Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

With the referendum on its way. What do you think ??

I'm undecided...


I love the freedom of movement and the potential that I can easily re-locate to a sunny country if i want to.

I also don't trust our Government so I like that there is the E.U. to tame their Victorian ideals.

But I'm not a fan of the beaurocracy and squabbling of the 'senate'. And from what I see, its not a fair system.

It's an interesting subject. One thing was the EEC. This, I believe, was a good thing and indeed brought benefits for its members. But now we have this behemoth called European Union, an utopia which tries to make Brits, Portuguese, Bulgarians, Greeks, Finns and everybody in between equal, pretends that everybody forgets its national histories and interests and dreams about a common good defended by all. It has always been an utopia.

Let's go back 25 years and remember how did the EU start. It didn't start due to any relevant needs for a closer union between the EEC countries nor for economic reasons. European Union is the son of political fear. The fear that an united Germany could wage war on its beighbours once more. Out of that came the idea (most particularly from the British, French and Italians) that with very strong, intertwined relations between all countries, Germany would be harmless for it would stand to loose as much as the others. And from this fear started the monstruous and aborrent construction of the European Union. It couldn't work and it was doomed since the beggining. Nowadays and for a couple years already I often ask if, in reality, the EU still exists. For its instutions behave more like a fallen empire trying to stick together its parts at all costs than as the original EU.

Going back 20 years, I repeatedly said that the EU would last until 2012-2015 and it would implode naturally with a bang. I may have been slightly wrong about the when... although I am not so sure if the EU still exists as said before. For a long time I hoped that from the rubble could remain at least the basis to recreate the EEC. Nowadays I'm not so sure that even that will be possible when someone finally issues the death certificate for this outrageous dreamy invention.

With the UK leaving the thing, it may start to desintegrate in an orderly fashion. Opposed to a chaotic one which will ensue if some other country decides to simply leave or, worst, merely starts ignoring the EU. Hungary and Poland seem on track for this second alternative.

You do ask some of the toughest & most topical questions Ted, i would like to have seen an "Undecided' option on the poll, simply because this is such a fluid topic right now.

Keep up the good work chap. http://www.tenere.co.uk/forum/images...es/biggrin.gif

Mez.

Ah yes. I can't edit the poll now though :/

I don't think that we should leave the EU completely but we need curb some of the stupid things that come out of Brussels. We need to work on our opt out clauses so we have more say for our own country or maybe it wont be our own country in the future. My worry is we will become just a state in a United Europe rather than what we are now.
I also think that the EU Courts should have a less of a say in what goes on, take for instance (to name but one)...how long did it take us to get rid of Abu Hanza (the hook) due to all the b0ll0cks coming out of Europe, and how much did it cost us the tax payer.
We definitely do not want an open border, there is enough dross trying to get over as it is with out more coming in.

But on the other hand I am assuming that being part of the EU and having an open market as such is better for businesses

If we can stay out of all the crap that comes with it and still help it grow that would be ideal

Wayne

Mod can sort that Ted, all you have to do is admit that you didn't put a whole lot of thought in to your your poll questions. LoL

Hey even NASA make mistakes Ted.

M.

I took at least two minutes.. That's the longest I've concentrated on anything all week.

I'll probably be voting "OUT"
 

I like the thought of an affiliation of European states. Free trade without borders, etc. In short, I enjoy being a European citizen and part of a wider club of nations, not least for the reason Ted mentions above.

On the other hand, there is now too much political power vested in the hands of a few, largely unaccountable, political Europhiles based in Brussels .. and you have to say in Berlin as well, who wield far too much control over the rest of us. The ongoing Greek tragedy is a prime example of this.

They say monetary union cannot happen without political union. That's the 'End Game' isn't it? a full European Union - a federated super state - the United States of Europe by any other name, with it's very own army .. and everything else; separated only by 28 completely unique cultures and economic dynamics, and at least 28 different languages. Yeah Right! .. that'll work [NOT!]

The answer is simple to my mind:

There are currently 28 member states, with others knocking on the door, e.g. Turkey, and even the Ukrainians springs to mind in this respect.

19 members form the Eurozone. Politically, why not work towards fully unionising these 19 states; they're halfway there already (a common currency, Schengen etc.) It seems this is what they are committed to and hell-bent on achieving in any case.

Meanwhile the remaining nine [plus?] member states remain affiliated 'country club' members, with ongoing free trade and interstate travel privileges, but they [we] do our own thing politically and stick with our own separate free-floating currencies.

It really can be that simple. Can't it? Surely it can?

If this simple solution isn't on the table come Referendum Day, but instead it's a straight case of "Remain In" the current status quo and the relentless drive to a European super state, or "Leave and do your own thing" .. then I'm definitely voting 'OUT' .. :nono:

At the end of the day, I'm a British subject, loyal firstly to Her Majesty the Queen and her elected sovereign government; this will always trump my European citizenship (and the foreign cronies that are empowered to control it.)

Nation states are a long, long way from being dead
 

Pro-Europe and anti-EU.
Totally compatible.

The EU would be fantastic without the politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This...

And this...

Is what was the EEC. A commerce and trade union for benefit of all participant countries. And as such it should had remained.


That was the dream, of course. Utopia more than a dream if you ask me. It's insane to suppose that the interests of the UK are the same as those of Greece or Romania or Finland. Each country has its own history, its geopolitical influence, its international interests. It has always been a dream (or nightmare...) to think that the UK would go back on its relation with the US and Canada in favor of Europe. But this is exactly what the eurocrats believed. As a result both the UK and France have less influence in the world nowadays than each of them had twenty years ago. And, what is much worse, the EU has less influence in the world than the UK or France had twenty years ago. I think that the French already realized so and their intervention in Africa might be a way to recover some of the influence that they lost.


Utterly impossible even in the eurozone countries. Right now the social and political climates to further the European integration simply are not there in any of these nineteen countries. Quite the opposite, in fact. The crazy euro-lunacy years (the 1990s) are long gone, forgotten and, I tend to think, slightly regretted nowadays.


That's a fiction, has always been and will always be. The European citizenship is an artificial creation with no real existence in the minds of the people. Further, it's not a real nationality. It's a words' game for one can not be an European citizen by birth or naturalization. One acquires the nationality of a real country and if that country is part of the EU one is also said to be, as a complement, an European citizen. But your nationality and country of citizenship is the United Kingdom. Neither in Europe nor anywhere else in the world you can answer in an official form, when asked about your nationality or country of citizenship with the word "European".


URRAY! I commend you, Keith! bier Those are words not commonly seen nowadays in any country.

