Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UKs referendum on the EU membership

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    The offer to join us as the fifty first state is still open, tankie. :D

    Seriously, the number of Brit politicians that want an "out" vote of the EU - just to rangle better terms during negotiation for staying in - is alarming.
    Hahahahahahahaha , ANYHOO , even if the vote is out ,and i sincerely hope it is , get rid of the mouthy controlling krauts who will miss us more than we miss them , the self styled unelected powers that be will make sure there will be another and another and another vote until they get the answer they want ,,that should please some xenophobic blinkered members huh .


    Writing in his column in the Mail on Sunday today, Peter Hitchens is perhaps the first non-Breitbart journalist to pick up on the fact that ‘Vote Leave‘ – run by Conservative Party figures Dominic Cummings and Matthew Elliott – don’t really want to leave the European Union.

    Breitbart London has covered this at length previously, with the reporting culminating in a Twitter spat between UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage and Vote Leave spokesman Daniel Hannan whereby the former challenged the latter on the idea of a double referendum.

    The ‘Vote Leave’ campaign is also backed by UKIP’s MP Douglas Carswell, a close and unswerving friend of Mr. Hannan, as well as his staff member Suzanne Evans, and his young friend Robin Hunter Clarke who stood for UKIP at the General Election. Their involvement with the campaign to effectively keep Britain in a two-tier European Union has sparked concern on their behalves that they will be removed from the party ahead of the vote.

    Mr. Hitchens notes:

    The ‘exit’ campaign was last week cunningly taken over by Tories who don’t want to leave the Superstate and will use a vote to leave (if it happens) as the basis for yet another round of negotiations with Brussels.



    Lord Howard led a Left-liberal putsch against the genuine EU opponent Iain Duncan Smith in 2003. Mr Johnson is an act, not a politician. He is a keen Europhile, and to conceal it from his fans he will do so many U-turns between now and referendum day that they will look like a series of S-bends.

    Both men’s weird declarations of support for Brexit were cunningly hedged.

    And the London Mayor was careful to state: ‘I will be advocating vote “leave”… because I want a better deal for the people of this country to save them money and to take back control.’

    Read this carefully (as you always should) and you will realise there’s no clear declaration that he wants our national independence back. But there is a desire for a ‘deal’. Likewise his supposed reversal last Saturday wasn’t really as clear as it looked. Be assured. If there is a majority to leave there will be a second poll and a search for a new deal.

    What sort of deal? Lord Howard was more specific. In an article which was lazily reported as a ‘blow for David Cameron’, he explicitly said that he saw a vote to leave as a way of restarting negotiations on how to stay in: ‘There is only one thing that just might shake Europe’s leaders out of their complacency: the shock of a vote by the British people to leave.’

    He added: ‘We would be sorely missed. If the UK voted to leave, there would be a significant chance that they would ask us to think again. When Ireland and Denmark voted to reject EU proposals, the EU offered them more concessions and, second time round, got the result they wanted.’

    Lord Howard went on to explain how happy he would be for Britain to be a semi-detached part of a two-tier EU – something very much on the cards as the EU moves into its next phase of integration, two or three years hence. ‘We – and others – could say to the integrationists, “We don’t want to stop you doing what you want to do as long as you don’t make us do what we don’t want to do.” ’

    You read it first here. The EU is like the Hotel California. You can check out. But you can never leave.

    This referendum, which was never supposed to happen at all, is a sham for which I refuse to fall.

    The only part of Mr. Hitchens’s article that is perhaps not entirely true, is where he claims “you read it here first”. In fact, most EU referendum followers would have read of this time and time again here on Breitbart London over the last few months.

    Read More Stories About:
    Breitbart London, EU referendum, douglas carswell, matthew elliott, peter hitchens, Vote Leave, suzanne evans


    Click image for larger version

Name:	12803074_10153897543525912_3432672092775181305_n.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	119.0 KB
ID:	1468361
    Last edited by tankie; 29 Feb 16,, 10:55.

