It's not a mixed bag at all. Apart from the UK the EU economy as a whole is a disaster area.
As I recall, the EU economy as a whole has grown this year, so it's not quite the disaster area you claim it to be. That's not to say there aren't still problems. Of course there are.
The poorer Eurozone countries are trapped in an economic prison with monetary policies dictated by Frankfurt that suit Germany, but not them.
There will be some sort of revolution eventually in Southern Europe, because Brussels, the ECB and Germany doesn't give a four XXXX about them.
I've already talked about the euro. The EU does not begin and end with it. And casting the situation in hyperbolic and apocalyptic terms doesn't strengthen a case - and could be construed as somewhat macabre wishful thinking.
As I recall, monetary policy in the eurozone is independent. Why do you say it is "dictated by Frankfurt" when you would not say monetary policy in this country is "dictated by Threadneedle Street"? Even the language you use is prejudicial, unreasonably so. And given that monetary policy is set by all the heads of the national central banks as well as the ECB's executive board, the claim that it is set to serve Germany at the expense of everyone else requires some substantiation.
Further, saying that Brussels, the ECB and Germany "don't give a XXXX about" Southern Europe is hardly appropriate or likely to be true. "Brussels" and the ECB are limited in their freedom of action by the stipulations of the Treaties that constitute them. And Germany can only do so much as its taxpayers will abide and its resources will allow; it no more has access to the magical money tree than we do, and Germany will - like every other Member State - look out for its own interests first, naturally.
"Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has described pro-independence moves such as those in Scotland and in Spain’s Catalonia region as a “torpedo” against Europe’s integration.
Rajoy made the statements on Wednesday, a day ahead of the Scottish Independence referendum.
"These processes are a torpedo to the waterline of the European spirit, because Europe has been built to integrate states, not to fragment them," said Rajoy.
As this was not in the 1975 referendum and we have no say in this, please explain what you mean by
"UKIP propaganda, distortions, half-truths and lies"
when all they are doing is exposing reality.
What wasn't in the 75 referendum? The comments that a Spanish PM was going to make in 2014? It would be hard to include that short of having had a time machine, wouldn't it?
That the European Communities were there to further integration WAS there in 75. It was there in the Schumann declaration and it was there on P.1 of the European Treaties. The electorate didn't have a problem with it and since then have had multiple elections to Westminster to elect an anti-EU majority to Parliament. So far they haven't done so.
What wasn't in the 75 referendum? The comments that a Spanish PM was going to make in 2014? It would be hard to include that short of having had a time machine, wouldn't it?
That the European Communities were there to further integration WAS there in 75. It was there in the Schumann declaration and it was there on P.1 of the European Treaties. The electorate didn't have a problem with it and since then have had multiple elections to Westminster to elect an anti-EU majority to Parliament. So far they haven't done so.
And what viable Anti EU choices have we had to elect until now please? It's only in the last few years UKIP has become mainstream. Before there was nothing.
And what viable Anti EU choices have we had to elect until now please? It's only in the last few years UKIP has become mainstream. Before there was nothing.
We live in a democracy in which citizens are free to organise, stand for election and vote on any issue they want.
Clearly the electorate haven't felt it necessary to organise and elect an anti-EU majority to Westminister during the 40+ years of UK membership.
The EU hasn't stopped the electorare doing so nor has Westminister. Rather the electorate just aren't particularly interested in doing so.
As I recall, the EU economy as a whole has grown this year, so it's not quite the disaster area you claim it to be. That's not to say there aren't still problems. Of course there are.
I've already talked about the euro. The EU does not begin and end with it. .
On the contrary the Euro is the glue which holds the whole thing together. Do you really think the EU would remain as it is without the Euro?
it [Germany] no more has access to the magical money tree than we do, .
The eurozone countries did not print more money. The UK did. In total, both the current and previous UK chancellors have printed £375 billion of new money. Why bother introducing further austerity measures, when you pay your creditors with funds from the "magical money tree" ?
On the contrary the Euro is the glue which holds the whole thing together. Do you really think the EU would remain as it is without the Euro?
The Euro was for the benefit of bankers, not the public at large. It was sold to them as being great for not having to change their money, they've paid a far higher price than the cost of converting currency since though...
The Euro was for the benefit of bankers, not the public at large. It was sold to them as being great for not having to change their money, they've paid a far higher price than the cost of converting currency since though...
As I said/typed, the Euro is the fulcrum of the whole project.
On the contrary the Euro is the glue which holds the whole thing together. Do you really think the EU would remain as it is without the Euro?
Explain the 10 states that aren't Eurozone members then, including ourselves, Denmark, Sweden and Poland which have no intention of joining any time soon..
Explain the 10 states that aren't Eurozone members then, including ourselves, Denmark, Sweden and Poland which have no intention of joining any time soon..
No it is not. The EC/EU would still exist if the euro had never been implemented.
They are not in the 'euro zone'.
Yes it is. The whole intention of the European project was a single currency followed by political union. And the Euro was the first step towards that end goal.
And what viable Anti EU choices have we had to elect until now please? It's only in the last few years UKIP has become mainstream. Before there was nothing.
That's not exactly true. There was Labour back in 1983. There was the Anti-Federalist League in 1992, and it and UKIP have been around long before it became what you call "mainstream"; the difference is that before around 2004 it was a fringe party for fruit-loops.
(Not that much has changed on that score now..)
The chief reason it has become more noticed now is because of (a) the consequences of Labour policies in the last decade or so around enlargement and Lisbon, and (b) the sovereign debt crisis precipitated by the crash of 2008.
That's not exactly true. There was Labour back in 1983. There was the Anti-Federalist League in 1992, and it and UKIP have been around long before it became what you call "mainstream"; the difference is that before around 2004 it was a haven for fruit-loops.
(Not that much has changed on that score now..)
The chief reason it has become more noticed now is because of (a) the consequences of Labour policies in the last decade or so around enlargement and Lisbon, and (b) the sovereign debt crisis precipitated by the crash of 2008.
Not so, UKIP is the British establishment safety valve, implemented to counter support for the BNP from turning into votes.
As I said/typed, the Euro is the fulcrum of the whole project.
It's in the interests of banks and as the EU is for the benefit of big business and banking I suppose you could say that. It's not the people's view or wishes though, they've been made to suffer by it.
It's in the interests of banks and as the EU is for the benefit of big business and banking I suppose you could say that. It's not the people's view or wishes though,
Really?
Then why do the electorates of each and evey Eurozone member state return pro-Euro membership majorities to the European Parliament and to their respective domestic Parliaments in election after election?
Not so, UKIP is the British establishment safety valve, implemented to counter support for the BNP from turning into votes.
What a load of paranoid delusional nonsense. I'm reminded of George Carlin's maxim about being careful with whom one argues at this point, so I'm going to end this discussion with you here. You can have the last word if you must.
Then why do the electorates of each and evey Eurozone member state return pro-Euro membership majorities to the European Parliament and to their respective domestic Parliaments in election after election?
The same reason the British electorate vote by tribe. The Roman plebs had panem et circenses to distract their attention, Europe's plebs have football and TV shows like soaps and the xfactor ect to divert its attention from the state of their country. Plus most of the plebs both here in Britain and across Europe get their information from their MSM which is usually complicit with main stream political parties, who have created the mess in the first place.
What a load of paranoid delusional nonsense. I'm reminded of George Carlin's maxim about being careful with whom one argues at this point, so I'm going to end this discussion with you here. You can have the last word if you must.
I guess then that reality isn't your strong point.
The same reason the British electorate vote by tribe. The Roman plebs had panem et circenses to distract their attention, Europe's plebs have football and TV shows like soaps and the xfactor ect to divert its attention from the state of their country. Plus most of the plebs both here in Britain and across Europe get their information from their MSM which is usually complicit with main stream political parties, who have created the mess in the first place.
That's just an argument that the various electorate of the EU are too dumb to make democratic decisions (which presumably applies here also).
It certainly doesn't back up your assertion that the Euro exists/continues to exist despite "the people's view or wishes".
Unless you are trying to advocate the abolition of democracy, it is hard to see where you are going with this.
Then why do the electorates of each and evey Eurozone member state return pro-Euro membership majorities to the European Parliament and to their respective domestic Parliaments in election after election?
I meant the benefits to banks and big business is not in the interests of the people, not the principle of the EU itself.
I meant the benefits to banks and big business is not in the interests of the people, not the principle of the EU itself.
Again the electorates disagree with your view or do you hold with the view that electorates can't decide whether something is in their interest or not?
Again the electorates disagree with your view or do you hold with the view that electorates can't decide whether something is in their interest or not?
The EU in principle is fine. It benefits banks and big business more than it does the people, that's why it was set up. Not voting won't change banks and big business exploiting the public and I'd say being as big as the EU, is more likely to temper their excesses than being outside it.
It could be a lot better and more beneficial to people and their country's if the exploitation was ruled out but that's the driver behind it, so it never can be.
Comments
As I recall, the EU economy as a whole has grown this year, so it's not quite the disaster area you claim it to be. That's not to say there aren't still problems. Of course there are.
I've already talked about the euro. The EU does not begin and end with it. And casting the situation in hyperbolic and apocalyptic terms doesn't strengthen a case - and could be construed as somewhat macabre wishful thinking.
As I recall, monetary policy in the eurozone is independent. Why do you say it is "dictated by Frankfurt" when you would not say monetary policy in this country is "dictated by Threadneedle Street"? Even the language you use is prejudicial, unreasonably so. And given that monetary policy is set by all the heads of the national central banks as well as the ECB's executive board, the claim that it is set to serve Germany at the expense of everyone else requires some substantiation.
