Meanwhile in Poland

[s2art]

Breadvan72 said:

Some of the posts above suggest ignorance of postwar economic history (and indeed of history more widely). The UK was in a rocky state in the decades after WW2, and therefore applied repeatedly to join the then EEC. It is all very well saying that the UK had been OK on its own before then, but in fact it had not been on its own since its rise to political and economic power (from the C17 onwards). The Empire, however, was a busted flush by the 1960s, and the no longer powerful Britain alone was not a viable proposition.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 8th August 09:32

Why do you think Britain on its own was not a viable position? I'll give you that successive Labour governments coupled to trade union disruption made life difficult in the 60's and 70's, and that paying for the cold war was a major drain on our economy, but other than that?

[anonymous-user]

I am sorry, but (a) I have some work on, and (b) I then have some fun on, and I cannot spare the time be your teacher. Perhaps do some reading on history and economics. A wide knowledge of history and economics makes most of the stuff that happens in the news not at all or not very surprising. I suggest that a good start is to take off the "blame it all on some simplistic single cause factor eg bad unions" blinkers. Most things are multi factored and highly nuanced. Then maybe read lots of articles in articles in the FT and the Economist, but I would also suggest that you read one or two decent single volume histories of postwar Britain and/or Europe. Having said that, you ought perhaps to read up on Britain and Europe since circa 1600 to get the full picture. Varoufakis has a strong slant, but he is also well informed and fair minded, so his potted history of the EU and so forth is worth a look.

[s2art]

Breadvan72 said:

I am sorry, but (a) I have some work on, and (b) I then have some fun on, and I cannot spare the time be your teacher. Perhaps do some reading on history and economics. A wide knowledge of history and economics makes most of the stuff that happens in the news not at all or not very surprising. I suggest that a good start is to take off the "blame it all on some simplistic single cause factor eg bad unions" blinkers. Most things are multi factored and highly nuanced. Then maybe read lots of articles in articles in the FT and the Economist, but I would also suggest that you read one or two decent single volume histories of postwar Britain and/or Europe. Having said that, you ought perhaps to read up on Britain and Europe since circa 1600 to get the full picture. Varoufakis has a strong slant, but he is also well informed and fair minded, so his potted history of the EU and so forth is worth a look.

Sorry, way ahead of you. To state that the UK was 'not viable' is plain silly. Of course it was. The UK was one of the biggest economies in the World. We joined the EEC in 73, just as the 'post war miracle' was coming to an end. The oil crisis in 74 brought everything to a juddering halt. (just as the commonwealth really got going). Please explain why you think Thatcher got in in 79 if you dont think industrial unrest and poor policies from Labour wasnt a major contributor.

[Mark Benson]

Breadvan72 said:

I am sorry to say that few Brexiters whom I have discussed the subject with appear to have taken the time to inform themselves as to (a) history, or (b) economics. I have met a couple of well informed Brexiters. They say that they accept that leaving the EU is economically dumb, but they also say that they will put up with this because of ideas of sovereignty and democracy. Even that argument may have an element of xenophobia embedded within it - the point being a preference for Government (even mis-Government) from London over partial Government (mis-Government or not) from Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg.

You need to get out more.

Many of us simply saw opportunities in the wider world for a country unshackled from a sclerotic and self-serving entity whose overriding mission appears to be to expand into every area it possibly can.

Optimism, in short. Optimism that there was a better option than we currently have. And while the EU will undoubtedly make it as difficult as possible for the UK during and post-Brexit - to the point of self-harm if necessary (pour encourager les autres, naturellement) - this only serves to underline the point that the 'vision' and will of the organisation is held far above the interest of the citizens it purports to serve. Your mate Varoufakis seems to have a few opinions on that last point, I seem to recall.

Yanis said:

Why did they force us to close the banks? To instil fear in people. And spreading fear is called terrorism.

As for your last point, it's less about Xenophobia (my wife's lot are a mere generation British) and it is, you'll clearly be surprised to find, actually about true democracy; here's Tony Benn with the last word:

Wedgie said:

When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious that what they had in mind was not democratic. I mean, in Britain you vote for the government and therefore the government has to listen to you, and if you don’t like it you can change it. But in Europe all the key positions are appointed, not elected – the Commission, for example. All appointed, not one of them elected.

.. And my view about the European Union has always been not that I am hostile to foreigners, but that I am in favour of democracy. And I think out of this story we have to find an answer, because I certainly don’t want to live in hostility to the European Union but I think they are building an empire there and they want us to be a part of that empire, and I don’t want that.

[Murph7355]

s2art said:

Sorry, way ahead of you. To state that the UK was 'not viable' is plain silly. Of course it was. The UK was one of the biggest economies in the World....

