded together under the Regimaental system, lead of course, by English officers.

I would love to see the problems of Ireland solved at a stroke by its re-admittance into the United Kingdom, and the reestablishm,ent of the Church of Ireland, under the close guidance & supervision of the Church of England.

Indeed my own political Party, the National Social & Democratic Action Party, has a very comprehensive action plan covering many of these points and more.

Perhaps I could send you some pamphlets?

cavortingcheetah
10th Jan 2013, 10:12
Perhaps the US reluctance to see Britain detach itself from its present EU financial commitments and proposed joint military arrangements stems from a fear that, were that to happen, the USA would then increasingly find itself requested and badgered to reassume its traditional role as the ultimate resort provider of financial aid and military assistance to Great Britain.

Groundbased
10th Jan 2013, 11:11
Quote "traditional role as the ultimate resort provider of financial aid and military assistance to Great Britain"

Any military assistance has been provided by the US to "western europe" post WW2 and has been in the best interests of the US.

In financial terms in the post WW2 reconstruction of Western Europe the UK repaid (at a high rate if interest) the financial assistance received whereas other Western European countries did not, to our long term detriment.

You seem to be implying that the UK is in some way propped up by the EU and that leaving would require someone else to fill the gap. The reality being that we are a considerable net contributor to the EU and many of us don't see the logic of that continuing given the sovereignty we have to give up.

ORAC
10th Jan 2013, 11:43
Of all the bad arguments for being in the EU, the worst is to humour Barack Obama (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100197512/of-all-the-bad-arguments-for-being-in-the-eu-the-worst-is-to-humour-barack-obama/)

We cannot let America's tactical interests dictate Britain's sovereign destiny (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100022213/we-cannot-let-americas-tactical-interests-dictate-britains-sovereign-destiny/)

Lukeafb1
10th Jan 2013, 12:05
Krystal,

Presumably you actually mean 'The Light Programme' ? :cool:

vulcanised
10th Jan 2013, 12:17
Since the then PM found it necessary to lie to get us into 'The EEC' at the time of the first referendum I have often wondered if the claimed result was the result of massaged figures.

Blacksheep
10th Jan 2013, 12:25
With the party grass roots increasingly Euro-sceptic, one might question how long it can continue to have a Europhile leader? :suspect:

tony draper
10th Jan 2013, 12:28
Ere,correction,were taken in without being asked,and when we were well and truly in then we were asked if wanted to stay in,then we were asked if we wanted to stay in the Common Market, not some mickey mouse piss poor copy of the USA called the United States of Europe.
:=

Nick Riviera
10th Jan 2013, 12:44
"I was amazed to read your that, presumably in your haste, you failed to include the return of celebrating Empire Day along with the revival of the BBC Home Service and Light Service."

It was not mentioned because it is a grown-up debate and not for the likes of those who think that standing up for the country means that you are some Colonel Blimp type of southern colonialist. Only a few bigots think this way.

Lonewolf_50
10th Jan 2013, 14:16
Thanks for the links to the various responses to that bit of political hot air. :ok:

bluecode
10th Jan 2013, 14:29
It was not mentioned because it is a grown-up debate and not for the likes of those who think that standing up for the country means that you are some Colonel Blimp type of southern colonialist. Only a few bigots think this way. The EU debate is far from grown up and it seems it's the bigots who are making most of the noise against the EU. Far too much evocation of the good old days when Britain ruled the waves etc.

The biggest problem with Britain's relationship with the EU is the sulky schoolgirl attitude that seems to typify many of engagements Britain has with the rest of the EU. Hardly grown up.

If Britain was to take a far more pragmatic attitude and engage with the rest of Europe more positively. Maybe some of the more ridiculous excesses would have been prevented. As it is Britain is something of a joke among many other European countries.

If you want another example of the sense of superiority many Brits apparently feel over the rest of Europe then this quote says it all:

Would it be acceptable to you and your fellow United States citizens that over 70% of the laws and regulations they were forced to comply with across all 50 states were created by a supranational government comprising layers of complex political and judicial structures, mostly unelected and unaccountable, and made up of delegates from not only the US, but Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela and Peru? Interesting that countries like France, Sweden, Germany etc are compared to a bunch of chaotic South American countries. A completely invalid comparison.

Germany dominates the EU, along with France. The British with their attitude has only served to ensure it's peripheral influence.

Maybe Britain should leave the EU. The only country it could possibly damage by doing so would be Britain itself.

fitliker
10th Jan 2013, 14:37
Some in the EU are worried about a second american civil war looming.
Assault rifles are sold out ,some stores have sold out of ammunition.
The worlds most armed society is also one of the worlds most divided democracies.Most of the jails are already full.Unemployment numbers are massaged to take anyone who has been out of work for a long time out of the statistics.
If the price of food goes up because of the droughts,get out of dodge and take cover while re-loading :}:}

OFSO
10th Jan 2013, 14:45
A completely invalid comparison.

I've lived and worked in two of those three countries and on the contrary I'd say it is a very valid comparison. As for Germany dominating the EU, guess which language is never used at any of the governmental meetings I attend in Paris or Brussels ? Germans are welcomed as providers of funding, but that's about it.......

Unlike most posters on JB, I've worked for European governmental organisations since 1968, know my way around the EU institutions, and was initially very pro-European and very pro-single currency.

The concept of both was good, the implementation a disaster, a mega f*ck up of colossal proportions, and it's getting worse, believe me.

Groundbased
10th Jan 2013, 14:48
The roots of British reluctance to get involved in a federalised Europe were the result of a post war view that we could trade more effectively and profitably with the remainder of the Empire and the Commonwealth, trade routes and infrastructures that had previously existed.

It was quickly apparent that this wouldn't last as the empire contracted and trade became more global anyway. By that stage certainly the French and possibly the Germans didn't want us in anyway as they regarded us as too close to the US and as a trojan horse for US access to Europe which they didn't want.

The relationship has always been broken, ever since the De Gaulle veto of British membership. All the EU countries including the UK have acted over the years to protect their own national interest, nothing more, and France and Germany have been rather better at that than the British.

Bluecode, I really think it is your view that is out of date. I really don't know anyone who still thinks that Britain should have an empire, or is any kind of colonial/imperial power now. I certainly don't, the idea is quite laughable when all is considered. Of course the politicians like to talk in this way because they like going to global summits, and spouting at the UN etc. Outside the political class you won't find many if any people who seriously believe this.

I think a lot of the population are capable of having a grown up debate about the EU and our place in the world, but we won't get it because the media and politicos insist on treating us all as idiots.

Lightning Mate
10th Jan 2013, 14:49
Has anyone heard of NAFTA?

bluecode
10th Jan 2013, 15:17
Bluecode, I really think it is your view that is out of date. I really don't know anyone who still thinks that Britain should have an empire, or is any kind of colonial/imperial power now. I certainly don't, the idea is quite laughable when all is considered. Of course the politicians like to talk in this way because they like going to global summits, and spouting at the UN etc. Outside the political class you won't find many if any people who seriously believe this.

I think a lot of the population are capable of having a grown up debate about the EU and our place in the world, but we won't get it because the media and politicos insist on treating us all as idiots. Of course groundbased. I was being a little provocative. In truth the average British, indeed English person is far from the little Englander many would portray them. If anything the average Brit is more outward looking than many in continental Europe for all kinds of historical reasons.

I mention English because I believe the majority of Euro skepticism lies in England. Somehow I don't see the Welsh, Scots and particularly the Northern Irish voting en masse in favour of leaving the EU. It would be a particular disaster for NI and I do not see Westminster making up the difference.

So I personally don't see the UK leaving the EU. So it's rather a pointless debate.

ORAC
10th Jan 2013, 15:25
So I personally don't see the UK leaving the EU. So it's rather a pointless debate. A teeny bit egotistical perhaps? :rolleyes:

Lonewolf_50
10th Jan 2013, 15:47
Lightning, is it your suggestion that NAFTA be revoked or dissolved?

stuckgear
10th Jan 2013, 16:42
Has anyone heard of NAFTA?

ever heard of the EFTA ?


Maybe Britain should leave the EU. The only country it could possibly damage by doing so would be Britain itself.


like how ?

this spurious argument gets thrown up by the pro-eu brigade all the time, but there is nothing of substance to back up the citation and nver has been, its just pure scare tactics.

like a single currency.. the loss of fiscal and economic currency control is, has proven to to be for Eurozone members an economic disaster. and all the pro-euro adherents in the uk can come up with as a justification to the join the single currency is the citation 'you wont have to change money when you go on holiday.'

puhleaze..

if you want adult debate then bring something mature to the table.

rgbrock1
10th Jan 2013, 16:45
merlinxx wrote:

Guns. Wonder what your SEALs & Delta would do without a British owned German company known as H&K

Dunno about DEVGRU and the Unit but I know we Rangers - back in the 80's anyway - did quite well without H&K!!!!!

Tankertrashnav
10th Jan 2013, 17:26
Has anyone heard of NAFTA?


Nope. Is it anything like a BAFTA? ;)

Krystal n chips
10th Jan 2013, 17:27
G n T...very good ! :ok:...are you leaving the vote for women until later ? :D

Yout intials aren't N.F by any chance ?

Ah yes, the Light Programme.....caffeine had not fully absorbed at the time of posting...;)

" It was not mentioned because it is a grown-up debate and not for the likes of those who think that standing up for the country means that you are some Colonel Blimp type of southern colonialist. Only a few bigots think this way"

Which neatly quantifies your own predictable reply.....or possibly you got a new horsehair shirt for Christmas Nick?

I am,as I have said many times, pro EU and will continue to be do.

Those who insist on remaining entrenched with the view that the UK should return to an insular policy and pine for the days of Empire ( in private of course ) should be aware that the United States of Europe is one the most propogated urban myths by EU detractors given that, whilst some may have wished for this, the little matter of no European country being willing to surrender their national sovereignty seems to have eluded them..or is conveniently ignored.

Groundbased
10th Jan 2013, 19:05
This business of "pining for empire" really gets me down.

As does the "insular" epithet. It isn't about what we were, it's about what we are now. The UK is a mature economy with global trading partners. We do more business outside the EU than it it.

Nobody accuses the Scots of pining for empire because they seek to secede from the Union.

There is a political debate to be had about whether we want to rebuild our economy on a global basis with a range of partners or be part of a federal Europe. The debate should be had and put to the vote so people can vote for what they believe in.

stuckgear
10th Jan 2013, 19:22
I am,as I have said many times, pro EU and will continue to be do.

so again, what benefit does the UK have over being part of the EU?

and again, serious adult answers, not this 'insular', 'little engalnders' [email protected]

and please no 'it allows us to trade with the EU'.. we've been trading with the eu for centuries, as do the vast numbers of states outside of the EU, around the world who are not in the EU.. and being signatory to a trade agreement does not require being an EU member state

so please, leave aside the immature name calling and give specific factual reasons...

stuckgear
10th Jan 2013, 19:31
I am,as I have said many times, pro EU and will continue to be do.

Those who insist on remaining entrenched with the view that the UK should return to an insular policy and pine for the days of Empire ( in private of course ) should be aware that the United States of Europe is one the most propogated urban myths by EU detractors given that, whilst some may have wished for this, the little matter of no European country being willing to surrender their national sovereignty seems to have eluded them..or is conveniently ignored.

that, in itself, speaks volumes.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Krystal n chips
10th Jan 2013, 19:41
" so please, leave aside the immature name calling and give specific factual reasons..."

A classic example of ironic hypocrisy there I feel given the many views you have expressed about the left wing and socialist / liberal minded of us on here....but back to the question.

A rhetorical answer therefore.....explain to me, and others, why we should not integrate further and what benefits the UK would gain by leaving the EU.

