Junker and dave
Discussion
greygoose said:
Walford said:
XJ Flyer said:
I'd suggest that with us being in a position of net trade deficit with it the EU is in no place to dictate terms to us whatsoever after we withdraw from it.As opposed to vice versa.
its not about trade, its about building a supper state run by and for a political elitespeedyman said:
Ok, nobody wants a super state, but the eu needs regulation and people to draft the rules. How should it be run differently ?
The EU needs regulation like an addict needs a fix. The issue is, who needs the EU?Nation states have drafted their own regulations more democratically for many years.
Also, from an article linked elsewhere:
"The utter falsity of Mr Cameron’s recent play-acting about the EU is astounding. He is now reduced to issuing bombastic threats of future displeasure over a needless defeat which he himself sought, to try to fool his stupider voters into thinking he is something he is not. It is we who will ‘live to regret’ taking this man seriously."
The German publication Bild put it this way, likening CMD to Rooney.
He lines up the shot.
He loses.
He goes home.
Harsh but fair.
greygoose said:
Will there be a Minister for Cheese on Toast?
Only if they're supported by a department for bread thickness and cheese consistency. Lea & Perrins will be limited at two splishes per slice. Other sauces may be considered for approval however HP Sauce is out of favour due to sticking in the administrative gullet.turbobloke said:
The EU needs regulation like an addict needs a fix. The issue is, who needs the EU?
Nation states have drafted their own regulations more democratically for many years.
Also, from an article linked elsewhere:
"The utter falsity of Mr Cameron’s recent play-acting about the EU is astounding. He is now reduced to issuing bombastic threats of future displeasure over a needless defeat which he himself sought, to try to fool his stupider voters into thinking he is something he is not. It is we who will ‘live to regret’ taking this man seriously."
The German publication Bild put it this way, likening CMD to Rooney.
He lines up the shot.
He loses.
He goes home.
Harsh but fair.
It's obvious that Cameron's position is just a public relations scam to make the anti federalist side think that he's suddenly changed his position to that of an EU sceptic.In which case it's equally obvious that it would be in the interests of the scammers ( in this case his friend Merkel ) to keep the pretence going with statements suggesting that he tried but failed.Nation states have drafted their own regulations more democratically for many years.
Also, from an article linked elsewhere:
"The utter falsity of Mr Cameron’s recent play-acting about the EU is astounding. He is now reduced to issuing bombastic threats of future displeasure over a needless defeat which he himself sought, to try to fool his stupider voters into thinking he is something he is not. It is we who will ‘live to regret’ taking this man seriously."
The German publication Bild put it this way, likening CMD to Rooney.
He lines up the shot.
He loses.
He goes home.
Harsh but fair.
As opposed to his real position of being a committed supporter of the EU project but who's just pretending to be on the sceptic side to stop his Party tearing itself apart between the anti federalists and federalists.In which case he and his federalist sidekicks in the Party ( rightly ) would become and irrelevance just like their allies Clegg and the LibDems.IE a liar who's,so far,managing to remain in control,with a lot of help from his allies in the EU who are helping him to keep the pretence going.As for the rest of the Cons they seem to be living up to their historic position of,just like Cameron,being committed federalists because they're happy to sell out the country just so long as the CBI can see a bit of profit in it,while at the same putting up a good pretence and show of being so called EU sceptics.
On that basis the choice is simply either that of providing Farage with a sufficient mandate to hold the balance of power.Or the country remains just a state within the USE subject to being increasingly ruled by such a federation not ourselves.
speedyman said:
Ok, nobody wants a super state, but the eu needs regulation and people to draft the rules. How should it be run differently ?
The answer isn't how to run it but getting out of it preferably long before 2017.While the EU's ruling elite and benificiary states know that 'if' we succeed that's a large chunk of their cash gone.In addition to giving us the powers to stop the situation of being in the trade deficit with the place that we've been in since Heath took us into the scam. TuscanOwner said:
OK, so I did. And it clearly states that it allows people in one EU state to acquire a passport to allow them to act in any EU state without re-certifying for that countries systems.
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
If only life was so simple!
