'Sounds Like' A Living Thing...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Nissan To Reconsider Uk Production If We Leave The Eu
50 Answers
If Nissan are saying this out loud ahead of time how many other big manufacturers are considering it privately?
http://
Doesn't this give the lie to those who say we could just leave with no consequences?
http://
Doesn't this give the lie to those who say we could just leave with no consequences?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Fred I’m sure you realise that a comparison between the USA and the EU is completely specious.
The USA is an independent nation State with one Head of State, one currency (which, unlike the euro, is based on a single economy, a single set of main taxation, a single fiscal discipline) and a common language spoken by the vast majority of its people. The EU is none of these things but is instead (among many other things) a collection of disparate nations of hugely varying prosperity with no single fiscal policy whose people have been forced together under a false premise. Many of them have been forced to adopt a flawed currency which has, in its current form, no chance of long term survival without impoverishing vast numbers of its users. A more appropriate comparison (although not completely analogous) would be between the USA and the UK with its county setup
But enough of what we already know. As far as business and our withdrawal from the EU is concerned I am rather inclined to listen to the recent musings of the CBI. This esteemed organisation has made the wrong call on just about every major policy decision of the past three decades. To name a few, it urged business leaders to oppose Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies (which by and large were successful); it supported Labour’s tax and spend philosophy (which brought “growth” built on sand and which contributed enormously to the nation's current deficit); its crowning glory was its pronouncement that the UK had “absolutely no choice but to join the euro” (which has proved an unmitigated disaster).
Last week they announced that the UK “…staying in the European Union…is "overwhelmingly" best for business.” I’ll say no more.
Given the choice between investing in the UK free of the EU's shackles or switching their allegiance to a Union bedevilled by corruption and red tape and whose economy is slowly but very surely spiralling into “stagflation”, Mr Ghosn, his colleagues and major shareholders may well take another look before deciding which side their bread is buttered.
The USA is an independent nation State with one Head of State, one currency (which, unlike the euro, is based on a single economy, a single set of main taxation, a single fiscal discipline) and a common language spoken by the vast majority of its people. The EU is none of these things but is instead (among many other things) a collection of disparate nations of hugely varying prosperity with no single fiscal policy whose people have been forced together under a false premise. Many of them have been forced to adopt a flawed currency which has, in its current form, no chance of long term survival without impoverishing vast numbers of its users. A more appropriate comparison (although not completely analogous) would be between the USA and the UK with its county setup
But enough of what we already know. As far as business and our withdrawal from the EU is concerned I am rather inclined to listen to the recent musings of the CBI. This esteemed organisation has made the wrong call on just about every major policy decision of the past three decades. To name a few, it urged business leaders to oppose Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies (which by and large were successful); it supported Labour’s tax and spend philosophy (which brought “growth” built on sand and which contributed enormously to the nation's current deficit); its crowning glory was its pronouncement that the UK had “absolutely no choice but to join the euro” (which has proved an unmitigated disaster).
Last week they announced that the UK “…staying in the European Union…is "overwhelmingly" best for business.” I’ll say no more.
Given the choice between investing in the UK free of the EU's shackles or switching their allegiance to a Union bedevilled by corruption and red tape and whose economy is slowly but very surely spiralling into “stagflation”, Mr Ghosn, his colleagues and major shareholders may well take another look before deciding which side their bread is buttered.
NJ, there is no doubt the ambition of the founders of what became the EU envisaged a "United States Of Europe", an ambition yet to be realised. They were not thinking of a communist regime or Stalinist rule, or a one party state, or anything like it, so I question the name 'eussr' for it.
Would you use the word 'enslaved ' for the UK or any of the other member states?
Would you use the word 'enslaved ' for the UK or any of the other member states?
To be fair, there is some degree of comparison between the EU and the United States before the American Civil War - the US has only been a unitary state with its constituent states relegated to essentially provinces since that period.
And if comparisons with the modern USA are specious, then comparisons with the USSR are just plain weird.
And if comparisons with the modern USA are specious, then comparisons with the USSR are just plain weird.
”Would you use the word 'enslaved ' for the UK or any of the other member states? “
Not quite yet, Fred. Though any nation whose citizens are told by an outside body how much water they may use to flush their kharzis must be approaching that status.