Groundbased.

The views expressed about Empire and "little England" are directed at those who feel the UK still has an influence well outside these shores based on our history.

The supporters of these views would also like to return the social developments over the same period of years to those times and have no wish to progress beyond our less than noble, and at times, downright ignominious past in terms of how they feel the the UK and it's population should be governed.

The same people, are, of course, perfectly willing to accept EU grants.

stuckgear
10th Jan 2013, 19:44
so you got nothing then KnC.


duly noted.


:ugh::ugh:

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 19:46
Germans are welcomed as providers of funding, but that's about it.......


What happens when Germany decides to stop being the provider of funds?

stuckgear
10th Jan 2013, 19:46
or when germany runs of funds to provide

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 20:09
Knowing Germans as I do, I believe they will stop before they run out and I cannot fault them for that.

Obama is not the Leader of German.

brickhistory
10th Jan 2013, 20:17
Although they sure will raise a cheer for him...


Then proceed to ignore him.


Clever, those Germans.

stuckgear
10th Jan 2013, 20:18
Knowing Germans as I do, I believe they will stop before they run out and I cannot fault them for that.

Obama is not the Leader of German.


i can't fault them for it either and indeed the germans are running out of patience too.

obama certainly isn't the leader of any EU state, and it's debateable if he is actuallly leading the US, or pushing it.

it's ironic that while many decried dubya for damaging US intl. relations obama is doing an even better job of it with the US intl. allies, in favour of those states whos realtionships with the US are tenuous at best.

benghazi anybody ?

the man is a freaking to$$er and i sincerely fear for you guys and the future of the US.

SASless
10th Jan 2013, 21:19
the man is a freaking to$$er and i sincerely fear for you guys and the future of the US.


Gosh....there I wuz....thinking the entire World outside the Tea Party loved the guy!:uhoh:

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 21:21
and it debateable if he is actly leading the US, pushing it.


Love it. :ok:

vulcanised
10th Jan 2013, 21:37
The Germans are having their say.............

BBC News - German MPs warn UK EU exit would be 'economic disaster' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20974666)

ManUtd1999
10th Jan 2013, 21:51
It's interesting that the US and Germany are lining up to persuade us to stay, when there is no real threat of us leaving for a good few years yet. Even if Cameron promises a referendum under a future Tory government, it's far from certain that they'll be a Tory government come 2015.

Even if there was a referendum , we might not vote to leave. Once the arguments from big business and the rest of Europe begin to come in, the public might not believe Farage and his dreamland-like portrayal of life after the EU. Also, what is UKIPs policy? They go on and on about leaving , but if they had a majority (god help us), would they remove us immediately or call a referendum?

Ronald Reagan
10th Jan 2013, 22:09
I would imagine Germany wants the UK to remain in the EU because if we (a major net contributor) leave then they will have to pay even more money in to fund the others. The USA probably thinks that by being in the EU they can through us gain some influence, but that in my opinion is false logic, many European governments and the EU itself would go out of its way to cause us problems and do the same to the Americans. IF we had to join anyone (and I don't think we should) then I would rather be the 51st state of the USA!

The elite have their agenda to carry the EU forward no matter the cost, anyone or anything that gets in the way will be smashed aside, they will do whatever it takes. The best hope is that the whole thing simply collapses.

Lonewolf_50
10th Jan 2013, 22:14
I would imagine Germany wants the UK to remain in the EU because if we (a major net contributor) leave then they will have to pay even more money in to fund the others.
This makes sense.
The USA probably thinks that by being in the EU they can through us gain some influence, but that in my opinion is false logic.
This also makes sense.
Many European governments and the EU itself would go out of its way to cause us problems and do the same to the Americans.

The elite have their agenda to carry the EU forward no matter the cost, anyone or anything that gets in the way will be smashed aside, they will do whatever it takes. The best hope is that the whole thing simply collapses.

The various sovereign nations who make up the EU could cast aside the EU like a snake's old skin, and still get along as sovereign nations. they'd have to resurrect the old currency, but I believe that can be managed.

Some things would doubtless require more work, and a lot of bureaucrats in Brussels would be job hunting.

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 22:32
If the progressive, liberal Democratic Party and President Obama has their way and cuts defense to the bone, requiring the US to pull our military completely out of Europe and most of the rest of world, which we will have to do.

Who is going to pay for the military in the EU? Or will the EU just basically remain defenseless as Putin keeps up his rapid build up of the Russian military? Paid for by selling natural gas and oil to the countries of Europe.

Something to think about.

SASless
10th Jan 2013, 23:10
Con.....That is very unfair of you....asking a real question of our European Friends like that. Are you suggesting they might begin to pay for their own defense for a change?

con-pilot
10th Jan 2013, 23:34
Con.....That is very unfair of you....asking a real question of our European Friends like that. Are you suggesting they might begin to pay for their own defense for a change?

Oh, err sorry. :\

hellsbrink
11th Jan 2013, 04:16
The supporters of these views would also like to return the social developments over the same period of years to those times and have no wish to progress beyond our less than noble, and at times, downright ignominious past in terms of how they feel the the UK and it's population should be governed.

The same people, are, of course, perfectly willing to accept EU grants.

Got anything to prove the first part of the quoted but above? If not, then it's just another rant with no basis in reality which is being used to generate a reason where none exist.


As far as the second part goes, since when did the vast majority of those "Little Englanders" (which insults the rest of the UK as more Scots wish to leave the UK than Londoners, and that's before we start on the rest of the country. But don't let that get in the way of things) actually receive any grants, notwithstanding the matter of that "grant" actually being less money than the UK contributes. In other words, it's money that could have and should have been used at "home" anyway without the waste of it having to go through the financial maelstrom called the EU.


So, again, the question is what does the EU actually GIVE to any of the member states, what is it that is done that could not be done by each individual state in a free trade area?

Cacophonix
11th Jan 2013, 04:20
Ah, a Belgian Scot chocolatier's opinion on this weighty matter.

Hold onto your pantaloons.

Caco

Edited to add the 34th meeting's pipes to this post of non confidence...

Ah well I can't find the ******* grace notes...

Brigitte Bardot - La Madrague - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=S5dcKIMBY7Q)

Caco

Groundbased
11th Jan 2013, 07:10
Well Con, I think that the latter part of your point is on the money.

European governments won't invest in defence to fill the free riding gap for two reasons:

1. Society doesn't perceive an external threat of aggression
2. Politicos don't get elected on a defence platform whereas they do on a platform of redistributing resources from the wealth creators to the wealth absorbers.

The approach of spending vast sums on welfare has created elements of society which are completely dependent on the state for everything in their lives, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The focus is completely inward, not outward.

I suppose my question would be whether it matters at all to the US if they withdraw all their manpower and material from the EU? I'm guessing not.

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 09:24
Question still open:

so again, what benefit does the UK have over being part of the EU?

and again, serious adult answers, not this 'insular', 'little engalnders' [email protected]

and please no 'it allows us to trade with the EU'.. we've been trading with the eu for centuries, as do the vast numbers of states outside of the EU, around the world who are not in the EU.. and being signatory to a trade agreement does not require being an EU member state

so please, leave aside the immature name calling and give specific factual reasons...

Still nothing ?

duly noted.

OFSO
11th Jan 2013, 10:12
I see that the annual announcement that "The Opening of the New Berlin Airport is Delayed by Another Year" (because the baggage system didn't work, the fire-fighting facilities are inadequate) has now been replaced by an announcement of "The Opening of the New Berlin Airport has been delayed with no Foreseeable Date In Sight" (because it's just been realised that instead of on-site medical facilities, they were relying on the services of one GP who has a practice 15 minutes drive from the airport, and when asked if he could comply with International Standards for Provision of Medical Facilities at an Airport, he said "nein".)

More German efficiency ! But keep sending the money, meine Herren......

brickhistory
11th Jan 2013, 10:55
Related to the defense issue is that of the nuclear umbrella.

Obama is on record as wanting to reduce U.S. nukes unilaterally.

Hagel is a strong member of Global Zero and has publicly advocated for getting rid of 80% of the remaining U.S. weapons.

That would put the numbers into the high tens/very low hundred.

Russia has not said they'd match that and is developing new mobile ICBMs besides the very good ones they already operate. And a new SLBM sub.

China is growing its nuke arsenal and delivery systems - ICBMs, bombers, and subs.

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 11:17
Related to the defense issue is that of the nuclear umbrella.

Obama is on record as wanting to reduce U.S. nukes unilaterally.

Hagel is a strong member of Global Zero and has publicly advocated for getting rid of 80% of the remaining U.S. weapons.

That would put the numbers into the high tens/very low hundred.

Russia has not said they'd match that and is developing new mobile ICBMs besides the very good ones they already operate. And a new SLBM sub.

China is growing its nuke arsenal and delivery systems - ICBMs, bombers, and subs.


like i said... i fear for you guys and the future of the US.. i really do.

still, he got to open his yappin' pie hole about the UK and the EU.. of course the EUSSR is more akin to his socialist leanings than an independent state.

MagnusP
11th Jan 2013, 11:28
That's of concern, Brick. Reducing western defence capability at a time when the Eastern bloc is increasing its capability is really reminiscent of the UK sending police officers out to face gun-carrying criminals with nothing more than a stick and a tin of pepper. WTF is Barry thinking of?

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 11:30
WTF is Barry thinking of?

thinking.. he doesn't think.. he leans...

Falklands dispute yet more proof that Obama is a lousy ally | Full Comment | National Post (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/27/stephen-edwards-falklands-dispute-yet-more-proof-that-obama-is-a-lousy-ally/)

The Obama Administration knifes Britain yet again over the Falklands – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/)

The Falklands dispute lays bare the damage that Barack Obama has done to the not-so-special US-UK relationship – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100165348/the-falklands-dispute-lays-bare-the-damage-that-barack-obama-has-done-to-the-not-so-special-us-uk-relationship/)

and not content with not leading but pushing the united states the a-hole thinks he can do the same elsewhere. but aside from having no clothes, he also has no weight.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/06/Barack-Obama-Cristina-Kirchner-460x2761.jpg

perhaps Barry, Kirchner and Penn can finally have a 3-way.. question is, who wears the strap on.

ORAC
11th Jan 2013, 11:39
And don't forget Israel......

Ed Koch: Seduced and Abandoned by Obama (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337144/ed-koch-seduced-and-abandoned-obama-john-fund)

“The president’s a very charming guy, and when you’re with him you believe him. . . . The Jewish community is outraged,” Koch told Politico. “I don’t think the president is anti-Israel or certainly not anti-Semitic. But he has a different philosophy. And his philosophy is that getting the Islamic world to be supportive of the United States is more important than preventing Israel from being [crushed].”

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 11:46
perhaps then this is Barry's notion of the EUSSR..

http://www.colourbox.com/preview/2638295-459679-european-union-flag-with-islam-sign.jpg

Ronald Reagan
11th Jan 2013, 11:55
Interesting article about the current economic situation in the EU:-
20 Facts About The Collapse Of Europe That Everyone Should Know | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-09/20-facts-about-collapse-europe-everyone-should-know)

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 12:18
Ron, can you post that in the EU politics thread as well. perhaps cat and past the list as well.

G&T ice n slice
11th Jan 2013, 13:58
UK citizen, British National, English, (WASP) no axe (for them over there "ax") to grind..

But.. I was mildly surprised when they selected a 1-term senator who no-one had ever heard of... but hey, we don;t bother much with US politics over here much...

I was somewhat more surprised when it started being reported in the press that he was "a natural orator" and "was galvanising the Democrats with his speeches"
((I paraphrase a lot here)) frankly I thought he successfully demonstrated the quote that "an englishman reading the the telephone directory will always sound more intelligent than an american reading the gettysburg address"
stilted, unnatural, insufficient inflexion...

Then I realised that "Barry" was actual "Barack Hussein" and thought "hummm that ain't going to play well with rather a lot of people"...

And then you elected him!

Then with much fanfare he had the bust of Winston Churchill removed from the White House... And I thought "now there's a complete idiot who has absolutely no idea about how to make friends & influence people"
(actually more accurately I thought "this man's a :mad: ")

So why am I not the least surprised that he & his administration want to see the UK surrender to Argentina? Want to see the UK stuck in the EU and subordinated to it?

Oh, but keep our boys in the firing line in sandy places where no-one here wants our boys to be...

Personally I am insulted by just the Churchill action. Pity we didn't announce that we were removing the statue of A.Lincoln from Parliament square and the statues of Roosevelt & Eisenhower from Grosvenor square (and why we let them have a statue of Reagan there is beyond me)

And then you lot voted him in a second time?

At least we had the last laugh - "Nobel peace prize" for someone who had, to that date, done nothing at all ....

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 14:12
well you could say the same things about tony blair. and the uk elected him three times..

a lying two faced bhitsag and a comitted socialist.

you could say the UK had the last laugh by watching the american voters set themselves down the same path and not learning the lessons of the UK.

Lonewolf_50
11th Jan 2013, 14:25
Personally I am insulted by just the Churchill action.
So was I. Winston Churchill is half-American by heritage, which is the same as can be said for Barack Obama. :E
He is the only British prime minister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom) to have received the Nobel Prize in Literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature) and was the first person to be made an Honorary Citizen of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Citizen_of_the_United_States).

His father, Lord Randolph Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Randolph_Churchill), served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer); his mother, Jennie Jerome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Randolph_Churchill), was an American socialite.
I it is my estimation that the First Lady felt a bit insecure with an honorary citizen and Nobel winner (for actual achievement) being remembered in the White House. I suspect she is behind the removal.

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 15:04
Question still open:

so again, what benefit does the UK have over being part of the EU?

and again, serious adult answers, not this 'insular', 'little engalnders' [email protected]

and please no 'it allows us to trade with the EU'.. we've been trading with the eu for centuries, as do the vast numbers of states outside of the EU, around the world who are not in the EU.. and being signatory to a trade agreement does not require being an EU member state

so please, leave aside the immature name calling and give specific factual reasons...


Still nothing ?

so what's up comrade KnC for all your bluster about being pro-EU you must have have come up with something.

No ?

Groundbased
11th Jan 2013, 16:05
I’m not sure there is a proper benefits case for being in or out, you could construct an argument either way, no one can know how it would go until we tried it. Rather like Scotland, there is vast amounts of nonsense being talked on both sides of the debate about how an independent Scotland would fare, but no one knows the answer.

Essentially we are paying in a load of cash of which we get some back in terms of grants like the CAP and other EU projects, so it is a net cost to us. Although, in terms of our own deficit, saving the value of the net contribution, which I understand to be around £10bn, is hardly going to make much difference.

You could argue that the cost of complying with regulation is adds to it, another £7 or £8bn is a figure I have seen, although if we were outside the single market we would still have to meet those rules to sell into it (Christ knows why we bother meeting the rules so competently I don’t know, no-one else does).

Economically would we continue to export into the single market, of course we would. Would EU member states continue to buy goods and services from us, of course they would. The numbers might go up and down a bit but essentially would stay the same. We are free to go and trade with other global areas now, we would still be so after an exit.

The argument goes that the EU is effective against trade barriers as it is a common trading bloc. This is rubbish as it is selectively applied. I believe imports of British beef to the US are still banned, no such problem for France and Germany, and I don’t see them rushing to tell America that they won’t buy any more of their stuff until this changes.

No, it’s not an economic argument. It is a political one. The simple question is do we (and I mean all member states) want a complete transition to a federal states of Europe with a single federal government and local (state) administrations that have low level legislative powers. The current approach is to lead us all down a road of step by step transition until we wake up and find that we’ve got there anyway. The entire project should be put to the voters of all states on the basis of a single question – United states of Europe with no national sovereignty for member states – Yes or no. Those that say yes are in, the others out.

The concept of repatriating powers is ridiculous, it won’t fly, and even if it did it would further sour the relationship between us and the other members. Halfway house solutions never work. It needs to be all or nothing, but as I’ve said before, we won’t get this because the politicos know that the voters would reject it, and not just in the UK.

G&T ice n slice
11th Jan 2013, 16:10
Sorry, Lonewolf, Conpilot (et al)

I red wot I rote & I hope it didn't sound anti-USA...

I was brought up in s.american oilfields with many US citizens, my boss for 10 years was an Okie from Mischokie (ex marine, great chap, honorary British, wife didn't want to move to the UK and then almost refused to "go home" when he was moved back to run the US operation). spent many happy hours getting totally blitzed on training courses (well, after the course-day finished) with colleagues from the US [I think this is a 'cargo ground-staff thing] and my nephew-in-law (if there is such a thing) is a NY texan (or possibly a Texan NooYawker). I saw Eisenhower riding on the back of an open Cadillac (sitting on the folder softop!) when he was campaigning in 1956 (think that was in LA, I was only 6 at the time) and for years I had a whole load of the "I Like Ike" metal button pins (I've lost them on a move sometime), and I like all the DC-series from DC3 to DC11 (and flown on all types except the DC5) and I just loved the Connie. I even quite like Boeing aircraft (but they're not as good as the Douglas type, so there)

Lonewolf_50
11th Jan 2013, 16:38
No offense taken, GT.

Not since Jackie Kenedy have we seen someone with both the style and class of this fine lady.

Duchess Kate (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42450202/displaymode/1247?beginSlide=1)

She makes y'all look good. :ok:

stuckgear
11th Jan 2013, 20:24
Duchess Kate (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42450202/displaymode/1247?beginSlide=1)

She makes y'all look good. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

just as well.. i can't do it all by myself.

Krystal n chips
12th Jan 2013, 05:55
I was blissfully unaware that it was mandatory to repond to your posts within a specified time period SG. In addition to which,I have both a working and social life that take priority over visiting this site.

Thank you for this clarification therefore.

In answer to your question ( and Hells ) :

European Movement UK: The Economic Benefits to the UK of EU Membership (http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=15296)

The benefits are self evident.

I note however, that with an arrogance which epitomises the philosophies of the current UK Gov't, Gorgeous George has decided that the EU must change, not the UK.

We can thus await the polemic from Kim Il Cameron on the 22nd with a great deal of interest.

As a further point, when those within his party express, openly, concerns about the continued membership then the validity of their views should be noted with considerable interest.

BBC News - Lord Heseltine attacks David Cameron's EU strategy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20996376)

Neil Kinnock summated matters on last nights C4 News in that, if a referendum was to held, then it would not be for the benefit of the UK population, but more to do with the rift, or gaping chasm to be more exact, within the Conservative party.

Catch up - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/)

stuckgear
12th Jan 2013, 08:23
In answer to your question ( and Hells ) :

European Movement UK: The Economic Benefits to the UK of EU Membership (http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=15296)

The benefits are self evident.



jeeze is that the best you can come up with ? E minus KnC, let me reassert your brief:

and again, serious adult answers, not this 'insular', 'little engalnders' [email protected]

and please no 'it allows us to trade with the EU'.. we've been trading with the eu for centuries, as do the vast numbers of states outside of the EU, around the world who are not in the EU.. and being signatory to a trade agreement does not require being an EU member state

so please, leave aside the immature name calling and give specific factual reasons
i've put in red the bit you obviously had a problem comprehending, as the opening bit on your citation link starts with the 'fact' that it allows us to trade with the EU.

a common customs union can be placed under a trade agreement - like errm the EFTA.... it does not require political oversight of an unelected by the proletariat cabal, nor does it require oversight of crimal law and justice, and the oversight of legislature, human rights [sic], control of inde. monetary or fiscal policy policy and currency etc etc...


by the way KnC for your ejumaction...

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a free trade organisation between four European countries that operates in parallel with the European Union (EU). The EFTA was established on 3 May 1960 as a trade bloc-alternative for European states who were either unable or unwilling to join the then-European Economic Community (EEC) which has now become the EU.

Current EFTA members:

Switzerland (also Shengen)
Lichtenstien
Iceland (!)
Norway


EFTA has several free trade agreements with non-EU countries as well as declarations on cooperation and joint workgroups to improve trade. Currently, the EFTA States have established preferential trade relations with 24 states and territories, in addition to the 27 member states of the European Union.


Free trade agreement

Albania
Canada (Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement)
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Egypt
Gulf Co-operation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates)
Hong Kong[5]
Israel
Jordan
South Korea
Lebanon
Republic of Macedonia
Mexico
Montenegro
Morocco (excluding Western Sahara)
Palestinian National Authority
Peru
Serbia
Singapore
Southern African Customs Union (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland)
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
Ongoing free trade negotiations

Algeria
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Central American States (Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Honduras)
India
Indonesia
Russia / Belarus / Kazakhstan
Thailand
Declarations on Cooperation / Dialogue on closer trade and investment relations

Malaysia
Mauritius
MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay)
Mongolia
Vietnam
no cigar KnC.

you still got nothing.

hellsbrink
12th Jan 2013, 13:20
In answer to your question ( and Hells ) :

European Movement UK: The Economic Benefits to the UK of EU Membership

The benefits are self evident.


And how, pray tell, do any of these benefits require an overbearing, overpaid, dictatorial, incompetent bunch of fools like the ones who flit between Brussels and Strasbourg to achieve the same thing? After all, such "benefits" can be achieved by both a free-trade area and treaties with the individual states so having an unnecessary tier of quasi-government achieves NOTHING apart from making sure that money gets poured into a black hole.

Oh, and be so kind as to address the actual post I made and the points within. If you can.

Krystal n chips
12th Jan 2013, 17:22
For the benefit of Hells and SG, another link for you both to read which,yet again, answers your antagonism towards the UK and the EU....or rather offers plenty of supportive evidence regarding the detriment to the UK that leaving the EU would induce.

European Movement UK: The Wider Benefits of UK Membership of the EU (http://www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=17942)

As you are both, it would seem, of the same opinion re the EU, what viable alternative would you propose in respect of the UK leaving the EU and how would the UK benefit by doing so ?

stuckgear
12th Jan 2013, 19:03
thanks for repeating the link again KnC, i read it the first time, yet you again cited a group, that by its own admission: The European Movement is a not-for-profit, independent and all party organisation that calls for closer integration at the EU level.

i guess you are unable to provide unbiased factual data instead of the hyperbole provided.

i can think of a couple of benefits myself, without resorting to politically biased rhetoric. obviously you cannot.

still an e- KnC.

stuckgear
12th Jan 2013, 20:57
Barack Obama supports David Cameron on Europe, Downing Street says - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9793213/Barack-Obama-supports-David-Cameron-on-Europe-Downing-Street-says.html)


Mr Obama was “supportive” of Mr Cameron’s approach to the European Union during a telephone conversation in December, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman said.

Philip Gordon, the US assistant secretary responsible for European affairs, yesterday expressed concern about the consequences of Britain leaving the EU.

Mr Gordon said that London’s “voice” within the EU was “critical to the United States” and that Britain’s continued membership was “in the American interest”.

Mr Cameron is preparing to deliver a speech on Europe later this month and will set out plans to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU before putting the “new settlement” to a referendum.

Downing Street said that Mr Cameron set out “his approach” to the EU to Mr Obama in December and that the President was supportive.

brickhistory
12th Jan 2013, 21:00
That's your nation stuffed then...

mini
13th Jan 2013, 01:23
A UK exit from the EU would be catastrophic in economic terms. Cameron knows this. Hence the "interest" from the US.

