FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Where there is no vision, the people perish
Where there is no vision, the people perish
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Winston Churchill never wanted Britain to be part of a European Union, here's why.... www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-was-all-in-favour-of-a-united-europe-as-long-as-it-didnt-include-britain/" Interesting article. Thx.
Feels there’s two arguments being made.
1. Is a closer Europe a good thing?
2. Should we be part of it?
My reading is Churchill thought yes to one. And possibly no to 2.
Interesting he talked about our insular nature and commonwealth spirit. Both I imagine were at peak after the war. | |||
"Ideas taken from lectures and speeches by Andrew Adonis." That would be Andrew Adonis the fanatical remainer then. Funny that Andrew Adonis talks about promoting and spreading democracy further afield through the EU, when he admits himself he has never accepted the biggest democratic vote ever to take place here in the UK, which is to leave the EU. Andrew Adonis is not a democrat, and so has little authority to lecture others on the merits of democracy, when he doesn't believe in it himself. The EU itself is not democratic. Time and time again countries in Europe have voted against the EU, but have been cajoled, manipulated and compelled to vote again until they gave the 'right' answer. Adonis compares the EU to America in your OP, but never once mentions that the American President is directly elected by the American people through the ballot box, but the European President is not. Everyone in America knows who Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are because they fought a democratic election campaign that the American people could vote in. Trump was elected through the ballot box by the people and can be removed through the ballot box by the people at the next election if the American people so wish. Does everyone in Europe know who Jean Claude Juncker is? I doubt it. As Nigel Farage put it when Herman Van Rompuy became European President years ago,...."What i want to know, what everyone in Europe wants to know is WHO ARE YOU?! I've never heard of you, no one in Europe has ever heard of you. I would like to ask you President, who voted for you? And what mechanism do the people's of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy? I sense though, that you're competent, and capable and dangerous and i have no doubt that its your intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of European Nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the concept of the very existence of nation states, maybe thats because you come from Belgium which is pretty much a non country. Since you took over we've seen Greece reduced to nothing more than a protectorate, sir you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and i can say with confidence that i can speak on the behalf of the majority of the British people in saying we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you're put out to grass the better." The European people don't vote for a European President and the European people have no mechanism to democratically remove a European President either. On other points about the EU not failing, is Adonis ignoring the migration crisis in the EU, is he ignoring the Eurozone crisis? Both are failures and are ongoing failures. Perhaps the biggest one of all he seems to be ignoring the rise of Eurosceptic parties all over the European continent, who have been gaining bigger vote shares with each passing election. I think many Pro-Europeans are going to be in for a very big shock in the European MEP elections in 2019, because we will see for the fisrt time in the history of the European Parliament a majority of Eurosceptic MEP's elected into the chamber. | |||
"Winston Churchill never wanted Britain to be part of a European Union, here's why.... www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-was-all-in-favour-of-a-united-europe-as-long-as-it-didnt-include-britain/ Interesting article. Thx.
Feels there’s two arguments being made.
1. Is a closer Europe a good thing?
2. Should we be part of it?
My reading is Churchill thought yes to one. And possibly no to 2.