    Comment


    • #32
      What happens if Eastern Europe forms another union?

      I can see Putin salivating....
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #33
        It will happen.But against Russia.Because one cannot trust the Germans.At least until they become sane.When it will happen,UK&US are going to be natural allies,as now.
        Those who know don't speak
        He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
          What do you mean not a full member? They are not in Euro and Schengen, but they can veto resolutions, have MEPs, contribute and receive...

          Those are the 2 points exactly which I was referring to...I see that as not being all in.

          And I have to admit....after reading through all of this I must say I am more confused.

          I am going back to the calm, rationale Presidential Primaries.

          Wait...
          Last edited by Albany Rifles; 01 Mar 16,, 16:50.
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #35
            It's a difficult question for me. I certainly understand the "Putin salivating" angle and I am naturally averse to doing anything to please the Muscovite Mafiosi Boss but again having been born British and having spent most of life in British culture whether educationally or workwise and being fully conversant with the many failings of the current 'European project', particularly the euro, I would normally be the first to say "ditch it and start again with a trade based system only and let's have rid of all these insane directives about the curve of a banana etc".

            Again while I am not a David Cameron fan I must give him some grudging respect; he took on the Scottish independence issue and won it and is now taking on the UK/EU issue and no matter how much I may dislike the Bullingdon Club gang that currently rules the Conservative Party in the UK (they are Oxford and I went to Cambridge apart from anything else) it takes some guts for any politician to take on BOTH these major issues as well as trying to get the economy in hand again. Nor do I think his 'renegotiation' was entirely worthless as many would no doubt argue: Legal guarantees are legal but in the EU they tend to bend the rules as and when they see fit; bailouts weren't allowed. However when the Treaties are amended the UK could insist on the adherence to the Treaty and if necessary refuse to cooperate on the parts of which it has 'opted out'.

            Then there's the whole issue of actually leaving and negotiating new trade deals with everyone from Canada and China to Iceland... how long would this actually take? We cannot say with certainty but in the meantime British exporters and incoming trade and business would suffer, the City of London primarily. The 'intervening period' would be damaging for the British economy and it is likely that jobs would be lost. Short term leaving is likely to prove detrimental to the British economy in my view. The Scottish would doubtless demand another referendum on their independence gig again and that could lead to the break up of the UK as an entity as well as the EU.

            Nor do I particularly like the potential geo strategic downside of a 'Brexit' at a time when all Europe is threatened by hordes from east and south. Elsewhere I recall Mihais saying to me something along the lines of "Europe is best when we compete with each other" and this is true to a point but the competition may lead the Germans into the arms of Uncle Vova before the CEE alliance is ready. Potentially a 'Brexit' could finish the EU before others can stand firmly on their own to save the peace.

            Weighing all the pros and cons I would not have called a referendum at this time but credit to the posh boy for taking the bull by the horns. In the end the greater risks outweigh the many and multiple failings of the EU for me and I shall be voting to remain in. You cannot pursue a European foreign or any other policy when you are excluded.
            Last edited by snapper; 01 Mar 16,, 16:53.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
              I am going back to the calm, rationale Presidential Primaries.
              Well, at least those are rather straightforward. We have parliamentary elections in three states in two weeks, and it looks like each state here will vote entirely different. Down to where each state will likely have a different highest-scoring party and a different government coalition.

              Comment


              • #37
                Well, at least those are rather straightforward.

                Straightforward?

                I feel like Thelma and Louise are driving and I'm locked in the trunk!
                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                Mark Twain

                Comment


                • #38
                  I have the choice between 22 parties in my state. If I look through a question catalogue that's supposed to help me select which party's position fit my opinions most, my personal highlight is the question "Do you think schools should be segregated between Germans and immigrants?". Three of those 22 parties are in favour of that. Edit: And just for the topic's sake - none of the 38 questions question the EU in any way.

