Britain and the European Union

[Karl]

Nil points.

 

Stuart ??

[gatito]

Nil points.

 

Douze points...

 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFduCGIWcdA

 

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by gatito

[Brian]

 

None of the states actually have full sovereignty Brian. It's a sham. Peter Hitchins mentions it on the video about the history of the EU and how there was an experiment conducted by Germany ? To remove sovereignty but leave a kind of notional sovereign shell. So the EU flag has parity, except in cases in which the EU has footed the bill for the advertising/PR and then it reserves the right to be the sole flag and symbol.

I was just wondering about the extent to which the subjugation had been completed.

[Chang]

The subjugation is an ongoing process - a sort of death by a thousand cuts.

 

The very fact that David Cameron has had to go, cap in hand, around the various European heads of state in an attempt to strike a "New Deal" for Britain, shows the extent to which power has shifted from the nation states to the bureaucratic bumblers of the Nanny Superstate.

 

Obviously it pays Nanny to allow her children to continue believing that they have independence but it is a fallacy. Unfortunately only those of independent mind see things for what they are and the common herd cares little.

[Karl]

I was just wondering about the extent to which the subjugation had been completed.

 

Unlike Chang I think it's done and dusted, the only about the UK is the depth of our own commitment to it. It's like we are in the team under the management, but have put ourselves on the bench. Once we fully comit (which is what Cameron's 'dock' is all about once he gets the city protected), then we are allowed on the field, but until then we have to abide by all the same rules-except because we aren't actually on the playing field we notionally don't have to actually conform to the on field playing rules, but as soon as we get off the bench we would have to.

[Chang]

If one is a member of a team then it were preferable that the team is a good one. This is not the case with the E.U. and should we remain in the "team" I see little chance of us ever getting off the bench.

 

Should the referendum go the way of the pro-Europeans then things will be pretty well done and dusted. Should Britain decide to remove itself from the E.U. there may be some hope for a more independent future. Time will tell.

[Apech]

If one is a member of a team then it were preferable that the team is a good one. This is not the case with the E.U. and should we remain in the "team" I see little chance of us ever getting off the bench.

 

Should the referendum go the way of the pro-Europeans then things will be pretty well done and dusted. Should Britain decide to remove itself from the E.U. there may be some hope for a more independent future. Time will tell.

 

Even the out group are arguing for a future which would be within the European free trade zone, so like Norway we would still effectively be within the Union rules with zero influence over them.  The most unconvincing thing about the 'leave ' campaign is the lack of a realistic future plan.  Its all very well talking about wider trade zones with the US and the Commonwealth and so on but it would take years to negotiate such deals.

[Karl]

If one is a member of a team then it were preferable that the team is a good one. This is not the case with the E.U. and should we remain in the "team" I see little chance of us ever getting off the bench.

 

Should the referendum go the way of the pro-Europeans then things will be pretty well done and dusted. Should Britain decide to remove itself from the E.U. there may be some hope for a more independent future. Time will tell.

 

It's about aspiration. It seems to me that the wealthy British intellectual Liberals have decided that we must give up on aspiration and swap freedom to succeed, for stagnation. It's the opinion that British people are hopeless, useless lumpen proles who's best bet is to be part of a collective that can throw them some beans to enable their survival in his 'cruel' competitive world.

 

This is of course a complete antithesis of reality. We aren't going to survive, never mind prosper and flourish if we don't get these liberals-and those they convince-to get out of the way in order that talented, aspirational entrepreneurs and visionaries can get the engine started. Our choice is not to bob along in a small boat tied to a rapidly sinking leviathan, but to cut that rope, break out the oars and head for a better future.

[Karl]

Even the out group are arguing for a future which would be within the European free trade zone, so like Norway we would still effectively be within the Union rules with zero influence over them.  The most unconvincing thing about the 'leave ' campaign is the lack of a realistic future plan.  Its all very well talking about wider trade zones with the US and the Commonwealth and so on but it would take years to negotiate such deals.

 

We don't need any 'influence' because we wouldn't be in the political union. Norway is a country of 5 million people, it's a tiny little econonomy that chose to be half way in, because it's people refused political Union, but it's government decided to ignore them.

