|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 7:04:27 GMT
If you really wanted free trade in Europe the first reform you would looking at is disbanding the EU and allowing its current members to trade freely. Free trade within the EU works just fine. No different to free trade within the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 28, 2023 7:09:56 GMT
So your position now is there was no compromise and that's a good thing - and to get there you seem to be employing a rather eccentric definition of free trade that precludes the national control of territory. Soviet free trade? My definition of the free trade agreement in the EU might seem eccentric to you, but its correct. You starting off talking about a compromise being possible, but now you sound quite uncompromising. It looks to me like you want UK territorial control dissolved and want the UK to be a member of the EU because you feel confident membership will result in that dissolution. Your odd definition of free trade is just linguistic opportunism - trying to give an extremist political ideology a gloss of intellectual respectability. You aren't even really that keen on free trade, but you are keen on dissolving nations. (especially the UK) |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 7:16:05 GMT
My definition of the free trade agreement in the EU might seem eccentric to you, but its correct. You starting off talking about a compromise being possible, but now you sound quite uncompressing. It looks to me like you want UK territorial control dissolved and want the UK to be a member of the EU because you feel confident membership will result in that dissolution. Your odd definition of free trade is just linguistic opportunism - trying to give an extremist political ideology a gloss of intellectual respectability. You aren't even really that keen on free trade, but you are keen on dissolving nations. (especially the UK) I started off challenging someone who said the EU never compromised. Nothing at all about what should happen next. The rest of your post is an entirely invented view of what I want and therefore totally untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 28, 2023 7:18:05 GMT
You starting off talking about a compromise being possible, but now you sound quite uncompressing. It looks to me like you want UK territorial control dissolved and want the UK to be a member of the EU because you feel confident membership will result in that dissolution. Your odd definition of free trade is just linguistic opportunism - trying to give an extremist political ideology a gloss of intellectual respectability. You aren't even really that keen on free trade, but you are keen on dissolving nations. (especially the UK) I started off challenging someone who said the EU never compromised. Nothing at all about what should happen next. The rest of your post is an entirely invented view of what I want and therefore totally untrue. No I said you cannot compromise with the EU as has been proven by your so called compromise, which wasn't any kind of compromise. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 28, 2023 7:24:45 GMT
If you really wanted free trade in Europe the first reform you would looking at is disbanding the EU and allowing its current members to trade freely. Free trade within the EU works just fine. No different to free trade within the United States. The EU is not a country, and remember, it supposedly has no pretensions to that status. Ie - it is not the (in this context 'democratically accountable') sovereign (owner) of Europe's territory. Your plan seems to be to assume such and essentially to remove territory from the control of its current owners and hand that territory over to a trans national bureaucracy. Free trade has owners - in fact it must have owners. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 28, 2023 8:40:22 GMT
Oh yes I did and you missed it and have missed it again. You said. You live in an area where you should know that before F0M officially started, there were already thousands of migrants working in the produce industry, either pickers or packers. You can say it was our fault but there was no political. will to stop it. Blair didn't give two hoots that the produce companies were threatening to shift their work to Spain and elsewhere. No mention of illegal. They were coming over in coachloads before the FoM gates were opened in 2004 and we were letting them in. Gangmasters were holding the food processing owners to ransom. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 13:35:10 GMT
Free trade within the EU works just fine. No different to free trade within the United States. The EU is not a country, and remember, it supposedly has no pretensions to that status. Ie - it is not the (in this context 'democratically accountable') sovereign (owner) of Europe's territory. Your plan seems to be to assume such and essentially to remove territory from the control of its current owners and hand that territory over to a trans national bureaucracy. Free trade has owners - in fact it must have owners. I say again. I am not the EU. So what the EU is doing is not up to me. The United states may be called a country but to all intents and purposes it is the same as the EU. Each state has its own laws and taxes, but they share some common laws and taxes. They have free movement and free trade. So apart from the name country, what's the difference? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 28, 2023 13:45:38 GMT
The EU is not a country, and remember, it supposedly has no pretensions to that status. Ie - it is not the (in this context 'democratically accountable') sovereign (owner) of Europe's territory. Your plan seems to be to assume such and essentially to remove territory from the control of its current owners and hand that territory over to a trans national bureaucracy. Free trade has owners - in fact it must have owners. The United states may be called a country but to all intents and purposes Re my earlier message - it is not essentially the same because one is the legitimate, recognised owner of the territory and the other is a trans-national bureaucracy. What you propose do is transfer ownership of several nations' territory to a fantasy nation that can presumably remain unaccountable to its inhabitants while doing what you prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 14:44:22 GMT
The United states may be called a country but to all intents and purposes Re my earlier message - it is not essentially the same because one is the legitimate, recognised owner of the territory and the other is a trans-national bureaucracy. What you propose do is transfer ownership of several nations' territory to a fantasy nation that can presumably remain unaccountable to its inhabitants while doing what you prefer. No one is proposing the transfer of ownership. The comparison is in functionality not legal structure. And even then only in so far as FoM is concerned. You've sussed me. I do actually run the EU. I also run NASA and the IPCC. Busy man. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 28, 2023 15:36:17 GMT
If you really wanted free trade in Europe the first reform you would looking at is disbanding the EU and allowing its current members to trade freely. Free trade within the EU works just fine. No different to free trade within the United States. Actually it results in the cheapest and lowest taxed areas becoming the most industrious, whilst the more expensive areas are redirected into "services".
When we were members our currency was overvalued, manufacturers kept leaving.
So, the situation did not work just fine. It was crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 28, 2023 15:36:38 GMT
No one is proposing the transfer of ownership. By removing the owner's access veto, that's exactly what you are doing. Btw - just to remind you, the reason we are talking owners is because you decided to pretend that the ownership transfer was some kind of requirement for 'free trade'. That's how silly things have become |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 17:36:31 GMT
Free trade within the EU works just fine. No different to free trade within the United States. Actually it results in the cheapest and lowest taxed areas becoming the most industrious, whilst the more expensive areas are redirected into "services".
When we were members our currency was overvalued, manufacturers kept leaving.
So, the situation did not work just fine. It was crap.
The idea of FoM was to tackle that. I agree on the currency exchange, though it was our government who placed us to high in the ERM and struggled with lowering it afterwards. Though they could have done so independently as the EU did not control its value. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 28, 2023 17:38:27 GMT
No one is proposing the transfer of ownership. By removing the owner's access veto, that's exactly what you are doing. Btw - just to remind you, the reason we are talking owners is because you decided to pretend that the ownership transfer was some kind of requirement for 'free trade'. That's how silly things have become What do you mean "By removing the owner's access veto," |
|