We’re not making a comparison between the EU and the USA pre-1861, kromo (though it is interesting to note that it took a civil war to force the constituent states together into a union). Whenever the EU is criticised and denounced as unworkable it is suggested that the present day USA works so the EU must. It is that comparison that I find ridiculous.
I would suggest that there certainly are parallels to be drawn between the EU and the USSR:
- The USSR was a one-party state with effectively no democracy. The EU is effectively a no-party state. MEPs (the only people elected) have little or no say in EU policies, direction or execution. Unelected commissioners see to all that.
- The USSR’s description as “…a union of multiple subnational Soviet republics, its government and economy being highly centralized.” seems very close to the European dream if one substitutes “European nation states” for “Soviet Republics”.
- In the 1980s because of its policies of centralisation and State control the USSR suffered a prolonged period of economic stagnation. For similar reasons the EU (or at least the Euro zone) is suffering a similar fate.
To keep its constituencies intact the USSR had twice to invade its member states (in 1956 and 1968) to retain its hold over them. Of course the EU is not so bold, but instead has imposed governments that had been democratically elected in at least two sovereign states because the elected government was not “on message”. It has also seen fit to compel the few voters who were afforded a voice to vote more than once on treaty modifications when the “wrong” answer was forthcoming.
Do those comparisons seem “plain daft”?
Of course there are differences:
- Much of the power of the USSR was gained and retained by military force. The EU prefers more stealthy economic warfare.
- The USSR never set out to deceive its citizens. Its aim was a federal one nation state from the outset and it did not try to pretend it was simply a trading bloc to gain the confidence of its peoples.
- There was no attempt to achieve its aims “salami style” by stealth, each measure just a little bit more invasive than the previous, so “not really much different“.
- Unlike the USSR, the EU did not found it necessary to send in the equivalent of the Red Army to take by force the equivalent of the former Russian States, but that‘s not the way the EU works. Its tactics are far more subtle with individual nations (particularly the poorer ones) being lured in by promises of the earth, which remain curiously unfulfilled.
Not quite yet, Fred. Though any nation whose citizens are told by an outside body how much water they may use to flush their kharzis must be approaching that status.
We’re not making a comparison between the EU and the USA pre-1861, kromo (though it is interesting to note that it took a civil war to force the constituent states together into a union). Whenever the EU is criticised and denounced as unworkable it is suggested that the present day USA works so the EU must. It is that comparison that I find ridiculous.
I would suggest that there certainly are parallels to be drawn between the EU and the USSR:
- The USSR was a one-party state with effectively no democracy. The EU is effectively a no-party state. MEPs (the only people elected) have little or no say in EU policies, direction or execution. Unelected commissioners see to all that.
- The USSR’s description as “…a union of multiple subnational Soviet republics, its government and economy being highly centralized.” seems very close to the European dream if one substitutes “European nation states” for “Soviet Republics”.
- In the 1980s because of its policies of centralisation and State control the USSR suffered a prolonged period of economic stagnation. For similar reasons the EU (or at least the Euro zone) is suffering a similar fate.
To keep its constituencies intact the USSR had twice to invade its member states (in 1956 and 1968) to retain its hold over them. Of course the EU is not so bold, but instead has imposed governments that had been democratically elected in at least two sovereign states because the elected government was not “on message”. It has also seen fit to compel the few voters who were afforded a voice to vote more than once on treaty modifications when the “wrong” answer was forthcoming.
Do those comparisons seem “plain daft”?
Of course there are differences:
- Much of the power of the USSR was gained and retained by military force. The EU prefers more stealthy economic warfare.
- The USSR never set out to deceive its citizens. Its aim was a federal one nation state from the outset and it did not try to pretend it was simply a trading bloc to gain the confidence of its peoples.
- There was no attempt to achieve its aims “salami style” by stealth, each measure just a little bit more invasive than the previous, so “not really much different“.
- Unlike the USSR, the EU did not found it necessary to send in the equivalent of the Red Army to take by force the equivalent of the former Russian States, but that‘s not the way the EU works. Its tactics are far more subtle with individual nations (particularly the poorer ones) being lured in by promises of the earth, which remain curiously unfulfilled.