I think what BV is getting at is Empire meaning we weren't "alone" and that we haven't really been outside of our own expansionist tendencies for a significant amount of time.

I can see that angle (assuming that's what was meant) but am not entirely convinced by it.

There are schools of thought that suggest the Empire etc didn't have a material net impact to the UK's economy... And not having it didn't preclude us prospering on trade etc (there are definitely lessons to be taken from history!).

Anyway, off topic.

The Poles I've interacted with don't seem hugely dissimilar to us Brits. I see them as having a heavy measure of national pride and I don't get the impression they are in any way up for a federalist EU. That they appear to be sticking fingers up to the EU isn't surprising to me.

What will be interesting is how much resolve there is on both sides.

Whilst Poland is a heavy net recipient of EU funding, they also know that they have become a pretty sizeable link in the chain in a number of industries throughout the EU...FinServs, automotive etc. They have a growing hand in EU poker

[FiF]

Mark Benson said:

Breadvan72 said:

I am sorry to say that few Brexiters whom I have discussed the subject with appear to have taken the time to inform themselves as to (a) history, or (b) economics. I have met a couple of well informed Brexiters. They say that they accept that leaving the EU is economically dumb, but they also say that they will put up with this because of ideas of sovereignty and democracy. Even that argument may have an element of xenophobia embedded within it - the point being a preference for Government (even mis-Government) from London over partial Government (mis-Government or not) from Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg.

You need to get out more.

Many of us simply saw opportunities in the wider world for a country unshackled from a sclerotic and self-serving entity whose overriding mission appears to be to expand into every area it possibly can.

Optimism, in short. Optimism that there was a better option than we currently have. And while the EU will undoubtedly make it as difficult as possible for the UK during and post-Brexit - to the point of self-harm if necessary (pour encourager les autres, naturellement) - this only serves to underline the point that the 'vision' and will of the organisation is held far above the interest of the citizens it purports to serve. Your mate Varoufakis seems to have a few opinions on that last point, I seem to recall.

Yanis said:

Why did they force us to close the banks? To instil fear in people. And spreading fear is called terrorism.

As for your last point, it's less about Xenophobia (my wife's lot are a mere generation British) and it is, you'll clearly be surprised to find, actually about true democracy; here's Tony Benn with the last word:

Wedgie said:

When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious that what they had in mind was not democratic. I mean, in Britain you vote for the government and therefore the government has to listen to you, and if you don’t like it you can change it. But in Europe all the key positions are appointed, not elected – the Commission, for example. All appointed, not one of them elected.

.. And my view about the European Union has always been not that I am hostile to foreigners, but that I am in favour of democracy. And I think out of this story we have to find an answer, because I certainly don’t want to live in hostility to the European Union but I think they are building an empire there and they want us to be a part of that empire, and I don’t want that.

So BV has stuff to do, work and play, but not so busy as to not be able to post sneering condescending borderline Remainer usual stuff.

If people want to read up on the historical issues, and cut through the spin, then I attach a set of links to Microsoft Word lecture transcripts below, a series of six lectures.

No 1 Britain and Europe

No 2 From the European Coal and Steel Community to the Common Market

No 3 The Decision to seek entry into the European Community

No 4 Entry into the European Community 1971 - 1973

No 5 The Referendum on Europe 1975

No 6 The growth of Euroscepticism

For those without Word, the whole series is available in html, pdf or even audio files from here

Take your time, read and digest, unlike some personally accept that it's possible for intelligent people to study the situation and come to completely different conclusions. It doesn't mean they're stupid or any other of the frequent epithets.

[KrissKross]

Breadvan72 said:

KrissKross gains more points for honesty. Unlike some, he is pretty open about his concern being with Johnny Foreigner. Others pretend that they are all pious about democracy (that's going well, eh? Henry VIII clause bonanza!),. It's refreshing to see a bit of honest xenophobia.

Can I ask why you think I dislike foreign people, where have I ever said that?

Also you do not know where I come from, or anything much about myself, yet you seem to want to attach labels to people?

[IanH755]

KrissKross said:

Breadvan72 said:

KrissKross gains more points for honesty. Unlike some, he is pretty open about his concern being with Johnny Foreigner. Others pretend that they are all pious about democracy (that's going well, eh? Henry VIII clause bonanza!),. It's refreshing to see a bit of honest xenophobia.

Can I ask why you think I dislike foreign people, where have I ever said that?

Also you do not know where I come from, or anything much about myself, yet you seem to want to attach labels to people?

By calling you xenophobic it makes it easier for him to marginalise you and your opinion. By putting both in a small labelled box he doesn't have to waste time thinking about what you said rationally, he can just yell "Xenophobia" and ignore you, hoping that other like minded people will see his claim and also ignore what you've said.

