ChatterBank0 min ago
More Discord In The Eu
More discord from certain countries, they won’t be able to shove them on to the next country.
https:/
https:/
Answers
One thing that the Remainers are ignoring, is the lack of democracy in the E.U. John Major contemptuous
00:36 Sun 29th Apr 2018
“John Major contemptuously signed us up for the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum,”
Indeed. And that is why, as I’ve said once or twice, that I have said that 1992 marked the point when I believed more than ever that the UK needed to quit.
“And I don’t buy the ‘because we can vote them out’ argument as believing there are some more honest less Machiavellian MPs waiting in the wings is naive in the extreme.”
So basically then, it doesn’t matter whether or not we can elect our MPs because we don’t have a very good choice of candidates. Far better, presumably, to have no choice whatsoever and simply be ruled by a bunch of unelected foreign civil servants.
Of course the system of democracy in the UK is imperfect. There’s not a perfect system anywhere in the world. But to suggest that because of those imperfections we should sacrifice it entirely is not, perhaps, the most agreeable of solutions.
Indeed. And that is why, as I’ve said once or twice, that I have said that 1992 marked the point when I believed more than ever that the UK needed to quit.
“And I don’t buy the ‘because we can vote them out’ argument as believing there are some more honest less Machiavellian MPs waiting in the wings is naive in the extreme.”
So basically then, it doesn’t matter whether or not we can elect our MPs because we don’t have a very good choice of candidates. Far better, presumably, to have no choice whatsoever and simply be ruled by a bunch of unelected foreign civil servants.
Of course the system of democracy in the UK is imperfect. There’s not a perfect system anywhere in the world. But to suggest that because of those imperfections we should sacrifice it entirely is not, perhaps, the most agreeable of solutions.
I don't think many of them mentioned the grass being greener, Zacs. My view on the particular issue of democracy (or more properly sovereignty) is that however bad our own politicians may be (and we have a wide range from half-decent to absolutely appalling) they are far more under the electorate's control than the unelected civil servants running the EU will ever be. Neither UK voters nor any others have any control over the European Commission whatsoever. They cannot choose who the commissioners are and they cannot reject any they are dissatisfied with. Whether they are better or worse than elected UK politicians is immaterial.
I can understand anyone wanting us to leave the EU, and I can understand most of their reasons for wanting us to do so. What I can't understand though is the mentality of those who want the EU and euro to fail even though we won't be a part of either. The effect of such failures would be disastrous for our economy just when we don't need it. It is a bit like wishing next door's house would fall down even though it would bring yours down too.
The whole point of me joining in this thread was to point out the very undemocratic way MPs from both parties are trying to make it certain elements of the Brexit process law, so that a hard Brexit can’t happen. If, Cassa, you’re happy with that as a leave voter, then you’re even more confused about Brexit than you seem to be.
And for the record, I love being British (although I prefer to call myself English) and I’m a great believer in sovereignty.
And for the record, I love being British (although I prefer to call myself English) and I’m a great believer in sovereignty.
“What I can't understand though is the mentality of those who want the EU and euro to fail even though we won't be a part of either.”
The reasons are manifold. The EU itself suffers a level of democratic deficiency unseen anywhere else in Europe. Its officials have but one overriding priority – to preserve the integrity of the “European Project” come hell or high water. Nothing else matters. Their ultimate aim is to produce an homogenous blob of a federal organisation stretching from the North Atlantic to Asia over which the Apparatchiks will preside unchallenged by the messy business of democratic accountability. The result of this dogma is that pragmatism and consideration for the wellbeing of the citizens of the 28 nations comes a very distant second.
The manifestations of this are to be found all across Europe and in particular in the peripheral countries of the Eurozone. In those nations, countless millions of people have been condemned to penury because the single currency is a flawed project born of political vanity rather than sound fiscal policies.
The failure of both the EU and the Euro will indeed have profound effects on both members and non-members. But their continued existence will inflict continuing and increasing damage. The EU is a protectionist organisation which exists to prevent its members from trading outside the bloc other than on very disadvantageous terms. The question that needs to be asked when considering whether it is preferable for it to fail is do you want continued and increasing damage which will come with its existence or a short sharp shock that will accompany its failure. Because one thing is certain – there is no third alternative.
The reasons are manifold. The EU itself suffers a level of democratic deficiency unseen anywhere else in Europe. Its officials have but one overriding priority – to preserve the integrity of the “European Project” come hell or high water. Nothing else matters. Their ultimate aim is to produce an homogenous blob of a federal organisation stretching from the North Atlantic to Asia over which the Apparatchiks will preside unchallenged by the messy business of democratic accountability. The result of this dogma is that pragmatism and consideration for the wellbeing of the citizens of the 28 nations comes a very distant second.