Interesting he talked about our insular nature and commonwealth spirit. Both I imagine were at peak after the war. "A close trading arangement ala the common market is great and if we had a vote to all return to that I would vote for it but this ever closer political union will end in tears and as I have said many times why I voted leave. I dont recall many nations being anti the CM but since free movement/ the euro etc came to the fore the complaints have rising, Even Mrs T was very keen on the CM but without the political interference | |||
| |||
"Ideas taken from lectures and speeches by Andrew Adonis. That would be Andrew Adonis the fanatical remainer then. Funny that Andrew Adonis talks about promoting and spreading democracy further afield through the EU, when he admits himself he has never accepted the biggest democratic vote ever to take place here in the UK, which is to leave the EU. Andrew Adonis is not a democrat, and so has little authority to lecture others on the merits of democracy, when he doesn't believe in it himself. The EU itself is not democratic. Time and time again countries in Europe have voted against the EU, but have been cajoled, manipulated and compelled to vote again until they gave the 'right' answer. Adonis compares the EU to America in your OP, but never once mentions that the American President is directly elected by the American people through the ballot box, but the European President is not. Everyone in America knows who Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are because they fought a democratic election campaign that the American people could vote in. Trump was elected through the ballot box by the people and can be removed through the ballot box by the people at the next election if the American people so wish. Does everyone in Europe know who Jean Claude Juncker is? I doubt it. As Nigel Farage put it when Herman Van Rompuy became European President years ago,...."What i want to know, what everyone in Europe wants to know is WHO ARE YOU?! I've never heard of you, no one in Europe has ever heard of you. I would like to ask you President, who voted for you? And what mechanism do the people's of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy? I sense though, that you're competent, and capable and dangerous and i have no doubt that its your intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of European Nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the concept of the very existence of nation states, maybe thats because you come from Belgium which is pretty much a non country. Since you took over we've seen Greece reduced to nothing more than a protectorate, sir you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and i can say with confidence that i can speak on the behalf of the majority of the British people in saying we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you're put out to grass the better." The European people don't vote for a European President and the European people have no mechanism to democratically remove a European President either. On other points about the EU not failing, is Adonis ignoring the migration crisis in the EU, is he ignoring the Eurozone crisis? Both are failures and are ongoing failures. Perhaps the biggest one of all he seems to be ignoring the rise of Eurosceptic parties all over the European continent, who have been gaining bigger vote shares with each passing election. I think many Pro-Europeans are going to be in for a very big shock in the European MEP elections in 2019, because we will see for the fisrt time in the history of the European Parliament a majority of Eurosceptic MEP's elected into the chamber. " Quite difficult to work out your point in this rambling. So the same people voting on the same question were not cajoled or manipulated the first time? You claim that they were but were too clever and saw through it. If the same people (other than the dead ones and new ones) take a different view this time they will have become less able to make a decision and therefore their opinion is no longer valid? Contradictory drivel. You'd prefer a directly elected EU President then? You do understand that he is elected by member states so that he will not be in a position to overrule anything that goes against their will don't you? There is not a mechanism for the British public to remove a Prime Minister either. There is a mechanism for the European President to be removed by other institutions in the EU, but only the party can remove a British Prime Minister. Even a parliamentary vite of confidence in the individual is not binding. Only in the government. External migration pressures would be even more chaotic without anu cooperation. The Euro only exists because nation states and their populations were clamouring for it. It should have been limited to the northern European states. The crisis was caused by sovereign states spending and corruption. The "Eurosceptic" parties don't want to leave the EU. We're the only ones dumb enough to do that. They just want to loosen the rules that constrain corruption, and worker exploitation and budget responsibility. Look harder at their policies. I really wonder what your Google and Facebook information bubble looks like. | |||
"Winston Churchill never wanted Britain to be part of a European Union, here's why.... www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/churchill-was-all-in-favour-of-a-united-europe-as-long-as-it-didnt-include-britain/ Interesting article. Thx.
Feels there’s two arguments being made.
1. Is a closer Europe a good thing?
2. Should we be part of it?
My reading is Churchill thought yes to one. And possibly no to 2.
Interesting he talked about our insular nature and commonwealth spirit. Both I imagine were at peak after the war.
A close trading arangement ala the common market is great and if we had a vote to all return to that I would vote for it but this ever closer political union will end in tears and as I have said many times why I voted leave.