 

This isn't an economic argument. The union is a political project, the economics are very much a secondary consideration. So rather than 'leavers' having to have a plan, it's very much down to the remainers to explain why a better economic future outside the union is worse than a political position inside the union.

[Apech]

We don't need any 'influence' because we wouldn't be in the political union. Norway is a country of 5 million people, it's a tiny little econonomy that chose to be half way in, because it's people refused political Union, but it's government decided to ignore them. This isn't an economic argument. The union is a political project, the economics are very much a secondary consideration. So rather than 'leavers' having to have a plan, it's very much down to the remainers to explain why a better economic future outside the union is worse than a political position inside the union.

 

So ... there is no plan ... it's just a romantic dream.

[Chang]

So ... there is no plan ... it's just a romantic dream.

 

As opposed to a Germano- Gallic nightmare.

[Karl]

So ... there is no plan ... it's just a romantic dream.

 

Why would you need a plan ? It isn't governments that set up and trade goods. There is no kind of plan inside a political union either it's just a customs area agreement designed to prevent free trade by protectionism. That's why the EU is dying economically, it's turned its back on free trade and is now completely out of sync with the BRIC countries and particularly the rise of China/economic changes in Russia. It's like an old record store trying to eke out a living in an Internet age, by restricting online trading within its boundaries.

 

The arguments for leaving are so transparently clear that it is pointing out the obvious:

 

1. Once out we will renegotiate our terms of trade. As we are the fifth largest economy and a huge market for the EU-we currently have a hefty trade deficit which means we sell less to the EU than they buy from us. It's actually worse than the figures reveal, that's because we export much to the rest of the world through the Netherlands, so the numbers record those figures.

 

2. We will control our own borders and can let in and get ridden of whom so ever we like. It will improve our security, prevent swamping by immigrants from the EU that we are currently unable to prevent.

 

3. We can make our own laws, get rid of the red tape which has caused us to be uncompetitive outside the EU and has penalised is inside the EU. Currently we have no direct access for the financial services industry which is our major export.

 

4. We restore democracy which should be at the heart of the British political system and has been given away to Brussels. We have to do what the other countries want regardless of its effect on Britain. We have voted against 72 laws and been outvoted 72 times, we have no control at all.

 

5. We will save 15 billion a year which we can then spend how we like, be that getting the deficit down, improving the health service, upgrading our infrastructure.

 

There are literally no negatives to leaving. That doesn't mean that suddenly we will become a super wealthy country when we hand back our membership card, but it does mean we are free- as the fifth largest economy in the world-to make our own deals. This will reduce prices of goods flowing into Britain, increase trade flowing out of Britain which will create more jobs and attract even more businesses.

 

The only reason to vote to stay is if you believe that sharing a political framework as a tiny part of a German superstate is a positive. That is why I'm saying it is up to the remainers to produce a vision of the advantages of staying-the problem is they can't, because we already know what it is and that's why many want to leave and that's why the only response has been project fear. That if we leave then terrible things will happen, but, even then, the leavers admit that we could still do well outside of the EU.

 

Remember we won't be leaving Europe, only the political project and its blanket of suffocating economic rules.

[silent thunder]

It seems quite the ironic reversal.  Britain seems to be the one occupied by powers beyond her borders...

The more things change, the more they stay the same, only the players and pieces move and shift, but the game it seems, remains the same.

[Apech]