The manifestations of this are to be found all across Europe and in particular in the peripheral countries of the Eurozone. In those nations, countless millions of people have been condemned to penury because the single currency is a flawed project born of political vanity rather than sound fiscal policies.
The failure of both the EU and the Euro will indeed have profound effects on both members and non-members. But their continued existence will inflict continuing and increasing damage. The EU is a protectionist organisation which exists to prevent its members from trading outside the bloc other than on very disadvantageous terms. The question that needs to be asked when considering whether it is preferable for it to fail is do you want continued and increasing damage which will come with its existence or a short sharp shock that will accompany its failure. Because one thing is certain – there is no third alternative.
‘But their continued existence will inflict continuing and increasing damage’
Can you give any examples of this damage on Britain?
‘The EU is a protectionist organisation which exists to prevent its members from trading outside the bloc other than on very disadvantageous terms’ I’m sorry NJ but that’s utter bowlocks. Have a read of this CBI webpage and it’s links.
http://
Can you give any examples of this damage on Britain?
‘The EU is a protectionist organisation which exists to prevent its members from trading outside the bloc other than on very disadvantageous terms’ I’m sorry NJ but that’s utter bowlocks. Have a read of this CBI webpage and it’s links.
http://
//The failure of both the EU and the Euro will indeed have profound effects on both members and non-members. But their continued existence will inflict continuing and increasing damage. The EU is a protectionist organisation which exists to prevent its members from trading outside the bloc other than on very disadvantageous terms. The question that needs to be asked when considering whether it is preferable for it to fail is do you want continued and increasing damage which will come with its existence or a short sharp shock that will accompany its failure. Because one thing is certain – there is no third alternative.//
Dear oh dear you have got it bad, NJ. The EU is indeed a protectionist organisation; one designed to protect its members. It has many faults, and needs to change, but it will change, and it will survive, as of course will the euro.
Dear oh dear you have got it bad, NJ. The EU is indeed a protectionist organisation; one designed to protect its members. It has many faults, and needs to change, but it will change, and it will survive, as of course will the euro.
“Can you give any examples of this damage on Britain?”
- £10bn per annum, most of which goes in “expenses” (some of it being used to shift the circus from Brussels to Strasbourg ten times a year) and support for potless Eastern European nations.
- The Common Agricultural Policy supports principally inefficient French farmers and inflates food prices across Europe.
- The Customs Union inflicts tariffs on goods imported from outside the EU which could be obtained more cheaply if individual nations were free to choose whether to impose them or not.
- The euro has increased the cost of goods and services provided by the poorer nations which use the single currency by imposing the same exchange rate between, say, the UK and Germany and between the UK and Greece.
I could go on but I cannot be bothered. If you cannot see for yourself the damage that the EU has visited not only upon the UK but across Europe there’s nothing I can say that will convince you.
I won’t take the opportunity to read anything published by the CBI, thanks. History tells me that any recommendations made by that organisation should be either ignored or the opposite action taken.
“The EU is indeed a protectionist organisation; one designed to protect its members.”
Unfortunately it does not protect its members individually. It protects the organisation or “The Project”. It discourages trade being conducted outside the bloc where cheaper alternatives may exist by the imposition of tariffs. This means that consumers are virtually forced to buy goods and services from the EU when, without tariffs, they could probably get better deals outside. Imagine if the UK forced all its citizens to buy goods only produced in the UK when they could get better deals abroad. It protects the UK as a whole by improving the balance of trade but does nothing for individual consumers.
- £10bn per annum, most of which goes in “expenses” (some of it being used to shift the circus from Brussels to Strasbourg ten times a year) and support for potless Eastern European nations.
- The Common Agricultural Policy supports principally inefficient French farmers and inflates food prices across Europe.
- The Customs Union inflicts tariffs on goods imported from outside the EU which could be obtained more cheaply if individual nations were free to choose whether to impose them or not.
- The euro has increased the cost of goods and services provided by the poorer nations which use the single currency by imposing the same exchange rate between, say, the UK and Germany and between the UK and Greece.
I could go on but I cannot be bothered. If you cannot see for yourself the damage that the EU has visited not only upon the UK but across Europe there’s nothing I can say that will convince you.
I won’t take the opportunity to read anything published by the CBI, thanks. History tells me that any recommendations made by that organisation should be either ignored or the opposite action taken.
“The EU is indeed a protectionist organisation; one designed to protect its members.”
Unfortunately it does not protect its members individually. It protects the organisation or “The Project”. It discourages trade being conducted outside the bloc where cheaper alternatives may exist by the imposition of tariffs. This means that consumers are virtually forced to buy goods and services from the EU when, without tariffs, they could probably get better deals outside. Imagine if the UK forced all its citizens to buy goods only produced in the UK when they could get better deals abroad. It protects the UK as a whole by improving the balance of trade but does nothing for individual consumers.
