Revealing article in the Indy today...
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-and-david-cameron-how-a-rivalry-that-began-at-eton-spilled-out-on-to-the-main-stage-of-a6891856.html ]Boris and Dave[/url]
Sceptics and/or opponents of monetary union may prefer Connolly's "The rotten heart of Europe" - a fierce criticism of the folly that is/was the €
another taster to give some flavour
..that the drive to establish a monetary union was not just misguided but profoundly immoral – to the point of representing, in its effect if not necessarily in its intent, a collective bad. The first theme of the book is that monetary union was and is economically perverse. It would create chaos, suffering and despair and it would do so in wholly predictable fashion. That it has indeed done so is now undeniable. The second theme, now equally undeniable, is that monetary union was and is politically perverted. Its real purpose was very different from its advertised purpose. The intention of its progenitors was to use it to create an empire defined above all by hostility to a so-called ‘Anglo-Saxon’ model. The propaganda asserted that ‘creating Europe’ was about preventing a ‘Third European Civil War’. The reality was that ‘Europe’ was, even for some in Britain, about reversing the result of the Second World War as that result was perceived, however inaccurately, in Europe: a victory of the supposed (if unfortunately largely mythical) ‘Anglo-Saxon’ model of the relations between the state and the individual.
that's enough quoting from me - but again interesting narrative even if you don't agree!
THM - are you sure you aren't quoting Varoufakis? 🙂
MrL you are ignoring that whilst its called the Roterdamn effect it applies to to all EU ports/distribution channels not just Holland
Thats not what the House of Commons paper I linked to said, it quite clearly states the Rotterdam Effect only applies to the Netherlands.
"Some argue that the share of UK trade accounted for by the EU is exaggerated by the “Rotterdam effect” whereby trade recorded as being with the Netherlands is actually with non-EU countries"
No mention of anywhere outside of the Netherlands..
I grant you that other trade may go through other areas but where is this quantified & by whom?
What's needed is a Free Yorkshire! we need a referendum on remaining in the EU for Yorkshire (Hull and Yarm included).
Oh I'm constantly banging on about bringing back the old Hanseatic League (of which Hull was a member).
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot!....and breath.
Thats not what the House of Commons paper I linked to said, it quite clearly states the Rotterdam Effect only applies to the Netherlands.
But it directly referred to the ONS report that [b]did[/b] say the Rotterdam effect was a wider problem (accepting here that it effects trade figures in [b]both[/b] directions, which essentially means that all the trade figures being bandied around by all sides are crap)
In fact it's such a key point that they make it twice in the report: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/uktrade/uk-trade/december-2014/sty-trade-rotterdam-effect-.html
But it directly referred to the ONS report that did say the Rotterdam effect was a wider problem (accepting here that it effects trade figures in both directions, which essentially means that all the trade figures being bandied around by all sides are crap)
Agreed, but other areas are not quantified so thereby the point is surely moot.
To claim that the Rotterdam effect can be applied to other areas of the EU without quantification weakens said claim considerably.
Hitchens' razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus:[1][2] "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You need to provide evidence of your claim basically..
but [u]other areas are not quantified[/u] so thereby the point is surely moot.
The ONS did not attempt to quantify the Rotterdam effect, in fact they specifically said that they were not attempting to quantify it.
See underlined:
[i]Given the way data are recorded in line with international guidelines, it is extremely difficult to quantify the Rotterdam effect. [u]Instead[/u] we can consider the change to the proportion of UK trade with the EU under different assumptions. We look at 2 two such assumptions:[/i]
The ONS did not attempt to quantify the Rotterdam effect, in fact they specifically said that they were not attempting to quantify it.
My point exactly.
The ONS did not attempt to quantify the Rotterdam effect, in fact they specifically said that they were not attempting to quantify it.
Ignore my last, sorry about that! Writing a paper about animal behaviour & reading economic papers at the same time tends to fur up my brain it seems..