First time I ever went to the Elephant rally I watched somebody walk up to a campfire about 50m away and chuck a full camping gaz cylinder into it. A few minutes later there was a loud bang and bits of campfire went everywhere. I get the feeling the canister's just been chucked here and we're now waiting for the explosion. Give it a while and there'll be people flouncing everywhere on the back end of finger stabbing monologues of invective. :rofl:

For what it's worth (and that'll be one vote, just like everyone else) I'm pro "in" and always have been - even before there was an EU to be in. There's little point in listing a load of economic or other reasons as there's always a counter argument but it's not arguments that matter, it's economic and social results. I'm well aware that the EU isn't perfect - not by a long way, but I can't see any reason why, like Norway and Switzerland, we'd want to be on the outside looking in, still required by reason of the volume of trade we have with the EU to maintain their stds, but no longer having any say in what they are.

Lord Palmerston's quote "we have no eternal allies and no eternal enemies, but we do have eternal interests and those interests it is our duty to follow" is still how these things are done. At this moment in time I think a significant part of those interests lie in the EU. There's a case to be made that the UK's main problem with the EU is that we've been semi detached for decades and there's still a lot of the "Fog in the channel, Europe cut off" empire mentality around. We ought to be more involved, not less.

On a personal note we've put our money where our mouth(s) is/ are. We have property in France and family in two other EU countries. None of that would have been impossible pre EU but the rights that come as EU citizens have made it considerably easier. Sure, I have reservations about where the borders ought to be and the wisdom of some of the decisions that have come from Brussels (or wherever the decision making centre is) - the way the Euro is structured for example, but the IMHO the scales are firmly tilted in the positive direction. IN.

Anyone getting nasty or racist in this thread will be reported. I don't think that will happen though.

Of course it would. Back before the EU in the EEC days the free movement of people already existed. And, in any event, you can buy a house in several countries worldwide (most of them) without having any affiliation to it.

Many people seem to think that the freedom of movement came with Schengen just like many people seem to think that the right to live in any European country came with the Schengen agreement but that is far from true. The Schengen Agreement the sole thing that it did was the abolishing of border controls between the EU countries. Nothing else. And, in any event, the Schengen Agreement is not a birth child of the European Union. It was signed in 1985 being a birth child of the European Economic Comunity. Further, its rules, regulations and systems were not part of the EU acquis until 1999. Only then, with the Treaty of Amsterdam, the provisions of the Schengen Agreement (1985) and of the Schengen Convention (1990) were included in European law. Until then it was an agreement between states.

Before the EU could I have gone and lived for 12 months in a camper van in the south coast of Spain ? Could I have legally worked whilst doing that and receive free medical treatment and legal assistance if needed ??

A serious question.

Yes you could just like today. There are some misconceptions regarding medical treatment in EU countries. As a citizen of an European country you are entitled to receive only emergency care in any other European country in the same conditions as the other country's citizens. You can't receive extended care without being a resident. Up until the recent economic crisis everybody closed the eyes to several things, medical treatments included. Spain is one of the countries which treated everybody irrespective of nationality, either from another EU country or from somewhere else. In fact, Spain was a destination for health tourism with even Americans going to Spain to receive free medical treatment. With the crisis several governments (the Spanish one of them) went back to the library and started reading the exact wording of the treaties, curbing what they used to provide to others in strict accordance with the letter of the Treaty of the European Union.

When in the past, in order to live in Spain, you just had to go to the police and register, now, you are able to register only if you have a job or, if not, if you show evidence of being a person of independent means and a full health insurance policy with full coverage. Otherwise you can not register as a EU resident. This has always been the wording of the treaties. You can go to look for work in another EU country for a maximum of 90 days. After that you either have a job and can stay or you do not and have to go back. Before the crisis nobody really minded this but now several countries do.

My concern is that if we leave Europe, in true E.U. form, they will have a tantrum and make us pay for it. Imagine needing a visa to go through the channel tunnel etc.
Any country could inflict any limitation on Brits as they felt like. I don't want to be trapped on this expensive, grey ,wet Island with my only escape being dependent on having a load of cash to invest etc.

I'm pretty sure you can stay as long as you like in any EU country. Working or not. There is no 90 day limitation.

That's true already nowadays. I mentioned Spain in my previous post for it was the country mentioned by you. But I can speak about another country which is very close to the British minds and hearts, Malta. In order to live legally in Malta right now you either have a job there or you must show that you are a person of independent means (or a retired with a fixed pension or some sort of fixed guaranteed income) and have full health coverage.

Where things might become different is that right now you can go and look for work in other countries. Just like before the EU in the EEC times and the same as happens with Switzerland and Norway, both non-EU countries. In a worst case scenario the UK would be considered a third country like any other but I don't envisage such happening just like that. As a matter of fact, if the UK leaves the EU I see the EU imploding shortly after.

For some reason many people think so. But that is not the wording of the treaties and never has been. The basis is article 45 (if my memory serves me right) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union with regulamentation done with several minor directives.

As I said, you can not even register as a resident in several countries these days without having a job nor have medical care other than for emergencies, etc, etc. Now, you can go and stay in a country without being a resident, yes, you can, for it's hard to show for how long you have been in the country. But in most, without having a registration number your life will be very hard. Even to open a non-resident bank account you will have trouble these days.

In any event you can read the link below for a brief explanation.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.o...eedom-movement

I had no idea.... I've never heard that. But I'm naive to the politics of Europe.

My girlfriend is Italian and she came to the UK three years ago. She never had any restrictions or problems. After two years she became a resident. She pays more tax than I ever have and as a medical professional, she contributes more than I ever have to society. If we leave Europe, she may have to leave too. That makes no sense to me. Personal feelings aside.

Why would she need to leave? She is already a resident of the United Kingdom. I strongly doubt that existing rights would be revoked in case of an exit.

Hey, people move from country to country in the rest of the world outside the EU! :-)

Sorry.. She's a resident. Not a citizen. Without the EU she has no right to be here.


Outside of Europe, I can't live and work anywhere without sponsorship or money to invest..

As I said, I strongly doubt that by exiting the EU existing rights are revoked. She already has the right to reside in the UK so I strongly doubt that, at least while she has a job, her residence is revoked. Now, others who want to go and live there or vice-versa it will depend on the agreement that the UK reaches with the EU on that particular. In a worst case scenario and provided that the EU keeps in existence people who want to live in the UK coming from other European countries and vice-versa are treated like any other nationals.


It varies from country to country but the general rule is that inmigrants are allowed according to the needs of the host country. What, as a matter of fact, seems to me to be the right thing to do.

In any event, I repeat myself, that particular will depend on the agreements reached by the UK with the EU during the exit negotiations. And, of course, provided that the EU still keeps alive. Norway and Switzerland are not part of the EU but are part of the free movement of persons.

The problem with Abu Hanza was down to European Human Rights legislation which is nothing to do with the EU.

Successive Labour and coalition governments ducked the obvious solution, however there's a report in today's Sunday Times that suggests the government will shortly "change domestic law to make clear that parliament is sovereign and Britain's courts are not bound by Europe's Charter of Fundamental Rights."

