Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not confusing in the slightest.

"we" the people, as opposed to "I" me.

Anyway, it's beside the point.

to answer you point



here is a time line of the EU, only goes up to 2009, but from 1973 when we joined up until now, it's only gone one way from a trading block to a political entity and it will ony continue to go one way.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ean-Union.html

That’s just more of the Original Project Fear. It was as wrong 40 years ago and it’s still wrong today.

---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]You have selected a particular "reality check" to support a narrow analysis of the meaning of two words.

If you choose not to believe unbiased fact-checking sites then I’m wasting your time in providing you with counter arguments.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Care to share the Plan that details this economic model? Seems you are the only one that has a copy

You don't actually need the technical detail to appreciate that our ability in the future to forge new trade deals and alliances will amount to more trade.

Most of our trade with the EU will remain as it is now, and Barnier has already told us there will be no tariffs.

The risk really is in the necessity to have robust arrangements for goods passing back and forth. This is the case both for UK and EU manufacturers. If the EU play silly beggars on that one, it will cause some disruption, but to both UK and EU traders. Given this, I don't think that will be a problem in the end.

The models predicting economic difficulties for the UK when we leave only do so because of the assumptions built into the algorithms.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That’s just more of the Original Project Fear. It was as wrong 40 years ago and it’s still wrong today.

Tell me why then did the EEC, a trading bloc of nations, need to evolve into a political entity?

Also, given the evidence and history of how it has thus evolved from a free trade association over the past 40 odd years into a quasi - Federal State, why would you think that it would not evolve further? Why would it stop now?


Perfect example of "don't worry it will never happen" is outlined in the two articles below.

1. Where Euro-fanatic Nick Clegg taunts Farage over his claim that there will be an EU military force. Stating that it is "inconceivable"

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnis...ises-350m-nhs/

2. Forward six months, and suddenly not only is it conceivable but has the backing of the two ring masters France and Germany.

https://www.politico.eu/article/emma...military-plan/

other revealing snippets from that interview are the formation of a European Monetary Fund

““I can envisage the possibility of a credit line with shorter maturities, for example five years. With this, we could assist countries which have run into trouble due to external circumstances. Of course, this would always be bound to conditions, would be limited in volume and with complete repayment,” said the German chancellor.

“A [European Monetary Fund] with such powers needs to be able to assess the economic situation in all member countries on its own competence. It should also evaluate the debt sustainability of the member countries and must be equipped with the right instruments to re-establish this, if needed,” she added.

for the above read "Greece". We'll keep you in our back pocket, and you will do as we say if want any cash.

another reveal was this too:

Asked about her goals for the EU in the next five to ten years, Merkel said: “My goal is that the world knows: In foreign policy, Europe speaks with one voice.”

Make of that what you will.

There was me thinking she meant that other power blocs (USA, China, Russia) can't "divide and conquer" individual countries if the EU had agreed a common foreign policy, as she was discussing a proposed joint military force (which we may need if Trump carries through his statements about not supporting NATO).

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

There was me thinking she meant that other power blocs (USA, China, Russia) can't "divide and conquer" individual countries if the EU had agreed a common foreign policy, as she was discussing a proposed joint military force (which we may need if Trump carries through his statements about not supporting NATO).

Or EU members wont be allowed to have differing view?

[richard s]

Trouble with our island mentality is that some people think and believe that we still have an Empire or that we are a super power. I am a pro-European and believe that unity is strength and to keep the other three super powers in check. What we should have done was to be running the EU with the French and Germans in the first place instead of sitting on the fence like we seem to do all the time on different matters/scenarios.


Hey ho... down the pan we will all go... don't look back in anger I heard them all say.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by richard s

Trouble with our island mentality is that some people think and believe that we still have an Empire or that we are a super power. I am a pro-European and believe that unity is strength and to keep the other three super powers in check. What we should have done was to be running the EU with the French and Germans in the first place instead of sitting on the fence like we seem to do all the time on different matters/scenarios.


Hey ho... down the pan we will all go... don't look back in anger I heard them all say.

To be fair, that was purely due to DeGaulle and his "non".

Yet once we were in, the UK was one of the main drivers of the ECHR.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Angua

To be fair, that was purely due to DeGaulle and his "non".

Yet once we were in, the UK was one of the main drivers of the ECHR.

The main part of the ECHR before the EU but there is of course the single market. That was Mrs Thatchers big push, liberalising trade across the EU

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

<SNIP>

If you choose not to believe unbiased fact-checking sites then I’m wasting your time in providing you with counter arguments.

I never said anything of the sort. I was criticising your selectivity and blindness to the stuff that Pierre has so well pointed out. Namely the evolution from a trading bloc into the Union, which Juncker now demands that nations surrender more power to the centre.


Your trump card seems to be referring me to post #1.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I never said anything of the sort. I was criticising your selectivity and blindness to the stuff that Pierre has so well pointed out. Namely the evolution from a trading bloc into the Union, which Juncker now demands that nations surrender more power to the centre.


Your trump card seems to be referring me to post #1.

Leave Trump out of this.
There's nowt selective about my use of an independent fact-checking source to back up an accurate representation of the facts.
I've never disputed that the EU has evolved and that's never been in question. You've chosen to project it evolving into something that there is no plan to happen. Even in some fantasy scenario it did, the UK would not be a part of if it had remained a member.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Tell me why then did the EEC, a trading bloc of nations, need to evolve into a political entity?

Also, given the evidence and history of how it has thus evolved from a free trade association over the past 40 odd years into a quasi - Federal State, why would you think that it would not evolve further? Why would it stop now?


Perfect example of "don't worry it will never happen" is outlined in the two articles below.

1. Where Euro-fanatic Nick Clegg taunts Farage over his claim that there will be an EU military force. Stating that it is "inconceivable"

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/columnis...ises-350m-nhs/

2. Forward six months, and suddenly not only is it conceivable but has the backing of the two ring masters France and Germany.

https://www.politico.eu/article/emma...military-plan/

other revealing snippets from that interview are the formation of a European Monetary Fund

for the above read "Greece". We'll keep you in our back pocket, and you will do as we say if want any cash.

another reveal was this too:

Make of that what you will.

You make some interesting points but still nothing there to back up a long-term plan for a United States of Europe.
In a world of large super powers (China, Russia, US) then speaking with one voice makes sense. United we stand, divided we fall and all that. But doubtless EU countries won't agree on everything.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by richard s

Trouble with our island mentality is that some people think and believe that we still have an Empire or that we are a super power. I am a pro-European and believe that unity is strength and to keep the other three super powers in check.

I don’t think anyone thinks that.

---------- Post added at 21:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:57 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You make some interesting points but still nothing there to back up a long-term plan for a United States of Europe.

Well there is but you refuse to acknowledge it, which is fine.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well there is but you refuse to acknowledge it, which is fine.

If there was definitive evidence rather than your interpretation of the evidence everyone would acknowledge it including me.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If there was definitive evidence rather than your interpretation of the evidence everyone would acknowledge it including me.

Pierre rationally chronicled the evolution from common market to army & foreign policy desiring Union. What were Juncker’s words earlier this month if not a further step along the road to a superstate?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Pierre rationally chronicled the evolution from common market to army & foreign policy desiring Union. What were Juncker’s words earlier this month if not a further step along the road to a superstate?

Juncker says a lot of words; which speech are you referring to?
Two countries expressing agreement over something doesn't make it EU policy or strategy.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Juncker says a lot of words; which speech are you referring to?
Two countries expressing agreement over something doesn't make it EU policy or strategy.

As if you didn't know, his State of the Union message.