"Whenever the EU is criticised and denounced as unworkable it is suggested that the present day USA works so the EU must. It is that comparison that I find ridiculous. "
Fair point. And I also accept your point about the unelected commissioners. For me, this is one of the most unsavoury aspects of EU membership. But I still find the comparison between the EU and the Soviet Union superficial at best.
For one thing, the EU has not achieved, and I sincerely doubt it intends to achieve, anything like the command economy which prevailed in the USSR. This is an entirely different thing to a "centralized government" and about the closest thing the EU has to this kind of system is the CAP - which is essentially a badly-managed system of subsidies and really speaking is a pretty far cry from Soviet-style resource management.
"In the 1980s because of its policies of centralisation and State control the USSR suffered a prolonged period of economic stagnation. For similar reasons the EU (or at least the Euro zone) is suffering a similar fate. "
No, I think the similarities you're talking about here are incredibly superficial. For one thing, while the EU's rather ill-judged monetary policies have made the situation worse, it's been triggered by an economic crisis across just about every economy in the Western world. The USSR was relatively well-insulated against the world economy and its stagnation had far more to do with massive resources being diverted into an arms race, which just sucked them out of every other sector of the economy. This included consumer products, so while people were starting to save money by the 80s, they couldn't spend it on anything. The EU's problems (as you've so aptly described on several occasions) stem from their commitment to a currency which has required massive bailouts to sustain.
In short, I don't think you can point to two entirely different stagnation scenarios and claim that they're the same because it suits your argument.
There's also the fact that the EU doesn't have a secret police, does not have forced labor underpinning vast sections of its economy, does not indoctrinate its children, does not censor popular media to any significant degree, allows its member states to have significantly divergent policies on foreign affairs (e.g. the UK's support for American interventions in Iraq went significantly against the wishes of France or Germany - a Warsaw Pact country could never have done this).
Fair point. And I also accept your point about the unelected commissioners. For me, this is one of the most unsavoury aspects of EU membership. But I still find the comparison between the EU and the Soviet Union superficial at best.
For one thing, the EU has not achieved, and I sincerely doubt it intends to achieve, anything like the command economy which prevailed in the USSR. This is an entirely different thing to a "centralized government" and about the closest thing the EU has to this kind of system is the CAP - which is essentially a badly-managed system of subsidies and really speaking is a pretty far cry from Soviet-style resource management.
"In the 1980s because of its policies of centralisation and State control the USSR suffered a prolonged period of economic stagnation. For similar reasons the EU (or at least the Euro zone) is suffering a similar fate. "
No, I think the similarities you're talking about here are incredibly superficial. For one thing, while the EU's rather ill-judged monetary policies have made the situation worse, it's been triggered by an economic crisis across just about every economy in the Western world. The USSR was relatively well-insulated against the world economy and its stagnation had far more to do with massive resources being diverted into an arms race, which just sucked them out of every other sector of the economy. This included consumer products, so while people were starting to save money by the 80s, they couldn't spend it on anything. The EU's problems (as you've so aptly described on several occasions) stem from their commitment to a currency which has required massive bailouts to sustain.
In short, I don't think you can point to two entirely different stagnation scenarios and claim that they're the same because it suits your argument.
There's also the fact that the EU doesn't have a secret police, does not have forced labor underpinning vast sections of its economy, does not indoctrinate its children, does not censor popular media to any significant degree, allows its member states to have significantly divergent policies on foreign affairs (e.g. the UK's support for American interventions in Iraq went significantly against the wishes of France or Germany - a Warsaw Pact country could never have done this).
“…does not indoctrinate its children, “
Sit at the back of a primary school class and listen to what the children are told about the EU. (I have).
“…allows its member states to have significantly divergent policies on foreign affairs”
http://
Which says , among other things:
“EU Member states have committed themselves to a Common Foreign Security Policy for the European Union”
Things have moved on a little since the Iraq crisis. In particular, as a result of the Lisbon Treaty, a common foreign policy is now a “must have” for Europhles and t is extremely doubtful that individual nations would have been able to take the decisons that they did over Iraq:
http://
“The EU's new diplomatic service - the European External Action Service (EEAS) - was launched quietly on 1 December 2010, without any fanfare.” [In typical EU fashion - by stealth, without too much publicity so as not to trouble the electorate]
“The [Lisbon] treaty paved the way for creating the EEAS and appointing its chief - the new foreign policy chief, Baroness Ashton. Her official title is High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. (How much more proof is needed that the EU aspires to a common foreign policy?)