Why would you need a plan ? It isn't governments that set up and trade goods. There is no kind of plan inside a political union either it's just a customs area agreement designed to prevent free trade by protectionism. That's why the EU is dying economically, it's turned its back on free trade and is now completely out of sync with the BRIC countries and particularly the rise of China/economic changes in Russia. It's like an old record store trying to eke out a living in an Internet age, by restricting online trading within its boundaries. The arguments for leaving are so transparently clear that it is pointing out the obvious: 1. Once out we will renegotiate our terms of trade. As we are the fifth largest economy and a huge market for the EU-we currently have a hefty trade deficit which means we sell less to the EU than they buy from us. It's actually worse than the figures reveal, that's because we export much to the rest of the world through the Netherlands, so the numbers record those figures. 2. We will control our own borders and can let in and get ridden of whom so ever we like. It will improve our security, prevent swamping by immigrants from the EU that we are currently unable to prevent. 3. We can make our own laws, get rid of the red tape which has caused us to be uncompetitive outside the EU and has penalised is inside the EU. Currently we have no direct access for the financial services industry which is our major export. 4. We restore democracy which should be at the heart of the British political system and has been given away to Brussels. We have to do what the other countries want regardless of its effect on Britain. We have voted against 72 laws and been outvoted 72 times, we have no control at all. 5. We will save 15 billion a year which we can then spend how we like, be that getting the deficit down, improving the health service, upgrading our infrastructure. There are literally no negatives to leaving. That doesn't mean that suddenly we will become a super wealthy country when we hand back our membership card, but it does mean we are free- as the fifth largest economy in the world-to make our own deals. This will reduce prices of goods flowing into Britain, increase trade flowing out of Britain which will create more jobs and attract even more businesses. The only reason to vote to stay is if you believe that sharing a political framework as a tiny part of a German superstate is a positive. That is why I'm saying it is up to the remainers to produce a vision of the advantages of staying-the problem is they can't, because we already know what it is and that's why many want to leave and that's why the only response has been project fear. That if we leave then terrible things will happen, but, even then, the leavers admit that we could still do well outside of the EU. Remember we won't be leaving Europe, only the political project and its blanket of suffocating economic rules.

 

 

That is a plan ... of sorts.

[Karl]

That is a plan ... of sorts.

 

These are just the facts and the obvious corollary of leaving the EU. We couldn't exactly be able to leave and sit around with our thumbs up our bums waiting for divine intervention. If you call it a plan then I'm not going to argue.

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

Stuart Rose who heads up the BSE campaign admitted in front of the treasury select committee " leaving Europe will mean higher wages for British workers" he also stumbled over his words when he said "immigration was the cost of doing business with Europe"

 

Now Mervyn King (the former chair of the Bank of England) has dropped a bombshell that the current European crisis was deliberately created by the elite. This confirms that a slide from a presentation accidentally captured on camera by a reporter is a reality.

 

Lord Lamont has also come out and rubbished the remain campaign and its fear mongering.

 

On yesterday's Daily Politics show the conservative minister Mathew Hancock was asked why, if the Government thought that leaving would be so catastrophic and that we were so fragile on our own in the world, did they advocate a referendum in the first place ? He couldn't answer.

 

Then he was asked where he got the figures that Switzerland and Norway had to accept virtually all the EU laws. He couldn't answer. The presenter revealed that Norway took less than 9% of EU laws and not the 75% that the Government suggests.

 

Next he was asked about tariffs. Neither Turkey in the South nor Iceland in the far North of the Eurasian continent pay tariffs despite the lies of the Government. The only tarrif paying state is Belarus, which is a tiny Stalinist tyranny. Yet Mathew thought we would be likely to receive that kind of treatment.

 

This crap is unwinding faster than a wishing reel with a Marlin on the hook.

 

There is no good reason to remain. No one needs to present what 'out' looks like anymore than they do to provide a reason to leave a burning building, or sinking ship. No one can say exactly what will happen if we leave, but we sure as hell know what will happen if we remain.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Rupert Harrison of black rock (hedge fund) now warns how bad it will be for the bankers who will have to reduce profit margins if we leave the EU ! Oh how I weep for the poor bankers and their profit margins.

 

Rupert is George Osbornes friend. He is an example of the revolving door between the city and the Government. Rich, privileged kids that attend Eton, go into Government and then take a fantastically well paid job in a financial institution. Rupert, it is suggested, is the real chancellor and one of the most powerful men in Britain.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Harrison

 

The maggots are coming out of the rotten meat trying to protect their lifestyles.

 

Vote leave.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Today I'm watching Lord Finkelstein (Conservative campaigner to stay in ).

Who would have thought 'free trade makes us richer' and 'high wage costs impoverish us if they aren't matched by increased productivity'.