                  What's more, our Green prime minister (who kinda comes across like our Bernie Sanders otherwise, age-wise too - just less communist) now has election campaign posters up that show him looking into the distance in a couldn't-be-more-patriotic pose with a banner text "Committed to our Country".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    German democracy, neither left, right or center even thinks to discuss the question...
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Technically there's a couple parties to the far right that want to abolish the EU. It's not something relevant to any election though. I think this time there's one party - ethnic Russian-Germans - that wants us out of NATO and aligning with Daddy Putin. They only field a candidate in a single county.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by snapper View Post
                        It's a difficult question for me. I certainly understand the "Putin salivating" angle and I am naturally averse to doing anything to please the Muscovite Mafiosi Boss but again having been born British and having spent most of life in British culture whether educationally or workwise and being fully conversant with the many failings of the current 'European project', particularly the euro, I would normally be the first to say "ditch it and start again with a trade based system only and let's have rid of all these insane directives about the curve of a banana etc".

                        Again while I am not a David Cameron fan I must give him some grudging respect; he took on the Scottish independence issue and won it and is now taking on the UK/EU issue and no matter how much I may dislike the Bullingdon Club gang that currently rules the Conservative Party in the UK (they are Oxford and I went to Cambridge apart from anything else) it takes some guts for any politician to take on BOTH these major issues as well as trying to get the economy in hand again. Nor do I think his 'renegotiation' was entirely worthless as many would no doubt argue: Legal guarantees are legal but in the EU they tend to bend the rules as and when they see fit; bailouts weren't allowed. However when the Treaties are amended the UK could insist on the adherence to the Treaty and if necessary refuse to cooperate on the parts of which it has 'opted out'.

                        Then there's the whole issue of actually leaving and negotiating new trade deals with everyone from Canada and China to Iceland... how long would this actually take? We cannot say with certainty but in the meantime British exporters and incoming trade and business would suffer, the City of London primarily. The 'intervening period' would be damaging for the British economy and it is likely that jobs would be lost. Short term leaving is likely to prove detrimental to the British economy in my view. The Scottish would doubtless demand another referendum on their independence gig again and that could lead to the break up of the UK as an entity as well as the EU.

                        Nor do I particularly like the potential geo strategic downside of a 'Brexit' at a time when all Europe is threatened by hordes from east and south. Elsewhere I recall Mihais saying to me something along the lines of "Europe is best when we compete with each other" and this is true to a point but the competition may lead the Germans into the arms of Uncle Vova before the CEE alliance is ready. Potentially a 'Brexit' could finish the EU before others can stand firmly on their own to save the peace.

                        Weighing all the pros and cons I would not have called a referendum at this time but credit to the posh boy for taking the bull by the horns. In the end the greater risks outweigh the many and multiple failings of the EU for me and I shall be voting to remain in. You cannot pursue a European foreign or any other policy when you are excluded.
                        Yet another sign of the apocalypse: I agree with snapper.
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          And now Austria , seems like the wild west barroom public schoolboy bratt brawl is gaining momentum ,,here in this tiny insignificant little island ,(kof ) the out and in campaigners have took the gloves off , haha , bottles n chairs ,and fists are starting to fly around , thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn later on the batwing doors will swing open and john wayne type , aka camoronoccio ,,will step in to sort it out y,all ,firing his pearl handled diamond encrusted 6 shooters (bought with presents from merkel n schultzy baby ) from the hip , bullets called lies n blanks , hahaaar but ,,a sneaky attack by a trumpite supporter , a relative of olly cromwell ,,,,shoots him ,,OUTOUTOUT .


                          5.3K
                          Over 260,000 Austrians have signed a petition calling for the EU exit for the country, and now the Austrian parliament must discuss a referendum on the issue.


                          The petition was most popular in the regions of Lower Austria (where 5.18 percent of potential voters signed it) and in Carinthia (4.85 percent).