You don't need a PhD to figure it out....

Cacophonix
13th Jan 2013, 01:31
Where I come from, don't **** when them Yankees. Not one of them is to be trusted!

Caco.

Krystal n chips
13th Jan 2013, 02:03
" That's your nation stuffed then "

Actually, and with regard to the basis of this thread, I think you will find the correct terms are incest and sodomy.....

Lonewolf_50
13th Jan 2013, 02:07
Krystal, the benefits are not self evident.

Please explain. Go back to page 1 and see if you can provide insight into the three questions I asked there. No gotcha questions, just trying to see what's up on some issues.

baggersup
13th Jan 2013, 03:38
In financial terms in the post WW2 reconstruction of Western Europe the UK repaid (at a high rate if interest) the financial assistance received whereas other Western European countries did not, to our long term detriment.

I read and hear this all of the time but it simply doesn't hold up in reality. I learned something different in school.

The loan to which I think you refer is the one that was obtained immediately after the war when Britain sent John Maynard Keynes himself to ask for a big loan to prop up the sterling and start the ball rolling on getting the financial house of post war Britain in order. The US agreed to nearly a $4.5 billion loan (in '46 dollars!) at I think about 2% interest. Not a very "high rate" if that's true.

But the Marshall Plan sent about $3.7 billion to Britain between about '48 and '51 or so was a grant. Not repayable. The Marshall Plan was about giving not loaning, even though the whole process was complicated in its execution. Germany got far less under Marshall than Britain did. But if economists can be believed, Germany used their funds more effectively by focusing on critical rebuilding of the manufacturing sector.

The reason the other "Western" countries didn't repay the loan is that it was a loan specifically given to Britain by the U.S. Germany and others had a few small loans of their own they were dealing with, including paying back loan balances to Britain that they'd undertaken in the 20s--so post-war Germany could regain some financial credibility in the world and with Britain. So Britain got some German money owed to them repaid too.

The other countries like Germany had some various modest loans given by an international consortium of banks gathered together to help fund the restoration of Europe immediately after '45, but it was not on the scale of monies Keynes came after on his visit to the US in '46.

Also, the Lend Lease program was never expected to be paid back but termed "lend" by Roosevelt as a way to get around the pacifists in America in the late 30s who didn't want the US to be involved in another European war. He was trying to get around them, so he fashioned a sort of make believe "loan" to get around his own opponents.

The $650 million worth of "Lend Lease" was written off by the US eventually and did not need to be repaid in full. The write off sum in modern dollars at the time it was written off was over $8 billion.

None of these monies include the food, supplies and other critical daily supply things that the US shipped to Britain in the north atlantic convoys. They don't even count in any supply or grant totals. My dad made endless perilous trips to and from the US to Britain during the war in a heavy cruiser escorting critical supply ships trying to get food, goods and supplies to wartime UK--even before the US entered the war in '41.

The support that flowed into Europe was from many taps. And the only one that was a big loan was the one Britain took out with Keynes's guidance. It was a complicated array of reasons, alot to do with restoring sterling values, residual empire costs and post-war social programs. Britain needed money fast. So they took out a "loan."

The Marshall Plan started a couple of years later as a result of all this mismash of grant programs that were ongoing and needed to be organized in one place....

I'm no historian. But to say everything the US gave Britain before, during and after the war was in loans that had to be repaid isn't really the full story. The US taxpayer gave to Britain outright in one program of the Marshall Plan what would be equivalent today to $100 billion.

But it does seem to be a popular mantra these days. A few decades ago in Britain I'd never had heard anybody who lived through those times say this in conversation, because they lived it. But in the past few years it seems to have become very popular to make this statement; I hear and read it all of the time.

And at the same time Kenyes got his loan from the US, he also got Canada to lend Britain a couple of billion also at 2%. But i don't know what the status of that payback is/was to Canada. Maybe they wrote it off. Dunno.

Nick Riviera
13th Jan 2013, 08:04
"Those who insist on remaining entrenched with the view that the UK should return to an insular policy and pine for the days of Empire ( in private of course )"

And you called my reply predictable? The thread is dripping with your self-loathing and bigotry, I expect nothing else. You can come up with nothing that explains how we are better off in the EU and I don't expect you to. As usual you refuse to address what you are asked and resort to petty name-callng. Frankly it is all rather pathetic.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 08:34
A UK exit from the EU would be catastrophic in economic terms.

and again.


how ?

real answer please, not this 'trading with europe garabage'. (see previous pages)

Vercingetorix
13th Jan 2013, 09:11
Stuckgear
Agree with you.
The UK could then get back to doing what it is good at, i.e. inventing things and Free Trade with all comers.

Bring it on.:ok:

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 09:40
the thing is V, there is nothing that the UK cannot accomplish by way of trade agreement with the EU, as many other nations do.

form a Civitas study:

Would there be a cost of leaving the EU?

The author concludes that, if the UK were to leave the EU, there would be no net loss of jobs or trade. However, to draw any such conclusion involves complex calculations, and it is widely accepted that assumptions have to be made that can influence the final figure. The author provides a range of estimates from ‘rock bottom’, through ‘most likely’, to ‘high’. His rock-bottom figure draws largely on official sources and deploys the most cautious of assumptions. The net costs of EU membership are appraised in five areas: EU regulation, the common agricultural policy, net payments to EU institutions, the single market, and inward investment. In keeping with earlier cost-benefit studies the author’s results are
expressed as a percentage of GDP. In this Introduction the
estimates are in pounds. Overall, the net cost of remaining in the EU ranges from the rock-bottom estimate of £15 billion to the ‘most likely’ of £40 billion.
the EU is unfortunately in decline and has been for a while.
the civitas study was published in 2004.


The author questions whether it is wise to link our fortunes to a region of the world with a poor record of economic growth and whose share of both world markets and GDP is destined to fall. Even the European Commission takes a gloomy view of the EU’s prospects.17 In its December 2002 review it forecast a 44 per cent decline in the EU-15 share of global GDP from 18 per cent in 2000 to ten per cent in 2050. In 2050, as in 1950 and 2000, the three most populous countries in the world are
likely to be India (1.6 billion), China (1.5 billion) and the USA (0.4 billion). The working-age population of the EU, even after its current enlargement to 25 members, is projected to decline by 20 per cent to 30 per cent by 2050; whereas the working-age population of the USA is expected to increase by nearly one-third.
Civitas does not take a corporate view about leaving the EU, but a calm and measured public debate is long overdue and Ian Milne’s essay is an admirable effort to illuminate the discussion.
since 2004, the economic situation in the EU has got progressively worse, this was before the Greek, Spanish, Italian, Irish, French, Portugese problems became so entrenched remember.

the paper makes some conclusions:


In the absence of any convincing evidence in the UK or elsewhere that the Single Market has actually delivered net benefits for the economies of member states, it is safe to conclude that at best its benefits and costs cancel each other out, and that at worst the costs could exceed the benefits by a considerable margin.
If the UK withdrew from the Single Market, what would be the
impact on the British economy? Recent cost-benefit studies (See Chapter 9, p. 36) suggest that the net impact would range between neutral and beneficial (i.e. being outside the EU is better than being inside). Other sections of this paper indicate that, if the UK left the EU, there would be zero economic impact on both inward investment (Chapter 6: p. 19) and tariffs (Chapter 10, p. 40), with, implicitly, a zero net impact for UK jobs.

The overall conclusion is that, inside the Single Market, the
balance of costs and benefits for the UK economy is zero, that it could be negative, and that the UK would not suffer economically by being outside the Single Market.

in terms of future cost on the UK (and Germany)


Though all EU countries have ageing populations the problem is especially severe on the Continent, where, with the exception of the Netherlands, pay-as-you-go (i.e. non-funded) pension systems are the rule, and demography is particularly worrying.8 As pension crises deepen, pressure will grow for EU-wide ‘solidarity’—in practice, for UK taxpayers to help fund bankrupt continental systems.
The UK and Germany already massively subsidise the rest of the EU, especially continental farmers, through the mechanism of the EU Budget. So asking those countries to pay more would not exactly come as a surprise. Some argue that the Maastricht ‘no bailout’ clause,9 which in theory prevents one member-state bailing out another, would protect the UK from demands for pension subsidies.
However, the precedent of the Growth and Stability Pact (GSP), whose legal base is (was) also in Maastricht, and which is (was) supposed to guarantee the stability of the single currency, is not encouraging. If push comes to shove, the bail-out clause will be shredded as ruthlessly and comprehensively as was the noweviscerated GSP. The consequence could only be an increased net cost burden on the UK due to its EU membership, especially if by
then the UK had joined the euro and consequently lost control of its own economy. Even if the bail-out clause remained operative, and continental member states funded their rising pension obligations by raising taxes, tax harmonisation (see above) would mean that an indirect burden fell on the British economy.


side notes:

Two of the five cost-benefit analyses cited above conclude—
like this paper—that the net cost to the UK of EU membership is substantial

The UK net contribution to Brussels is an ongoing pure cash
transfer of the order of a minimum of 0.5 per cent of UK GDP, with no offsetting benefit. That figure is likely to be understated.

And still, no one can post a factual unbiased benefit to the UK of EU membership, particularly anything cannot be provied under EFTA.

that says it all.

hellsbrink
13th Jan 2013, 09:51
Jeez, SG, couldn't you even put a LINKEE (http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/EUCosts_Factsheet.pdf) to an online version of the report so people can read things?



(Of course, the report will be decried as nonsense, tory propaganda, capitalist malebovinefaeces, sexist, racist, homophobic and anything else the loony left can think of to dismiss the report whilst promoting their own propaganda links in some sort of attempt to prove the "truth" whilst refusing to answer any of the previous points such as

"Why is giving money to the EU so you can get LESS of it returned as 'grants' (with strings attached) somehow a good thing when keeping all of the money and being able to spend more of it on similar projects somehow bad?")

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 09:58
well of course. HB..


the paper was from civitas:

Civitas: The Institute for the Study of Civil Society was founded by David George Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_George_Green) and Robert Whelan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Whelan_(Civitas)&action=edit&redlink=1) early in 2000 as an independent think tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank). It is a British registered charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trust#United_Kingdom) (No. 1085494), financed by private donations. It receives no government funding and has no affiliations with any political party

The stated underlying purpose of Civitas is to deepen public understanding of the legal, institutional and moral framework that makes a free and democratic society possible.
They state that what they do is:

Support informed public debate and encourage consensus by:

Providing accurate factual information on today's social issues.
Publishing informed comment and analysis.
Bringing together leading protagonists in open discussion.



Work towards pragmatic solutions to current social problems.
Implement pioneering projects to demonstrate what can be accomplished.
Supply schools with teaching materials and guest speakers.
which IMHO is unbiased as opposed to our champagne socialist's attempt by making biased reference.

It seems our dear Kmorades cant think outside of propaganda. oh well, back to the politburo!!

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 11:59
What are the benefits of staying in the European Union? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/8965907/What-are-the-benefits-of-staying-in-the-European-Union.html)

Krystal n chips
13th Jan 2013, 12:24
Pragmatism :

Leaving the European Union would be bad for Britain | Roger Carr | Comment is free | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/britain-should-stay-in-eu)

Nick, I can assure you I do not suffer from self loathing. I'm a very nice man actually...

Lonewolf,

In response to your three perfectly valid and sensible questions, please read the various links I have posted with regard to questions 2 / 3.

As for the single currency, well personaly I am in favour of the Euro as the UK's currency. However, I am also very well aware of the influence of the pound a a global trading currency and therefore the chances of the Euro becoming our currency are limited.

Please remember however, that IF a referendum is held, and I truly hope we do not take this option, then as most of the UK population are more concerned about the result of "celebrity" TV shows and whether Chelsea lose 3 0 to Ullapool Albion, the result would not really be wholly representative.

I suppose Cameron could always partner Merkel on "Strictly Come Dancing" if he wanted to impress the UK population......:uhoh:

G&T ice n slice
13th Jan 2013, 13:31
KnC

You aren't KAG under a different username are you???

As for the single currency, well personaly I am in favour of the Euro as the UK's currency

This comment alone just leaves me utterly astounded.

Krystal n chips
13th Jan 2013, 14:04
G n T,

No, just me and with only one name on here.

My comment may astound you, but it just happens to be a personal preference. You will note however, that I realise and accept this will not be the case.

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 14:05
Reading these pages it seems like there's a lot of people living in an alternative universe. There's all these myths and bullshit repeated that have no base in reality whatsoever.

Comparing the EU free market to EFTA is not even comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing apples to baby gorilla's. Ever tried exporting something to Norway recently? Why was there a butter shortage in Norway last summer? EFTA is a free trade deal with so many exceptions and loopholes and opt outs that it barely makes an impact.

The EU is a single market, unrestricted flow of goods, money people etc. A single market needs a single supra national body to keep the various members in check. If you don't have such a body you get all sorts of non-tarif barriers and paperwork that just makes it pointless.

Saying that the EU has no benefit for the UK and only in a net cash drain just goes to show the you paid no attention whatsoever to ECO101 in school. Just looking at the cash outflow and saying the EU costs money is looking at 1% of the equation. It's the easy part, makes for easy headlines and lazy thinking. Quantifying the impact of the EU in the UK Economy goes a little beyond the net contribution don't you think.

using phrases like EUSSR just boggles the mind and it's sort of an insult to people that actually lived through USSR or were stuck behind the Iron Curtain. Don't you see that the new found liberty of Eastern Europe the economic development of these coutries and the temporary economic migration of Poles and Czech goes to show the enormous amount of freedom that has been created through the EU.

Krystal n chips
13th Jan 2013, 14:34
Sammi,

Thanks for a logical post ! :ok:

Now, go and find a nice large brick wall and bang your head against it because, when you provide any sort of reasoned logic on here, in a very short time, the responses you will receive from those who are convinced the UK is seperate from mainland Europe but should also determine the policies of the EU ( called "wanting it both ways" ) will convince you that the wall offers more sense.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 14:40
using phrases like EUSSR just boggles the mind and it's sort of an insult to people that actually lived through USSR or were stuck behind the Iron Curtain. Don't you see that the new found liberty of Eastern Europe


bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.


what a load of unmitigated tosh.

the EU gave liberty to eastern europe.. hmm re-writing history again to suit an agenda.

the EU itself is an insult to the people of eastern europe that shucked off the soviet cloak and oppression, by saddling them with debt they can never repay and removing their hard won democratic freedoms under false promises.

and liberty in the EU... what like the denail of referedums to the electorate? or how about the EU Vice President recommending military intervention in Catalonia to suppress talk of independence?

how about what 18 years in a row of the EU not having its accounts signed off due errm... corruption?

is that waht you call liberty ? because removal and denial of democratic process by an unelected, unimpeachable administration is oppression.


and still NO unbiased benefit of the EU has been provided yet.. as posted, i cant think of a couple, yet the pro-EU socialists cannot, and instead resort to daft claims.

back off the politburo and try again...

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 14:47
still not come up with anything Komrade, my little Champagne Socialist, just back to peddling petty insults?

i had expected better from you.

then again, after posting your desire to see the Euro as the UK currency.. maybe not.

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 16:17
Stuckgear,

Those people in Belarus, Moldovia and other Eastern European countries that haven't been able to join have a lot more freedom then Poles! Lucky lads, those men stuck with dictators! At least they don't have to wear a high viz jacket working in derilict coal mines. What is factually wrong with the assertion that joining the EU has been a major reason for reform and progress in Poland and the Czech republic. There's no rewriting of history there.

As for referendums, who is to say that direct democracy is a suitable mechanism for some issues and not others. Why was there not a referendum about invading Iraq, or why is there no referendum on relocating or expending Heathrow? Why is that there should be referendum on such a complex issue as EU membership, whereas for ALL other issues elected politicians make the big decisions.

The EU is complex, has tons of shit wrong with it and is in dire need of reform. But all the major paranoia about EU armies, Muslim take over of France and invasion of Catalunia and the EUSSR just makes you look like you're a wide-eyed raging lunatic.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 16:52
As for referendums, who is to say that direct democracy is a suitable mechanism for some issues and not others

errr when the electorater has demanded a voice and been denied that, repeatedly.

and yet again another, fervant europhile that cant enter into adlut discussion without petty name calling, avoiding fact and claiming things that were said that were not.


And still, no one can post a factual unbiased benefit to the UK of EU membership, particularly anything cannot be provied under EFTA.

yet some can resort to claiming thing were said that were not and petty name calling.



*NB: as has been posted several times in the EU thread, I am neither anti-european (family hails from elsewhere in the EU) nor anti-intra European trade agreements. - others have also posted similar statements despite the continual infantile insults and false statements thrown about by the europhiles.

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 17:08
on EFTA, if it's comperable to the EU why was there a butter shortage in Norway?

EFTA (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204553904577102332973418996.html)

I'll repeat EFTA doesn't work, there is no single supra national body to govern the free trade area. So you're stuck with tons of paper work if you want to export something to the likes of Norway or Iceland.

On an unbiased article on the benefits of the EU. JSTOR will have to do. Not sure whether you're crafty enough to go around the paywall. But here goes The competition effects of the single market in Europe (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1344761?uid=3738736&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101526883063)

Your turn. Tell whats incorrect about the assertion that EU membership and has not been beneficial for countries like Poland. And do explain to me why direct democracy should be used solely for decision with regards to the EU, but not with other issues

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 17:22
Sammie_nl: how to say that...
People like you are a minority here.
JB has been hijacked by a few forum Talibans that will accuse you of anything they do themselves: insulting, attacking, lowering themselves to teenager behavior, or even worse...
Some of them spend 24 hours 365 days on JB pprune, hence the alternate universe you are describing in one of your post.

Most of them have been proved wrong later with a few polls on very important points concerning EU and Eurozone on pprune last year, guess what: they are more stubborn than ever.

For them Eurozone should have exploded by now, and the most reasonables of them would have bet almost anything Greece would be out of Eurozone by now. They live in an alternate reality and any communication with them looks like an angry autistic one (and not the Asperger type...)... They always have a reason for everything, even when the world prove them wrong. They will never stop until their death, this is there destiny, maybe no free will for them.

Few of them spend most of their time googling quoting endlessly. I believe this is a modern sickness, an internet one. It kills the very purpose of internet forums.

It happens very regularly that I don't post 1 or 2 weeks here, and each time I can read few of them wondering what happened to me, unable to understand I do have a real life with entire days without pprune.

I won't be surprise if in a few years some psychiatrist start to describe some forum linked sicknesses associated with reinforcement of an alternate reality encouraged by years of posting non stop influencing their job or familly life. A bit like a sick addiction. Just watch it.


Anyway I agree with all your posts here. Actually this is the kind of post that could have been written by millions of different europeans, but here it will look like you are alone in the world, don't enter their alternate reality.

Stick around, there is a lot to speak about concerning EU on JB.

Cheers.

hellsbrink
13th Jan 2013, 17:29
Sammie

Apart from the small matter of successive governments in the UK promising a referendum on the EU, then backing down, something that directly affects how the country is run is important enough for the population to have their say.

You know, same as the referendum on the Lib Dem's concept of proportional representation, or the upcoming referendum on whether the Scots wish to be independent. Enlarging Heathrow is a LOCAL issue, so needs no national referendum and the Iraq invasion was not something that was an issue that decides how the country is governed either.

Do take your strawman elsewhere.


BTW. I'm waiting for the clamour for EFT to grow a bit more before shooting it down, there is a hell of a lot of things that people do not seem to know about what membership of EFTA (which the UK already is and has been since before becoming a member of the EEC) which could change their viewpoint somewhat.....

Ronald Reagan
13th Jan 2013, 17:30
My main problem with the EU is that I don't want to wake up one day to find we are living in a country called Europe!

I don't want the Euro for my country either. Once you give up your own currency your even further down the road of a United States of Europe.
We actually hear people talking of having a single European military for example, I hope it never happens.

I have several Polish friends, they do like the fact they can come here to the UK and also the money their nations gets from the EU (from us), but even they are sick of all the rules and regulations which in their opinion is now causing no end of problems in their country for business to function aswell as before.

For the south of Europe the EU and especially the Euro have been a disaster. The way they just installed puppet leaders was terrible.

Forcing people into a political union against their will could end up causing all kinds of problems. I do agree though that the British people should have been given a vote on the war in Iraq, they would likely have come to right conclusion on that!!!! Maybe trying out direct democracy on all the big issues would be a good thing, would be hard for the results to be worse than the disasters what the political class have managed to achieve.

Krystal n chips
13th Jan 2013, 17:38
" there is a hell of a lot of things that people do not seem to know about what membership of EFTA (which the UK already is and has been since before becoming a member of the EEC) which could change their viewpoint somewhat"

Can you offer a selection of examples please.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 17:43
on EFTA, if it's comperable to the EU why was there a butter shortage in Norway?


http://www5.cockytalk.com/images/smilies/ROTFL.gif


that's funny !


oh you were being serious ?

http://www5.cockytalk.com/images/smilies/ROTFL.gif http://www5.cockytalk.com/images/smilies/ROTFL.gif http://www5.cockytalk.com/images/smilies/ROTFL.gif

Lonewolf_50
13th Jan 2013, 17:46
Krystal, in your own words would be superior to the "answer by link" which didn't satisfy. I better grasp the vague promises of the advocates, but that isn't what I was after.

Thanks for the link, anyway. The currency issue strikes me as a critical issue of sovereignty. And, for whomever is in Whitehall at a given time, for political flexibility.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 17:49
No Lonewolf, national soverignty, national economies and the future smillions of people and fiscal management must be ignored, lest Norway have another butter shortage!

let them eat lutefisk was the cry !!


oh the humanity...

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 17:52
Actually it's the referendum that's the strawman in this discussion. Direct Democracy doesn't work, it's ridiculous that you can expect people in a country where The Sun is the largest circulating newspaper to make an informed decision on the benefits of EU Membership or not.

That doesn't make me a anti-democratic fascist ****. Democracy only works with elected elected politicians representing political parties that make the decisions. People chose the political parties that are in line with our own views and opinions. Proposing a referendum is saying that you as a politician are afraid to stand up for your convictions and tell your electorate what is good for them and suffer the consequences if you can't convince them. You want your country out of the EU, fine, vote for UKIP. Get the Tories to renounce EU membership through grassroot action. All that is great and how democracy should work and what is happening. Referendums are acts of gutless politicians and vocal minorities that offer a yes/no answer to a question that is a tad bit more complicated.

Again, do explain to me how a free trade area is better then a single market. It's nice and dandy to dismiss something with a smiley but that doesn't answer the question I asked you. How is it possible for an EFTA member, a member of a free trade area to have such ridicules trade barriers that one of the richest country in the world per capita runs out of ******* butter. Explain to me why you still need a thick wad of paper to export stuff to Norway which is in the EFTA. You say that people don't know their stuff about the EFTA that might change their mind. I reckon that most people are utterly clueless about how the EU works.

con-pilot
13th Jan 2013, 18:05
I reckon that most people are utterly clueless about how the EU works.

I'm not all that sure, that the people that run the EU have a clue as to how it really works. Perhaps when they stop passing so many goofy laws and regulations, they'll have finally figured it out. :p

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 18:07
but the butter in Norway Con; the butter....

con-pilot
13th Jan 2013, 18:11
but the butter in Norway Con; the butter....

Butter you say, hell we gots lots of butter, we'll send them some.



Wait a minute, I think that is against the EU's rules.


I got it, they can come over here, buy all they want and ship it back to Norway. :p


There, sorted. :E

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 18:17
well I'm sure EU subsidised flights to Wisconsin would help out the economy.

hell the EU gives subsidies to Myanmar and Egypt, I'd rather see my tax contributions going to Oshkosh and Milwaukee.

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 18:22
Sammie, concerning my post above saying millions of europeans are thinking like you (including me ;) ), look at what has been posted on the EU thread, right on topic actually concerning Germany:


http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/471033-eu-politics-hamsterwheel-144.html#post7628438

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 18:41
Con, Norway isn't in the EU, thats why you can't send butter there...


I guess you're not getting it Stuckgear. So i'll try to explain it. The greatest benefit of EU membership is being part of the single market. There is no denying this. The reason some people come up with the EFTA argument is that they are under the false believe that it could replace the EU single market. It can't. Laugh all you want about the butter in Norway but it's the clearest and simplest symptom and example of why the EFTA can't replace the EU single market. I figured smart fellas such as yourself would get that, but apparently it only warrants a smiley as answer.

Norway has some the highest barriers to it's market. I know, becausee I worked in a greenhouse in Norway growing roses. There is nothing more absurd then growing roses in one of the darkest and coldest countries of Europe. But the market is closed to foreign roses, so there's good money in it. This is just one of the many examples. Think of the expensive booze, subsidized farmers and outlawed products. Even though Norway is in a free trade area with tons of countries. Being in a free trade didn't stop Norway from banning foreign dairy produce. Hence by extension that Free Trade Area isn't all that free, and can't possibly replace EU single market.


now do please come up with a reasoned post, devoid of smilies on why I am wrong and why the EFTA can replace acces to the EU single market once you've marched out of the EU.

brickhistory
13th Jan 2013, 18:48
Direct Democracy doesn't work, it's ridiculous that you can expect people in a country where The Sun is the largest circulating newspaper to make an informed decision on the benefits of EU Membership or not.

This statement appears to state that the citizens of one country are to be considered "too stupid" to be allowed to vote on their future.

Is that indeed your contention?

If so, that would appear that only those "enlightened" EU citizens who think as you do get a vote and voice.

Am I misreading your meaning?

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 18:52
close but no cigar.

from errrm.. the EU itself:


Convention on a common transit procedure
The customs transit procedure enables goods to move more freely and simplifies customs formalities. It takes the form of a temporary suspension of the duties and taxes normally due on goods imported into the customs territory. This procedure is based on a convention between the EC and the countries of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA)

Customs transit is a customs procedure that facilitates the transport of goods:

between two points in the customs territory;
between two points in the customs territory, via a different customs territory;
between two or more different customs territories.
The system allows temporary suspension of the tariffs, taxes and commercial policy measures applicable to imports. It allows customs clearance formalities to be carried out at destination rather than at the point of entry into the customs territory.

For the EC, customs transit enables goods to move under the transit procedure from their point of entry into the EC to their place of customs clearance, where the customs and national taxation obligations are dealt with.

The Convention on a common transit procedure was set up in 1987. After the 1995 and 2004 enlargements of the EU, the contracting parties are now as follows:

the EC;
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Romania (' EFTA countries ' for the Convention).




a secondary point above is that the system *allows* for temporary suspension of tarriffs, it doesnt mean that all are and are still due in cases of onward processing.

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 18:54
yup, you're misreading my meaning, as stated just below that sentence. I am no anti democratic fascist cnt. I just think that direct democracy isn't a suitable mechanism to answer complex questions. You've got representative democracy for that, thus people electing representatives to voice their view on issues. I'm not arguing against Sun readers voting. I'm just arguing against an dangerous instrument as referendums.

Stuckgear, nice copy paste. But the point being? It just goes to show that your EFTA simplifies certain trade barriers and tariffs. It doesn't remove them. Thus EFTA is a giant misnomer because it's a not a free trade area. There's just been an unenforceable agreement to simplify certain procedures. That's why you still need tons of export papers to ship shit to Norway. Which was my main point and you haven't refuted.

KAG
13th Jan 2013, 18:56
I told you ;)

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 19:02
so what you are saying is that many people are too thick to understand and as such should be denied democratic voice?

perhaps then it's up to the petitioner to to state facts and not obfuscate. ironically by your own example if polled many sun readers either couldnt be arsed to vote seeing as they dont see how it would affect them, or follow simply the party line of Labour.

Telegraph readers however seem more inclined to be insistant on a referendum and their readership more inclined to vote 'out'.

so it comes down to, by your argument, allowing people to vote only if they vote they way you want them to vote.


very democratic..

yet two pages back you stated and i quote:

goes to show the enormous amount of freedom that has been created through the EU

butter ?

Ronald Reagan
13th Jan 2013, 19:05
Norway sounds real good to me!

I remember when in Holland being asked when we in Britain would be getting the Euro. My reply was ''Never I hope'', the total look of shock and lack of understanding was unreal. On the continent the whole project is an obsession, most Brits simply don't feel the same way or have a desire for the United States of Europe.

I think I will have to join UKIP, they are our only hope!

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 19:12
I am starting to repeat myself, never a good sign in any argument. Not a fan of direct democracy (such as referendums) big fan of representative democracy. If you can't tell the difference or keep putting words in my mouth, what's the point?

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 19:19
but it's ok for you to put words into the mouths of others then..

but your argument of representative democracy falls flat when more than 50% demand a referendum but are denied one (across more than 1 EU state).. so what you are saying is that the minority (government) denying the majority (the electorate) a democratic choice is in fact democracy!

so while actually have put words in the mouths of others, you shriek about the same when people are trying to understand your presentation..

more of a case do as i tell you, not as i do.. and that works with your form of democracy too.

brilliant Komrade!

wings folded
13th Jan 2013, 19:20
Since when should any sovereign country's adherence to whatever allegiance be subject to US approval?

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 19:28
but your argument of representative democracy falls flat when more than 50% demand a referendum but are denied one (across more than 1 EU state).. so what you are saying is that the minority (government) denying the majority (the electorate) a democratic choice is in fact democracy!

As mentioned about 4 times, not against democracy, but against referendums because

they tend to simplify complicated problems and reduce them to yes or no answers. Difficulties in formulating the questions and interpreting the outcome are also mentioned. Furthermore, in certain cases they may lead to low turnout and lack of interest, for example when referendums are held often and concern highly technical matters. In these cases, a legitimacy problem arises. It has also been claimed that, by using referendums, decision-making on important issues is left to those with the least political knowledge and experience who are highly likely to be influenced by sudden swings in opinion. An additional problem is that referendums may undermine representative democracy. Furthermore, they give an inadequate picture of the will of the people and offer politicians an opportunity to avoid taking a position on sensitive issues.

so in a representative democracy if 50% of the people demand a certain change they will vote for the party that promises to enact that demand, if it's a sensible demand of course. With 50% of the vote you have a majority and can act on the demands of the people. See, no referendum needed. So now all you need to do is get 50% of the people to vote for UKIP, simples.

Shriek, me?

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 19:34
so in a representative democracy if 50% of the people demand a certain change they will vote for the party that promises to enact that demand, if it's a sensible demand of course. With 50% of the vote you have a majority and can act on the demands of the people. See, no referendum needed.

yet twice the UK electorate has been denied a voice europe despite party manifestos and pldges prior to election. ireland had a vote but voted the wrong way and were told to vote again.

Switzerland seems to do ok for butter.. or does it? hmmm.

i do however agree with you on the point of a large portion of the electorate being dumber than a box of rocks.. the UK electorate vote labour in three times on the trot and there's still a huge number of them despite labour's monumental f.f. screw ups that still not only vote, but swallow every line of theirs without question.. so your point there is made.

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 19:43
That's why the UKIP is doing so well, because the Tories lied one to many times. It's forcing Tories and Labour to be more honest about the EU or risk loosing voters to the UKIP. Representative democracy at work. Now you just need to get more people to vote for the UKIP and you can walk out the EU through an act of Parliament.

You mentioned Zwitserland. The reason why they got plenty of butter is this
in 1992, Switzerland and the EU agreed on a package of seven sectoral agreements signed in 1999 (known in Switzerland as "Bilaterals I"). These include: free movement of persons, technical trade barriers, public procurement, agriculture and air and land transport.

Basically Switzerland became a part of the Single Market without having a say in it. Norway even though it's in the same EFTA opted to keep their barriers and tariffs. However

wings folded
13th Jan 2013, 19:48
i do however agree with you on the point of a large portion of the electorate being dumber than a box of rocks.. the UK electorate vote labour in three times on the trot and there's still a huge number of them despite labour's monumental f.f. screw ups that still not only vote, but swallow every line of theirs without question.. so your point there is made.


Could you try re-expressing the above, but this time putting the words in a sequence which actually makes sense?

I have read and read again your post, and have no clue as to what you try to convey.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 19:58
well both labour and the tories lied too many times and Miliband and Cameron, it's npt that they are being forced to be more honest about the EU it's that they still cannot be honest about the EU. that is probably a key reason why the uk electorate is getting fed up with the EU issue.


so Switzerland, negotiated terms of the EFTA, and yet while Norway negotiaited their terms, which resulted in the 'great butter drought of 2011', yet you implied that the EFTA was pointless and i quote: "EFTA is a free trade deal with so many exceptions and loopholes and opt outs that it barely makes an impact".


the point is that the UK should negotiate what is right for it and if the terms negotiated are more detrimental then beneficial, then walk away.

reposted from previous:

form a Civitas study:

Would there be a cost of leaving the EU?

The author concludes that, if the UK were to leave the EU, there would be no net loss of jobs or trade. However, to draw any such conclusion involves complex calculations, and it is widely accepted that assumptions have to be made that can influence the final figure. The author provides a range of estimates from ‘rock bottom’, through ‘most likely’, to ‘high’. His rock-bottom figure draws largely on official sources and deploys the most cautious of assumptions. The net costs of EU membership are appraised in five areas: EU regulation, the common agricultural policy, net payments to EU institutions, the single market, and inward investment. In keeping with earlier cost-benefit studies the author’s results are
expressed as a percentage of GDP. In this Introduction the
estimates are in pounds. Overall, the net cost of remaining in the EU ranges from the rock-bottom estimate of £15 billion to the ‘most likely’ of £40 billion.
the EU is unfortunately in decline and has been for a while.
the civitas study was published in 2004.


The author questions whether it is wise to link our fortunes to a region of the world with a poor record of economic growth and whose share of both world markets and GDP is destined to fall. Even the European Commission takes a gloomy view of the EU’s prospects.17 In its December 2002 review it forecast a 44 per cent decline in the EU-15 share of global GDP from 18 per cent in 2000 to ten per cent in 2050. In 2050, as in 1950 and 2000, the three most populous countries in the world are
likely to be India (1.6 billion), China (1.5 billion) and the USA (0.4 billion). The working-age population of the EU, even after its current enlargement to 25 members, is projected to decline by 20 per cent to 30 per cent by 2050; whereas the working-age population of the USA is expected to increase by nearly one-third.
Civitas does not take a corporate view about leaving the EU, but a calm and measured public debate is long overdue and Ian Milne’s essay is an admirable effort to illuminate the discussion.
since 2004, the economic situation in the EU has got progressively worse, this was before the Greek, Spanish, Italian, Irish, French, Portugese problems became so entrenched remember.

the paper makes some conclusions:


In the absence of any convincing evidence in the UK or elsewhere that the Single Market has actually delivered net benefits for the economies of member states, it is safe to conclude that at best its benefits and costs cancel each other out, and that at worst the costs could exceed the benefits by a considerable margin.
If the UK withdrew from the Single Market, what would be the
impact on the British economy? Recent cost-benefit studies (See Chapter 9, p. 36) suggest that the net impact would range between neutral and beneficial (i.e. being outside the EU is better than being inside). Other sections of this paper indicate that, if the UK left the EU, there would be zero economic impact on both inward investment (Chapter 6: p. 19) and tariffs (Chapter 10, p. 40), with, implicitly, a zero net impact for UK jobs.