Further, saying that Brussels, the ECB and Germany "don't give a XXXX about" Southern Europe is hardly appropriate or likely to be true. "Brussels" and the ECB are limited in their freedom of action by the stipulations of the Treaties that constitute them. And Germany can only do so much as its taxpayers will abide and its resources will allow; it no more has access to the magical money tree than we do, and Germany will - like every other Member State - look out for its own interests first, naturally.
What wasn't in the 75 referendum? The comments that a Spanish PM was going to make in 2014? It would be hard to include that short of having had a time machine, wouldn't it?
That the European Communities were there to further integration WAS there in 75. It was there in the Schumann declaration and it was there on P.1 of the European Treaties. The electorate didn't have a problem with it and since then have had multiple elections to Westminster to elect an anti-EU majority to Parliament. So far they haven't done so.
And what viable Anti EU choices have we had to elect until now please? It's only in the last few years UKIP has become mainstream. Before there was nothing.
We live in a democracy in which citizens are free to organise, stand for election and vote on any issue they want.
Clearly the electorate haven't felt it necessary to organise and elect an anti-EU majority to Westminister during the 40+ years of UK membership.
The EU hasn't stopped the electorare doing so nor has Westminister. Rather the electorate just aren't particularly interested in doing so.
On the contrary the Euro is the glue which holds the whole thing together. Do you really think the EU would remain as it is without the Euro?
Agreed.
Expect the turnout in any EU membership referendum to be lower than the recent turnout at the Scottish independence referendum.
The eurozone countries did not print more money. The UK did. In total, both the current and previous UK chancellors have printed £375 billion of new money. Why bother introducing further austerity measures, when you pay your creditors with funds from the "magical money tree" ?
The Euro was for the benefit of bankers, not the public at large. It was sold to them as being great for not having to change their money, they've paid a far higher price than the cost of converting currency since though...
As I said/typed, the Euro is the fulcrum of the whole project.
Explain the 10 states that aren't Eurozone members then, including ourselves, Denmark, Sweden and Poland which have no intention of joining any time soon..
No it is not. The EC/EU would still exist if the euro had never been implemented.
They are not in the 'euro zone'.
Yes it is. The whole intention of the European project was a single currency followed by political union. And the Euro was the first step towards that end goal.
That's not exactly true. There was Labour back in 1983. There was the Anti-Federalist League in 1992, and it and UKIP have been around long before it became what you call "mainstream"; the difference is that before around 2004 it was a fringe party for fruit-loops.
(Not that much has changed on that score now..)
The chief reason it has become more noticed now is because of (a) the consequences of Labour policies in the last decade or so around enlargement and Lisbon, and (b) the sovereign debt crisis precipitated by the crash of 2008.
Not so, UKIP is the British establishment safety valve, implemented to counter support for the BNP from turning into votes.
It's in the interests of banks and as the EU is for the benefit of big business and banking I suppose you could say that. It's not the people's view or wishes though, they've been made to suffer by it.
Really?
Then why do the electorates of each and evey Eurozone member state return pro-Euro membership majorities to the European Parliament and to their respective domestic Parliaments in election after election?
What a load of paranoid delusional nonsense. I'm reminded of George Carlin's maxim about being careful with whom one argues at this point, so I'm going to end this discussion with you here. You can have the last word if you must.
The same reason the British electorate vote by tribe. The Roman plebs had panem et circenses to distract their attention, Europe's plebs have football and TV shows like soaps and the xfactor ect to divert its attention from the state of their country. Plus most of the plebs both here in Britain and across Europe get their information from their MSM which is usually complicit with main stream political parties, who have created the mess in the first place.
I guess then that reality isn't your strong point.
That's just an argument that the various electorate of the EU are too dumb to make democratic decisions (which presumably applies here also).
It certainly doesn't back up your assertion that the Euro exists/continues to exist despite "the people's view or wishes".
Unless you are trying to advocate the abolition of democracy, it is hard to see where you are going with this.
I meant the benefits to banks and big business is not in the interests of the people, not the principle of the EU itself.
Most of them are.
If you back read you'll see I never asserted that.
Fair enough, I accept I confused you with another poster.
It still doesn't alter that you are basically arguing against democracy.
When did I do that?
Again the electorates disagree with your view or do you hold with the view that electorates can't decide whether something is in their interest or not?
The EU in principle is fine. It benefits banks and big business more than it does the people, that's why it was set up. Not voting won't change banks and big business exploiting the public and I'd say being as big as the EU, is more likely to temper their excesses than being outside it.
It could be a lot better and more beneficial to people and their country's if the exploitation was ruled out but that's the driver behind it, so it never can be.