Right, the ONS has provided a set of figures which specifically & only relate to trade with the Netherlands (The Rotterdam Effect), in that respect the numbers can be utilised in an argument regarding EU/UK economics. Yes, the ONS admits that the numbers are difficult to substantiate nonetheless they have calculated some & seen fit to publish them. I suggest that means they have confidence in them.
However, as the ONS has speculated, the effect could be attributed to other areas but they have not calculated such an effect. Why? Perhaps it's not possible to calculate those numbers. Nonetheless, surely such speculation must be treated as just that.
At least that's the way I choose to interpret facts, figures in reports like these.
I suppose it depends whether you take the phrase 'the Rotterdam effect' as referring only to Rotterdam, to trade through the 'Netherlands ports in general' (most notably Rotterdam and Antwerp) or you apply it to the wider phenomenon of how trade through any significant EU distribution hub might sway the figures.
I would say that the ONS was pretty clear in highlighting that they had attempted to make some broad estimates on how this phenomenon might skew the Netherlands trade figures, as very significant shipping hubs, but that they clearly recognised this was a wider problem with UK/EU trade figures whereby 'the Rotterdam effect' as a wider phenomenon produced significant uncertianty In the application of all UK/EU quoted trade figures, be they import or export.
Out.
Gaidong out, eh? Imagine that.
Writing a paper about animal behaviour
I would have thought that would be very helpful in undertanding STW and politics
Priti Patel released a statement today saying how an EU exit would deepen and strengthen the UK"s relationship with India. Something I have posted about a few times.
[url= http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/statement_from_priti_patel_mp_employment_minister_on ]Priti's statement[/url]
If you lot can keep this up till the referendum the hamster will surely die..please stop think of the hamsters!
....whereas the Tatas would prefer us to stay in.
I know who is likely to be more on the UK-India pulse!!!
That Priti Patel statement is really awful, there are frequent accusations of 6 form philosophy thrown at the political left on here, but that is infantile.
Something I have posted about a few times.
given her emmotive style and irrational style she may well be copying you
Over the last forty years the UK’s membership of the EU has acted as a barrier to developing trade and investment partnerships with the rest of the world, including India
Stopped at the second paragraph.
The relationship I'm more worried about is the one with the US. If we loosen ties with Europe, maybe there'll be a desire for stronger links over the pond - bonds which I would already prefer to be looser.
I wouldn't worry slowoldman, the UK will be a low priority for the US compared to the rest of Europe. In fact if you really want to see ties to the states cut, voting out of the EU is your best bet.
Didn't see this posted yet.
Euroscepticism in Scotland soars to record highSurvey findings contradict SNP claims that referendum could take Scotland out of EU against its will
Euroscepticism in Scotland is at a record high, according to research that challenges claims that the country is significantly more pro-European than the rest of the UK.
Not sure you can claim that from that survey
One would have to ask them how they intend to vote
According to the research, based on the annual Scottish Social Attitudes survey carried out between July 2015 and January this year, 43% of respondents want the EU’s powers reduced and 17% want to leave, more than at any time since 1999. This compares with 43% favouring reduced powers and 22% wanting to leave the UK as a whole.
There is some distance between wanting to reduce their powers and wanting to leave.
Interesting for sure but the research does not support the headline.
[i]I wouldn't worry slowoldman, the UK will be a low priority for the US compared to the rest of Europe. In fact if you really want to see ties to the states cut, voting out of the EU is your best bet. [/i]
Oh, and there was me a firm 'In' until you threw that curve ball.
given her emmotive style and irrational style she may well be copying you
😀 as pompus as I can be from time to time even I won't claim that she's copying me. I have some experience here as I've had numerous smart Indian colleagues and team members plus my Nan was Indian and my father and his siblings lived there for 20 years. Our Commonwealth links go far deepe than those to Europe.