Among other features of the EEAS:
“The EEAS, with a new headquarters in Brussels, will take charge of the EU's delegations worldwide - 136 offices of the European Commission.”
“Eventually the EEAS will have a staff of about 5,400.”
“The Brussels headquarters will be rent-free for the first two years, after which it will cost about 12m euros in rent annually.”
Do you need any more indication of that the EU’s common foreign policy aspirations, kromo? If so the BBC’s article will provide some more details.
I agree that the EU is by no means as bombastic and “in your face” as the former Soviet Union. But that makes it all the more dangerous. It does not have a secret police service (as far as we know) but it encroaches into the everyday lives of all of its citizens in the most obtrusive manner and they have no control over its apparatchiks. People have been bamboozled into believing it is a harmless barrel of fun but nothing could be further from the truth.
Sit at the back of a primary school class and listen to what the children are told about the EU. (I have).
“…allows its member states to have significantly divergent policies on foreign affairs”
http://
Which says , among other things:
“EU Member states have committed themselves to a Common Foreign Security Policy for the European Union”
Things have moved on a little since the Iraq crisis. In particular, as a result of the Lisbon Treaty, a common foreign policy is now a “must have” for Europhles and t is extremely doubtful that individual nations would have been able to take the decisons that they did over Iraq:
http://
“The EU's new diplomatic service - the European External Action Service (EEAS) - was launched quietly on 1 December 2010, without any fanfare.” [In typical EU fashion - by stealth, without too much publicity so as not to trouble the electorate]
“The [Lisbon] treaty paved the way for creating the EEAS and appointing its chief - the new foreign policy chief, Baroness Ashton. Her official title is High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. (How much more proof is needed that the EU aspires to a common foreign policy?)
Among other features of the EEAS:
“The EEAS, with a new headquarters in Brussels, will take charge of the EU's delegations worldwide - 136 offices of the European Commission.”
“Eventually the EEAS will have a staff of about 5,400.”
“The Brussels headquarters will be rent-free for the first two years, after which it will cost about 12m euros in rent annually.”
Do you need any more indication of that the EU’s common foreign policy aspirations, kromo? If so the BBC’s article will provide some more details.
I agree that the EU is by no means as bombastic and “in your face” as the former Soviet Union. But that makes it all the more dangerous. It does not have a secret police service (as far as we know) but it encroaches into the everyday lives of all of its citizens in the most obtrusive manner and they have no control over its apparatchiks. People have been bamboozled into believing it is a harmless barrel of fun but nothing could be further from the truth.
"Sit at the back of a primary school class and listen to what the children are told about the EU. (I have). "
What did you see? It would have to be a) quite extreme and b)very intensively applied over a long period of time to warrant even a remote comparison to Narkompros.
Hmm. I'll be honest here and admit I didn't actually know about the EEAS - so thanks for taking the time to write all that. But like everything else with the EU, reading your links it strikes me as more incompetent than sinister. It overlaps with 2 other organisations I can think of, and member states are still free to make bilateral agreements outside of the Union - which was not a privilege enjoyed by Warsaw Pact countries.
I'll bow out here 'cause I'm getting the feeling that I don't actually know all that much about the EU so I should probably go read up before I go debating about it.
What did you see? It would have to be a) quite extreme and b)very intensively applied over a long period of time to warrant even a remote comparison to Narkompros.
Hmm. I'll be honest here and admit I didn't actually know about the EEAS - so thanks for taking the time to write all that. But like everything else with the EU, reading your links it strikes me as more incompetent than sinister. It overlaps with 2 other organisations I can think of, and member states are still free to make bilateral agreements outside of the Union - which was not a privilege enjoyed by Warsaw Pact countries.
I'll bow out here 'cause I'm getting the feeling that I don't actually know all that much about the EU so I should probably go read up before I go debating about it.
Latest Posts
Guardian Crossword Prize No 29,589
Crosswords2 mins ago
Home & Garden6 mins ago
News14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.