As to the EU, I thought we joined a Common Market of like countries, and the ever expanding inclusion of countries to the east is of no interest to me. I don't see that the UK has anything in common with Roumania, Bulgaria and the Baltic States, let alone the possible expansion to include Turkey, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Serbia. No wonder the Russians got the heebie jeebies over Ukraine.

We were wrong to focus on European trade over that with the Commonwealth nations.

I will be voting to leave. The EU is another level of government we don't need and locks us out of world deals because we are part of their" bus tour" rather than free to do what works for us . Nothing will change, the Swiss etc. Do fine outside of Brussels control. There may be tantrums if we do decide to go, but the Spanish can't give up our holiday money, the Germans our luxury cars market in exchange for our lower spec ones etc. Leave in 2017, be back to normal only without the huge bills by 2019.

Andy

A variation on this aspect has been reported in the UK media now and again; in the case of UK nationals who were taking work in Europe before bringing their non-EU spouses back to the UK.
In the cases reported, 90 days of work was needed in some European location before entry to the UK was possible without a vast amount of hassle to those involved; the details of quite why this all work/s/ed escapes me at the moment and I may have the detail wrong but what I do recall is how UK nationals had to jump through a lot of hoops to re-enter the UK after being overseas in specific circumstances.

Anti-money laundering regulations lie at the centre of this type of regulation.
Such agreements are unlikely to change in or out of the EU.

Switzerland is an example; they are opening up the detail of who has accounts there to international scrutiny, and gone are the days of secret numbered Swiss bank accounts.

Yes, AML is what started that frenzy with banking worldwide. However, without a registration number it's hard to open a non-resident bank account. With one it's fairly easy these days for then it is a resident account.


Numbered accts... I still remember when you could open a bank account in Belgium without providing a sole piece of identification. You just had to fill the forms and your account was opened. If you wrote as your name "John Doe" then the bank would address you as Mr. John Doe. Things have been changing a lot in banking practice worldwide.

Yes. I lived in Spain for a year in the early 1970s before we joined the Common Market in 1973 (Spain applied to join in 1977 after democracy was restored).

Yes, though you would have need a work permit. You weren't allowed by Franco's laws to run your own company, it had to be 51% owned by a Spanish national.

No, the reciprocal agreements were not in place, however today's agreements are not dependent on the EU, so could remain.

Not sure what you mean by this. Franco's Spain was a bit 'ad hoc' with legal issues.

Tim, I'm not sure he was refering to those times. I believe he meant before the EU but during the times of the EEC, this being, after 1986 (not 1977) when Spain joined the EEC.

The question is.. Can we leave the EU without shooting ourselves in the foot.

Top eight economy, nuclear armed power with a bluewater navy, use the international language as standard, fluent in metric and imperial, world class educational institutes, powerhouse for music and other arts, reputation for financial honesty....

Is there that much to fear beyond what we do to ourselves?

Andy

and Bond

.. James Bond


:thumbup1:

In short I would vote out, then I would watch the eastern European governments panic when they realise their nationals won't be entitled to UK benefits, hence Poland s move
recently in backing down over their disagreement with the suggested four year term before benefits can be obtained when you come to work here, in exchange for nato bases over there. Will also be interested in france and Germany s position when they have to cover whst we used to contribute, that will bring on the pain. Am convinced that when one leaves others will follow and there will be a two tier eu. Any institution or business that has not signed off its accounts for as long as the eu should fold full stop Imho.

Many would say that the two tiers exist already; ask Greece about how the Euro operates in practice.
Actually, it is spelt out in this thread, during the last year or thereabouts of postings:
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...c-crisis-59853

As for the EU accounts, no self respecting accountancy company would touch them, much less sign them off as a true and accurate account of the EU affairs; what is it now, something like 20 years since any accounts were published?

It's all relative.
UK folks should give a great deal of thought about where they believe this country fits into the future world, based on our history and upon our potential.

"The only thing to fear is fear itself" or words to that effect.
A US President named Franklin D Roosevelt

[QUOTE=Tim Cullis;527343]The problem with Abu Hanza was down to European Human Rights legislation which is nothing to do with the EU.

QUOTE]

The prime advocate for the establishment of the said European Court of Human Rights was none other than Winston Churchill who saw it as a counter-balance within the post-WW2 "new" Europe.

Nowadays, the ECHR is reported to be stuffed with nominees from Eastern Europe, many political appointees, and some are reported to not have legal qualifications. ie some may not be qualified to hand down a parking fine much less sit in judgement across the whole of Europe.
Warning: Mainstream media reporting, so it may not be totally accurate but Winston certainly wanted a ECHR.

Ok I thought it was all part of the same package?!

Thats good and I hope it comes off, and why shouldn't we have Sovereign? We have sought old cronies of our own making bad decisions with out some old cronies from another country (who's probably never been to the UK
) telling us what we can and can not do

Freedom of movement on the mainland, good trade between the countries is good

Being used as food and shelter refuge, and paying through the nose for other countries is not good

Wayne

I am sure that would depend on the package deal we got when that time came.

I personally don't think it will be all doom and gloom

Wayne

Vote of thanks to Plooking
 

Plooking in particular is making a fine job of coming up with the facts of the history of the EEC etc.

It is all too easy to forget - memories really are short - which is an issue that politicians will play on as the debate opens up in earnest and the propaganda flows.

Whilst Mr Churchill wanted the hrc it was for a totally different set of circumstances eg after the war.

Free movement was introduced to allow business mem or women to move between countries for trade purposes thus avoiding visas etc, it was not meant so that other nationals could move en masse to other countries. If you think it's bad here try Norway
who opened their gates to foreign workers and got a nasty shock, they may deny it but I have two Polish friends who work there and even they raise their eyebrows.

It's been interesting to read Plooking's posts and it's made me wonder just how long a memory the politicians expect us to have over stuff like this. Or even whether memory is a relevant factor; should the here and now be the essence of our decision?

There does seem to be an element of "I've made my mind up, don't confuse me with facts" with the debate, with emotionally based arguments coming from both sides - "we'll be bust in a week and living on third world handouts if we leave" from the INs vs "they're robbing us blind and taking control by stealth" from the OUTs.

If you have some kind of passing interest in these things (as I admit I do) without going to ridiculous lengths all you can do is read some of the middlebrow publications (like the Economist) and hope that the journalists output has some kind of evidence based balance to it. Without that you're at the mercy of party political ranting and rabble rousing newspaper headlines.

I am fairly certain it is down to an age thing. Those old enough to remember going into what was then the common market will remember that that is what it was sold as, a common market. Cheap beer, fags and inexpensive holidays. Ted Heath did not tell us until we had signed that we would lose our 12 mile territorial waters and that within a relatively short time Spanish super trawlers would have emptied our fish stocks and decimated the fishing ports of Grimsby and other towns that relied upon the industry. Quotas for steel production were imposed and not long after British steel went tits up. Trade with New Zealand, Australia (butter and lamb) were restricted as we had to buy so much from within the Common Market, trade with the West Indies went the same with banana and sugar restrictions. Even in the early 70’s it was not all plain sailing and the Utopia the politicians would of had us believe did not materialise. Our shipyards could produce either war ships or commercial vessels but not both. Ask anyone who used to work at Cammel Lairds how that panned out for them?
What we did get was a massive bill for the common Agricultural policy to subsidise French farmers to keep on producing stuff we did not need or want (remember the wine lakes, butter mountains and beef stored in huge freezers?) as inefficiently as possible. There have been some benefits but I only see that they are grossly outweighed by the cons, restrictions and ever growing tighter regulations that grow year by year. Having spoken to many people about the subject I have to conclude that most people over 50 will vote to come out and those too young to remember all the things we have lost will vote to stay in as the current state of affairs is normality to them.
It won’t be all doom and gloom if we come out, people will not stop buying Rolls Royce engines, Scotch whiskey or many of the other world class products we supply and we will be able to start supplying again without quotas to restrict us. We can form our own trade agreements with the growing world such as India and China without the restrictions of Brussels and unelected, anonymous bureaucrats. I will be voting out and I suspect the result will depend upon are there more people over 50 in the UK than under?

This is a major sticking point in the "negotiation" which is likely why the UK "demands" changed considerably by the time the UK PM wrote his letter of last year to the EU (to the commission I think it was addressed, I would have to check that bit).
Whatever the reasons given at the time of first implemention, you will find that the EU bureaucrats will not concede the "right of nations" to stop free passage of citizens of member states across national borders.
Which they are doing right now actually, and that falls in to the category of "emergency powers" or somesuch words (just as France "declared war" after the incident in Paris).
What was not foreseen in all this was the free movement of refugees, illegal migrants and other classifications of mankind, including infants and other children who are old enough to travel without adults.

UK government now
 

Parish council
District council
County council
"Locally" elected mayors, with wide powers to implement policy
Regional development authorities and quangoes of various natures
National government including various types of devolved govn for Scotland, Wales, NI and, potentially, Cornwall etc

Supra-national government in the form of the EU.

Which ones can you do without?
Which ones are voted into office?

Steel industry in Europe
 

Currently, in the news is the demise of the UK steel manufacturing effort.
You will hear, via lots of media and other talking heads, that the UK must abide with the EU directives, regulations etc.

In 2012, the governments of Tuscany and Italy "rescued" the local steel plant in Piombino to the tune of about 150m euro.
No one batted an eyelid at that time.
That steel plant continues to produce their products to this day, despite the accusations of dumping that are made against the Chinese plants.
http://www.feralpigroup.it/upload/pr...5-06-09-19.pdf

The last time I travelled by Luxembourg they also had their blast furnace in place.

Judge by what is done, not so much by what is said.

Exactly, whilst I have historic issues with the French you have to take your hat off to them, it's two fingers to anything that affects their workers, they don't dick about when it comes to security, shoot first and medals later :innocent:and yet they also cream off the eu pot....... The good old Cap.
Over here in old blighty we just roll over......... Having become a risk averse, too afraid to be sued rather then telling the claimant to fxxx off, type society.
What happened to sailing the fleet down the river, bombing the capital, charging them for the coal and shells :oops2: other then we don't have a fleet anymore doh

Our fleet is rated about fifth in the world. Fifty year old aircraft carriers look flash to Joe public but tend the break down more than ten year old nuclear attack submarines and GCHQs hackers. Best to ruin the other lots credit rating way before it gets silly though. No loan, no battleship fuel.

I am pretty fixed on voting to leave as the EU will lie about what they will change then not do it. The Out lot will also lie, but afterwards will be in the lifeboat with us, not directing our deck chair rearrangements from their private jet.


Andy

One of my favourite Mark Twain Quotes:

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”

Someone else mentioned it, what everyone else in the EU should fear is exactly what happened to the US, we became federated states which have slowly eliminated cultural differences within said states. This can happen with the modern attack on the south by removing Confederate statues, now before you respond think of the heritage within your present country, the statues you have of ancient leaders who could instantly be subject to this sort of Insanity. I believe England is dealing with some of that as well, as much as I want truth regarding old leaders, they are still a important part of our history.
Slowly but surely we are all being indoctrinated, resist, how boring would Europe be if it ends up like the US. I already hate the fact that English is now all over the world taking away from much of the fun of traveling. Money exchange is also a fun factor of traveling often adding to the adventure of our travels and now? Well you already know. I would also like to mention that currency often represents history within in any country. That history is a instant curiosity to anyone traveling in a given area, how horrible that many have lost that identity entirely.


With all that said If Countries try to leave the EU I get great news programming on the carnage which ensues, reality TV at its best!

How funny is that, just been watching a programme on TV about what the last poster mentioned, removal of the southern flag. You seriously have some nutty fucxxrs over there. Regardless of the issues in this country and the eu,, if someone stood outside one of our government buildings waving a nazi flag yelling sieg heil and white power they would get the shxt kicked out of them by all in sundary regardless of race or creed. :offtopic: and hopefully the local,plod would let go of them at the top of the stairs to the cells.
Am still voting out :innocent:

Didn't know
 

I am assuming, based on these postings(being from USA a lot of international news does not come my way) that a vote is near about staying in the EU. There was a lot of coverage about the Scotland vote, so I may be wrong. I do read the BBC site and haven't seen anything. Sorry if I am wrong. However, as a previous person as posted, the US constitution was designed to bring 13 different governments, with different taxes and money, different religious groups and languages together for common economic benefit. Aside from a few minor spats, it has held together fairly well over the years. I understand Switzerland(forgive mispelling, not my strong suit) has 4 languages, three major ethnic groups, and at least 2 different sectarian groups. They also had a few fights to settle issues, and now seem to be holding together okay. I do not know all the issues, and am not big on giving advice, but sometimes things can be worked out for the benefit of all.

I'm not much of a fan that we are directed by un-elected directors in the EU, and its a bureaucratic nightmare far too impressed with itself and not its citizens.

However, I will always vote in (and yes a bit more accountability please). I'd happily vote in and even consider losing some personal freedoms as long as we are bound close enough in Europe never to have another war.

I think we all forget that one part of the forming of the EEC was to draw nations closer together to stop rouge nutty leaders (there's been a few of them?) starting wars because we are bound closer together.

Its one thing that has worked very well over the past 60 years within Western Europe and as my boys get very close to 'conscript' age, I'm glad they aren't likely to be sent a cannon fodder into a war with Belgium because they are exporting beer that is cheaper than ours. There might be a few variations on that theme, but I hope you know what I mean.

I think The UK being in Euro makes us better friends with the rest of Europe. We're already right on the edge anyway!

It's happening right now.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-confront-view

The re-writing of history is an essential requisite of the revisionists.

Without sounding too American :innocent:...we are in a War already and have been since we went in to Iraq and Afghan, maybe even before that.....but not that many of our European Brothers (tongue in Cheek) are helping out

Nowt wrong with conscription, bring it back (I am not saying your boys Dave) It would do the youth of today some good as there is a lack of respect, lack of discipline, lack of motivation to work, I could probably go on if I thought about it for long enough. My 22 years service was the best thing I did and lets face it 1 or 2 years in the grand scheme of things is not long

Wayne

English has always been over the world, as is French, Spanish and Portuguese.....probably because we were the ones which mainly colonised the planet

I can agree with you there...we definitely don't want to end up like the US :innocent:

Glad the TV will be good though, thought riding the bike would be better :mchappy:

Anyway we are getting :offtopic:

Wayne

I don't see that there is a risk that the European Countries end up like the US. That, however, was the utopia. But as utopia remained and will remain. We all have a long, very long history which can not be compared with the comparativelly very short time that the thirteen colonies existed before the independence. However, in Europe, that won't happen because it simply isn't possible. It simply isn't possible to erase histories which go back, in some cases, more than 1000 years, by decree. But it won't be for lack of trying!

Wayne, URRAY to what you said regarding military service. I, for one, also believe that the abolition of compulsory military service for all young men was something which left us all as societies at a loss.

davebetty, please kindly allow me a little something regarding your post. One thing was the EEC. A very good one as a matter of fact. Another substantially different thing is the EU, an absurd which has always been an absurd and which will keep on being an absurd till the day someone finally issues its death certificate and this game of extend and pretend ends once and for all. I truly hope that from the remants we all can recreate the EEC but, somehow, I doubt it. Too many hard feelings are being created between several different countries and I'm very much affraid that in the end even something like the former EEC won't be possible.

:offtopic:I like it that you guys are taking an interest in this thread.

To say something about a few points therein:

The USA finally came together as a single nation as a result of your civil war.
From just some of my reading about that event, all of the public-face issues that were in place at the time, such as slavery, were the fig leafs for the real reason for that civil war; the real reason was the imposition of the dollar bill across all of the States.
i.e. the single currency which is an absolute essential of any unified nation.

The campaigns about the referendum within the UK are just kicking off here now, following the usual dearth of sensible news reporting over the Christmas/New Year break (which, naturally, goes on for weeks).
A meeting in Brussels next month will cut a deal, be in no doubt about that, and then the money is on our govn calling a referendum as early as June 16 before the migrant situation in mainland Europe brings on any further heat into the arguments.

There is a mass of information out there about the aims and intentions of the EU commission, the "5 Presidents" etc. While these have been in place for quite a while, they are now openly avowed objectives of those bodies and individuals.
In a word, the aim is a single nation state for Europe, with a single currency (more or less in place for now), a single fiscal arrangement, and a single government.

Switzerland has a very open form of democracy: for instance, if any one of the cantons says no to a proposal then that proposal falls.
Hence their stability.
They also have virtually endless referenda, something which many in politics abhor because they feel the controls that places on their powers.

Agenda 21 of the UN is also relevant.

There is a far wider "war" in place at present, usually referenced in the media as a currency war.
It is how nations compete with each other without actually throwing hardware around.
Many would say that China started the current currency war which is why we have accusations of "dumping" products into their overseas markets.

Nations across the world are engaged in it at present.

Conscription is the making of many but, to others, it can destroy them especially if you don't fit in with what is expected of you. I don't think it would of done me any good as a young man.

What I meant to say was that the EU has brought us closer together and over the past 60 yeas we have not fought another country in the EU. I know there has been the Balkan crisis, but would that of happened if Yugoslavia had been in the EU. No it wouldn't of.

All I'm trying to say is that we need to also consider the security being in EU gives us, that 'perhaps' we can take for granted?

cheers
Dave

IMO, I for one do not want all this

Wayne

The thinking of the other states seem much closer even if it is a case of Germany making the rules, France ignoring the rules, Italy promissing to eventually look at the rules and Spain not knowing the rules even exist. The history and hence attitude are different. They should probably want rid of us putting the brakes on their plans too.

You can make treaties with the EU even if no a member. Iceland and Norway joined Shengen as non members while The UK and Ireland stayed out.


Andy

Yes, it's easy to forget - particularly after 70 yrs of peace - how destructive of everything Euro rivalry was in the 70 yrs between 1870 and the 1940's. Many tens of millions killed, hundreds of millions wounded or their lives destroyed and world class economies demolished. Anything that prevents that happening again was, and is, in my opinion, worth trying. The American approach - unification at the end of a civil war gun barrel, wasn't really going to work in Europe after such a catastrophic period of conflict.

The only alternative people in the early 1950's could see was to intertwine the economies of two of the main players, France and Germany, to the extent that large scale future armed conflict between them would be impossible. The European Coal and Steel Community that half a dozen countries (not inc the UK) signed up to in 1951 was the first manifestation of that idea but the Schuman Declaration that brought it about also had other aims:


It would mark the birth of a united Europe.

It would make war between member states impossible.

It would encourage world peace.

It would transform Europe in a 'step by step' process (building through sectoral supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe democratically, unifying two political blocks separated by the Iron Curtain.

It would create the world's first supranational institution.

It would create the world's first international anti-cartel agency.

It would create a common market across the Community.

It would, starting with the coal and steel sector, revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes.

It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as those in Africa

(thanks to Wikipedia for the details)

OK there's nothing in there about much of the stuff we're squabbling over at the moment but it's easy to see how, step by step, we've ended up where we are. There's no denying it's achieved its major aim of preventing further Eurowars (although you could argue other factors would have done that anyway) but whether we (the UK) should just abandon it it all at this stage, possibly bringing the whole thing down around our ears as we go (although I think that's unlikely) is at the core of this.

If you start a process of unification - even for the best of motives, you can't really complain if it heads in that direction. Churchill offered the French unification between themselves and the UK when the Germans were invading in 1940. They declined but we could be living in unified "Frangland" or something at the moment had they taken up his offer.

..out, Out, OUT!!!

NATO is a political alliance
 

I would have to disagree.

The primary guarantor of European security post WW2 has been, and remains, NATO.

That is one of the reasons that the EU bureaucrats aim to raise a European armed force which, put simply, would provide a capability outside of the current US-led chain of command.
Compared with the EU, NATO runs a "very tight ship" and is professionally competent in what it does; that is not to say that NATO does not have issues but so does every organisation.

It was NATO that entered the Balkans in the 1990s once the blue berets had arrived at their own impasse, as the UN tends to do sooner or later.
Many people do not recognise that NATO is a political alliance with a military arm; it is that simple in geo-political terms.

One of the first things we were taught in economics was that whilst the rules of 'supply and demand' were normally king, exceptions had to be made with strategic industries and the example given was steel. If there's a war and you have no steel plants you are 'up the Suwannee without a paddle'. Same applies to shipyards—we are a maritime nation after all.

Oh so true, but you missed the bit about Britain not getting to the rules it wants and instead having to obey rules it didn't want.

I also have an ill feeling about the power wielded by Angela Merkel who appears to be a rule unto herself. She unilaterally decides to throw open the borders of Germany to what we now realise are predominantly young male economic migrants, and then a couple of months later is trying to force other countries to shoulder the burden. WTF.

An ill-fated attempt to stiffen their spine. Nice bit of history trivia and not well known. :thumbup1:

Churchill sacrificed the 51st Highland Division to try to keep the French going after Dunkirk and my father-in-law spent the next five years as a POW.

It must have been pretty much concurrently that the British fleet in the mediterranean sank the French fleet lying at anchor once there was a possibility that it would throw it's weight behind the Vichy government that ruled in part of France.
French troops in the french overseas colonies also needed to have their palms read with regard to where their loyalties should lie, once the Republic collapsed.

Countries do not have eternal friends, only interests.

My various readings of that period point toward the Prussians as lying at the heart of the issues that the united Germany has experienced.
Germany is a young nation in truth.

Some commentary from the continent says that Frau Merkel will not be in post by sometime later this year.

Nowadays, I see very little possibility of a major intra-Europe conflict; there are many reasons to think this, not least the full integration that has taken place of business and industry practices across Europe.
Then, there are the respective populations of the nations who simply would not sign up to kill each other, putting it bluntly.

I think it was said earlier; while it is useful to remember past history, the future may not be exactly the same; WW2 did not follow the pattern of WW1, even though the invading force in the west used the very same Schliffen plan that had been in place for WW1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan

You must have been on vacation Neo-nazi London protest - Recap as far-right demonstrate against the 'Jewification' of Britain hits capital - Mirror Online


Explainer: The Rise of Neo-Nazism in Europe : Discovery News

:offtopic: Anglo French relations in autumn 1940 were indeed bad. My Grandfather was part of the cavalry division in Palestine and actually charged the French on horseback. More 1855 than 1940. This as the highlight of a military career than included time in the citadel in Cairo. He said the Sean Connery film" the hill" was accurate enough, in a toned down so as not to make you throw up sort of way. The old boy said motorbikes and going abroad would get me killed doh


Back on topic I think this will divide the generations. Many who got to vote for the EEC feel cheated it wasn't just a trade deal. My generation feel cheated we didn't get to vote before. The youngsters don't care, they never knew life before the EU. The timing of the vote is critical, Jacques Delors would have got a 90% out vote, if they'd left it until 2025 the turn out would have been less than for the usual European stuff.

Andy

Shrek I probably was, but I'm guessing there were a hell of alot of people trying to get at them, if similar demos elsewhere are any indication.
Still voting out though :innocent:

I got told many times (late 60's /early 70's) that going abroad on a motorbike would get me killed. I wasn't sure whether I should have been looking out for leftover Nazis still hiding out in the mountains, Japanese style, or whether it was going to be the formless and lawless void that constituted everywhere other than half a dozen countries of the empire and (possibly) the USA. that would get me. I'm still not sure about the USA :rofl:

Re the "outs" being older and vici versa, I know it's not Mori but a straw poll I did last night at the over 60's keep fit club I instruct at had a majority in favour of staying in. OK it's only 10 or 15 people but even so there would seem to be some element of "age shall not weary them" when it comes to this stuff. Presumably post referendum they'll do some kind of breakdown as to how different groups voted and it'll be interesting to see if there was an age divide.

as close as it gets?
 

I mentioned before I do believe it is an age thing with older people more likely to want to leave the EU than the younger ones. Here is a link to a government PDFwhich attempts to profile age, social clas and education levels of those wanting to stay in and those wanting to leave. It is by no means comprehensive or conclusive as any poll in the run up to the general election in the UK this year proves. Enjoy.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...qCykQQ&cad=rja

From last year:
EU's 'Five Presidents' lay out eurozone vision, with timetable | EurActiv

To be done and dusted by 2025.

Campaigning has started:
EU Referendum

There's going to be a lot of it.
:scooter::scooter::scooter:

Merkel made her bed, and as the saying goes...she can now lay in it. Yes I feel a bit sorry for the Germans now but just because she dropped the ball doesn't mean to say we in the rest of Europe should suffer...sometimes I am really pleased we are not joined to the mainland

As for an European Army :rofl:...its nearly as funny as been a member of NATO. Putin must laugh himself to sleep on a night when he thinks of NATO, he waltzed into Crimea and now his troops are another area of Ukraine (even though he denies it) and what has NATO or anyone in the EU done to protect our borders? Nothing, they did a bit of shouting and did some sanctions. Even the US was not bothered, maybe because it was in Europe or maybe because there is no oil? I know the Ukraine is not a member of NATO or the EU but it is still part of mainland Europe and not Russia.
I served in HM Forces and it should remain Her Majesties Forces. We do not need to be run by some Spanish or French General being told what to do by people who don't like curved bananas and don't have a back bone. Serving in a Regiment which is the 309th Battalion of the European Army does not appeal to me nor probably to any of the Men and Women who are serving their country now.

I also get fed up of my country paying billions to help support the EU and the lesser countries within it when we can not look after our own elderly, homeless, sick etc. Maybe we should worry about ourselves for a bit before we worry about others?

Wayne

Quite a comprehensive and interesting read. Somewhere near the bottom there's a section on in / out by political party support and it seems that 10% (a rough average of the different polls) of UKIP voters want to stay in. Now that's a section of the electorate that really knows their mind. :rofl:

Having spent a while as a doorstep pollster (asking about all sorts of stuff, not just politics) it surprises me that the polls get as close as they do. A good percentage of the people I interviewed would be "don't knows" on just about every topic unless you pushed them, and then they'd just pick one of the offered alternatives at random.

A couple of items.

Russia has long standing interests and claims in the Crimea in much the same way that Britain has interests in, say, the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar.
Nor am I equating these examples but just pointing out that territorial disputes are rarely clear cases.

As a politicial alliance, NATO carries out diplomacy and has diplomats at ambassador level within it's HQ.
The EU is embryonic in this field in comparison which is why they, the commission basically, would wish to raise a standing military force; there has been some movement toward this aim very recently with the raisiing of a border control force with international staff, deployable anywhere in Europe with or without the permission of the home nation.
I believe that "force" is now in place in Greece.


Some irony therein in the light of yesterday's report about the pollsters take on May 2015.

Yes I realise this but that doesn't stop me thinking its a farce and that we as a country do not need a Euro Army dictating where Her Majesty's Troops go

Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes but in 1994, Russia, along with the US and Britain undertook to defend Ukraine from aggression if it gave up its nuclear arsenal, "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...ns_and_Ukraine

The US and Britain conveniently forgot about this undertaking when Russia kicked off.

Of course, we met our match in the diplomacy; Putin was not playing poker.

Same for Syria: Russia has a treaty with the current Syrian government, hence they are legally in there even having long established bases in that country.