@tmh much of big business is pro Europe not least as its fantastic for tax avoidance via Ireland and Luxembourg. A UK outside the EU free to make its own tax laws is a very big risk for them. As an aside France is pursuing Googlemfor a proper amount of money €1.6bn not the toekn £130m we agreed. Mr Junker has much to answer for
The US wants the UK in the EU as they know us to be a strong voice and a supporter in general of US policy. An EU without the UK is far weaker and naive in foreign policy.
Another reference here to Germany's mishandling of the refugee crises, relevant as Germany is in many respects the controlling indluemce in the EU.
Today the German Parliament votes on laws to make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers including the sick. This is is the wake of a government report which says they could have 3.6m refugees by 2020, thats close to double the number Turkey has now. Merkel really didn't think this through at all, consistent with the creation and management of the euro. Germany has made it clear no one from Afghanistan is entitied to asylum as even if they are subject to Taliban violence safe parts of Afgahnistan exist. Recently a number of failed asylum seekers returned voluntarily their flights paid for plus a €500 allowance. If you extrapolate that to the estimated 60% of current applicants who will fail thays aboit €450m plus all the costs of housing/feeding them during the process. IMO that money would have been far better spent on supporting genuine refugees in the region.
[url= http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-reckons-on-36-million-refugees-by-2020-report/a-19071771 ]German News Story. DW[/url]
Schengen appears increasingly doomed. Lots of French TV coverage again last night of full border controls between Belgium and France as the Belgians seek to stop any Calais Jungle camp people relocating as the French dismantle large parts of the camp. Austrian summit (excluding Greece not invited) to discuss border controls starts today also I understand.
A UK outside the EU free to make its own tax laws is a very big risk for them
For sure Cameron would vote to crack down on tax avoidance if we were out of the eu 😆
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/03/tory-and-ukip-meps-vote-against-proposals-to-crack-down-on-tax-dodging/
On what basis is Priti Patel qualified to talk about Indian foreign trade policy? According to Wikipedia her professional experience is in advising the Tory party, tobacco companies and booze companies on PR. Her personal qualifications to talk about India appear to be the same as Jambalaya's ie extensive experience in "having an Indian Nan". That's exactly what qualifies me to gob off about Irish politics, Turkish politics and Guyanese politics - subject about which I know sod all. Also, I have an Indian Naan, but that is even less relevant to the topic.
I know of the strong entrepreneurial spirit that is within our blood.
She's got some strange views - Gujuratis have entrepreneurial blood and British workers are lazy...
@tmh much of big business is pro Europe not least as its fantastic for tax avoidance via Ireland and Luxembourg. A UK outside the EU free to make its own tax laws is a very big risk for them
Yes they must be looking at GO and dave and thinking shit they will really hit Big business hard and tax the shit out of us. 😆
You dont half spout some bollocks on here.
PS your ability to contradict your own point immediately remains un diminished
Right so two countries in the EU and one of them has gone for proper tax and one of them has not and the real person to blame is the person not in control of either country and Big Business are scared of the country that did not enforce tax very well/at the lower rateAs an aside France is pursuing Googlemfor a proper amount of money €1.6bn not the toekn £130m we agreed. Mr Junker has much to answer for
If you stopped the non sequiturs/ bizarre "logic" your posts would only have punctuation left
ie extensive experience in "having an Indian Nan"
I chuckled
@tmh much of big business is pro Europe not least as its fantastic for tax avoidance via Ireland and Luxembourg. A UK outside the EU free to make its own tax laws is a very big risk for them. As an aside France is pursuing Googlemfor a proper amount of money €1.6bn not the toekn £130m we agreed. Mr Junker has much to answer for
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the impact of the EU on this stuff is very limited, there isn't a great deal of direct tax harmonisation (and Apple first started using Ireland before any direct tax directives were issued). Indeed if there was, then these issues wouldn't arise as everyone would have similar tax laws. We have a huge amount of control over our tax laws. Ironically the Irish structure that is commonly referred to makes use of laws that are a hangover from the Irish inheriting UK tax law on independence.