                          The threshold for calling a debate on a potential referendum is 100,000 people.

                          READ MORE: Austrians launch petition to quit EU

                          The petition was launched by 66-year-old retired translator Inge Rauscher, who composed a similar petition in 2000. On that occasion, it was signed by 3.35 percent of the electorate.

                          Rauscher told The Local that there was probably more support for a referendum now because of the economic crisis and the Greek crisis.

                          In a press release, she said it was “a great result.”



                          Austria is one of the most well-off EU countries, with only 4.3 percent of unemployment in 2012, the lowest figure in the bloc. Austria is also one of 11 richest countries in the world in terms of GDP.


                          The first time David Cameron promised to hold the referendum in 2013, it triggered opinion polling on the same issue in other EU countries. Denmark was 52 percent supportive of staying in the EU, although 47 percent of Danes wanted a review of the country's membership terms.
                          Last edited by tankie; 02 Mar 16,, 12:31.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Timbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbeerrrrrrrrrrr


                            World | Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:25am EST Related: WORLD
                            Finnish parliament will debate next year leaving euro zone
                            HELSINKI | BY JUSSI ROSENDAHL
                            Finland's parliament will debate next year whether to quit the euro, a senior parliamentary official said on Monday, in a move unlikely to end membership of the single currency but which highlights Finns' dissatisfaction with their country's economic performance.

                            The decision follows a citizens' petition which has raised the necessary 50,000 signatures under Finnish rules to force such a debate, probably the first such initiative in any country of the 19-member euro zone.

                            "There will be signature checks early next year and a parliamentary debate will be held in the following months," said Maija-Leena Paavola, who helps guide legislation through parliament.

                            The petition - which will continue to gather signatures until mid-January - demands a referendum on euro membership, but this would only go ahead if parliament backed the idea.

                            Despite the initiative, a Eurobarometer poll this month showed 64 percent of Finns backed the common currency, though that is down from 69 percent a year ago.

                            But the Nordic country has suffered three years of economic contraction and is currently performing worse than any other country in the euro zone.

                            Some Finns say the country's prospects would improve if it returned to the markka currency and regained the ability to set its own interest rates, pointing to the example of neighboring Sweden, which is outside the euro. The markka could then devalue against the euro, making Finnish exports less expensive.

                            "Since 2008 the Swedish economy has grown by 8 percent, while ours has shrunk by 6 percent," said Paavo Vayrynen, a Finnish member of the European Parliament who launched the initiative.

                            "Now is a good time to have a wider debate whether we should continue in the eurozone or not," said Vayrynen, a veteran lawmaker from the co-ruling Centre Party who is known for his opposition to greater European integration.

                            "FIXIT"

                            The center-right government is struggling to balance public finances and improve export competitiveness through "internal devaluation", including cuts to workers' holidays and other benefits, amid opposition from unions.

                            Before 1992, Finland devaluated its markka currency time and again to improve export competitiveness.

                            Finland remains officially to eurozone membership.

                            "Finland is committed as a member of Economic and Monetary Union to promote the stability of the euro area," the governing coalition says in its government program.

                            However, some economists support the idea of 'Fixit'.

                            A recent report by EuroThinkTank of Finland, a group critical of the euro, put the one-off cost of returning to a floating markka currency at as much as 20 billion euros, but said the move would make sense in the longer run.

                            "The exit would not be easy, but it must be viewed from the point of view of how it would help gross domestic product to grow," said Vesa Kanniainen, a professor of economics at Helsinki University and a member of the grou

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                              Those are the 2 points exactly which I was referring to...I see that as not being all in.

                              And I have to admit....after reading through all of this I must say I am more confused.

                              .
                              Maybe this will help A/R I doubt it but it may . lol

                              Nine Deceptions In Our History With The EU
                              UK OPEN POLITICAL DEBATE·TUESDAY, 1 MARCH 2016
                              The strange pseudo-deal stitched up between David Cameron and his 27 EU colleagues is yet another example of the EU's smoke and mirrors
                              The key to understanding the unique system of government known as the “European Union” is that everything about it is based on smoke and mirrors, with nothing ever being quite what it is pretending to be. Of this, the strange little pseudo-deal stitched up between David Cameron and his 27 EU colleagues is only yet another example.
                              When, some years back, I co‑authored what I believe is still the most comprehensively researched history of the “European project”, nothing struck me more than how consistently it has, at every stage, been built on one deception after another, which is why the book was called The Great Deception. Here are nine of them.
                              How it all began.... To this day, the European Commission website deliberately confuses two quite incompatible models for a future “United States of Europe” put forward after the Second World War. Its account starts with Winston Churchill’s call for a “United States of Europe” in 1946, which led two years later to the “intergovernmental” Council of Europe. But no one was more scornful of this than the Frenchman Jean Monnet, who had a wholly different model in mind, first conceived back in the Twenties. His “United States of Europe” would be centred on an entirely new kind of “supranational” government, able to overrule the vetoes of any of its individual member states. It was Monnet’s vision that won, through the “Schuman Declaration” he drafted in 1950. This led to the European Coal and Steel Community, with Monnet at its head, which even then he explicitly hailed as the “government of Europe”.
                              'Switch-sell’ in Rome.... When Monnet’s first bid to move straight to the complete political union of its original six members was rebuffed in 1954, he and his allies realised they could only achieve their real goal step by step. So they deliberately decided to conceal it, by pretending that they were only seeking to create a trading arrangement. But the treaty of Rome in 1957 did begin by declaring their intention to work for “ever-closer union”, and set up all the core institutions needed to run a future government of Europe – even though this was far more than was needed to administer what was sold as its headline purpose: the creation of just a “Common Market”.
                              Macmillan joins deceit.... When, in 1961, Britain first applied to join “the Six”, Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath had been fully briefed by Monnet’s allies as to the project’s ultimate goal, full economic and political union. But papers released under the 30-year rule show that, at the end of June, the Cabinet accepted their urging that, for “presentational” reasons, this should not be revealed to the public or Parliament. British entry should be sold as being only to a “Common Market”, concerned just with trade and jobs.

                              He knew he was lying over our 'loss of sovereignty’: a smiling Edward Heath at the count for Britain’s referendum on membership of the European Community in 1975
                              Britain taken in by Heath.... We can also now see how deliberately, when Heath applied for British entry in 1970, he perpetuated the same deception. His Europe minister was sent to plead with Brussels to keep quiet about its already emerging plans for a single currency (another Monnet idea). And although we were repeatedly told that British entry would involve “no essential loss of sovereignty”, a secret Foreign Office paper, released 30 years later, shows that the government knew how important it was to conceal just how untrue this was. This was compounded in the 1975 referendum, when the campaign for Britain to stay in deliberately centred only on how vital this was to our trade and economic prosperity.
                              Towards 'Union’.... In the early Eighties, much more ambitious plans were afoot for a further leap forward to integration: it was so ambitious that it was secretly agreed that this would require not one but two more treaties. The first, the “Single European Act” in 1986, was again sold as being only concerned with turning the Common Market into a “Single Market”. But in reality the treaty was just what its title indicated: another major move towards a “Single Europe”, giving Brussels control over several other important policy areas little concerned with trade.
                              The Maastricht treaty.... The 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union brought out into the open the next instalment in the march towards the ultimate goal, centred not just on full “economic and monetary union”, including Monnet’s single currency (from which Britain won what was meant to be only a temporary opt-out); but also much else, never fully explained at the time, including moves towards giving the new “European Union” its own foreign and defence policies.
                              Blair 'at heart of Europe’.... Tony Blair’s ambition to be “at the heart of Europe” led him to collaborate fully with moves to make the European Council (another Monnet idea) the EU’s political “Cabinet of Europe”, with its own foreign and defence policies, and also towards giving the EU its own “Constitution”, to make it in effect a sovereign government on the world stage.
                              The 'Lisbon switch-sell’.... After the “Constitution for Europe” was in 2005 rejected by French and Dutch voters, virtually the same document was then smuggled back in as the more harmless-sounding “Lisbon Treaty” in 2007, for the first time formalising the European Council as an official institution of “the government of Europe”.