 

Yet, he wants to stay in a union which prevents free trade and is a customs union, then his party have been busy slagging off businesses for not paying their staff enough and have even introduced a minimum wage.

 

This is all complete and utter BS. Lying toe rags that pretend we can have high wages without productivity and wealth increases in a restrictive trading zone. We can't have our cake and eat it.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Karl

[Apech]

Norman Lamont you are quoting now!  Just make a list of the leave campaign leaders and then have a good chuckle.  Ship of fools. ha ha.

[Karl]

Norman Lamont you are quoting now!  Just make a list of the leave campaign leaders and then have a good chuckle.  Ship of fools. ha ha.

 

You know Lamont is a confirmed Europhile as is Boris ?

 

They have seen Cameron's project fear is heading for the rocks and are hoping to get a second bite.

 

I liked Hitchens recent piece in which he described the EU as Hotel California 'you can check out but you can never leave'.

 

I'm half wondering if I should vote to stay in the hope that Europe collapses in blood and flames with the British establishment sat atop the pyre like Guy Fawkes. I think we leavers should provide the petrol and the matches and watch the whole thing burn to the ground. I'm old enough to laugh and roast some mallows before the fire is extinguished and the night grows very chilly indeed for the remainers.

 

 

[Chang]

Norman Lamont you are quoting now!  Just make a list of the leave campaign leaders and then have a good chuckle.  Ship of fools. ha ha.

 

I am surprised that you should speak so Apech. One need only look at the individuals thumping the stay in tub to say the same thing.

 

A veritable ship of fools between the devil and the deep blue sea.

[Chang]

Just to keep you informed regarding the mess that is the European Super state.

 

Whilst taken from The Guardian Newspaper ( The Champion of all things Left, Liberal, Socialist etc etc) it does paint a pretty good picture of the chaos the Super State is fast falling into.

 

EU's Schengen members urged to lift border checks to save passport-free zone.

 

 European commission says that while external borders need strengthening, collapse of free movement zone could damage business and deter tourists.

 

European Union countries are being urged to lift internal border controls before the end of the year, to save the “crowning achievement” of the passport-free travel zone from total collapse, according to a draft report by the European commission.

 

Walls, fences and border checks have returned across Europe as the EU struggles to cope with the biggest inflow of refugees since the end of the second world war. Since September 2015, eight countries in the 26-nation passport-free Schengen zone have re-instated border checks.

 

These controls “place into question the proper functioning of the Schengen area of free movement”, according to the draft report seen by the Guardian, which will be published on Friday. “It is now time for member states to pull together in the common interest to safeguard one of the union’s crowning achievements.”

 

Calais camp is razed with nowhere for most refugees to go

 

Separately, the European commissioner for humanitarian aid is expected to announce on Wednesday that €700m (£544m) will be spent over three years in helping refugees in the western Balkans.

Much of the money is destined for Greece, as EU leaders scramble to help Athens deal with its own crisis. 24,000 refugees are in need of permanent shelter and 2,000 people are arriving on Greek shores each day. The European council president Donald Tusk has described helping Greece as “a test of our Europeanness”.

 

The passport-free travel zone, which stretches from Iceland to Greece but does not include the UK or Ireland, has been under unprecedented pressure; its collapse could unravel decades of European integration.

 

The commission wants member states to lift border controls “as quickly as possible” and with “a clear target date of November 2016”. But Brussels also wants tighter control of the EU’s external border and will repeat warnings that Greece could be kicked out of Schengen if it fails to improve border management by May.

 

 The action plan has been drawn up ahead of an emergency EU-Turkey summit on 7 March, when the EU will call on Ankara to do more to stem the flow of refugees as part of its part of a €3bn (£2.4bn) deal agreed last year.

 

Turkey, which is housing 2.5 million refugees, has rejected accusations that it is not doing enough. Senior Turkish officials have described European plans to relocate thousands of refugees a year directly from Turkey, in return for tighter border controls, as unworkable.

 

Tusk will meet Turkey’s prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, and the president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, before the EU summit. He is also meeting the Austrian chancellor, Werner Faymann, and the leaders of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Greece, on a three-day tour of six countries along the western Balkan route.

 

As this latest EU plan underscores, the thinking in Brussels remains based on a hope that joint work with Turkey “should lead to a rapid decrease” in people arriving from Greece. That will be a tall order – the daily average of 2,000 refugee arrivals on Greece’s shores is expected to rise over the warmer spring and summer months.

 

Double crisis deepens despair in Greece’s ‘warehouse of souls’

 

Greece is under growing pressure to hand over management of its borders to the EU, as it struggles to cope with the numbers. According to this latest plan, EU authorities will carry out an inspection of Greece’s borders in mid April to determine whether controls are adequate, with a final decision on Greece’s place in Schengen to be taken in May.

 

The EU executive also reaffirms its intention to overhaul rules governing asylum claims. Under the current rules, known as the Dublin system, asylum seekers have to lodge their claim in the first country they enter. The Dublin regime was effectively finished last year when the chancellor, Angela Merkel, opened Germany’s borders to any Syrian who wanted to claim asylum there, regardless of where they arrived in the EU.

 

In mid-March the commission will set out a list of options for reforming EU asylum policy. The favoured idea is a permanent system of relocation, where refugees are shared out around the union, depending on the wealth and size of a country.

 

Recent efforts at relocating refugees from overwhelmed Greece and Italy have not set an encouraging precedent: out of a plan to resettle 160,000 refugees only 629 refugees have been found a new home.

One EU source stressed that no decisions on a replacement for Dublin had been taken. “There are lots of ways to go, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a fundamental change in the principles of Dublin,” the source said, referring to the obligation to claim asylum in the first country of arrival.

 

Refugee crisis: European leaders demand urgent support for Greece.

 

The UN refugee agency on Tuesday urged Europe to prioritise its relocation plans, as it reported that the continent stood “on the cusp of a largely self-induced humanitarian crisis”

 

As well as the usual appeals to European solidarity, Brussels hopes to convince member states that the disappearance of the border-free Schengen zone has a high economic price.

 

The report warns that reimposing national border controls will damage business and deter tourists, especially high-spending Asian tourists, who will restrict their itinerary to “all but the most popular EU destinations”.

 

Restoring internal border controls would result in immediate costs of up to €18bn a year or 0.13% of the annual output of the Schengen area, it says. But that bill is expected to rise, with businesses and the tourist industry expected to lose billions more.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Chang

[Karl]

Germany’s top judges this week will once again ask whether Mario Draghi’s 2012 promise to do “whatever it takes” to save the euro can exist alongside the nation’s constitution.

Eight months after the region’s highest court backed European Central Bank president Draghi’s bond-buying program, the Federal Constitutional Court will again hear arguments over Germany’s role in the Outright Monetary Transactions program, or OMT.

Tuesday’s hearing comes as the EU faces stress from an influx of refugees, a weak euro and an upcoming British vote on membership. While the OMT wasn’t implemented, an adverse ruling by Germany’s top judges could restrict the ECB’s options during the next crisis. National courts are expected to follow the EU tribunal’s guidance, although the German panel expressed independence in the past. A ruling last month in another case read as if the German judges were signaling a willingness to challenge parts of the EU court’s decisions, some lawyers say.

"The constitutional court wants to show that it’s a dog that can also bite and not just bark," Christoph Ohler, a law professor at Jena University, said. "I still hope it will follow the ECJ on the OMT. We can’t allow two important courts to be at war with one another."

Earlier Hearing

[Apech]

@Karl - just to let you know I'm in the process of registering for a postal vote from outside UK - I will vote to remain so that your vote to leave will be neutralised ... so really there's no point you voting is there.

[Karl]

@Karl - just to let you know I'm in the process of registering for a postal vote from outside UK - I will vote to remain so that your vote to leave will be neutralised ... so really there's no point you voting is there.

 

Or your vote is neutralised by mine, or I vote to stay in to punish the wicked :-)

Of course if we vote to leave and you have voted to remain....watch out that the drawbridge doesn't catch your chin.