XJ Flyer said:
The answer isn't how to run it but getting out of it preferably long before 2017.While the EU's ruling elite and benificiary states know that 'if' we succeed that's a large chunk of their cash gone.In addition to giving us the powers to stop the situation of being in the trade deficit with the place that we've been in since Heath took us into the scam.
If we got out, kept free trade, and our economy started to improve, all the countries/states that have been in recession for years would look to follow, which is why they want us to stay in,turbobloke said:
speedyman said:
Ok, nobody wants a super state, but the eu needs regulation and people to draft the rules. How should it be run differently ?
The EU needs regulation like an addict needs a fix. The issue is, who needs the EU?Nation states have drafted their own regulations more democratically for many years.
Also, from an article linked elsewhere:
"The utter falsity of Mr Cameron’s recent play-acting about the EU is astounding. He is now reduced to issuing bombastic threats of future displeasure over a needless defeat which he himself sought, to try to fool his stupider voters into thinking he is something he is not. It is we who will ‘live to regret’ taking this man seriously."
The German publication Bild put it this way, likening CMD to Rooney.
He lines up the shot.
He loses.
He goes home.
Harsh but fair.
Walford said:
XJ Flyer said:
The answer isn't how to run it but getting out of it preferably long before 2017.While the EU's ruling elite and benificiary states know that 'if' we succeed that's a large chunk of their cash gone.In addition to giving us the powers to stop the situation of being in the trade deficit with the place that we've been in since Heath took us into the scam.
If we got out, kept free trade, and our economy started to improve, all the countries/states that have been in recession for years would look to follow, which is why they want us to stay in,Which translated during the 1970's in us closing down our manufacturing industries and transferring the missing capacity to Germany to create more jobs for German workers at the expense of our own.
Then added to that we subsidise/d the weaker economies so that in large part they can spend the money on German made goods.While the CBI was happy with the situation of the over supply of the domestic Labour market which that created to keep wage rates relatively low in whatever industry we've got left.
The only thing that's really changed in that regard is the cheap labour opportunities,which the employers in all the developed western European economies,now obviously wish to take advantage of in Eastern Europe.In exchange for using yet more of our money to subsidise those under developed economies.
In view of all that make no mistake the pressures for us to stay in originate from numerous different interests both here like the CBI and in Europe in the form of the German government and the new east European member states.Being that Germany knows that without our cash it will start having to subsidise it's own EU exports and generally keeping afloat those no hoper southern and eastern European countries that we are so far helping to pay for.While all those net beneficiary states obviously want the status quo of wealth transfer from us to them to continue.IE our membership has been nothing but a foreign aid/investment scam,based on the outdated fears of people like Heath,from the time we joined it.With the EU members wanting that situation to continue just so long as it continues on their terms not ours.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 1st July 14:10
Guam said:
Zod said:
musing that a UKIP sympathiser cites a europhile, left-wing German magazine to support his view.
Is "sympathiser" the new meme as "supporter" failed?I really don't understand why you don't want to be described as such if that is what you are.
Guam said:
Zod said:
I'm happy to go with either. I don't see how any of you can deny being sympathisers.
Perfect so you are using it in this context then?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
The context in which I'm using it is the meaning of the word as commonly accepted and as defined in all dictionaries (other than, I expect, the Profanisaurus).Zod said:
I really don't understand why you don't want to be described as such if that is what you are.
I don't understand this part, either. It's as if standing there cheering those with the pitchforks, but not actually carrying a pitchfork, provides some degree of separation.As for David Cameron, well, he's not getting any better at delivering anything, is he? Lots of hot air and not a lot else.
Luckily for him his chancellor and senior ministers are actually effective at getting things done.
Guam said:
Zod said:
No. The context in which I'm using it is the meaning of the word as commonly accepted and as defined in all dictionaries (other than, I expect, the Profanisaurus).
Still wrong then see above. The context in which I'm using it is the meaning of the word as commonly accepted and as defined in all dictionaries (other than, I expect, the Profanisaurus).Andy Zarse said:
TuscanOwner said:
OK, so I did. And it clearly states that it allows people in one EU state to acquire a passport to allow them to act in any EU state without re-certifying for that countries systems.
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
If only life was so simple!