                              Cameron's deal was yet more 'smoke and mirrors'
                              Mr Cameron’s 'treaty’.... Almost everything about Cameron’s “treaty” to give Britain a “special relationship” with the EU is yet again smoke and mirrors, not least the insistence that it is “legally binding and irreversible”. Under the Vienna Convention, a treaty is only valid when the signatories can guarantee delivery of what they have agreed. But in at least two respects, on economic governance and recognition that Britain is no longer bound to “ever closer union”, Cameron’s deal requires change to the EU treaties themselves. So it could only become “legally binding” after going through all the procedures now required for EU treaty change, depending on ratification by every member state, often involving referendums, any one of which could make Cameron’s “treaty” reversible.
                              Until then, Cameron’s little deal cannot conceivably be considered “legally binding”. To pretend otherwise is just another deception. But he may still get away with it, because no one will challenge him on it (Michael Gove’s claim that it could be reversed by the European Court of Justice is quite irrelevant).
                              The fearful irony of what is going on was exemplified by that poll last week which found that, while 65% of the British electorate describe themselves as “sceptical” about the EU, only 30% would wish us to leave it. And if there is one reason above all else for this seeming contradiction, it is the total failure of the various “Leave” campaigns to agree on any plausible, properly worked-out plan for how we could extricate ourselves from the political “government of Europe” while continuing to have full access to the Single Market.
                              It is this failure that allows Cameron and his allies to play their only trump card – that fear of a “leap in the dark” which might somehow exclude us from the trading arrangement which has been used as the main justification for why we needed to be “in Europe” ever since we joined it. Because none of the Leave groups have done the homework needed to show us how it could be done, the Remainders can terrify us into fearing that we could lose our economic future.

                              As Roy Jenkins shrewdly put it in 1999, there have only ever been “two coherent British attitudes to Europe”. Either we should wholeheartedly embrace what it was always intended to be, ever since Monnet set it in train six decades ago. Or we should negotiate a “reasonably amicable withdrawal”. Otherwise we are doomed to remain just a “foot-dragging, constantly complaining member” of something most of us instinctively distrust and dislike.
                              But that is what it seems we are fated to choose on June 23 – because our political class has now been actively collaborating with that “great deception” – albeit too often foot-dragging and complaining – for half a century.
                              Written by Christopher Booker 27/2/16 for Telegraph





                              ,,Many British citizens again want self-government, as they had for hundreds of years before the Common Market became a super-state on the way to “ever-closer union”. This seems a reasonable demand. Under the rules of British democracy, the citizenry are always able to eject the Government through a general election.

                              However, whatever they want to do about the elite that governs the EU, they can never get rid of it or change its decisions. It is like being ruled by a foreign power immune to normal processes of political economy. That is seen as the political case for Brexit. But, in truth, it is as much the economic case, because not being able to learn from economic mistakes or to compel rulers to revise their policies is a serious problem. The UK democratic process, for all its faults, is a better mechanism for economic policy progress, as has been shown by the reform programmes since 1979.

                              By Brexit, I understand not a complete severing of all ties with our European neighbours, but rather a serious attempt to renegotiate a proper bilateral treaty with the rest of the EU that recognises the common interests of both sides.

                              Flags


                              In fact, subsequent to a Leave referendum result, no changes would be noticed for several years as treaty negotiations took place, with the rest of the EU desperate for agreement, since they sell so much more to us than we to them. After that, there would then be a decade or so of transition to allow all sides to adjust.

