FabSwingers.com forum: Where there is no vision, the people perish

By *nleashedCraken OP Man
over a year ago

Widnes

We haven’t been over-endowed with European vision of late either for or against the European Union. As a pro-European I, like many others, just took for granted that we would stay in the EU so, over two years ago now, I said and did little about it, I now believe that it is the duty of all those who do not favour breaking away from our European friends and partners to do all they can put this mistake right.

To my surprise my thinking on the European Union has developed since I embarked on the anti-Brexit cause two year ago: I now firmly believe that the European Union is the greatest international venture for peace, prosperity and freedom in the history of civilization.

The last words of Winston Churchill’s famous Zurich speech of September 1946 were ‘Let Europe Arise’. Churchill had helped save Europe and, at Zurich and elsewhere, inspired the Europeans to create a Union. At Zurich, in words fashioned deliberately by the master wordsmith, he called for “a kind of United States of Europe”. This is what he said more fully, just 16 months after VE day:

“I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

…We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living… …I must give you warning, time may be short… …If we are to form a [kind of] United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now... …The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations… ...Therefore I say to you ‘Let Europe arise!’”.

And to those who say Churchill intended Britain to stay out of this European Union, which is the name it did take, note that throughout his speeches he continually says and uses “we” not “you”. ‘We must build a kind of…’, ‘If we want to form…’ ‘… we must begin now’.

Since Europe took recognisable shape in the tribes and then nations succeeding the Roman Empire on this continent, it has never, before the EU and its sister defence organisation NATO, enjoyed 70 continuous years of peace, as has been the case within the entire territory of the EU for its entire life, even as it has dramatically expanded. The apogee of centuries of wars and revolutions were the two European-cum-world wars of the 20th century, 31 years which virtually destroyed Europe and almost pushed it in to a modern Dark Age of stupefying savagery and barbarism, including the return of mass slavery in Europe for the first time since the abolition of serfdom across most of the continent in the Middle Ages. It sounds astonishing but there were more slaves in Europe in 1943, including whole peoples and nations, than at any time in its history. That was just 75 years ago.

The end of Europe’s last Dark Age saw the stat of European unity. 70 years of the EU has ended the darkness possibly forever. And it so obviously isn’t a co-incidence. Taking the EU and NATO together, and they do go together, today’s European Union has at its heart democracy, conciliation, trade, respect for borders, nationalities and minorities, and collective non-aggressive security. The EU is the greatest international force for civilization because it is successful as an engine of peace, prosperity and freedom. If the EU fails or is weak, where in the world today, or in history, is there any organisation or international union as strong or stronger in pursuit of peace, prosperity and freedom? The United Nations? The models of the Greek, Roman, American, or British empires? We’ve all witnessed America’s attempts in Vietnam, Iran, Korea and Afghanistan and I don’t think our American friends have improved on our or the Romans’ attempts at reconciling peace and civilization, never mind prosperity and freedom for all. Our American friends have combined a fervent belief in the manifest destiny of their union, as a beacon of liberty, with coming to terms with slavery, civil war, and a lot of its history colonising others with corrupting effects on itself and a devastating effect on those it colonised not dissimilar to our [British] and the French’s experience of imperialism.

I don’t raise these points to be anti-American; I’m not. In fact I’m very pro-American and America. I raise them to point out that no American leader or politician would describe America, with all its faults, as “the worst possible America except for all the other Americas that have been tried from time to time”. Yet virtually no-one in Britain ever speaks more positively then that about the European Union. The key point here is that in the US any criticism of the founding fathers and their great deeds is beyond the pale, despite the obvious the contradictions, whereas with the EU it is the reverse, the only thing we do is to be hypercritical, although its record is in many ways superlative. Unforgivably all this political Euroscepticism ended in the tears of June 23rd 2016. But far more importantly, the scepticism is wrong. On any fair assessment the European Union has been at least as successful as the United States as a force for peace, prosperity and freedom.

We should be celebrating the success of the EU at spreading and extending democracy both in Europe and around the world. We should talk about the manifest destiny of the European Union, and its mission to lead a free democratic Europe and inspire a free world? We should quote the founding treaties in the same way Americans so reverentially quote their founding fathers? The Treaty of Paris of 1951, in many ways the Magna Carta of the EU, opens with these words:

“Considering that world peace can be safeguarded only by creative efforts commensurate with the dangers that threaten it; Convinced that the contribution which an organised and vital Europe can make to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations; Recognizing that Europe can be built only through practical achievements which will first of all create real solidarity…; Resolved to substitute for age-old rivalries the merging of their essential interests to create… the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts”

Surly this is no less profound or significant than:

"We the people… in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”

And doesn’t include any phrases like “free persons”, “those bound to service”, “excluding Indians not taxed” and representation of blacks in Congress to be calculated as “three-fifths of all other persons”

Unlike Americans, we Europeans neither get emotional about the EU nor read emotion into the EU’s great achievements and declarations. Is it because of the very fact that the EU is international, whereas the United States was founded as a nation? Even if so, that does not explain why many in Britain (or maybe just England) have a uniquely unfavourable view of the EU. It is astonishing that the EU, the only successful large international union of democracies in the world, has become, in much of Britain’s media and the popular imagination, an assault on democracy itself, whilst ‘we the people’ are being seriously scarified into ‘taking back control’ only from ourselves.

We also need to kill the myth that the EU is in peril of some sort of collapse. The EU is not collapsing any time soon, whatever Britain does with Brexit. Since its creation the EU has been constantly beset with nay-sayers questioning its viability and solidarity, as was the United States for its first century or so. Every time the EU faces a crisis, it is heading for the rocks; every time it embarks on a new project, it is a step too far; every time it plans for the next project, it is pie in the sky. This is the real Project Fear, except that the pies in the sky are mostly now the facts on the ground and ultimately the will to navigate the slings and arrows of outrageous failure was and is still there, and does and will win through. If there is one clear result of Brexit, whether it happens or not, it has been to inoculate even populist movements across the rest of the EU against similar exits. Across the whole EU, 68% now say their country has benefited from EU membership and 62% - a record number – consider their country’s membership of the EU to be a good thing. In all three key respects; peace, prosperity, security; the EU is far more than the sum of its parts, and so obviously so that everyone who can wants to join, particularly after experiences of dictatorship (Portugal, Greece, Spain), occupation (Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics), colonialism (Cyprus, Malta), and civil war (Croatia, Slovenia). The statistics are extraordinary: every new country entering the EU gets a significant bounce and an on-going benefit: In the 5 years after the 2004 accession, average GDP growth in the new Member States rose by over 50%. In 1989 Poland had roughly the same GDP per capita as Ukraine. Today it is five times higher. No matter what some may say here in the UK, no one else is leaving anytime soon and the EU is not going to collapse, implode or anything else either. For most member countries and countries that want to join the EU is quite simply Project Prosperity, and it has been for us also.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCraken OP Man
over a year ago

Widnes

Ideas taken from lectures and speeches by Andrew Adonis.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

It's a well thought out piece..

Thanks for posting it..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

I am not a passionate European.

I never have been.

I am a pragmatic one, as I believe, are most.

It's a sensible, practical solution to a huge range of challenges too large for one country to solve.

Everything to maintaining peace on a warring continent, to projecting international power to challenging the power of multinationals.

However, it comes with its own problems too.

It's difficult to use the emotive language that nationalists use because it is by its nature a bureaucratic, passionless creation. That's its strength. It what ensures cooperation.

If it is smashed then we will all suffer as lesser entities. We doubly so as we retain a vain image of ourselves as an imperial power and believe that we will be done special favours not open to others.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The biggest mental block i can see is the idea of “birth right”.

Not many people have an issue of someone moving from a northern town to London to make more money.

No one (really) minds a London bankers taxes paying to support regenerating a welsh mining village.

We tend to treat the UK as a whole.

But once people or money cross the English Channel many’s views seem to flip.

In America, despite being many states which seem to act almost as independent countries at times, there is still the (possibly over zealous) concept of the whole. Of America. You are born American first. And then Texan.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

Winston Churchill never wanted Britain to be part of a European Union, here's why....

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-was-all-in-favour-of-a-united-europe-as-long-as-it-didnt-include-britain/

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Winston Churchill never wanted Britain to be part of a European Union, here's why....

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-was-all-in-favour-of-a-united-europe-as-long-as-it-didnt-include-britain/"

Interesting article. Thx.

Feels there’s two arguments being made.

1. Is a closer Europe a good thing?

2. Should we be part of it?

My reading is Churchill thought yes to one. And possibly no to 2.

Interesting he talked about our insular nature and commonwealth spirit. Both I imagine were at peak after the war.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Ideas taken from lectures and speeches by Andrew Adonis."

