OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Trickytreesreds]

RA my gloating as you call it, is a shot across the bows for everyone who went out of their way to undermine this country wanting to leave.

People such as yourself predicted doom and gloom and Europe was a wonderful, peaceful united place.
The facts are as it turns out very different.
We haven't "imploded" and it now seems the EU isn't a utopia after all. The squabbling has started, as they scratch at each other for dominance.
If we really were important as a glue to the whole set up. They had a piss poor way of showing it.
France is/has been jostling for top spot for some time. Whilst Germany being the economic giant, is holding them back.
Underneath them all, is this federalist hierachy, trying to form Europe into one nation.
When Juncker was crying over this,

The European Commission President insisted top EU officials should have access to their very own Air Force One private plane, like the US President. Mr Juncker embarrassingly revealed his complaints on lack of official EU residence in Brussels, where he wanted to entertain world leaders. Instead, the EU chief has been living in a hotel apartment, costing European tax payers £95 a night.


In an interview with Germany’s Bild, he said: “The commission president doesn’t have a residence. I have been living in a hotel apartment measuring 50 sq m for €3,250 per month.”

He moaned that NATO’s secretary-general and the EU28 leaders’ personal ambassadors to the bloc all enjoy their own “stately homes” in Brussels.

“The Nato secretary-general lives in a stately home and invites us there sometimes. All the ambassadors have residences,” he said.


Then our opinion is very low in the order of the USE.

Whatever was wrong with the original concept of a free trading bloc which we joined?
Can anyone explain to me what and why it morphed into this money eating machine?

[MadAmster]

Whatever was wrong with the original concept of a free trading bloc which we joined?
Can anyone explain to me what and why it morphed into this money eating machine?

I'll have a bash at answering that tricky.

There was nothing wrong with the concept at all, really, was it not for the fact that the Common Market's creators always planned it to morphing into a federal US of E. Something they and their successors, until recently, denied was the real aim of the monolith. We are where we are by design, not by accident. The EU is working as designed.

The idea was to centralise power into as few hands as possible, exactly as is happening in business with ever more mergers and takeovers. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's strange that many still think that the emergence of ever greater multinationals with fewer and fewer shareholders and the emergence of the EU/US of E as being more accident than design. Even more, IMO, don't even see a parallel in the the two occurrences. It is the leaders of those multinationals who run business because they own it and run politics because they own the politicians.

How do we take the politicians out of commerce's pocket? A simple change of Law. Have every election campaign paid for out of the Exchequer. That stops parties being beholding to commerce or the unions or wealthy people. Each candidate has the same amount to spend on their campaign. Parties get a basic sum in accordance with the number of candidates they have. Lobbyists would be allowed to try and influence politicians but only through argument and facts. No free lunches for politicians paid for by the lobby, no cheap/free holidays, theatre trips, football match tickets etc etc etc.

Take the power commerce has away and let's get back (if we were ever there) to politics for and by the people.

No more than a pipe dream I fear but still not a bad thing to aim for.

[ramAnag]

"Yes I share the desire for our country to do well but why should we revel in Europe’s potential unravelling...how can that possibly help?"

Yes I share the desire for derby county to do well but why should we revel in forest's potential unravelling...how can that possibly help? BUT WE DO NONETHELESS. Sadly its human nature to gloat at the misfortunes of others, especially close rivals. Unfortunate, but thats the way it is

Oh c’mon, Parky...you can’t really be comparing football rivalry with the reality of the political/economic landscape.

Football is a sideshow to our lives. It matters - possibly more than it should do - for ninety minutes once or twice a week for nine months of the year and we all relish our team being successful and avoiding misfortune but it ain’t going to change our lives or lifestyles. Politics and the way we empower our politicians unfortunately is.

It’s fun to see Derby doing well and Forest or Leeds struggling, as no doubt Tricky will agree...regrettably the other way round this season (for once )...but the Europeans should, politically speaking, be our allies not our rivals and nothing but harm will emerge from a disunited Europe.

[MadAmster]

I'm still trying to work out how something not yet 30 years old has kept the peace for more than 70....................

[ramAnag]

I'm still trying to work out how something not yet 30 years old has kept the peace for more than 70....................

Tbf, ‘Amster the notion of Europe as a geo/political entity happened long before your reference to Maastricht in 1992.

Ironically, Johnson’s role model - Winston Churchill - spoke of the need for a ‘United States of Europe’ a year after the conclusion of WW2 back in 1946.
The ‘European Coal and Steel Community’ was formed even before we were born...in 1951, and that forerunner of the EU - the EEC - first came to fruition over sixty years ago in 1958 so, with respect, your point is a tad misleading.

[MadAmster]

Tbf, ‘Amster the notion of Europe as a geo/political entity happened long before your reference to Maastricht in 1992.

Ironically, Johnson’s role model - Winston Churchill - spoke of the need for a ‘United States of Europe’ a year after the conclusion of WW2 back in 1946.
The ‘European Coal and Steel Community’ was formed even before we were born...in 1951, and that forerunner of the EU - the EEC - first came to fruition over sixty years ago in 1958 so, with respect, your point is a tad misleading.

The bigger picture rA. If you quote Churchill further, he said "In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America — and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well — must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live."

Friends and sponsors he said, not part of it, which is not what you seem to suggest he might have meant.

The Coal and Steel collaborations were not a political union. Nor was the Common Market of 6 countries.

The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation that aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957. The forst 6 members were Belgium, France, Germany, Luxemburg, Italy and the Netherlands. Denmark, Ireland and the UK joined in 1983. Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal in 1986. All countries with a similar outlook in many ways. It was a union that could work and would have been successful if politics had been kept out of it. But, no, they had to go and form a Parliament that took precedence over state governments. Then they went for the Euro, another good idea that was ruined by the way it evolved. They set prerequisites that nations had to meet to join the Euro. Several countries lied about their economies in order to qualify and that has led to the Euro not becoming the strong currency it was intended to be......

I have no issue with your finding my point misleading, it's an opinion to which you are entitled. However, my opinion is that your comments are way,way more misleading due to the omission of the qualifying wording showing that Churchill saw the "US of E" being alongside the UK as opposed to the UK being part of it and, to an extent, subserviant.

[ramAnag]

Again, with respect ‘Amster...I have no argument with some of your reservations about the EU and I completely respect the view that there have become ‘gravy train’ and undemocratic aspects to it that people find unpalatable.

The argument has moved on however and the context has now become one where I am questioning the evident delight (don’t believe I used the term ‘gloating’, Tricky) amongst some at the potential disarray within the EU posed by us leaving.

Within that context you seemed to suggest that the European Union had only been a force for unity and ultimate peace since Maastricht in 1992. That is certainly the case in name, but my point was that the common desire for a united Europe - something which seems to be being jeopardised at the moment - goes back a great deal further.

I am also aware that the ECSC and EEC were not essentially political unions, beyond the notion that trading partners are less likely to attack each other, and I have never subscribed to any idea of the UK being ‘subservient’. Far from it...we should have been using our influence to play a leading role in an organisation that imo has, for all its undoubted faults, done far more good than harm.

[swaledale]

Your being a tad opaque in your interpretation and I might add surprisingly naive. Everything is about politics and the EEC and then the EU are no different, how can nation states can work together economically and otherwise without politics being involved? Politics is in every human activity from the playground to the office and beyond.

The Union was and is successful, it has had its failures, but then any organisation run by humans has failures, the so called Great Britain has had more than its fair share of failures and disgraceful events over the years, I truly laugh when nationalist zealots (not you admittedly) put the UK on a pedestal as being superior to foreign nations.

We all it seems are willing to blame politicians for the ills of the world, but who elects them? Who is it that spews out piffle about complex issues, who think its so simple to sort out complex issues and satisfy everybody? Us thats who!

Churchill ( a great war time leader of a government united in one objective but useless afterwards) reluctance stems from the UK's delusion that it was too big a power to need to join the EEC, a point rather destroyed by the Suez and other fiascos!

The fact is that the political and economic disputes that led to the previous two world wars were played out within the EEC and then the EU, much welcome jaw jaw rather than war war, countries with economic and political ties are much less likely to get into armed conflict with one another.

The EU parliament was not superior to the UK, the UK agreed voluntarily to accept certain rules and regulations, as is the case when you agree an organisation or club where you agree to work together for common interests. The UK was one of the most enthusiastic contributors of rules and regulations adopted by the EU in fact!

If you don't like the club your in and abiding by its rules and regulations, then you leave, BUT you cannot expect to get the same benefits you enjoyed whilst being a member of that club. The Brexiteers said it would be the easiest trade deal done in months, because they thought the EU could not survive without the UK, they are finding out that is not the case, sure a club loses when a member leaves there are winners and losers on both sides.

AS for there being no implosion as that utter dickhead Tricky has posted - we are still in the transition period, we have the same terms at the moment.

[swaledale]

Again, with respect ‘Amster...I have no argument with some of your reservations about the EU and I completely respect the view that there have become ‘gravy train’ and undemocratic aspects to it that people find unpalatable.

The argument has moved on however and the context has now become one where I am questioning the evident delight (don’t believe I used the term ‘gloating’, Tricky) amongst some at the potential disarray within the EU posed by us leaving.

Within that context you seemed to suggest that the European Union had only been a force for unity and ultimate peace since Maastricht in 1992. That is certainly the case in name, but my point was that the common desire for a united Europe - something which seems to be being jeopardised at the moment - goes back a great deal further.

I am also aware that the ECSC and EEC were not essentially political unions, beyond the notion that trading partners are less likely to attack each other, and I have never subscribed to any idea of the UK being ‘subservient’. Far from it...we should have been using our influence to play a leading role in an organisation that imo has, for all its undoubted faults, done far more good than harm.

RA they were essentially political unions, from the very start.

[ramAnag]

RA they were essentially political unions, from the very start.

I agree, Swale as I do with every word of your post #6208.

Ultimately they were ‘political’, albeit masquerading as ‘economic’. That’s why I described them as economic only to the point that ‘trading partners are less likely to attack each other’...a v-ital consideration in post war Europe and one which our current and complacent generation would do well not to ignore.

P.S. How bloody childish is it that we still can’t use the word vi*al? C’mon Mods!