                              The supporters of staying in the EU argue that we should not take demands for ever-closer union too seriously. We can assume that in practice we will manage to stave off most of the demands from the EU that we cannot abide and carry on much as now. Furthermore, we are told to remember that leaving would greatly damage us economically through the loss of our trading relationship with the rest of the EU, and that we would lose other economic benefits such as foreign direct investment (FDI) and jobs linked to the EU export market. Thus runs the pro-EU argument.

                              Yet the suggestion that the EU does “not really mean to aim for ever-closer union” is contradicted by the history of the Common Market since we joined in 1973. Those who took the aims of the EU elite at their word have been proved right. Whatever soothing words fellow governments may throw at us in David Cameron’s renegotiations, the main power to centralise lies with the European Court, the European Parliament and the EU Commission. All of them have displayed the same determination to centralise power in the EU. They will roll over Cameron’s piece of paper.

                              Cameron ,,,,,,,,,,,same speech as peace in our time mr chamberlain


                              As for the positive pro-EU economic arguments, they are truly astonishing. The research that I have done on the European economy over the past few decades points in exactly the opposite direction. The EU is a Customs Union that erects a tariff and non-tariff wall around EU member states that is highly protectionist and raises the prices of protected goods, including agriculture and manufactures. This implies that, far from being a free-market paradise, the EU market has prices well above world market prices and, in so doing, twists the shape of our economy towards these protected goods and away from its best shape. We produce more of what we are worst at and less of what we are best at, while our consumers have to pay excessive prices. Also, because we buy more from the rest of the EU than we sell to them at these inflated prices, some of this price excess goes straight into the pockets of industry in the rest of the EU. This loss of free trade costs us, overall, about 4pc of GDP.

                              Trade costs of the EU are just a start. Whether one looks at climate change and energy, finance, labour market rules, or any of the myriad details of industrial standards, one finds numerous ways in which these deviate from what the UK would put in place. It is said that we would have to keep these regulations if we were to continue to export to the EU, but this is manifestly false. Our exporters to the EU, about a tenth of UK GDP, would have to adhere to EU rules for imported goods. But the other 90pc of the economy would not.

                              Euro


                              Our findings are that EU regulation could cause massive damage to our economy. So what of the scares about FDI and job losses? These arguments are simple fallacies. FDI enters because there are returns to foreign capital here. Of course, it will continue but into the different sectors favoured by world free trade. Jobs, too, will expand in these sectors to replace those lost in the previously protected sectors. With rising real wages, jobs will expand. Then there is the political problem of migration. Limits on immigration – giving priority for scarce, skilled workers and families of UK citizens – cannot be sensibly implemented when there is no control at all over immigration from 27 close neighbours, let alone over the refugees the EU is trying to allocate to its member states. UK citizens know the economic benefits of sensibly managed immigration, have always welcomed foreigners and have been generous to refugees. What they rail against is the way in which the EU runs a coach and horses through any such management.

                              It is clear that our “establishment” is keen to bamboozle the common man out of self-government with fallacies about economics. The truth is that UK citizens will not only regain their political freedom outside the EU but they will also be a lot better off.


                              Patrick Minford is Professor of Applied Economics at Cardiff Business School. He is co-author of “Should Britain leave the EU? Economic analysis of a troubled relationship”
                              Last edited by tankie; 02 Mar 16,, 14:43.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by kato View Post
                                I have the choice between 22 parties in my state. If I look through a question catalogue that's supposed to help me select which party's position fit my opinions most, my personal highlight is the question "Do you think schools should be segregated between Germans and immigrants?". Three of those 22 parties are in favour of that. Edit: And just for the topic's sake - none of the 38 questions question the EU in any way.

                                What's more, our Green prime minister (who kinda comes across like our Bernie Sanders otherwise, age-wise too - just less communist) now has election campaign posters up that show him looking into the distance in a couldn't-be-more-patriotic pose with a banner text "Committed to our Country".
                                You should vote for yourself.
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X