That would be Andrew Adonis the fanatical remainer then. Funny that Andrew Adonis talks about promoting and spreading democracy further afield through the EU, when he admits himself he has never accepted the biggest democratic vote ever to take place here in the UK, which is to leave the EU. Andrew Adonis is not a democrat, and so has little authority to lecture others on the merits of democracy, when he doesn't believe in it himself. The EU itself is not democratic. Time and time again countries in Europe have voted against the EU, but have been cajoled, manipulated and compelled to vote again until they gave the 'right' answer. Adonis compares the EU to America in your OP, but never once mentions that the American President is directly elected by the American people through the ballot box, but the European President is not. Everyone in America knows who Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are because they fought a democratic election campaign that the American people could vote in. Trump was elected through the ballot box by the people and can be removed through the ballot box by the people at the next election if the American people so wish. Does everyone in Europe know who Jean Claude Juncker is? I doubt it. As Nigel Farage put it when Herman Van Rompuy became European President years ago,...."What i want to know, what everyone in Europe wants to know is WHO ARE YOU?! I've never heard of you, no one in Europe has ever heard of you. I would like to ask you President, who voted for you? And what mechanism do the people's of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy? I sense though, that you're competent, and capable and dangerous and i have no doubt that its your intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of European Nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the concept of the very existence of nation states, maybe thats because you come from Belgium which is pretty much a non country. Since you took over we've seen Greece reduced to nothing more than a protectorate, sir you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and i can say with confidence that i can speak on the behalf of the majority of the British people in saying we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you're put out to grass the better."

The European people don't vote for a European President and the European people have no mechanism to democratically remove a European President either.

On other points about the EU not failing, is Adonis ignoring the migration crisis in the EU, is he ignoring the Eurozone crisis? Both are failures and are ongoing failures. Perhaps the biggest one of all he seems to be ignoring the rise of Eurosceptic parties all over the European continent, who have been gaining bigger vote shares with each passing election. I think many Pro-Europeans are going to be in for a very big shock in the European MEP elections in 2019, because we will see for the fisrt time in the history of the European Parliament a majority of Eurosceptic MEP's elected into the chamber.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

"Winston Churchill never wanted Britain to be part of a European Union, here's why....

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-was-all-in-favour-of-a-united-europe-as-long-as-it-didnt-include-britain/

Interesting article. Thx.

Feels there’s two arguments being made.

1. Is a closer Europe a good thing?

2. Should we be part of it?

My reading is Churchill thought yes to one. And possibly no to 2.

Interesting he talked about our insular nature and commonwealth spirit. Both I imagine were at peak after the war. "

A close trading arangement ala the common market is great and if we had a vote to all return to that I would vote for it but this ever closer political union will end in tears and as I have said many times why I voted leave.

I dont recall many nations being anti the CM but since free movement/ the euro etc came to the fore the complaints have rising, Even Mrs T was very keen on the CM but without the political interference

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It’s a worry that an MEP doesn’t know his prime ministers.

The EU has a different way of doing democracy than us. No one elected farage (directly). How do I go about unelecting him ?

I always go back to the question of “can the president push through a change the MEPs don’t support”.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

"Ideas taken from lectures and speeches by Andrew Adonis.

The European people don't vote for a European President and the European people have no mechanism to democratically remove a European President either.

Quite difficult to work out your point in this rambling.

So the same people voting on the same question were not cajoled or manipulated the first time? You claim that they were but were too clever and saw through it. If the same people (other than the dead ones and new ones) take a different view this time they will have become less able to make a decision and therefore their opinion is no longer valid?

Contradictory drivel.

You'd prefer a directly elected EU President then?

You do understand that he is elected by member states so that he will not be in a position to overrule anything that goes against their will don't you?

There is not a mechanism for the British public to remove a Prime Minister either.

There is a mechanism for the European President to be removed by other institutions in the EU, but only the party can remove a British Prime Minister. Even a parliamentary vite of confidence in the individual is not binding. Only in the government.

External migration pressures would be even more chaotic without anu cooperation.

The Euro only exists because nation states and their populations were clamouring for it. It should have been limited to the northern European states. The crisis was caused by sovereign states spending and corruption.

The "Eurosceptic" parties don't want to leave the EU. We're the only ones dumb enough to do that.

They just want to loosen the rules that constrain corruption, and worker exploitation and budget responsibility.

Look harder at their policies.

I really wonder what your Google and Facebook information bubble looks like.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCraken OP Man
over a year ago

Widnes

"Winston Churchill never wanted Britain to be part of a European Union, here's why....

www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-was-all-in-favour-of-a-united-europe-as-long-as-it-didnt-include-britain/

Interesting article. Thx.

Feels there’s two arguments being made.

1. Is a closer Europe a good thing?

2. Should we be part of it?

My reading is Churchill thought yes to one. And possibly no to 2.

Interesting he talked about our insular nature and commonwealth spirit. Both I imagine were at peak after the war.

The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it?"

The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it?

The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union .

Let's stop the nonsense here and now.

Treaty of Rome 1957. This is what we joined. Pay particular attention to Article 3c but Article 2 is also pretty instructive:

"RTICLE 1

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.

ARTICLE 2

The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and

progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote

throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a

continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the

standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.

ARTICLE 3

For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as

provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein

(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative

restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having

equivalent effect;

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial

policy towards third countries;

persons, services and capital;

(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;

(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;

(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not

distorted;

(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States

can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;

(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the

proper functioning of the common market;

(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment

opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of

living;

(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic

expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;

(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade

and to promote jointly economic and social development."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it?

The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union .

Let's stop the nonsense here and now.

Treaty of Rome 1957. This is what we joined. Pay particular attention to Article 3c but Article 2 is also pretty instructive:

"RTICLE 1

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.

ARTICLE 2

The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and

progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote

throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a

continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the

standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.

ARTICLE 3

For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as

provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein

(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative

restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having

equivalent effect;

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial

policy towards third countries;

persons, services and capital;

(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;

(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;

(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not

distorted;

(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States

can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;

(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the

proper functioning of the common market;

(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment

opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of

living;

(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic

expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;

(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade

and to promote jointly economic and social development.""

The common market we joined removed tariffs but non tariff barriers remained , individual countries had their own standards for products and services so no the common market we joined was very different from the custom union. See the quote from polotics .co.uk

nternal tariff and quota barriers within the EU were abolished in 1968 - 18 months ahead of schedule - but it was not until 1992 that the Single Market was deemed to have been completed.

In the absence of strong supranational and intergovernmental decision-making structures, it proved difficult to make progress on the more intangible barriers to free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, such as professional standards, regulations, persistent protectionist attitudes and of course divergent fiscal regimes. The oil crises of 1973 and 1980 reinforced protectionist attitudes where they survived.

The result was that during the 1970s and early 1980s, growth in the EU member states began to lag seriously behind that of international competitors. Efforts to establish a single market were meeting with limited success.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it?

The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union .

Let's stop the nonsense here and now.

Treaty of Rome 1957. This is what we joined. Pay particular attention to Article 3c but Article 2 is also pretty instructive:

"RTICLE 1

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY.

ARTICLE 2

The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and

progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote

throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a

continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the

standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it.

ARTICLE 3

For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as

provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein

(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative

restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having

equivalent effect;

(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial

policy towards third countries;

persons, services and capital;

(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;

(e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport;

(f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not

distorted;

(g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States

can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied;

(h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the

proper functioning of the common market;

(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment

opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of

living;

(j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic

expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources;

(k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade

and to promote jointly economic and social development."

nternal tariff and quota barriers within the EU were abolished in 1968 - 18 months ahead of schedule - but it was not until 1992 that the Single Market was deemed to have been completed.

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?"

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent"

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?"

it matters because he said that I didnt want to be in the customs union but wanted to be in the common market which he said were the same , they arent because the common market didnt have common standards etc and we could do trade deals with third party countries, that is a very fundamental change to what we signed up for, the treaty had lots of aims but as far as I can see short on detail, which is why we have had new treaties

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCraken OP Man
over a year ago

Widnes

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent"

True. The Common Market was more than the Customs Union. It was the Customs Union plus elements of what would become the Single Market. So it's impossible to say your in favour of a Common Market but not in favour of a Customs Union.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCraken OP Man
over a year ago

Widnes

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?

We couldn't do trade free deals in the Common Market either. In fact we've not been totally free to do trade deals since we joined EFTA in 1960.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?

Really?

What does this mean to you?

"(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCraken OP Man
over a year ago

Widnes

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?

You tend to speak more sence than a lot of BREXITERS but on this one you've got it completely the wrong way round.

It is the Customs Union that prevents us from doing free trade deals of our own.

It is the Single Market that demands the four freedoms of goods, services, Labour and capital.

The Common Market always included the Customs Union and was working towards a single market.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

Yep, what we all need is more neoliberalism.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?"

Doesn't really matter now does it.

The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail.

What's fundamentally changed? Article 50 came in with the Lisbon treaty. What's changed is we triggered article 50, and we're leaving the common market, customs union, single market or whatever else you care to call it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?

Doesn't really matter now does it.

The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail.

So you agree that the EU didn't fundamentally change from what we joined?

Super

Of course, as you are supporting our democratically elected Prime Minister's Brexit means Brexit without question we are actually more or less staying in all of those things but without the ability to influence them.

#Brexitwin

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?

Doesn't really matter now does it.

The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail.

So you agree that the EU didn't fundamentally change from what we joined?

Super

#Brexitwin"

No I didn't agree to any of what you just said. What I actually said was everything you posted doesn't matter because we've triggered article 50 and we're leaving. The Conservative party manifesto in the 2017 general election promised to leave the customs union and the single market, I expect the electorate to hold the tories feet to the fire on those promises. You can continue to try to put words in my mouth and use all the contortions of truth and twisted logic you like, the fact is we're leaving the EU and it's institutions in 2019. Roll on March.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCraken OP Man
over a year ago

Widnes

Absolutely no idea what point you're making.

We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?

Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent

Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail.

Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted?

What's fundamentally changed?

Doesn't really matter now does it.

The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail.

So you agree that the EU didn't fundamentally change from what we joined?

Super

#Brexitwin

Or are we?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy).

If there is no self harm from the promised land the should demand of their MPs why so Little has even done to date to deliver. Sniping from the sidelines and majestic falls on swords haven’t cut the mustard.

However as the tories didn’t get a working majority their manifesto is only worth so much. The will of the people can’t be inferred from their manifesto.

But if it could, and hasn’t been delivered, what steps should we be taking to prevent this. If we voted in the tories to be our vehicle to brexit, and while this isn’t their manifesto promise in full, should we not respect their deal as the country’s deal? After all a manifesto isn’t legally binding and there have been plenty of broken manifesto promises in the past. It is clearer the will of the people is for the tories to hold power (as that is what they voted for) than whixh if the many manifesto promises are the most sacrosanct.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy).

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

We will soon see

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

Oh you mean this lot?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-jacob-reesmogg-steve-baker-economists-for-free-trade-a8533021.html

No doubt by your past actions I'll see you in 24 hours

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

Neither King nor Keen support Economists for Free Trade.

Rather than yabbering; why not explain to us "remoaners" how unilaterally removing our tariffs will grow British industry and agriculture and drive job growth in the UK?

We obviously don't get it so rather than pointing to newspaper headlines and telling us to Google it, why don't you actually write it down. What happens, what are the consequences and what are the consequences that lead on from them?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. "

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. "

So...lost that point and bringing something else up then!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing.

So...lost that point and bringing something else up then!"

Lost what point? If SwinGlosCouple watched the video then it appears he's being selective about what he wants to talk about because he didn't mention the points Steve Keen raised about the European Central Bank.

As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. "

I did. I don’t know enough about their models to know if credit is really excluded as he suggests.

However that bit isn’t relevant to this thread.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing.

So...lost that point and bringing something else up then!

As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things. "

I think the point was that economist's for free trade are considered an absolute joke and are certainly not independent.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing.

So...lost that point and bringing something else up then!

As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things. "

Seems a lot of people have pointed out Keen's figures don't really add up and he is work is often ideologically motivated.

"Chris Auld notes that many of the arguments in Keen's "Debunking Economics" against modern economics are invalid. He points out that Keen's critique of perfect competition is based on mathematical mistakes, and that Keen's critique that modern economics does not consider dynamics is inconsistent with the kind of dynamics Keen proposes should be introduced.[14]

Matthijs Krul[15] maintains that Keen, while broadly accurate in his criticism of the neoclassical synthesis, generally misrepresents Marx's views in Debunking Economics and in earlier work when asserting that, in the production of commodities, machinery produces more value than it costs.[16]

Austrian-school economists Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan claim that Keen's 2001 book "suffers from many of the very faults of which he accuses the mainstream". They also claim that much of his work is "ideologically motivated even while criticising neoclassical economics for being ideological". They praise his critique of perfect competition, and his chapter on dynamic vs static models, whilst they criticise his attempts at objective value theory and what they claim is his misrepresentation of the Austrian interpretation of Say's law."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. "

Rather than yabbering; why not explain to us "remoaners" how unilaterally removing our tariffs will grow British industry and agriculture and drive job growth in the UK?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists.

As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say.

Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach.

Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto.

You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing.

So...lost that point and bringing something else up then!

As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things. "

On the euro point (one of many in one post and the least relevant to the thread) It’s interesting he pointed out the different inflation rates between euro countries as a sign of the problem. Why do you think different areas have different price rises when some economic models would have suggested the same prices would exist all things being equal. What’s not equal ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread