UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Stop being in denialIt's a treaty commitment. It's not a vague aspiration
"The Heads of State or Government, on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community."
It has no definition assigned to it, so it simply means whatever the reader wants it to mean.Back in 1957 it would have meant "no more Holocausts".
Some people in the UK seem to think it's a statement of nefarious intent along the lines of taking guns away from Americans.
It's not even remotely controversial in the rest of the EU.
The date of the document I quoted was 1981So basically you're saying that the EU is in the habit of producing political policy documents it has no intention of ever implementing?
however Juncker seems keen on ever closer union
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eu-...
"In his annual State of the European Union speech, Juncker sketched out a vision of a post-2019 EU where some 30 countries would be using the euro, with an EU finance minister running key budgets to help states in trouble."
There is no specific binding legal definition on what 'ever closer union' actually entails.If the member states don't want it - whatever 'it' actually is - it won't happen.
When we leave, a more federalised Europe is more likely to happen.
Being on the outside of that isn't going to be good for us.
Good, we're getting somewhere. European policy as dictated by the Commission is to work towards a federalised Europe.In the UK we always said we were against it, but in spite of us being against it we moved from being the EEC to the EU, and in spite of talk about subsidiarity, the EU controls more and more of the details of people's lives.
Now if a farm wants to plough for anything but putting more grass in, it has to plant three different crops and the minimum proportions of those crops are fixed. So that's subsidiarity for you.
And now when people who decided they didn't want to be in an ever closer union voted to leave, you think that the EU is going to be more federalised, or perhaps not
But on the positive side I'm glad you've moved on from your comment in 5854 that "'Ever closer union' is more of an ideal than an actual specific policy. "
Now you agree that it is a policy.
My point is unchanged:'ever closer union' has no specific definition behind it, and could easily be applied to the WTO and most other international economic/political bodies.
Michael Cargill wrote: "My point is unchanged:'ever closer union' has no specific definition behind it, and could easily be applied to the WTO and most other international economic/political bodies."
oh please, let's be sensible.
When has the WTO ever written into a treaty that it was aiming for ever closer union of its members?
When has NATO ever written into a treaty that it was aiming for ever closer union with its members?
The WTO is about harmonising processes, procedures, laws, etc. between members to facilitate trade and co-operation.That is quite literally an example of 'ever closer union'.
Michael Cargill wrote: "The WTO is about harmonising processes, procedures, laws, etc. between members to facilitate trade and co-operation.That is quite literally an example of 'ever closer union'."
nonsense
When did the WTO plan to set up WTO military forces or plan for a WTO finance minister running key budgets to help states in trouble?
Why is it that remainers are so coy about what the EU actually stands for and plans to become?
It's written in black and white in treaties. Now you might say that EU treaties are not worth the paper they're printed on, which might be true, but I think that in itself is as good a reason to leave an organisation as any
Again, 'ever closer union' has no actual definition to it. In fact, it's precisely this lack of a definition that allows you to take those three words and extrapolate them into the spectre that you imagine it to be.You may as well complain that 'be nice to each other' is in the treaties because you don't want to be forced to buy tea and cakes for your neighbours every week.
Your remark about Remainers being coy is an odd one, because you make it sound as though we are part of a conspiracy.
Remainers do not stand to gain anything at the expense of Leavers by being in the EU - broadly speaking, we all get the exact same thing.
The key consideration for being in the EU should be "What will make my/our lives better?" and so far I haven't seen or heard anything about leaving that is going to make our lives better.
Well if you're happy to be part of a union where the treaties holding it together are just words with no actual definition, then fine, but frankly if you might be happy to be part of such an organisation, but a lot of us aren't
I'm happy to be part of a union that will make our lives better.
But Michael, a lot of us are very unhappy about being part of an organisation over which we have no democratic control, and which runs to an agenda we are unable to influence...Junker has specifically said that the powers of an EU Finance Minister will enable the appointed official to over rule decisions of a country's elected government if they do not suit the economic agenda of the EU. Are you content with that? Because I am not. And how does that fit with your argument that Member States are in control? How did that work for Greece? Portugal? Spain? Where harsh economic initiatives were imposed on them against the wishes of the Member State...
It is interesting that while Jim and I hold (in the most friendly way) politically divergent views on many matters, on the subject of the EU we approach it from opposite ends of the spectrum and arrive at the same conclusion.
Indeed this is one of the issues where I march in lock step with Tony Benn :-)
Again, I have to ask the important question:How is Brexit going to make our lives better?
With regards to the likes of Greece, etc. their financial woes were all self-inflicted and they required external assistance.
That's not to say that I'm happy with how they were treated by the EU, but they've also been treated badly by the WTO, etc.
Of course it isBecause it's going to put the power to make our lives better or worse into our own hands.
Not into the hands of an unelected bureaucracy pursuing it's fetish of 'ever closer union' which of course nobody can define and isn't real because it's just meaningless words on the treaty
Of the 650 MPs sitting in Parliament, how many did you vote for? I didn't vote for any of them.And who voted to make Boris Johnson the foreign secretary?
And who voted to bribe the DUP with a billion pounds?
What things are we going to be doing to make our lives better that we can't do now because the EU will stop us?
I want actual, tangible benefits.
Don't be sillyIf you dislike parliamentary democracy fair enough, campaign for a fascist state, a soviet republic, or a Hellenistic city state, as a citizen it's your right
You can even vote to live in a centralised, bureaucratically controlled Europe because your sole way of calculating value appears to be economic
But don't assume others share your somewhat blinkered ideals
Right, so how is Brexit going to make our lives better?
Michael Cargill wrote: "Right, so how is Brexit going to make our lives better?"Simple, we'll live in a democracy
Some of us think that's worth having. Indeed previous generations think it was worth dying for.
Obviously you may beg to differ, which is your right, but don't expect those of us who value it to give it up lightly.
We already live in a democracy.So Brexit gives me something I already have, with the side effect of having less money in my pocket, worse public services, price increases, worse employment prospects, decreased living standards, etc.
What's the upside?
Michael Cargill wrote: "We already live in a democracy.So Brexit gives me something I already have, with the side effect of having less money in my pocket, worse public services, price increases, worse employment prospe..."
you've changed your tune, you didn't seem to think we were a democracy back in post 5871
Also being in the EU has brought you less money in my pocket, worse public services, price increases, worse employment prospects, decreased living standards, etc. Or so we're told by all bar one political parties in this country
So I suspect for you, there's nothing. If we have a continuing decline then it'll be just like the good old days as part of the EU
Why won't you answer the question?What tangible benefits will Brexit give us?
It's been nearly two years since the vote, yet this part of the discussion hasn't moved on at all.
You're right, it hasn't moved on. Basically we've had people frantically trying to overturn a democratic vote by any means they can. But still we press forward.The tangible benefits?
Well one important one, we now know we have a class who looks down on its fellow citizens with contempt and is happy to tar anybody who has the audacity to vote against the perceived wisdom of that class as poorly educated racist thickos.
I think that is a very tangible benefit.
One principal benefit is that it will allow us to do something about the trade deficit with the EU before it finally bankrupts the UK. Roughly 3 years of continuing membership of the EU should do that, I think.No one who voted Remain has ever been able to explain just how a trade deficit of £1 Billion every three days - the consequence of our current trade relationship and deriving directly from membership of the EU - is presenting the UK with a tangible benefit. And I have asked several of my friends who voted that way... (they all change the subject)
Will wrote: "No one who voted Remain has ever been able to explain just how a trade deficit of £1 Billion every three days - the consequence of our current trade relationship and deriving directly from membership of the EU - is presenting the UK with a tangible benefit. And I have asked several of my friends who voted that way... (they all change the subject) ..."like they do when pressed on 'ever closer union' you mean? :-)
Will, are you actually claiming that leaving the EU will be economically beneficial to the UK?And the benefits will be plain to see within three years?
Seriously?
The reverse, Michael, since you didn't seem to read the post.Remaining in the EU will bring us to bankruptcy, and in the EU we cannot stop the tide of imports that have laid waste to our economy.
Leaving gives us a chance to survive. Not in a great state, true, but better than we will be if we stay in.
Again instead of evading the question, can you explain how the £1billion every three days trade deficit is in any way beneficial to the UK?
The problem here is that you seem to think that having a trade deficit is an inherently bad thing.It isn't.
We import things from the EU because people and businesses here in the UK want them.
We export things to the EU because there are people and businesses in the EU that want them.
That one may be of a higher value than the other is largely irrelevant and it's a mistake to assume the trade deficit means the UK is losing £1 billion every three days.
It's impossible for everyone to have a trade surplus.
So where does the money come from to pay for the stuff we buy over and above what we sell?
That's a more complicated answer, but ultimately it comes from the rest of the economy.Imagine there's a small African country that we import £1 million of bananas from each year. Due to the fact that it's a mostly agricultural country with little infrastructure, that country doesn't buy anything at all from us because we don't offer anything of any use.
The fact we have a £1 million trade deficit with that country doesn't mean they are gaining something at our expense. It could be that Mr Kipling is selling banana cakes to the value of £2 million a year domestically and internationally.
and the fact that we have to print money to cover the difference isn't an issue then
We aren't printing money due to our trade deficit with the EU.We could 'fix' the trade deficit issue permanently by simply not importing anything at all.
But that would mean no more Playstations and Xboxes, which would be disastrous for our electronics retailers.
Jim wrote: "A little less sophistry please"I just learned a new word!
Thanks, Jim!
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Jim wrote: "A little less sophistry please"I just learned a new word!
Thanks, Jim!"
not only that but it's a new word that a nice girl can drop into conversation without her mother looking shocked :-)
You've never met my mother.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "You've never met my mother."that is almost certainly true
You know, the first Sophists were criticized by Socrates for only teaching those who could pay them. Shocking, indeed, that teachers would be in it for the money and not solely for the satisfaction of spreading wisdom. :-)
David wrote: "You know, the first Sophists were criticized by Socrates for only teaching those who could pay them. Shocking, indeed, that teachers would be in it for the money and not solely for the satisfaction..."I am suitably shocked!
Kinda like writers who only make their books available to people who give them money, I guess.
David wrote: "Kinda like writers who only make their books available to people who give them money, I guess."amazingly small minded and petty. They should be doing it for the exposure!
Writers! Expose yourselves!(Hang on. Maybe this isn't such a good idea.)
Michael Cargill wrote: "That's a more complicated answer, but ultimately it comes from the rest of the economy.Imagine there's a small African country that we import £1 million of bananas from each year. Due to the fact..."
Michael, that is simply inaccurate.
The remainder of the economy does not generate revenue adequate to cover the trade deficit. That's why the Governments of recent years have been frantically selling off everything that they can, to dredge enough overseas currency into the UK to cover the funds. Beside selling off the Queen (somehting I would personally support) there bog all left to sell.
Financial services etc generate enough income to cover a couple of month's worth of the deficit, no more.
Inside a very short space of time, the EU will bankrupt us. That's an economic fact, uncomfortable though it may be. The ignorance and complacency of many Remain voters on the subject is simply staggering.
If we fail to curb the imports you so love our economy is doomed, and such wealth as we currently enjoy will drain from our hands faster than sand through a sieve
We don't need to cover the deficit, because there is nothing inherently wrong with having one.It doesn't mean money is flowing out of the country.
When we leave the EU, people here in the UK will still want to buy the same things they buy now. All that will change is that those things will be more expensive to buy.
so you're honestly convinced that a country can continue trading ad infinitum with a trade deficit and that this will have no negative effects on the country?
Yes, because a trade deficit on its own doesn't actually mean anything.It's not even surprising that we have a trade deficit with the EU, given the difference in size.
We are one country of 65 million importing from 26 other countries with a combined population of 300+ million. We can pick and choose who to buy from - wine from France, sausages from Germany, etc.
And the same goes for the rest of the EU - those countries will only want certain things from us.
so you are saying that a country that continually trades at a deficit for ever will suffer no ill effects
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
'Ever closer union' is more of an ideal than an actual specific policy.