I thought you said that's what they were trying to achieve?
Brexit: give me a positive effect... XII
- Thread starter richardg
- Start date
- Status
Colin Barron
pfm Member
They will run out of money.
So your feared USE will never happen, in which case why is it a threat? I might want to drive a Ferrari at 200mph on the M1. Fortunately motorists are safe because I don't have £300k for a car. So why worry?
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
Ah, it has to be explicitly written down for you. If it isn't, doesn't that surely make it even worse, as that's what they've been doing for the past 65 years, as click, click, click went the ratchet. The superstate ambition has been slipped in, one irreversible turn of the ratchet at a time, lost down there in the small print, or forced and bullied through in often unpopular treaties. And, given that it is as clear as day the the people wouldn't be that keen, should we be surprised if the gnomes aren't actually shouting about it from the rooftop of the Berlaymont?
On your final point you are right, if wrong. It isn't Merkel or Rutte who call the shots (Macron would be quite keen, as he appears to have 'Napoleonic' ambitions), but the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the German Constitutional Court. The Euro is good for Germany, but fiskalunion? Nein.
I'd be interested on your learned considerations of why the EU launched monetary union without a fiscal and transfer union, and how you think that is sustainable.
Oh, and 'ever closer union' certainly does cut it. Read the words, one by one. Ever. Closer. Union.
I think that's roughly what I said, if not in all of the precise terms. The British forces in Germany were there postwar as part of an international treaty, and remained so in the form of the BAOR as part of the NATO bulwark against the USSR.
Look it up.
Sure, which reverts to my points about not being busy elsewhere spending/squandering money that we didn't have. Italy and Germany had been relieved of their colonial baggage, even if the low countries still had a bit of work to do. They could concentrate all of their manpower and resources on rebuilding, and on the whole did so sensibly.
Britain's economic performance both before and after accession was largely the result of British government policy, culminating in the UK's tardy supply-side reform under Thatch.
Surely you mean 'out to lunch'? But no matter, you raise an important issue: lunch, or more specifically its role in modern life. Should our democratically elected friends and partners across the Channel wish to lunch away from the office for a decent amount of time, then I applaud them - and should some vino be included all the better (as I'm sure you and Jean-Claude would agree). Our Slow Food former overlords must also be recognised for improving the quality of food (and associated health outcomes) in this green and pleasant Vassal State, and for democratising British food culture. We no longer have to settle for Spotted dick and dodgy sandwiches.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
Yes.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
Oh dear. This must be very disappointing for you, as escaping the USE/4th Reich was one of your better reasons for Brexit.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
This seems to be reverting back to a "why we want to leave the EU" thread. How strange. To Brexiters: the UK has left, you won, etc.
The EU is a legal construct with 27 member states, so it doesn't deal well with secret agenda. Example: the EU negotiation positions on Brexit were explicitly discussed with all 27 MS and published on the EC website, while David Davis & Co were treating their negotiation positions (?) as prized state secrets. If somebody wanted to start a superstate, they would have to form exploratory committees, a Superstate Group, maybe even a DG. And none of this would take place without EU Council blessing. Just look at how the bailout decision was taken.
Slipped in where? For every example of "ratchet", I can find one of "subsidiarity".
The EU is a legal construct with 27 member states, so it doesn't deal well with secret agenda. Example: the EU negotiation positions on Brexit were explicitly discussed with all 27 MS and published on the EC website, while David Davis & Co were treating their negotiation positions (?) as prized state secrets. If somebody wanted to start a superstate, they would have to form exploratory committees, a Superstate Group, maybe even a DG. And none of this would take place without EU Council blessing. Just look at how the bailout decision was taken.
So what? Every MS has some sort of Constitutional Court that can block stuff. The German Constitutional Court has blessed the recent ECB developments supported by Merkel, despite vociferous opposition from German monetarists and fiscal conservatives like Sinn, so recent German examples go the opposite way to what you describe.
Why: for much of the 70s, 80s, 90s, the rest of Europe was de facto tied to Bundesbank decisions without obv. having any say in them whatsoever. The euro was the price paid by the Germans for reunification. Sustainable? We'll see, but the euro seems to be working as well as anything else. Your lot predicts the death of the euro every year, in the same wistful way the Politburo used to predict the collapse of capitalism. If something is needed to patch up the euro later on, the MS will get to it then.
Do you see superstate, federal, transfer or anything like that in those words? No, neither do I. The formulation "ever closer union" has been there for more than 60 years, which rather disproves the usual Brexiter bleat of "we thought we were signing up to a common market", but there is still no sign of the federal superstate. Birmingham City Council employs more people than the EC.
So were French troops, which rather invalidates that line. A very weak way of explaining relative economic performance.
It was a genuine question, and your inelegant response suggests you have nothing to back up your story. I am not aware of such financial support from the US, but willing to learn about it. My perception is that the US wanted to call the shots WW and either ignored or undermined France's colonial and post-colonial efforts in various ways throughout the 50s (Indochina, Suez) and early 60s (North Africa) before, ironically, stepping into the same booby-traps themselves a few years later (Vietnam, Middle East). If you can't show some evidence or at least a vague notion of what that support was and when, I'll file that one under puff.
Ah, the white man's burden... Colonies were usually profitable ventures for the colonists, and created captive markets. Even after decolonization, the British maintained greater share of market in their former colonies than elsewhere. Imagine you were an Italian exporter trying, back in the day, to gain a commercial foothold in Nigeria, South Africa, Australia or any other ex-colony. Do you think you would have had an easier job than your British counterpart?
Colin Barron
pfm Member
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
If the USE are not going to happen, getting cold, swamped and seasick in the lifeboats looks less attractive as an option.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
In the lifeboats, taking on water, but at least it’s our water, eh?
Colin Barron
pfm Member
Colin Barron
pfm Member
Only our boat to bail out.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
You'd better get bailing then, that gunwhale's looking a bit close to the ocean.
Enfield boy
pfm Member
Just what Reet Smug, Deadwood and the other disaster capitalists want, always money to be made shorting.
-alan-
pfm Member
Perhaps not the best analogy Col - a cursory look at historical reports of the event would suggest that the lifeboats on the Titanic were seriously insufficient in number, and preserved for a carefully selected few
SteveS1
I heard that, pardon?
Perhaps not the best analogy Col - a cursory look at historical reports of the event would suggest that the lifeboats on the Titanic were seriously insufficient in number, and preserved for a carefully selected few
The second one is just his very sad wishful thinking.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
- Status