@mefty I be keen to see some links supporting your view. I have a very different opinion not least based upon leaked PWC memos and the deals personally signed off by Junker, its a combination EU tax legislation amd very compliant (complicit I would say Governments, Luxembourg is about the richest EU country per capita). Ditto the triple-Irish ("graciously" reformed by the Irish but 4 years from now !)
Cigarette manufacturing is a massive business not least in developing nations with large populations. My father worked extensively with companies in Iraq, India, China and the Phillipines going back 40 years. Its no surprise we have lonks to such business.
@kimbers yes I conceed we need government action but at least we'd have the ability and perhaps a future Labour government would address the issue if you don't trust the Tories to do so.
@JY I see you've made zero effort to explain those figures showing EU employees vs in-work benefits claimed. I contend thats because my explanation is the only plausible one. Also more than a little ironic for you to be derididing a politician's contribtuions to a referendum debate as overly "emotional"
I find it interesting that the debate here is totally about an attempt at a rational argument around the financial implications; which seem to be moot at best with spurious counter-arguments flying each way.
None of it is about an emotional or historical view - given that most people will vote [url= http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb08/brain.aspx ]emotionally[/url] and then try to rationalise it.
So is it really a vote on the [i]Little Englander us vs them[/i] mentality against a more cooperative [i]we're all in this together let's work it[/i] out mentality?
So is it really a vote on the Little Englander us vs them mentality against a more cooperative we're all in this together let's work it out mentality?
I don't really think it is, as there are a significant number who think it was wrong of us to look 'inwards' toward Europe in the 70's rather than looking 'outwards' towards trade with the commonwealth with whom we had a greater shared cultural history, legal structure and, in many cases, language.
@tmh much of big business is pro Europe not least as its fantastic for tax avoidance via Ireland and Luxembourg.
I think that there may be other considerations - arguably more important ones
Re Priti - given that she continues to lie (even in written material) about the UK contribution, then I will treat her analysis with the appropriate level of respect. Perhaps she is too young to remember Mrs T and the little issue of the UK's rebate. Or perhaps like Farrage and other Outers she simply prefers to lie?
Re our historic links - given our racial mix and heritage, I would suggest that our links to Europe pre-date those to the Commonwealth by several centuries if not millennia!
DaRC_L - Member
I find it interesting that the debate here is totally about an attempt at a rational argument around the financial implications; which seem to be moot at best with spurious counter-arguments flying each way.None of it is about an emotional or historical view - given that most people will vote emotionally and then try to rationalise it.
It's propaganda vs counter propaganda.
The one on advocating EU propaganda apply the "rational" approach to strengthen their arguments using " their facts" to "bully" the ones that are applying common sense.
The way they go about it is to keep banging on about their "rationality" thinking that if they keep saying it then it must be true. They apply the "intelligent" or the "elitist" views simply because they think you lot should bow to their "wisdom" ...
Arrogant bunch that assume human rationality and perfection like a ZM they are trying to create the herd mentality and to infect the masses with their PC brain dead mindset.
What they do not realise is I am a ZM spotter. ZM I see you coming, obvious is obvious and "You shall Not pas ..." (said Gandalf the grey) 😈
So is it really a vote on the Little Englander us vs them mentality against a more cooperative we're all in this together let's work it out mentality?
There is nothing wrong about being yourself and having your own identity. They are ZM and by giving in you are escalating and polarising the situation. In fact, once in there is no stopping the lot moving in unity in one direction towards the WWIII! Woohoo ... Bay of pigs scenario again. 😆
As I said before, its a totally false debate, hence the requirement for hyperbole and BS.
The only question is who spouts the most BS and so far the outers are winning that contest my a country mile!
Yes, but let us not forget just how of that time was spent with them trying to either invade us or defeat us militarily in order to seize large parts of said commonwealth.I would suggest that our links to Europe pre-date those to the Commonwealth by several centuries if not millennia!
As Gaitskell asked, How shall we serve as the centre of the Commonwealth when we have become nothing more than a province of Europe?
teamhurtmore - Member
As I said before, its a totally false debate, hence the requirement for hyperbole and BS.The only question is who spouts the most BS and so far the outers are winning that contest my a country mile!
It's propaganda vs counter propaganda.
Which side are you on? 🙄
By contributing and debating in this thread then you are already taking side. You cannot escape that. i.e. you are also contributing the BS is it not? 😯
@JY I see you've made zero effort to explain those figures showing EU employees vs in-work benefits claimed. I contend thats because my explanation is the only plausible one.
Its really not like you to take a view completely at odd with the facts and easily falsifiable by reality 😕
Why do you do such blatant lies on here? There were numerous replies all pointing out why you your conlsuion could not be supported by the evidence you providedKB called it fallacies and non sequitirs and i explained why. One cannot look at 10% of the EU migrants and use this to tell us what it means for the 100% as you have ignored 90% of the datat set. That is not even debatable its just fact.
Can you make your goading trolls funny as not even you are this stupid?
Also more than a little ironic for you to be derididing a politician's contribtuions to a referendum debate as overly "emotional"
Obviously I can but hope to achieve your balanced and fact based approach to debate
Yes, but let us not forget just how of that time was spent with them trying to either invade us or defeat us militarily in order to seize large parts of said commonwealth.
Only about 200 years, if you go 1750-1950, of (let's take the last glacial maxium as a boundary) of a 12,000 year period so 0.016 recurring
chewkw - my position remains unchanged for P1
teamhurtmore - MemberAbstaining until the proper vote.
This CMD stuff is just a rather silly sideshow. {actually I was slightly harsh there, in hindsight]
There is only one question or not - do you want to be part of a Europe that involves full monetary, fiscal and political union - Yes or No
To survive, this is where it needs to go unless the silly € project is abandoned - then you could simply go back to the very sensible four core pillars as originally intended.
Posted 2 weeks ago #
So I am not taking a side - ok, chosing the least worse of two options that are being mistakenly presented to us.
edit #2 actually I was wrong 2 weeks ago in saying that there is only one question. Yes, that is the critical question but we know the answer to that. The other question is how do we want to engage with that part of the EU that moves toward full union. Since we don't know what that will be or who will be part of that construct this is a false and frustrating, if amusing, debate.
Junkyard - lazarus
One cannot look at 10% of the EU migrants and use this to tell us what it means for the 100% as you have ignored 90% of the datat set. That is not even debatable its just fact.Can you make your goading trolls funny as not even you are this stupid?
This ^^^ is the example of a failed attempt at being rational using percentage or "facts" to deflect the argument.
Completely wrong argument coz we are not even talking about percentage.
It is about BritLand's ability to totally control who they let in or out (some cannot be let out to contaminate the world) i.e. we decide whatever percentage and it will be our own choice.
Once we have total control then you can debate whatever shite percentage you consider rational.
Therefore, the percentage you suggested is simply wrong debate.
You are leaking brain juice again to pollute the masses so need to be contained. 😮
Jambas - only 0.2% of EU immigrants claim benefit without having worked, a whopping 2.1% claim child benefit (that's correct 2.1% not 21%) and 1% (yes, neither 10% not 100%) claim tax credits.
Given the benefits of migration, I can live with those stats. Glad the negotiations were focused on the big, important stuff!!
Yes, but let us not forget just how of that time was spent with them trying to either invade us or defeat us militarily in order to seize large parts of said commonwealth.
Of course we never did any invading or fighting wars in foreign lands did we? Even if that were the case it's irrelevant, it wasn't 'us' as a nation, but a small cabal of aristocrats across Europe forcing the peasants living on their land to fight for their naked self interest.
As Gaitskell asked, How shall we serve as the centre of the Commonwealth when we have become nothing more than a province of Europe?
Who cares about the Commonwealth? Let one of the other countries serve as the centre of the Commonwealth if it's so important to them.