The overall conclusion is that, inside the Single Market, the
balance of costs and benefits for the UK economy is zero, that it could be negative, and that the UK would not suffer economically by being outside the Single Market.

in terms of future cost on the UK (and Germany)


Though all EU countries have ageing populations the problem is especially severe on the Continent, where, with the exception of the Netherlands, pay-as-you-go (i.e. non-funded) pension systems are the rule, and demography is particularly worrying.8 As pension crises deepen, pressure will grow for EU-wide ‘solidarity’—in practice, for UK taxpayers to help fund bankrupt continental systems.
The UK and Germany already massively subsidise the rest of the EU, especially continental farmers, through the mechanism of the EU Budget. So asking those countries to pay more would not exactly come as a surprise. Some argue that the Maastricht ‘no bailout’ clause,9 which in theory prevents one member-state bailing out another, would protect the UK from demands for pension subsidies.
However, the precedent of the Growth and Stability Pact (GSP), whose legal base is (was) also in Maastricht, and which is (was) supposed to guarantee the stability of the single currency, is not encouraging. If push comes to shove, the bail-out clause will be shredded as ruthlessly and comprehensively as was the noweviscerated GSP. The consequence could only be an increased net cost burden on the UK due to its EU membership, especially if by
then the UK had joined the euro and consequently lost control of its own economy. Even if the bail-out clause remained operative, and continental member states funded their rising pension obligations by raising taxes, tax harmonisation (see above) would mean that an indirect burden fell on the British economy.

side notes:

Two of the five cost-benefit analyses cited above conclude—
like this paper—that the net cost to the UK of EU membership is substantial

The UK net contribution to Brussels is an ongoing pure cash
transfer of the order of a minimum of 0.5 per cent of UK GDP, with no offsetting benefit. That figure is likely to be understated.

And still, no one can post a factual unbiased benefit to the UK of EU membership, particularly anything cannot be provied under EFTA.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 19:59
I have read and read again your post, and have no clue as to what you try to convey.

never mind.. try sleeping on it.

or sobering up.

wings folded
13th Jan 2013, 20:14
never mind.. try sleeping on it.

I am not sure that I can be bothered.

or sobering up.

Pathetic. I am totally sober. Your ramblings leave a margin of doubt however...

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 20:16
ahh all the left are capable of doing.. you carry on there.

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 20:19
The way Switzerland has been co-opted surprised me as well. I am dealing with Norway a lot more and it's a hassle shipping goods there. I must note however that...

Tariffs on Swiss manufactures are generally low, and in principle there are no quantitative restrictions, anti-dumping, countervailing or safeguard actions.
However, in a number of Swiss sectors, the market entry has long suffered from informal barriers, which can be attributed to a legacy of weak anti-cartel legislation, specific and protective technical regulations, certain investment restrictions, and exclusive rights under intellectual property legislation.

OK little thought experiment. We have to examples of countries outside the EU but economically quite connected. Switzerland and Norway. These two countries, both in the EFTA have taken two different approaches to dealing with the EU.

Switzerland has chosen to be nearly completely part of the single market without having influence on how it's run. It's a member in every way but having a seat at the table. Norway has chosen to created high barriers and tariffs, and thus have a huge distorted internal market. To very attractive choices indeed. Either you're in but don't have a say or you're free but you've created a distorted market.

The UK walks out of the EU has to renegotiate it's trade deals with the rest of the EU. Do you reckon the EU might be slightly miffed and give you a worse deal then unrestricted access to the single market? The UK imports more from other EU countries then it exports to them. Will be mighty expensive sealing up that border in Northern Ireland.


The point is that the UK should negotiate what is right for it and if the terms negotiated are more detrimental then beneficial, then walk away.

That is you assuming the UK will have the upper hand in that negotiation? That is interesting indeed. Not many experts would agree with you on that. It's why threatening to walk out the EU gets you a lot more exemptions and opt-outs then actually walking out.

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 20:32
It's why threatening to walk out the EU gets you a lot more exemptions and opt-outs then actually walking out.

yay!


we got there in the end.



the thing is, as we have discussed, and it seems agreed on, is that the political masters have and continue to peddle false arguments, facts and reasoning that we must remain in the EU no matter what. as the results will be catastrophic and the UK populace will be eating sh1t and living in mud huts inside of a week..

as previously posted, the costs of being out of the EU are negated by the current costs of being in, so in fact the UK would see little change from the norm.

as such we are in a position to negotiate terms that are more beneficial to the UK. the EU and particularly Germany want the UK in as Germany and the UK are the largest contributors economically and if the UK walks Germany cannot shoulder the costs by itself, hence the possible economic implosion of the EU.

so we are at a crucial stage to negotiate the better terms and the worst case scenario if the UK walks.. no change.

this is not so much a point of the UK departing the EU but securing the best position for itself and with its currency. of course what is getting the sh1ts up the EU as a political edifice is that not only could the UK walk and tank the EU, but if it renegotiates its terms other would want to also.

the EU has in effect painted itself into a corner, economically and possibly politically, what we do not need is another weak UK politician having a Chamberlain moment, and to be frank Cameron has not the back bone, Miliband not the brains, and Clegg is just a moron anyway.

ORAC
13th Jan 2013, 20:32
The UK imports more from other EU countries then it exports to them. So who suffers more with a tariff wall? :hmm:

stuckgear
13th Jan 2013, 20:40
Cameron must be bold and stand up to Germany - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9797329/Cameron-must-be-bold-and-stand-up-to-Germany.html)

It makes good sense to opt out of measures that have nothing to do with trade and everything to do with establishing a superstate

Sammie_nl
13th Jan 2013, 20:50
everybody suffers from an increase in barriers, the EU being the bigger market will suffer slightly less

as previously posted, the costs of being out of the EU are negated by the current costs of being in, so in fact we would see little change from the norm.

That is putting a lot of thrust in a report that is in my opinion of a wingnut variety. If the costs of EU membership is so great and the benefits so little the UK would have been out long ago. They aren't and therefor I think it's safe to assume that the report you rely on is either biased, incompletely or willfully ignorant.

It's a shame most politicians are to gutless to defend their stance on the EU and use Brussels as an easy scapegoat, but such are the failing of our elected leaders. Choose what you choose to believe. In the end I believe that the EU has brought a bit more freedom then it takes, and in general is a good idea done badly.

Nick Riviera
13th Jan 2013, 21:12
"Please remember however, that IF a referendum is held, and I truly hope we do not take this option, then as most of the UK population are more concerned about the result of "celebrity" TV shows and whether Chelsea lose 3 0 to Ullapool Albion, the result would not really be wholly representative."

"Direct Democracy doesn't work, it's ridiculous that you can expect people in a country where The Sun is the largest circulating newspaper to make an informed decision on the benefits of EU Membership or not."

The above quotes from 2 of our pro-EU enthusiasts serve as possibly the best reason to withdraw from this undemocratic monstrosity. This is how the EU thinks and works. The sooner we are out of this mess the better.

Nick Riviera
13th Jan 2013, 21:18
"The UK imports more from other EU countries then it exports to them."

Think you need to digest what this means and why it negates the point you are trying to make.

hellsbrink
14th Jan 2013, 02:19
That is putting a lot of thrust in a report that is in my opinion of a wingnut variety. If the costs of EU membership is so great and the benefits so little the UK would have been out long ago. They aren't and therefor I think it's safe to assume that the report you rely on is either biased, incompletely or willfully ignorant.

And that shows the ignorance of the "pro" camp as they wilfully and happily ignore the ability of politicians to ignore anything and everything in their zeal to create some sort of larger "empire" for themselves. Anything that goes against what they think is derided as "wingnut variety" or "incompetence" or "ignorant" yet, when asked a simple question cannot answer it simply.

Bliar, the man in charge at the time of the Civitas report, was known for this. He was known for his dream, which he still has, to be the first President of a Federation of Democratic European States. This was the man who tried to hand Gibralter back to Spain against the express wishes of the people there, the man who willingly signed up to anything and everything that came out of Brussels irrespective of the harm it would do to the UK. This is the man who still harbours these dreams, and is willing to do whatever is necessary, including destroying the UK, to get what he wants.

And you say that scuzzball is to be more trusted than Civitas or the electorate? That all of the electorate is somehow stupid because 2.6 million of them buy the Sun? To give you a hint on what that means, that number is lower than the total electorate of Scotland, yet YOU, in your infinite wisdom, are willing to call every single adult in the UK "stupid" and "unable to make a choice" because YOU do not think they should be allowed that choice. And you say you believe in "democracy" yet are behaving as if the ability to choose via the ballot box should only be one similar to PRNK. That, my friend, says everything about you and those who believe the EU is somehow a "good thing".

So, again, what benefits does the EU give that could not be gained by simple treaties between countries which do not need the ridiculous edifice in Brussels?

Blacksheep
14th Jan 2013, 12:44
1,500 Conservative activists completed a survey on what DC should say in his Europe speech. 78% want an immediate "IN or OUT" referendum.

The party is reported to be shocked at how many party members gave the wrong answer to the question on "What is the main reason why DC is making a big speech on Europe" The right answer was of course "Because he wants Britain to have a fundamentally different relationship with Europe". Only 8% of party members gave this correct answer.

A massive 85% got it wrong by picking - "Because he needs to respond to the growing Euroscepticism within the party and the electorate"

One wonders if he'll pay attention and listen to the opinions of the grass roots membership? If he doesn't, he won't be party leader very much longer.

Lonewolf_50
14th Jan 2013, 13:30
In old China, mandarins weilded considerable influence and power. They were an institution for about 1300 years.

While the modern Eurocrat may not be related to a given royal family, as many were in old China, their proliferation within the EU makes one wonder what "imperial master" the modern day mandarins in Brussels serve.

Andy_S
14th Jan 2013, 13:48
If the costs of EU membership is so great and the benefits so little the UK would have been out long ago.

But it hasn't always been like that. It's just that it's been getting progressively worse and worse, to the point that there's no longer clearly a significant benefit to being in. This is why Euroscepticism in the UK is on the rise.

Regarding Cameron, , I’ve got a fair bit of sympathy with the bloke.

I suspect what he would like is to remain within Europe, but a better Europe - more democratic, more efficient, less corrupt, less wasteful, with the obsession with the trappings of a nation state watered down and legislation and decision making being undertaken at a national level with Brussels only ruling on matters they need to (as opposed to those they would like to).

I’m not saying it’s a realistic aim, but it’s a perfectly reasonable one. And one I would whole heartedly support.

Unfortunately, he’s caught between his Eurosceptic MP’s on one hand and an a strange alliance of the chattering classes and the banking industry on the other.

It’s virtually impossible for any politician to achieve a broad consensus on Europe.

Lon More
14th Jan 2013, 18:48
A massive 85% got it wrong by picking - "Because he needs to respond to the growing Euroscepticism within the party and the electorate"


Thereby putting party interest before the country's

Ronald Reagan
14th Jan 2013, 18:53
It is in the interest of the whole country to leave the EU ASAP.

Krystal n chips
15th Jan 2013, 03:29
Whilst the content of the forthcoming speech will be relevant in terms of his intentions, or rather it should be, there is a glimmer of hope here.

Notably that any referendum will not take place until after the next election.

This bland assumption / arrogance by CMD et al that they will actually win the next election suggests they have little or no idea as to how the electorate are going to react once the full effects of their austerity measures start to take effect over the next two years. Not forgetting the divorce from the marriage of convenience that is currently in place.

We can, I suppose, expect a steady campaign to "educate" the UK population as to the reason(s) as to why we should have a referendum and doubtless containing as many urban myths as they feel can be made plausible allied to enough jingoism to satisfy the appetites of many on here.

One speech from Cameron that will actually be worth waiting for.....his resignation being another.

Groundbased
15th Jan 2013, 06:05
Well that's an interpretation.

I don't think he said "we are going to win the next election outright and that is when I deem it will be the time for a referendum"

I think what he said was "there are some criteria that need to be met before a referendum is appropriate and these are: IF the conservatives win the next election outright, IF a settlement can be negotiated, IF he can persuade other EU countries that they want/need treaty change, and IF he thinks he can win it"

Actually the chance of all those being met is slim to zero so I think you can sleep easily in your bed.

Clearly the "winning the next election" bit is about trying to get core Tory and UKIP voters to vote Tory in the next election. That's called party politics and I would expect all the other parties to propose actions that suit their own agenda.

I'm sure we can expect plenty of "urban myths" from both sides of the argument.

Anyway if Labour win the next election Miliband will simply be faced with the same unfortunate choice. Terrified of leaving the EU but unable to give a referendum as he knows what the result will be. Expect more of the same shily shallying from them next time round.

Andy_S
15th Jan 2013, 09:12
This bland assumption / arrogance by CMD et al that they will actually win the next election suggests they have little or no idea as to how the electorate are going to react once the full effects of their austerity measures start to take effect over the next two years.

K ‘n’ C,

The only “bland assumption / arrogance” I see is your own assumption that the electorate are so horrified by the government’s austerity programme that they will, en-masse, rise up and deliver a humiliating beating to them at the next election.

I’ve no idea who, if anyone, will win the election. But believe me, there are a LOT of people out there who blame Labour for the economic mess we’re in, are unconvinced that they have put forward a credible alternative to austerity (and are aware that many of the culprits such as Balls still hold senior positions in the shadow cabinet) and recognize that public spending HAS to be reduced (even if they don’t necessarily agree with the way the axe is being wielded).

The next election is still very much up for grabs IMO.

yotty
15th Jan 2013, 09:21
UK's done good. 25% reduction in deficit. Not too much pain thus far!

Groundbased
15th Jan 2013, 09:49
The idea that what we are implementing equals austerity is a joke anyway. Overall government expenditure has increased.

The people of Greece and Spain could tell us a bit more about what it's like.

Low Flier
15th Jan 2013, 11:47
Bliar, the man in charge at the time of the Civitas report, was known for this. He was known for his dream, which he still has, to be the first President of a Federation of Democratic European States.

William Hague made a very funny point about that back in 2008.

Brown was Prime Minister and BLiar was itching to get the new job of President of the EU.

William Hague - The European President (2008) - YouTube

stuckgear
15th Jan 2013, 12:16
Anyway if Labour win the next election Miliband will simply be faced with the same unfortunate choice. Terrified of leaving the EU but unable to give a referendum as he knows what the result will be. Expect more of the same shily shallying from them next time round.


Milivolt has already laid his stall out. No referendum. the electorate will not be heard no matter what they say.

Lonewolf_50
15th Jan 2013, 12:48
William Hague made a very funny point about that back in 2008.

In that youtube, is that David Cameron ... the gent with the purple tie behind the speaker?

airship
15th Jan 2013, 13:05
Low Flier, I've never appreciated the voice of William Hague. His voice and intonations (at least in public) sound completely unnatural. Sort of like listening to the sermon of an ageing Anglican preacher in a small church where thieves had plundered all the copper on the roof recently. I ignore if he has a wife or children, but I would dread the consequences of "being read bed-time stories in the same voice" if I were one of his children. :uhoh:

All I can truly say is that whenever William Hague (eventually gets fed up with UK politics), numerous International news channels (the 1st being Sky), would employ him at 10x times previous salary, just because he sounds so plausible or at least evangelical, whatever nonsense he's going to utter next?! :O

vulcanised
15th Jan 2013, 14:23
From what I recall, Hague has a rather dishy wife (Ffion?).

Agree about his voice!

airship
15th Jan 2013, 14:54
Ronald_Reagan wrote: It is in the interest of the whole country to leave the EU ASAP. Does it at all matter what you wrote, as "Ronald Reagan"?!

Seriously, give us all a break...?! :ugh:

lasernigel
15th Jan 2013, 15:33
Don't you see that the new found liberty of Eastern Europe the economic development of these coutries and the temporary economic migration of Poles and Czech goes to show the enormous amount of freedom that has been created through the EU.

All I'll say on that is God help those two countries if they join the Euro as planned. Inflation and prices of goods will go up on joining, however wages will remain the same. Dr's and teachers are paid pittances compared with the rest of the EU. There are lots of qualified teachers who can't even get a full time job, they offer them 10 -15 hrs a week at the same wage as bar staff. Waitresses and bar staff are lucky to get 15 -20 Zloty's an hour, they all rely on tips. Those countries will go into melt down the day they convert.

stuckgear
15th Jan 2013, 15:55
All I'll say on that is God help those two countries if they join the Euro as planned. Inflation and prices of goods will go up on joining, however wages will remain the same. Dr's and teachers are paid pittances compared with the rest of the EU. There are lots of qualified teachers who can't even get a full time job, they offer them 10 -15 hrs a week at the same wage as bar staff. Waitresses and bar staff are lucky to get 15 -20 Zloty's an hour, they all rely on tips. Those countries will go into melt down the day they convert.

aside from being locked into a currency they have no control over.

Krystal n chips
15th Jan 2013, 17:00
" The next election is still very much up for grabs IMO."

I am inclined to agree actually. but clearly I hope what Cameron and co.have sowed comes back to bite them in the way their policies are about to start biting the populace.

Ancient Observer
15th Jan 2013, 17:07
Whilst I'd rather be debating the footnotes to das Kapital with my mates in the SWP, I do think that Cameron is doing sooooo much better than the multi-millionaire Millibands.

After all, even Balls agrees that for every 18p of Tory cuts, the Labour lot would cut 17p. As Balls said that, his hope of being elected must have died sharpish.

On the OP, the nice people from the USA can keep their bloody noses out.

The UK will never withdraw from the EU. The UK civil service would not let them.

The UK civil service treat themselves to huge cash bribes for going to EU meetings. They would not let themselves lose that.

stuckgear
15th Jan 2013, 17:09
but clearly I hope what Cameron and co.have sowed comes back to bite them in the way their policies are about to start biting the populace.

and what labour have sowed comes back to bite them too ?

where does that leave you Komrade.. Nick Clegg, the Kommunist party, UKIP ?

stuckgear
15th Jan 2013, 17:18
After all, even Balls agrees that for every 18p of Tory cuts, the Labour lot would cut 17p. As Balls said that, his hope of being elected must have died sharpish.



well more his calculations for 1bn would actually cost 2bn..


Labour's proposal has attracted criticism but the policy comes as the party faces increasing pressure to reveal its fiscal plans, and its announcement is likely to be seen as positioning by the party ahead of next week's Commons vote on capping benefit rises.

"Ed Balls is trying to spend the same money twice," the source said.

"That means more borrowing and more debt - exactly how Labour got us into this mess in the first place."


but then economics has never been Balls' strong point..

11 January 2010 (Grauniad)

The schools (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/schools) secretary Ed Balls (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/edballs) was today accused of wasting more than £1bn on red tape for parents and teachers – a month after he told schools to turn off lights to save money.
An education bill, which will have its second reading in the Commons today, would cost the public £1.1bn over a decade if it becomes law, government statistics compiled by the Liberal Democrats show.
The Children, Schools and Families bill has been heavily criticised by parents, professors and teachers who dismiss much of it as "bureaucratic" and "pointless".
The National Union of Teachers warned that one of the bill's clauses, which forces teachers to hold a licence to practise, would be an "entirely unnecessary, pointless hurdle". The government's figures show this measure alone would cost the public £94m over a decade – over £9m each year.

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 09:30
So, Miliband says no referendum..

Ed Miliband: 'EU referendum is not in the national interest'

Speaking on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, the Labour leader Ed Miliband rules out a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

in other words, the UK must maintain it's current relationship or head for political integration

and Cameron's position is that we should negotiate a better position all be it later on..


A report backed by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, will warn that “the status quo is no longer an option” and demand “a new and different relationship” with the European Union.

The Fresh Start group of Conservative backbenchers will throw down the gauntlet to the Prime Minister two days before he delivers a speech on EU membership, as it sets out proposals to return responsibility for laws to Westminster and cut Britain’s bill for EU membership by billions of pounds a year.

The group’s Manifesto for Change could become the Tory blueprint for EU membership if Mr Cameron wins the next election, senior figures in the party have said.

Mr Cameron will outline his vision for Britain’s future in the EU in his long-awaited speech in Amsterdam on Friday. He is expected to set out plans to renegotiate the country’s relationship with Europe which will then be the subject of a referendum, probably in 2018.

ORAC
16th Jan 2013, 10:00
The EU is already committed to further integration as a result of the decisions made to attempt to sort out the Euro. Those changes are inevitable. Thus maintaining the status quo is not an option.

The ship MS Federal Europe is about to sail; the only options are whether to stay on board or get off. All else is posturing.

stuckgear
16th Jan 2013, 12:42
On wonders what Obama would make of the use of Propaganda...


EU Propaganda in schools..


The EU propaganda machine targets our children | The Economic Voice (http://www.economicvoice.com/the-eu-propaganda-machine-targets-our-children/50027339#axzz2I9542pRY)


Our children are now being fed into the European Union propaganda sausage machine.

The EU, as the Express explains (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/296361/EU-brainwash-our-children), is not only supplying brightly coloured EU branded pencil cases to our schools it also has a video where an EU official, Judith Schilling, says, with a beaming smile, that the EU needs to get to the children early enough before they have formed ‘prejudices’ or become ‘misinformed’ about the EU.

The Deputy Leader and education spokesman of UKIP, Paul Nuttall MEP, is quoted in the Express article as saying “It is what we always suspected but could never prove. Now we can. They [the EU] are effectively using our cash to brainwash our children. And it has to stop.’’
How can we allow this blatant propaganda to be delivered to our children in their most formative years?

One would bet that there are no references to how much the whole shebang costs, or why there is social unrest in Greece (and elsewhere), or why the IMF is having to cobble together yet another bail-out fund. No, what all this propaganda contains is ‘fun’ stuff. And of course, as she says it’s all. (No! Taxpayers foot the bill my dear.)
Parents are continually told about how TV, whether it be violence or sex based, has an effect on children. So, if children are so susceptible, why are we allowing this political brainwashing to take place?
Would we allow banks or fast food providers to plaster our schools with ‘Have fun saving with Barcloyds’ and ‘Halibos credit cards are fun’? Or maybe ‘Slim with McBurger King’?
Of course not. Well we wouldn’t but you can bet the banks and fast food vendors would be tripping over themselves and each other to get in on the act given just a 1% chance of access to children at an impressionable age.

This EU project is a planned and very sinister indoctrination of our most vulnerable whilst they are outside the control of their parents and it must be stopped. Surely even the most pro-EU amongst us must see that! Actually I wouldn’t bet on that one, would you?