As before, every country has it's interests.
Everyone raise their hand if they want to fight for the current government of the Ukraine.

But, we are probably way off topic.
It's reported that Merkel is not visiting Davos this year for the WEF.


ps
There is a noticeable lack of "refugees" departing the Crimea for Europe.

For any new-age-Europe of the future, it wouldn't operate in that manner for each and every nation that signs up to the 5 president proposals.

As per earlier posts, a single EU government would logically lead to a single standing Navy, Air Force and Army, perhaps by 2025 as per the "document of 5".
Such forces would recruit from across all of the previous nations but act on behalf of the new government as a single entity.
Hence NATO would have a few concerns, if it were to still exist by then.

Scots and English regiments must have felt something similar when their respective nations combined a few 100 years ago, albeit that was not the same cirmcumstance, exactly, because of the oath of allegiance to the Crown.

Interesting discussion, which I presume is mainly of importance to the British. The „continentals“ are often much less inclined to linger on this subject. They usually dismiss this as dreams of imperial grandezza of past centuries :innocent: Many people on the continent believe that the UK tries to exert pressure on the EU just to pick the rasins, i.e. to get a better deal at the expense of the other members. ?c?

The post of greenmanalishi is also worth reading, stating that it might be „an age thing with older people more likely to want to leave the EU than the younger ones.“ This probably applies to most discussions regarding the EU. In the beginning many Germans were strongly opposed to relinquish their Deutschmark, believing that the Euro would ruin economic stability. Even nowadays the older people (sic!) convert Euro prices to Deutschmark and grumble about inflation.... But most people forget that the EU has also increased inter-european trade significantly, not to speak of all the other improvements to make life easier.


Some of the posts IMHO don't belong into this thread. Like Tim Cullis' post „I also have an ill feeling about the power wielded by Angela Merkel who appears to be a rule unto herself. She unilaterally decides to throw open the borders of Germany to what we now realise are predominantly young male economic migrants, and then a couple of months later is trying to force other countries to shoulder the burden. WTF. „ for example.



First of all I believe that if someone is running for his life (Syrians), humanitarian actions are not to be discussed. I'm not speaking of economic refugees. Britain is in the comfortable position to be an island state with a useful neighbour (France), who blocks off any attempts of refugees to board any kind of transport to get into the UK.
Greece and Italy aren't in this comfortable position. Turkey and northern Africa care a damn whether anybody tries to get across the border to Europe. If anyone has a serious suggestion as how to stop the stampede, here's your chance. Gunboats are no arguments.


My two cents worth as a South African expat living in Munich – but not as an economic refugee :cool4:
S.A. by the way accommodates many refugees facing famine and violence at home in Zimbabwe, but unfortunately it is also flooded by economic refugees from other African countries – all in all an estimated 5 million. I suspect the routes to SA are much easier than those to the EU.....

Why shouldn't we as we are in the top 5 of the highest payers to the EU rather than the top 5 of the highest takers
Yes I know it is based on GNI, a percentage of VAT and additional revenues

But in 2013 (according to the daily telegraph) we payed a total of 17 billion Euro whilst only getting 6.3 billion back so our Net contribution was 10 billion give or take, whilst another country paid 4.2 billion euros and took 16.1 billion,,,thats why we like raisins.
As I have said before that money may be better spent looking after our own people instead of propping up others. That is one of the things for me that should change if we stop in.

Added info
looking further we got a 4 billion rebate along with Germany, Austria, Holland and Sweden (don't know how much they got)...bonus

Your suggestion that Britain is focused purely on financial matters is way off target. For many British people the issue with the EU is not economic but loss of sovereignty which has everything to do with 'Der Frau', sorry, 'Mutti'.

So for me the most important of Cameron's four shopping list items is the request, "to end Britain's obligation to work towards an 'ever-closer union'... to make clear that this commitment will no longer apply to the United Kingdom." Everything else I could reluctantly live with, even if it means our country and our services are swamped by EU citizens attracted to the higher-performing British economy.

Good to hear of a SA taking an interest.

The issue of a UK Brexit is very much on the agenda here in the UK; if the nationals of the other European countries are not hearing about this in the news coverage, it is because it is coming up on the inside rail of the "migrant crisis".
My own acquaintances living on the mainland tell me this is how it is at present regarding the lack of discussion about what the UK is doing right now.

Throwing the door open to 1m new inhabitants made little sense but it is a German problem for their own solution; IMO there is no chance of other countries, especially those in eastern Europe, shouldering that burden which is why the fall of Merkel may be a good bet.

Inter-European trade has been unbalanced, at best; Greece and Germany are at opposite ends of the scales.
There is much to this one-line-view of mine and it has been discussed in the other thread in this HUBB pub about the economic crisis - that is the real event that will dominate everything else during 2016, IMO.
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...crisis-59853-8

You will know that the South African economy is more or less tanking at present; that is the way forward for many more nations during this year; there's my view again.

All of this is going to concentrate a few minds; for some, the easy life has been over for a while (again Greece is the prime example) and for others ............. well, let's see how the year goes.

ps "Currency wars" is the name of the game for this year at least and China has not taken a seat at that gaming table to date.

I am a "continental" and the subject of the referendum in the UK interests me very much. It will have an impact on the EU as a whole. I, for one, truly hope that Brexit happens so that this thing called EU can end once and for all.

Of course I can not discuss (it isn't really my place) the effects on the UK and for UK citizens. But I can present the point of view of a continental.


That post by Tim was very interesting along with many others. Those posts show aspects of the EU and how it works nowadays. As a matter of fact the preponderance of Germany is one of the reasons why I doubt that the EU still exists. And, please, don't confuse things. I am not a germanophobe, far, very far from it. And as a matter of fact I fully understand why Germany is the country who bosses the rest around. After all, they are the ones who pay, specially on what concerns the Eurozone. But, of course, this state of affairs led to the erosion of EU institutions to the point that I often question if the EU still exists other than on paper.


Fair enough, there exists the duty to protect those running from wars. It's true, that duty exists and good that it does. But this is not synonimous with accepting everybody and allowing everybody to mingle in our societies regardless of each country's capabilities to absorb the influx. Her Majesty's government approached the question the right way and exactly the same way as Australia, Canada or the US approach it: ok, Britain will accept some refugess... but we will go and pick them from refugee camps. This is the right way to do things for several reasons. Ok, Greece, Italy and other states can not do it this way as easily as the UK. But there is a very simple way to solve the problem. The creation of refugee camps in Greece or Italy or Serbia or Croatia or something of the sort where those who arrive in Europe are placed, even those who manage to reach Germany or France or whichever country. They arrive there, they are sent back to the refugee camps. Then, once in the camps, they may apply for asylum in a certain country but the granting of asylum is at the discretion of each individual country. Not granted under pressure of a gigantic exodus. As a matter of fact this is a no-brainer. It is what has been done all over the world for the last several decades. No need to invent the wheel again.

I can agree with you there Tim. I don't think any country in the EU should be ruled by anyone else, but I do think we could still be a strong working EU without it

As was written earlier, the clue lies in the U of the EU.
The U was not visible in the previous EEC but now it is exposed for all to see.

Just to throw in a wider set of factors, on a longer timescale:

Russia/Putin would be welcoming to a weaker Europe, in general, and a reduction of the "will" of the European continent in particular.

Longer term, if Putin (who is here to stay, unlike, say, Obama who disappears in 12 months) can detect a sufficiently disunited Europe he may see good sense in some form of bilateral alliance between Germany and Russia, for trade alone.

China has ideas about constructing a new "silk route" to increase trade.
Such a new land based route would probably
- avoid the sealanes altogether
- terminate in Europe, likely with Germany as a terminus
- pass via Moscow
- be a rail link rather than a highway


?c?

Few interesting points here. The ECHR was created in the 50s by the council of Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

Way before the EU!

What changed in the UK was that Tony Blair made it law so that anyone separated from his cat can go to the ECHR to get “justice” and compensation.
As the legal system is vastly different in the UK compared with say, France, it causes a hell of a problem in the UK. For example the notion of compensation and shark Lawyers are still rare in France, and AFAIK once expelled from France, you can only appeal once you are back in your country (and I presume at your own cost instead of tax payer cost?). So for the Euro and Europe to work, we would not only need a fiscal a but also legal convergence across the board . It won’t happen.

Ted, I am foreigner too (been in the UK for 19 years!) but even if UK is out of the EU, I don’t expect that any (non-British) resident can be booted out. If they did, the education system , the NHS and any sort of knowledge based industry would collapse!

Not really sure what would be best. I don’t think it would be financial Armageddon. We import a hell a lot of goods (and talent!) from Europe. They need us as much as we need Europe. Remember that many years ago, we were told we would face cataclysm if we did not join the Euro. IF we had, we would be Greece or worse by now.

To be fair I think the debate of Brexit may become irrelevant by the time the referendum comes. The refugee crisis may push the EU apart, and like all previous Europeans “Empires” from the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages to most recent ones, it just may fall into irrelevance.

And then, as has been discussed by some, a much bigger storm may be in the horizon. The financial world situation is incredibly complex and fragile. The problems that caused the crisis in 2008 (huge global debt) that was judged to be a liquidity problem (Keynesian approach) but I believe is a solvency problem (I am more of the Von Mises school of thoughts) will eventually blow up again. Except this time central bankers won’t have any more tools to deal with it. Only in the UK private debt is through the roof. Mortgage debt is near 1.25 trillion.

And let’s not talk about Government debt at over 1.5 trillion and counting, not including Off the balance sheet liabilities, so that would probably least to 3 trillion? …

Imagine what would happen if the housing market crashed by even 10%? That would be a lots of write off for the banks.


They would go bust. Now there would be no more Bail Out. After the Cyprus experiment, US, EU and the UK, among others, quietly made sure that Bail Ins can be done. And if you expect that your 100,000 Euro government guarantee will work for your savings/pension fund etc… think again. http://www.globalresearch.ca/financial-meltdown-and-the-confiscation-of-bank-savings-the-uk-eu-bank-depositor-bail-in-scheme/5475934

Sadly for the last 35 years, Governments around the world have been kicking the can down the road hoping problems would go away and artificial low rates combined with an exponential explosion on debt have led to this situation. They have probably based their premises on “Ivory tower” Economists testing their theories. Economy is not called the “abysmal science” for nothing! There are no easy answers to all those problems. Soon or later we will have to take the Pain.

True, within the UK, one is innocent until proven guilty, although even this principle has been whittled away in some respects.

Under the Napoleonic code of justice it is necessary to prove your innocence, which is a reason why the continental decrees do not always fit well with UK law.

We live in interesting times.

Does it keep being like that (i.e. innocent till proven guilty) even in tax affairs?

I ask because in several countries in Europe (Portugal or Spain for instance) in several particular things the rule is reversed, this being, the rulling of the tax office prevails unless the tax payer is able to show that the tax office assessment is wrong. This being, the burden of proof lies with the tax payer, not with the administration.

When it comes to paying taxes, I suspect that the UK follows the European model regarding the burden of proof issue.
At least we have moved along a tad from the "Sheriff of Nottingham" approach to imposition of taxation.

HMRC has quite draconian powers but are often challenged to the effect that they only apply these powers to the general public while reaching "cosy" deals with mult-national corporations.
I think that nowadays there are various routes for appeal but whether those routes get as far as a court of law I wouldn't know.

A somewhat related matter is that of the cashless society.
Stockholm, for example, is well on the way to this status.

The concept is basically that all transactions would be electronic and, thereby, can be traced and taxed as required.
It would also be very effective in the case of the bail ins described in the previous link.

That is being attempted in several countries although under disguise. I find it the biggest attack on personal freedom that we are suffering these days. Biggest and by far! It dwarfs all that stuff about communications being saved and emails and phone calls being listened to and all that tech mambo-jambo. As a matter of fact it's a mix of insult with outrage. However nobody really seems to care about it.

To follow up on the "5 Presidents", I did think that an organisation that needs 5 such posts has questions to answer on that alone.

Only one of them has a role solely related to the Euro and it's zone - Draghi of the Euro central bank.

The other 4 (one of whom has no formal existance hence the inverted commas throughout) have roles across the whole of the EU but spend most of their time and energy speaking up for Euro zone issues alone.

I absolutely agree. In a cashless society, 'they' have complete and ultimate control over nearly all aspects of your life. When this happens, the government will be able to track every transaction, which should send shivers down the spines of most people. The death of cash will kill a lot of small businesses - in short, supreme centralised power!

:eek3:

You only need to look at what happened in Cyprus to see why a cashless society, where people have to keep money in a bank account, would appeal to the authorities in highly-indebted countries in particular.

I re-call reading about an online ".gov" petition against all this nonsense. I'll try and track it down.

Unfortunately we do not have stairs leading to the cells in general :) lmao


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hmm. I was in Stockholm about six weeks ago and didn't notice it being any less cash happy than anywhere else. Most of the numerous refugee street beggars seemed to be quite happy with it.

It is an issue though and it was a factor in my reluctant conversion to the card world when they started becoming widespread 20/30 yrs ago. Those with long memories for trivia may remember the 80's American Express slogan that went "American Express says more about you than cash ever could", complete with jet set alpha male waving his little green card as he walks into some futuristic hotel lobby. Shortly afterwards the cynics version was doing the rounds - "Cash says less about you than American Express ever could"

Back then though there might have been some fear but there was little technology. Now I suspect it's only fear of voter backlash fuelled by media outrage over privacy that stops a lot of this stuff being done. The reality however is that these days no matter how much cash you have stuffed in your pockets there are an increasing number of places where it's useless - there wasn't a single hotel we used in the US last summer that took cash for example.