I dont recall many nations being anti the CM but since free movement/ the euro etc came to the fore the complaints have rising, Even Mrs T was very keen on the CM but without the political interference"The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it? | |||
" The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it?" The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union . | |||
" The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it? The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union . " Let's stop the nonsense here and now. Treaty of Rome 1957. This is what we joined. Pay particular attention to Article 3c but Article 2 is also pretty instructive: "RTICLE 1 By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY. ARTICLE 2 The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it. ARTICLE 3 For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein (a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect; (b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries; (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital; (d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture; (e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport; (f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted; (g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied; (h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market; (i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living; (j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources; (k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development." | |||
" The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it? The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union . Let's stop the nonsense here and now. Treaty of Rome 1957. This is what we joined. Pay particular attention to Article 3c but Article 2 is also pretty instructive: "RTICLE 1 By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY. ARTICLE 2 The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it. ARTICLE 3 For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein (a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect; (b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries; (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital; (d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture; (e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport; (f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted; (g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied; (h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market; (i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living; (j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources; (k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development."" The common market we joined removed tariffs but non tariff barriers remained , individual countries had their own standards for products and services so no the common market we joined was very different from the custom union. See the quote from polotics .co.uk nternal tariff and quota barriers within the EU were abolished in 1968 - 18 months ahead of schedule - but it was not until 1992 that the Single Market was deemed to have been completed. In the absence of strong supranational and intergovernmental decision-making structures, it proved difficult to make progress on the more intangible barriers to free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, such as professional standards, regulations, persistent protectionist attitudes and of course divergent fiscal regimes. The oil crises of 1973 and 1980 reinforced protectionist attitudes where they survived. The result was that during the 1970s and early 1980s, growth in the EU member states began to lag seriously behind that of international competitors. Efforts to establish a single market were meeting with limited success. | |||
" The common market is the customs union. You've said repeatedly that you're not in favour of the UK being in the customs union. Which is it? The "common market" we joined was not and is not the customs union . Let's stop the nonsense here and now. Treaty of Rome 1957. This is what we joined. Pay particular attention to Article 3c but Article 2 is also pretty instructive: "RTICLE 1 By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY. ARTICLE 2 The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it. ARTICLE 3 For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein (a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect; (b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries; (c) the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital; (d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture; (e) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of transport; (f) the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted; (g) the application of procedures by which the economic policies of Member States can he co-ordinated and disequilibria in their balances of payments remedied; (h) the approximation of the laws of Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market; (i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve employment opportunities for workers and to contribute to the raising of their standard of living; (j) the establishment of a European Investment Bank to facilitate the economic expansion of the Community by opening up fresh resources; (k) the association of the overseas countries and territories in order to increase trade and to promote jointly economic and social development." The common market we joined removed tariffs but non tariff barriers remained , individual countries had their own standards for products and services so no the common market we joined was very different from the custom union. See the quote from polotics .co.uk nternal tariff and quota barriers within the EU were abolished in 1968 - 18 months ahead of schedule - but it was not until 1992 that the Single Market was deemed to have been completed. In the absence of strong supranational and intergovernmental decision-making structures, it proved difficult to make progress on the more intangible barriers to free movement of goods, services, capital and labour, such as professional standards, regulations, persistent protectionist attitudes and of course divergent fiscal regimes. The oil crises of 1973 and 1980 reinforced protectionist attitudes where they survived. The result was that during the 1970s and early 1980s, growth in the EU member states began to lag seriously behind that of international competitors. Efforts to establish a single market were meeting with limited success." Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it?" Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent" Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed? | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed?" it matters because he said that I didnt want to be in the customs union but wanted to be in the common market which he said were the same , they arent because the common market didnt have common standards etc and we could do trade deals with third party countries, that is a very fundamental change to what we signed up for, the treaty had lots of aims but as far as I can see short on detail, which is why we have had new treaties | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent" True. The Common Market was more than the Customs Union. It was the Customs Union plus elements of what would become the Single Market. So it's impossible to say your in favour of a Common Market but not in favour of a Customs Union. | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed? it matters because he said that I didnt want to be in the customs union but wanted to be in the common market which he said were the same , they arent because the common market didnt have common standards etc and we could do trade deals with third party countries, that is a very fundamental change to what we signed up for, the treaty had lots of aims but as far as I can see short on detail, which is why we have had new treaties" We couldn't do trade free deals in the Common Market either. In fact we've not been totally free to do trade deals since we joined EFTA in 1960. | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed? it matters because he said that I didnt want to be in the customs union but wanted to be in the common market which he said were the same , they arent because the common market didnt have common standards etc and we could do trade deals with third party countries, that is a very fundamental change to what we signed up for, the treaty had lots of aims but as far as I can see short on detail, which is why we have had new treaties" Really? What does this mean to you? "(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and of a common commercial policy towards third countries" | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed? it matters because he said that I didnt want to be in the customs union but wanted to be in the common market which he said were the same , they arent because the common market didnt have common standards etc and we could do trade deals with third party countries, that is a very fundamental change to what we signed up for, the treaty had lots of aims but as far as I can see short on detail, which is why we have had new treaties" You tend to speak more sence than a lot of BREXITERS but on this one you've got it completely the wrong way round. It is the Customs Union that prevents us from doing free trade deals of our own. It is the Single Market that demands the four freedoms of goods, services, Labour and capital. The Common Market always included the Customs Union and was working towards a single market. | |||
 | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed?" Doesn't really matter now does it. The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail. What's fundamentally changed? Article 50 came in with the Lisbon treaty. What's changed is we triggered article 50, and we're leaving the common market, customs union, single market or whatever else you care to call it.  | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed? Doesn't really matter now does it. The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail. What's fundamentally changed? Article 50 came in with the Lisbon treaty. What's changed is we triggered article 50, and we're leaving the common market, customs union, single market or whatever else you care to call it. "So you agree that the EU didn't fundamentally change from what we joined? Super
Of course, as you are supporting our democratically elected Prime Minister's Brexit means Brexit without question we are actually more or less staying in all of those things but without the ability to influence them.
#Brexitwin | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed? Doesn't really matter now does it. The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail. What's fundamentally changed? Article 50 came in with the Lisbon treaty. What's changed is we triggered article 50, and we're leaving the common market, customs union, single market or whatever else you care to call it.
So you agree that the EU didn't fundamentally change from what we joined?
Super
Of course, as you are supporting our democratically elected Prime Minister's Brexit means Brexit without question we are actually more or less staying in all of those things but without the ability to influence them.
#Brexitwin"No I didn't agree to any of what you just said. What I actually said was everything you posted doesn't matter because we've triggered article 50 and we're leaving. The Conservative party manifesto in the 2017 general election promised to leave the customs union and the single market, I expect the electorate to hold the tories feet to the fire on those promises. You can continue to try to put words in my mouth and use all the contortions of truth and twisted logic you like, the fact is we're leaving the EU and it's institutions in 2019. Roll on March. | |||
" Absolutely no idea what point you're making. We signed up to it bit didn't think they meant it? Unleased cracken said the common market we joined and the customs union were the same thing they arent Doesn't matter really. It's arguing over detail. Did you read the Treaty of Rome articles that I posted? What's fundamentally changed? Doesn't really matter now does it. The treaty of Rome articles you posted are arguing over detail. What's fundamentally changed? Article 50 came in with the Lisbon treaty. What's changed is we triggered article 50, and we're leaving the common market, customs union, single market or whatever else you care to call it.
So you agree that the EU didn't fundamentally change from what we joined?
Super
Of course, as you are supporting our democratically elected Prime Minister's Brexit means Brexit without question we are actually more or less staying in all of those things but without the ability to influence them.
#Brexitwin
No I didn't agree to any of what you just said. What I actually said was everything you posted doesn't matter because we've triggered article 50 and we're leaving. The Conservative party manifesto in the 2017 general election promised to leave the customs union and the single market, I expect the electorate to hold the tories feet to the fire on those promises. You can continue to try to put words in my mouth and use all the contortions of truth and twisted logic you like, the fact is we're leaving the EU and it's institutions in 2019. Roll on March. "Or are we? | |||
| |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). " It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. " We will soon see | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. " Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. " Oh you mean this lot? https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-jacob-reesmogg-steve-baker-economists-for-free-trade-a8533021.html No doubt by your past actions I'll see you in 24 hours  | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. " Neither King nor Keen support Economists for Free Trade. Rather than yabbering; why not explain to us "remoaners" how unilaterally removing our tariffs will grow British industry and agriculture and drive job growth in the UK? We obviously don't get it so rather than pointing to newspaper headlines and telling us to Google it, why don't you actually write it down. What happens, what are the consequences and what are the consequences that lead on from them? | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. " You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. " So...lost that point and bringing something else up then! | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. So...lost that point and bringing something else up then!" Lost what point? If SwinGlosCouple watched the video then it appears he's being selective about what he wants to talk about because he didn't mention the points Steve Keen raised about the European Central Bank. As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things. | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. " I did. I don’t know enough about their models to know if credit is really excluded as he suggests. However that bit isn’t relevant to this thread. | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. So...lost that point and bringing something else up then! Lost what point? If SwinGlosCouple watched the video then it appears he's being selective about what he wants to talk about because he didn't mention the points Steve Keen raised about the European Central Bank. As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things. " I think the point was that economist's for free trade are considered an absolute joke and are certainly not independent. | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. So...lost that point and bringing something else up then! Lost what point? If SwinGlosCouple watched the video then it appears he's being selective about what he wants to talk about because he didn't mention the points Steve Keen raised about the European Central Bank. As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things. " Seems a lot of people have pointed out Keen's figures don't really add up and he is work is often ideologically motivated. "Chris Auld notes that many of the arguments in Keen's "Debunking Economics" against modern economics are invalid. He points out that Keen's critique of perfect competition is based on mathematical mistakes, and that Keen's critique that modern economics does not consider dynamics is inconsistent with the kind of dynamics Keen proposes should be introduced.[14] Matthijs Krul[15] maintains that Keen, while broadly accurate in his criticism of the neoclassical synthesis, generally misrepresents Marx's views in Debunking Economics and in earlier work when asserting that, in the production of commodities, machinery produces more value than it costs.[16] Austrian-school economists Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan claim that Keen's 2001 book "suffers from many of the very faults of which he accuses the mainstream". They also claim that much of his work is "ideologically motivated even while criticising neoclassical economics for being ideological". They praise his critique of perfect competition, and his chapter on dynamic vs static models, whilst they criticise his attempts at objective value theory and what they claim is his misrepresentation of the Austrian interpretation of Say's law." | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. " Rather than yabbering; why not explain to us "remoaners" how unilaterally removing our tariffs will grow British industry and agriculture and drive job growth in the UK? We obviously don't get it so rather than pointing to newspaper headlines and telling us to Google it, why don't you actually write it down. What happens, what are the consequences and what are the consequences that lead on from them?  | |||
"I agree whoever voted tory should be holding their MP to account, even if that account is an explanation of why the promised land is only possible through self harm (based on all analysis other than Minford. Whose proposal for success still has significant amounts of self harm to many areas of our economy). It isn't just Minford on his own, the economist's for free trade are a group of economists. There are also other economists outside of the economists for free trade group who are also in favour of Brexit, such as Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute for economic affairs and former governor of the bank of England Mervyn King, amongst others. I watched an interesting video on YouTube the other day where economist Steve Keen called the Euro a 'suicide pact' between European countries, and said the economic effect of Brexit on the uk will be marginal, certainly not the disaster remoaners and Project fear doom mongers predict it will be. Okay, I’m lazy by saying Minford. I do so as it’s his Liverpool model whixh is spitting out the “positive” net impact. I’m aware it’s a group which have done this as a group. Although I’m not clear if they are leavers because of the models outcome. Or leavers who then modelled an outcome. As far as I’m aware King has offered up no paper on impacts. While I listen to his thoughts, it’s nit helpful just to say the inpactbwont be as extreme as some say. Ditto IEA. Who seem to follow a similar model of low regulation, low tarrifs approach. Just listened to Keene. He said there could be a major fall in the exchange rate to compensate for the tarrifs so may have little impact overall. That’s a lot of qualifiers and needs something drastic to happen to get to a nil impact. Interesting to hear his views are custom friction is a bigger issue than tarrifs. And he’d have tabled Norway immediately. Whixh I don’t think fits with the manifesto. You also heard the bit where Keen said the people who run the European Central Bank are clueless then, and don't have a clue what they are doing. So...lost that point and bringing something else up then! Lost what point? If SwinGlosCouple watched the video then it appears he's being selective about what he wants to talk about because he didn't mention the points Steve Keen raised about the European Central Bank. As no one has come back on the 'Euro is a suicide pact' point I made originally does that mean you've all lost that point and you've tried to talk about other things. " On the euro point (one of many in one post and the least relevant to the thread) It’s interesting he pointed out the different inflation rates between euro countries as a sign of the problem. Why do you think different areas have different price rises when some economic models would have suggested the same prices would exist all things being equal. What’s not equal ? | |||