Cameron must be doing something right; he's really upset Polly Toynbee:
Polly Toynbe in the Guardian said:
Isolated and xenophobic: Britain after a Tory victory
From Europe to Scotland to the NHS and the BBC; if David Cameron wins in 2015, Britain will become irrelevant abroad and more unequal at home
Battle lines for the next election have emerged with starker clarity in the past week. What a Conservative win would mean for Britain is becoming alarmingly clear. Some plans will be in their manifesto but, as in 2010, many will be obscured. Will voters be more wary after David Cameron's remarkable charade of moderation last time – all that green, family-friendly, all-in-it-togetherness?
A Conservative win looks almost certain to propel us out of the EU. Cameron presents himself as a renegotiator, but he is heading – through incompetence, indifference or his own gut instinct – toward the exit. The chance of achieving reforms that appease his party for an "In" campaign looks vanishingly small. A majority of his MPs are either "Outs" or else "no fear" – negotiate-with-a-gun. Michael Gove, Philip Hammond and Owen Paterson already say they'd quit rather than keep the status quo.
The dangerously complacent view is that common sense will prevail. The combined force of the CBI, TUC, Cameron and his sensibles, Labour and Lib Dems can win a referendum. Wolfgang Schäuble, Angela Merkel's right-hand man, this week said: "Historically, politically, democratically, culturally, Great Britain is entirely indispensable for Europe." But not indispensable enough to make 27 countries concede big changes requiring a treaty that triggers a host of referendums. Free movement of labour will never be amended by poor nations that rely on it.
A Tory party newly triumphant would not be emollient: Cameron might well join the Outs. The drumbeat of Murdoch, the Telegraph, Mail and Express would overwhelm rational argument. Look at their jubilation already: the Sunday Times leader this week denied Treasury figures showing 3.3m British jobs were linked to EU membership and said Juncker's appointment had "indeed pushed us close to the exit".
The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh, who speaks his master's voice through a foghorn, writes: "I am told Mr Cameron will signal shortly that – without real EU reform on immigration and other key demands – he will indeed lead an Out campaign in Britain's 2017 referendum. Since he is unlikely to wring those concessions out of a bruised and vengeful Juncker, the clock on Britain's membership is already ticking." Murdoch's "humblest day" was short-lived.
Look back at the AV referendum: the power of the Tory press and a well-financed No campaign managed to persuade an electorate deeply disenchanted with existing parties that they didn't really want a little more electoral choice. Instead, people were eager to give Nick Clegg a kicking.Cameron's EU referendum would come at his government's mid-term low point. In referendums, say the pollsters, people rarely vote on the issue but on governments. Cameron will negotiate pointing a gun at his own head, and in the end, quite reasonably, Europe will say "Shoot!" So a vote for the Conservatives next year amounts to an Out vote. If Scotland narrowly stays in the UK this time, they will certainly demand another vote and swing to leave a non-EU England; Wales might follow. Britain loses its UN security council seat and US presidents forget "special relationship" politesse.
Labour has taken a stout stand in refusing a referendum, coming under fierce attack for denying the people a right to choose. A referendum on their watch would be even more certainly lost, against what would be a Euro-obsessed Tory party led by an Out. So Labour has no choice but to stand and fight. There is no middle way on this one. Its stand must be: "This is the moment to choose: Vote Ukip or Tory if you want Out; vote Labour (or Lib Dem) for In to save British jobs." Immigration drives much popular anti-Europeanism, so Labour has no choice but to say immigration is the price for prosperity. Time for gloves off with Ukip voters. Stop pretending a Ukip vote is respectable and call Faragists out as job-destroying racists and xenophobes. Explaining the decision to deny a referendum requires a bolder pro-EU message, and a more abrasive anti-Ukip and anti-Tory warning.
Labour lags alarmingly on economic credibility, but Europe is one unassailable issue where Labour stands for economic sanity against reckless Little Englanders. Never mind tax titbits to woo business, Labour's challenge to every industrialist or financier is to support them as the only party taking this political risk to protect business interests: Ed Balls made a good pitch on Sunday.
Europe may not be the decider for many voters, but it is the totemic example of how extreme a victorious Conservative party would be after 2015. Not since Labour's 1983 "longest suicide note in history" manifesto has a party planned such a radical prospectus. Then, Labour proposed leaving Nato, unilateral nuclear disarmament, renationalising British Telecom and shipbuilding, abolishing the second chamber – and leaving Europe.
From Cameron mark 2, expect the effective dismantling of much of the BBC and marketisation of the rest of the NHS. Gove plans chains of for-profit schools. National pay rates will be broken, paying public servants in already poor places less. Beecroft's "fire at will" deregulations will be back. The juggernaut of cuts to come, still only half done, will hit even harder, says the Institute of Fiscal Studies, since tax rises and capital cuts are already banked, leaving deeper service and staff cuts.
More tax cuts and shrinking benefits are certain. Bids are finalised for the £800m probation-service contract, outsourcing a core justice function warned against by the National Audit Office; next would be Gove's postponed outsourcing of child protection.
All this adds up to an isolated England with a denuded state, irrelevant abroad and increasingly unequal at home. The EU referendum campaign will encourage xenophobia. Benefit cuts will urge mean-spiritedness that despises those below, to distract from a swelling plutocracy above.
The Tories and their press denounce Labour policies as extreme, a throwback to the 1970s, anti-business, economically unsound – and so on. Compared to the next Cameron agenda, Labour's modest mansion tax, return to the 50p rate, jobs guarantee and 200,000 homes a year, all cemented into current spending and benefit caps, are remarkably prudent – too tame, Jon Cruddas and others complain. With next year's result more unpredictable than any election for decades, Labour's task is to convey to voters the full enormity of what the Conservatives have in store.
From Europe to Scotland to the NHS and the BBC; if David Cameron wins in 2015, Britain will become irrelevant abroad and more unequal at home
Battle lines for the next election have emerged with starker clarity in the past week. What a Conservative win would mean for Britain is becoming alarmingly clear. Some plans will be in their manifesto but, as in 2010, many will be obscured. Will voters be more wary after David Cameron's remarkable charade of moderation last time – all that green, family-friendly, all-in-it-togetherness?
A Conservative win looks almost certain to propel us out of the EU. Cameron presents himself as a renegotiator, but he is heading – through incompetence, indifference or his own gut instinct – toward the exit. The chance of achieving reforms that appease his party for an "In" campaign looks vanishingly small. A majority of his MPs are either "Outs" or else "no fear" – negotiate-with-a-gun. Michael Gove, Philip Hammond and Owen Paterson already say they'd quit rather than keep the status quo.
The dangerously complacent view is that common sense will prevail. The combined force of the CBI, TUC, Cameron and his sensibles, Labour and Lib Dems can win a referendum. Wolfgang Schäuble, Angela Merkel's right-hand man, this week said: "Historically, politically, democratically, culturally, Great Britain is entirely indispensable for Europe." But not indispensable enough to make 27 countries concede big changes requiring a treaty that triggers a host of referendums. Free movement of labour will never be amended by poor nations that rely on it.
A Tory party newly triumphant would not be emollient: Cameron might well join the Outs. The drumbeat of Murdoch, the Telegraph, Mail and Express would overwhelm rational argument. Look at their jubilation already: the Sunday Times leader this week denied Treasury figures showing 3.3m British jobs were linked to EU membership and said Juncker's appointment had "indeed pushed us close to the exit".
The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh, who speaks his master's voice through a foghorn, writes: "I am told Mr Cameron will signal shortly that – without real EU reform on immigration and other key demands – he will indeed lead an Out campaign in Britain's 2017 referendum. Since he is unlikely to wring those concessions out of a bruised and vengeful Juncker, the clock on Britain's membership is already ticking." Murdoch's "humblest day" was short-lived.
Look back at the AV referendum: the power of the Tory press and a well-financed No campaign managed to persuade an electorate deeply disenchanted with existing parties that they didn't really want a little more electoral choice. Instead, people were eager to give Nick Clegg a kicking.Cameron's EU referendum would come at his government's mid-term low point. In referendums, say the pollsters, people rarely vote on the issue but on governments. Cameron will negotiate pointing a gun at his own head, and in the end, quite reasonably, Europe will say "Shoot!" So a vote for the Conservatives next year amounts to an Out vote. If Scotland narrowly stays in the UK this time, they will certainly demand another vote and swing to leave a non-EU England; Wales might follow. Britain loses its UN security council seat and US presidents forget "special relationship" politesse.
Labour has taken a stout stand in refusing a referendum, coming under fierce attack for denying the people a right to choose. A referendum on their watch would be even more certainly lost, against what would be a Euro-obsessed Tory party led by an Out. So Labour has no choice but to stand and fight. There is no middle way on this one. Its stand must be: "This is the moment to choose: Vote Ukip or Tory if you want Out; vote Labour (or Lib Dem) for In to save British jobs." Immigration drives much popular anti-Europeanism, so Labour has no choice but to say immigration is the price for prosperity. Time for gloves off with Ukip voters. Stop pretending a Ukip vote is respectable and call Faragists out as job-destroying racists and xenophobes. Explaining the decision to deny a referendum requires a bolder pro-EU message, and a more abrasive anti-Ukip and anti-Tory warning.
Labour lags alarmingly on economic credibility, but Europe is one unassailable issue where Labour stands for economic sanity against reckless Little Englanders. Never mind tax titbits to woo business, Labour's challenge to every industrialist or financier is to support them as the only party taking this political risk to protect business interests: Ed Balls made a good pitch on Sunday.
Europe may not be the decider for many voters, but it is the totemic example of how extreme a victorious Conservative party would be after 2015. Not since Labour's 1983 "longest suicide note in history" manifesto has a party planned such a radical prospectus. Then, Labour proposed leaving Nato, unilateral nuclear disarmament, renationalising British Telecom and shipbuilding, abolishing the second chamber – and leaving Europe.
From Cameron mark 2, expect the effective dismantling of much of the BBC and marketisation of the rest of the NHS. Gove plans chains of for-profit schools. National pay rates will be broken, paying public servants in already poor places less. Beecroft's "fire at will" deregulations will be back. The juggernaut of cuts to come, still only half done, will hit even harder, says the Institute of Fiscal Studies, since tax rises and capital cuts are already banked, leaving deeper service and staff cuts.
More tax cuts and shrinking benefits are certain. Bids are finalised for the £800m probation-service contract, outsourcing a core justice function warned against by the National Audit Office; next would be Gove's postponed outsourcing of child protection.
All this adds up to an isolated England with a denuded state, irrelevant abroad and increasingly unequal at home. The EU referendum campaign will encourage xenophobia. Benefit cuts will urge mean-spiritedness that despises those below, to distract from a swelling plutocracy above.
The Tories and their press denounce Labour policies as extreme, a throwback to the 1970s, anti-business, economically unsound – and so on. Compared to the next Cameron agenda, Labour's modest mansion tax, return to the 50p rate, jobs guarantee and 200,000 homes a year, all cemented into current spending and benefit caps, are remarkably prudent – too tame, Jon Cruddas and others complain. With next year's result more unpredictable than any election for decades, Labour's task is to convey to voters the full enormity of what the Conservatives have in store.
TuscanOwner said:
Andy Zarse said:
TuscanOwner said:
OK, so I did. And it clearly states that it allows people in one EU state to acquire a passport to allow them to act in any EU state without re-certifying for that countries systems.
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
If only life was so simple!
Andy Zarse said:
TuscanOwner said:
Andy Zarse said:
TuscanOwner said:
OK, so I did. And it clearly states that it allows people in one EU state to acquire a passport to allow them to act in any EU state without re-certifying for that countries systems.
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
So it doesn't seem to ban you from working in other EU countries at all. Unless you fail the test I guess
If only life was so simple!
Andy Zarse said:
That's because the EU specifically bans our business from providing our services to residents of other member states. We can have clients almost anywhere, but if they live have the nerve to move from Dover to Calais that's the end of our relationship with them.
It's fine though if they move to Geneva, or even Bangkok.
You clearly state your business cannot provide services in other EU states. I asked what they were, and googling suggests they are not banned at all. Instead of suggesting I google, have got it wrong or something, can you actually be clear. Because at the moment to me it looks like you made a false assertion and are trying to duck the question. I apologise if that is not the case, but you have made seemingly evasive answers to my last 3 questions.It's fine though if they move to Geneva, or even Bangkok.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff