Forum menu
Litstening to Major and Blair in Londonderry. So in addition to World War 3 a Brexit will mean a return to terrorism in Ireland.
[i]As much shes upset with all the lies, I think Wollaston has seen which way the wind is blowing,[/i]
+1
I saw her this morning, couldn't quite believe her 'balls' but then she is a politician and her goal is re-(s)election - although just reading her 'bio', maybe she's actually just 'seen the light'?
jambalaya - Member
Litstening to Major and Blair in Londonderry. So in addition to World War 3 a Brexit will mean a return to terrorism in Ireland.
Whereas staying means we'll be speaking Turkish by October
Re Wollaston, I think she's legitimately pissed off with the Brexit lies.
According to Sky News theres rumours others might defect too
rats and a sinking ship?
If Ninfans predictions are to come true Borris will need to do some PR spinning, but hes good at that
Gove has been quite brazen in his bullshitting though, will he be relegated to the backbenches for ever after this?
A credible personality changes sides to remain, there's hope yet.
if its so crap why has no one left
For the net contributors to the EU I'd imagine the can has been kicked far too far down the road, and far too much money has been loaned to keep the single-currency pipedream alive, and they now have too much to lose (in terms of debt owed to them by other Eurozone countries) to risk leaving. That's why they don't want us leaving - it'll hasten the arrival at the end of the road down which they're kicking the can.
For the net beneficiaries, what incentive is there to get off the free money train?
as for ASEAN - how wrong can a person be - your ability to produce evidence that refutes your opinion is incredibly impressive
Jamba said there are areas where free-trade agreements are present, such as ASEAN, but nowhere else where single currency has been attempted. You quote wiki-info about the ASEAN Charter where the only non-wooly section refers to free-trade, and yet despite corroborating Jamba's point it somehow also refutes it? In fact, ASEAN are specifically wary of currency union because of differences in member states economic needs and development. Maybe they've seen how the Eurozone "works" and thought, "hmmm.... best we put that on the back burner for now".
Second point is a fair one I mis read or did not read or failed to comprehend [ delete based on how charitable you wish to be] his post/point.
Every country in Europe is in the club and non one has left- there must be a reason for this and its not the reason[s] you give.
Junkyard - lazarus
Every country in Europe is in the club and non one has left- there must be a reason for this and its not the reason[s] you give.
When the Lemmings start moving the rest follow ... a bit like the domino effect.
All you need is a leader to make the first move (I don't mean first move by a small country but there are some smaller ones braver than larger some).
Question is whether BritLand is a leader or Lemming.
Misread - I'm not up for personal slights.
However, you can't just say it's not the reason I give like your word alone is all the authority needed. It's like debating kooky religious scholars: "the Bible is true because God says so in the Bible". Could you explain why you don't think my theory isn't at least a possibility?
The Flying Ox - MemberMisread - I'm not up for personal slights.
However, you can't just say it's not the reason I give like your word alone is all the authority needed. It's like debating kooky religious scholars: "the Bible is true because God says so in the Bible". Could you explain why you don't think my theory isn't at least a possibility?
[b]Future is man made [/b]whatever they may be.
Ya, see ... you now put yourself in a difficult position to counter innit.
Oh ya, I don't belief in the extremities of thoughts ... Science Vs. Creation.
The EU is young at only 40 years or so old. There is a growing feeling in France and Germany about the state of the EU. They're not necessarily looking to leave - but that sort of sentiment is growing, but there is a realisation that the current EU is corrupt, serves only big business and is changing individual countries too much and is in need of significant reform. The rise of the right wing is proof of this.
I don't have a problem with the EU in principle, just a problem with the EU in its current form. Sentimentality and idealology are poor reasons to remain in, especially with us (the UK) having such little influence within the EU.
shirley the ultimate precedent
of a federation of states harmonised under 1 government, laws and currency, army, covering nearly an entire continent but with member states having limited autonomy over things like taxes, policing etc
is out there
[img] 
[/img]
yeah, it took a few hundred years of colonisation, genocide, the odd civil war to unify the entire country
of course all thats nothing new, hence....
Kimbers is right. This has already been done (his picture is of the USA in case he doens't fix it).
It was originally independent states, they joined together.
Oh also Switzerland maybe?
so [s]Michael Green[/s] Grant Shapps has come off the fence and decided to vote remain too (im not sure he will swing the nation, obvs)
cheers mols, what i meant was
shirley the ultimate precedentof a federation of states harmonised under 1 government, laws and currency, army, covering nearly an entire continent but with member states having limited autonomy over things like taxes, policing etc
is out there
[img] 
[/img]
yes but in the example of the USA the original 13 states joined together in order to achieve a break from being controlled by an unaccountable overseas state.
Ireland too. We used to have shitloads of kings. Then we kinda went with lots of kings and one high-king. No hereditary bollocks either. If you fancied the high-king's job, you just said "Right, I'll fight you for it!"
A credible personality changes sides to remain, there's hope yet.
Not really....if she had a real belief in the whole idea, she wouldn't have allowed a misleading slogan on a bus to alter her judgement.
I think it shows that she doesn't really have a 'kin clue about whole question!
It was originally independent states, they joined together.
Yeah, let's just gloss over there stuff about it only being kept together by the war of northern aggression, with the democratic right of states to secede from the union illegally ignored by a leadership elected by only 39% of the electorate, eh?
It's amazing how something like that could fall apart into chaos just because one member decided it wanted independence, leading to a clamour of others wanting the same, and others wanting to stop them... Ahem.
Apparently Sweden is 'banning' M&Ms. Except it's actually some kind of trademark dispute, didn't bother reading much. However, since it's an EU country Sweden shouldn't be able to exercise any authority at all, should it?
the original 13 states joined together in order to achieve a break from being controlled by an unaccountable overseas state.
Well they were a much looser federation initially. Lincoln had to mold the North into a single power to fight the civil war - the federal government gained far more power then and maintained it.
ninfan - Member
It was originally independent states, they joined together.
Yeah, let's just gloss over there stuff about it only being kept together by the war of northern aggression, with the democratic right of states to [b]secede from the union illegally[/b] ignored by a leadership elected by only 39% of the electorate, eh?
It's amazing how something like that could fall apart into chaos just because one member decided it wanted independence, leading to a clamour of others wanting the same, and others wanting to stop them... Ahem.
You got that right.
Sentimentality and idealology are poor reasons to remain in, especially with us (the UK) having such little influence within the EU.
As THM has explained a hundred times, staying is the rational choice - sentimentality and dreams of rebirth of Empire, sorry, I mean "Commonwealth", are the province of Brexit.
It's amazing how something like that could fall apart into chaos just because one member decided it wanted independence, leading to a clamour of others wanting the same, and others wanting to stop them
Well, there was a little more to it than that. A moral issue about freedom, something like that.. hmm...
But that, whilst interesting, has no bearing on the current debate. Like I said - only one Europe.
Apparently Sweden is 'banning' M&Ms. Except it's actually some kind of trademark dispute, didn't bother reading much. However, since it's an EU country Sweden shouldn't be able to exercise any authority at all, should it?
Just as Denmark (de facto) banned Marmite. Strange how they managed to do that despite all the laws being made in Brussels by unelected bureaucrats.
Denying the antecedent?
@kimbers I agree the US is the closest but with many material differences / issues imo
Firstly the states never where seperate countries and they where very recent creations not nations with 100's of years of history, culture and practice
It took a civil war
They have a written constitution laying out fundamental rights which is much more powerful than the ECHR
They have a real democracy with elected Presidents, Senators, House of Representatives
They have a proper single currency
They are very anti central control, the exact opposite of the EU who meddle for meddling's sake
@Flying thanks but its just easier to understand Junkies obsession with targetted abuse and let it wash over you.
Nothing even remotely close to the EU exists anywhere. As I said there is a reason for that.
jambalaya - Member
nations with 100's of years of history, culture and practiceNothing even remotely close to the EU exists anywhere. As I said there is a reason for that.
Perhaps something to do with those 100s of years of intertwined culture, history and practices?
Firstly the states never where seperate countries and they where very recent creations not nations with 100's of years of history, culture and practice
It took a civil war
The US was not formed by a civil war it was formed after the war of independence that was essentially a european world war as well
Yes the people of the US were so alike that just under a 100 years later they had a civil war after the confederates succeeded from the state
Nothing even remotely close to the EU exists anywhere. As I said there is a reason for that.
The united Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland was formed from
nations with 100's of years of history, culture and practice
and with one currency
It took a civil war
Er, no, the American Revolutionary War came roughly 80 years before the American Civil War. Unless you actually meant 'armed revolt'.
Firstly the states never where seperate countries
Even though they had their own governments leading to a sense of self determination.
They have a written constitution laying out fundamental rights which is much more powerful than the ECHR
Lucky they have that there Guantanamo Bay eh?
They have a real democracy with elected Presidents, Senators, House of Representatives
In the sense they are elected, perhaps. But a two party state? Can you actually say that with a straight face seeing who is running right now?
They are very anti central control, the exact opposite of the EU who meddle for meddling's sake
'They' presumably being the people? How's that working out for marriage equality and drugs legislature for example? Not much different to the EU is it?
They have a proper single currency
Well 1/6 aint bad.
Even though they had their own governments leading to a sense of self determination.
Precisely, which is exactly why the example of the US is such a poor one, because it proves that the proposed model for the EU [b]doesn't[/b] work, because it was this that inevitably led to:
Yes the people of the US were so alike that just under a 100 years later they had a civil war after the confederates succeeded from the state
The US only worked when the self determination was [i]removed[/i] from the independent states, and an expansionist political union was forced upon them [i]against the will[/i] of the independent states that wished to retain rights of self determination, and were subsequently left impoverished by the financially and militarily dominant member states who sought a single super-state.
Ever closer union...
Jambas - you are correct in arguing that nothing comes close to resembling the EU, but wrong in the reasons for it. The fact that is is unique and has been successful (ok not the EZ bit) is what makes it remarkable especially given the historical/political context.
The concept for common currency areas dates back (in modern times) to the 60s and the work of an economist called Robert Mundell. He won a noble prize (yes another one) partly for his work in developing the concept of optimum currency areas or regions (OCAs). He identified four criteria that are required for an OCA to be successful:
1. Mobility of labour - hurrah, a man after my own heart
2. Mobility of capital and high levels of wage and price flexibility (across the area) - ditto
3. A fiscal transfer system - opps not there in Europe
4. Similar business cycles - hmm, also a challenge
From this other bits were added but this is the nub of the idea.
Here (for a saddo like me) is where it gets interesting. Mundell is considered the godfather of the Euro and the reason for mentioning this is that he bought the US and Canada into a lot of his analysis. [b]Ironically IMO, the Euro has been doomed to failure from the start based on Mundell's own theory and specifically the absence of (3) and (4) although Maastricht was designed to tackle the latter.[/b] Mundell and others disagree but since when have economists agreed.
So what?
1. Its perfectly sensible to include the US in the debate
2. We know what has to happen if the Euro is going to work - at the very least you need greater fiscal union and IMO this requires greater political union.
If anyone is interested 😉 this is a link to a summary of the counter argument to mine that the Euro was flawed from the start
https://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/1999/121399.htm
FWIW, the best example of an OCA working IMO is the UK. This is why (despite my dislike of centralised control and bureaucracy) I was a strong opponent to Scottish Independence.
Excuse the boring economics, but some might be interested !!
Off for a ride now!!
I'm in, I'm not daft enough to say the eu is perfect but the Trumpesque way the Brexit lot are jumping up and down wanting to 'make Britain great again' and carrying on with themselves promising to 'take back control' to vote out feels like I'm voting for a bunch of right wing nutcases who want to take the uk back to the dark ages while enslaved to Russian oligarch money and the Chinese yen.
I also fear the rise of right wing extremism that I think would go with an out victory..
There.. I said it..
the best example of an OCA working IMO is the UK
I wonder if the UK's geography has helped this.
We had trade links and good land in the South East which eventually set up all the money there. Then they discovered useful combinations of mineral wealth in other areas of the country just in time for the industrial revolution. So we ended up with different areas of the country having what other areas needed. Industry for the North/Midlands/Wales and money in the South East, resulting in a balanced mutually beneficial situation. (not where the workers were concerned though)
In the Eurozone it's not quite as balanced, is it?
Nothing even remotely close to the EU exists anywhere. As I said there is a reason for that.
Yes, there is, but it's not the reason you think.
Also - things like it HAVE existed in the past, except force was involved at first. Pax Romana.
We had trade links and good land in the South East which eventually set up all the money there. Then they discovered useful combinations of mineral wealth in other areas of the country just in time for the industrial revolution. So we ended up with different areas of the country having what other areas needed. Industry for the North/Midlands/Wales and money in the South East, resulting in a balanced mutually beneficial situation. (not where the workers were concerned though)In the Eurozone it's not quite as balanced, is it?
Don't forget that international trade long predated the industrial revolution - Lead, Silver, Wool and Tin all being heavily tied up in the Roman occupation of Britain.
Of course, and even in the Iron Age too. But that was before single currencies. Except probably not, because it would have been barter and then probably gold in the form of currency.
But that's just trade. Point here is about labour movement. People could migrate across Britain to where the jobs were, and they did. No-one much minded then though because the demand for labour was there, driven by markets in the rich places. And everyone was British. Although it did cause a lot of problems with welfare, but the people were treated as resources to be consumed by the industrialists. There'd be hell to pay if that happened now. But then again, there's no huge 200-year long boom going on as there was then.
Also consider the Gold Rush in the US. Population density was so low though there that no-one much cared, they wanted places populated.
[img] 
[/img]
ninfan - MemberYeah, let's just gloss over there stuff about it only being kept together by the war of northern aggression, with the democratic right of states to secede from the union illegally ignored by a leadership elected by only 39% of the electorate, eh?
You phrase that strangely differently than you do when saying the same thing would apply to a 2nd scottish referendum 😆
I think seeing an independent Scotland trying to join the EU atfer a Brexit would quite amusing. The SNP (assumed government) trying to plead poverty so as not be to on the hook for a large budget contribution and attempting to stay out of the euro when they don't even have an alternative currency. A real fight over fishing rights as EU boats focus on Scottish waters now that its UK boats only for the rest of the UK.
I have no doubt at all that in the event of a Brexit the SNP will attempt to gain extra powers but remain very much in the Union. Maybe we should call their bluff and let them have another vote in say 2017 - vote IN and they can shut up forever, vote OUT and get the euro etc. All the IN-ers can move to England and the Scots can fill the gaps from the EU.
@wobbliscott, agreed disatisfaction with the EU is at unprecidented levels and its growing. I think the "exit" sentiment in Italy is pretty high as they feel they have been left high and dry with respect to migrants (remeber the eu stopped funding the naval protection and that lead to the huge influx last year). Also Italians are not happy with the debt/gdp rules set as part of the euro.
EEC (no euro, no freedom of movement, no ECJ) yes. EU no. Personally I would guess probably 80%+ of the UK would support that
You phrase that strangely differently than you do when saying the same thing would apply to a 2nd scottish referendum
But the Act of Union 1707, agreed and enacted by both Scottish and English parliaments, specifically states that the union of England and Scotland will be be forever, Not only did the the US constitution at time of agreement carry no such clause, but several of the states made ratification of the constitution conditional on the right to withdraw.
so, legally theres no comparison between the US constitution, where several states attempted to retain the right to withdraw, and the act of Union which gives none.
😉