All of this is done because actually coming up with a rational, logical argument delivered calmly as a counter takes effort and a willingness to at least try and see the "other side" of the argument.

I like to think that both "sides" have people who are happy to put their fingers in the ears to avoid having a rational, logical and mostly calm discussion, devoid of emotional outpourings. Hopefully these poeple are limited in numbers but I get the sense that they are now becoming the majority which is a shame.

[BlackLabel]

And the sparring continues.


Poland has vowed to fight the EU in court over migrant relocation quotas, while accusing the European Commission of creating a security risk.

Polish interior minister said:

Paris, Stockholm, Brussels, Berlin, Manchester, Barcelona: How many more European cities have to be hit by terrorists so that the European Union wakes up? So the European Commission acknowledges that accepting blindly all those who come to the European shores is akin to putting a noose around Europe's neck?

WARSAW — Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has stepped up its anti-German rhetoric by declaring Warsaw has a right to billions of dollars in reparations for destruction inflicted by the Nazis in World War II.

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

I am in Berlin for the weekend (my fave city in Europe, and it's just as much fun as ever) and in between the culture and fleshpots am enjoying this fine read: -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Weak-Suffer-What-They-Mus...

I don't agree with everything that Varoufakis says, but he is nothing if not well informed, and is always punchy and entertaining in his arguments, whether right or wrong.

I love the bit about him finding in Keynes' copy of Thucydides that Keynes had underlined the bit in the Melian dialogues where the Athenians say -

"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

That sort of thinking didn't end well for the Athenians.

Keynes may perhaps have done the underlining after returning from the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, at which the postwar monetary system was dictated by the US. On the US more generally, Varoufakis reminds the reader of the extent to which the US used to act as the regulator and moderator of global capitalism, and as a surplus recycler, both within its borders (California subsidises Nevada and so on) and internationally. He criticises the EU for hampering US efforts to fix the post 2008 mess, by clinging on to bad ideas. Anyway, it's all very thought provoking stuff and recommended to anyone interested in big picture economic and historical analysis.

Just finished this. I agree with you - a good read from a well informed chap. Some of his logic wobbles around half way IMO, but there's some seriously interesting stuff in here that a lot of posters on this and the EU threads should read.

It struck me that the Germans should have taken on the US role of recycling surpluses but failed to (ideologically refused to) do so. I find that uncomfortable bearing in mind the roots of how they got into that position in the first place (the Americans backing the wrong horse really, for heavily political reasons). Their general stance as painted in the book (which may be more than a bit biased of course) could yet cause serious issues in Europe (edited to add that the last link in the post above underscores this...).

The biggest thing I cannot understand, however, is how on Earth anyone reading that book (or it's author!) could suggest we should remain in the EU. It just bears no logical sense whatsoever.

Varoufakis seems to come at it from an idealists point of view, but in over 200 pages he explained quite clearly how idealism isn't something that can work in the ways tried to date. I got the sense that he feels a country like ours maybe kept some of the excesses of the EU in check and in doing so perhaps kept alive hopes of reform. But his well researched words spelt out, to me, that this will never happen.

Thanks for the recommendation. Very interesting.

(And anyone still believing the EU is not a Ponzi scheme, and is democratic....pages 200 onwards would be worth reading ).

[BlackLabel]

Merkel has spoken.

"EU heads toward tougher action on Poland after Merkel joins fray"

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/mobile.reuters.com/ar...

[Mothersruin]

Gotta love the irony of the EU being miffed at 'flouting democracy'.

[anonymous-user]

That's an easy and glib Brexiter comment, but have you ever sat down and studied how EU decisions are made? You might be surprised by how much democratic content there is in the process, and at a bare minimum the EU is composed of States each one of which is a rule of law democracy (or is supposed to be - Poland is trying hard not to be, and even the UK is now intent on becoming quite a bit more Henry VIII than William Gladstone); and those democratic states have meetings and talk about stuff, so perhaps the democratic discussion is happening in Brussels or Strasbourg rather than in the national capitals, but it's still happening.

[Digga]

Breadvan72 said:

That's an easy and glib Brexiter comment, but have you ever sat down and studied how EU decisions are made? You might be surprised by how much democratic content there is in the process, and at a bare minimum the EU is composed of States each one of which is a rule of law democracy (or is supposed to be - Poland is trying hard not to be, and even the UK is now intent on becoming quite a bit more Henry VIII than William Gladstone); and those democratic states have meetings and talk about stuff, so perhaps the democratic discussion is happening in Brussels or Strasbourg rather than in the national capitals, but it's still happening.

This is a good point and, perhaps, cuts to the heart of the failings of the EU; the benefits and liabilities (or responsibilities) were not fully understood by many entering into the organisation. I say this not merely at voter level - the man and woman on the street - but also the politicians themselves.

However, the EU does itself no favours by appearing to be dictatorial and unbending.

[anonymous-user]

I agree with that. The EU leadership is arrogant and can appear remote and undemocratic, even though in fact all key decisions are made in a way that is fairly democratic by the standards of modern Government (short of running everything through a plebiscite).

Barnier was right when he said that the British have never had the consequences of leaving explained to them, but his manner of saying it was not helpful, and besides we know that much of the electorate do not want an explanation (many preferring to believe whatever nonsense the leave camp make up, because the nonsense fits the prejudices), whilst levels of public understanding of economics and politics are such that many would struggle to understand the explanation if given. There is a sad hilarity in the fact that many of the things most objected to by Brexiters were things that were suggested by the democratic British Government in the course of EU meetings, and a sad hilarity also in the fact that the plan is for post Brexit Britain to be ruled by Ministerial fiat without much Parliamentary scrutiny and so to have less democracy than it had before.

Arrogance again: it was unwise of the EU leaders to send Cameron back home in early 2016 holding only his dick. They should have given him a tiny sweetie to help with the vote, but they were arrogant and silly and did not do so.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 7th September 13:52

[Funkycoldribena]

Breadvan72 said:

I agree with that. The EU leadership is arrogant and can appear remote and undemocratic, even though in fact all key decisions are made in a way that is fairly democratic by the standards of modern Government (short of running everything through a plebiscite).

Barnier was right when he said that the British have never had the consequences of leaving explained to them, but his manner of saying it was not helpful, and besides we know that much of the electorate do not want an explanation (many preferring to believe whatever nonsense the leave camp make up, because the nonsense fits the prejudices), whilst levels of public understanding of economics and politics are such that many would struggle to understand the explanation if given. There is a sad hilarity in the fact that many of the things most objected to by Brexiters were things that were suggested by the democratic British Government in the course of EU meetings, and a sad hilarity also in the fact that the plan is for post Brexit Britain to be ruled by Ministerial fiat without much Parliamentary scrutiny and so to have less democracy than it had before.

Arrogance again: it was unwise of the EU leaders to send Cameron back home in early 2016 holding only his dick. They should have given him a tiny sweetie to help with the vote, but they were arrogant and silly and did not do so.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 7th September 13:52

You don't need a great understanding of politics and economics to see the damage done to the southern states,the millions and millions wasted on failed/ridiculous projects/propaganda or the installation of puppet governments to name but a few.
Some people work on common sense.
A lot of supposedly intelligent people get scammed every day.

[Digga]

Breadvan72 said:

Arrogance again: it was unwise of the EU leaders to send Cameron back home in early 2016 holding only his dick. They should have given him a tiny sweetie to help with the vote, but they were arrogant and silly and did not do so.

They look set to repeat the mistake with Poland, Hungary and Slovenia. There is also grave concern now from Bulgaria, where their EU membership has resulted in a demographic landslide.

[danllama]

What's going on between the EU and Slovenia? I only ask as I have a particular fondness of Slovenia and it would be a shame if the EU ruined it.

[B210bandit]

FiF said:

So BV has stuff to do, work and play, but not so busy as to not be able to post sneering condescending borderline Remainer usual stuff.

If people want to read up on the historical issues, and cut through the spin, then I attach a set of links to Microsoft Word lecture transcripts below, a series of six lectures.

No 1 Britain and Europe

No 2 From the European Coal and Steel Community to the Common Market

No 3 The Decision to seek entry into the European Community

No 4 Entry into the European Community 1971 - 1973

No 5 The Referendum on Europe 1975

No 6 The growth of Euroscepticism

For those without Word, the whole series is available in html, pdf or even audio files from here

Take your time, read and digest, unlike some personally accept that it's possible for intelligent people to study the situation and come to completely different conclusions. It doesn't mean they're stupid or any other of the frequent epithets.

In the first article the good Professor states "why does Europe produce such profound divisions, and I think the answer is it gives rise to the most fundamental issue of politics, the basic attitude toward national identity, about what it is to be British". I would propose a change to his text, in that it comes down to a crisis of English identity and reflection on England's place in the world (the word "British" is used in the text, which was apposite historically, but recent events such as the disparity between Scotland and England as to the leave vote and a resurgent Scottish identity show the falsehood of aggregating the diverse nations of the UK under one term.)

[Digga]

danllama said:

What's going on between the EU and Slovenia? I only ask as I have a particular fondness of Slovenia and it would be a shame if the EU ruined it.

Do excuse me, I meant Slovakia. Slovenia has, thus far, toed the line.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants...