|
do keep up
"The EU was a viable organisation when it started with a handful of Countries at similar stages of development with the idea of easing trade barriers between them."
The genesis of the EU was the "European Iron & Coal Community" designed to facilitate cross border industry in NE France, Benelux and Germany (recognising that those heavy industries ignored political borders). The heavy industries of that time had their work cut out repairing wartime destruction. War damage in the UK was trivial compared to the other side of the Straits of Dover Faced on the one hand with the threat of Soviet Russia and a deep desire never again to see war in Europe the community upped a gear to become the "Common Market" including Italy as a member. By this time the EEC was as much a political project as an embryo single market. That was plain as day on the Treaty of Rome. If many Brits chose to ignore the fact tant pis.
"But then the political elite took it over and national self-interest came to the fore."
Any normal country regardless of culture, democratic or not, is ruled by a political elite. The only exceptions are failed states such as Syria, Libya and Somalia. "National self interest" is the norm. Cameron is criticised for insufficient "national interest" but he recognises that for medium sized countries in a world dominated by a handful of mega states national interest lies in working closely together with our allies. The European Union is an ideal means to do this.
"The Common Agricultural Policy led to mountanous surpluses, mainly benefiting French farmers."
The large scale agri surpluses are history and long absent. They were in any case nowhere near the physical level claimed as much of the "lakes" were created by fraud. The supposedly toothless Brits were instrumental in reducing agri fraud to its present lowish level. Unfortunately the UK introduced a fraud of its own, the VAT reclaim carousel, which was far more financially damaging before the authorities largely closed it down.
"Tariffs mean that the food we used to import from the Commonwealth such as New Zealand lamb (remember that?) was priced out of the UK."
It remains very easy to buy New Zealand lamb, Australian wine and so on. Just pop down to yr local Waitrose or Tesco and you will see not only that but food & drinks from all over the planet. As you are so concerned about "national interest" you may have welcomed the huge boost that UK agriculture has received from membership of the EU.
"The Common Fisheries Policy carved up fish stocks between member states, we lost our territorial waters fishing areas and our fishing ports on theast coast have all but disappeared."
Again you are way out of date. It is perfectly true that the original fisheries policiy was a disaster. It is also true that nothing much can be done by the UK about the North Sea, Channel and Irish Sea fisheries without the cooperation of our neighbours as the fish tend to swim around regardless of marine borders. Maybe if you were Mr Trump you would install mine fields.
As it is hard work especially by the "toothless" Brits and Eire has transformed the CFP. Despite global warming fish populations including cod are rising and at sustainable levels though there is no room for complacency. The biggest problems are Danish over fishing of sand eels and Iceland.
"Fish stocks have been decimated as unrealistic size limits for catches mean that shoals are hoovered up, a large proportion are too small so are thrown back into the sea dead, although some undersize fish is landed illegally in Continental ports. Herrings have virtually vanished and cod is on the table before they have had time to breed."
Again this is history except for the sand eel problem. Herring catches will never return to the levels of 1918-60. The main factor in the disappearance of the herring was UK greed. All manner of changes together with tough enforcement has largely eliminated the dead catch problem.
The biggest factors leading to the crash of the British fishing industry were the Icelandic "cod wars" which the UK lost and UK overfishing of the herring. Neither were the fault of Brussels.
..... follows
|
|
The saying Dammed if we do. dammed if we don't .there are so many issues .for & against leaving .EU .people will make their own mind up .as we do to elect Pm & our Government .just lets sanity prevail .& get on with our live`s without being brainwashed & bullied into what is against our own thinking & beliefs .Barbra
|
|
part b
"Stupid regulations on light bulbs wattage have replaced incandecent bulbs by compact fluorescent which contain mercury and cannot be safely disposed of."
Again you are way behind the curve. I assume you are talking about incandescent light bulbs. Decent and indecent light bulbs might both have a place though. It is true that CFL bulbs contained too much mercury. They are now being rapidly superceded by LED lights which are very effective, low wattage, come on instantly and contain no mercury at all.
In any case the movement to low wattage lighting is world wide and a response to the various climate change conferences and is not an EU policy per se.
"Duties have NOT been harmonised between Countries so that, for example, diesel fuel duty is half as much in France as here so that Continental houliers can undercut Uk hauliers by filling up before crossing the Channel."
Well just which way do you want it? On the one hand you argue that the UK and other states cannot set their own policies eg for tax. Yet when they do you blame the EU for fuel duty decisions made in London!!! Your argument is so ridiculous it hurts. Just to add to the fun the UK Govt has decided that UK registered trucks cannot install additional diesel fuel tanks beyond OEM spec. Nobody in Brussels asked for that.
The EU has also stopped pleasure craft from using red diesel at a discount which has def. been a pain for y.t. All the same a trivial reason to leave the EU.
"Need I go on?"
Not really you have already demonsrated the usual UKIP/Leave tendency to merge fact and fiction.
"There is a world out there outside Europe we can trade with, making our own agreements. With 28 Coutries in the EU there are too many cultures, languages legal systems and so on to ever integrate. "
Dearie me even worse. The USA for one has said flat out that it would not be interested in establishing a bilateral trade treaty with the UK should it leave the EU. India has said much the same. The whole point of the EU is that European legal systems and culture have a lot in common. I think you would find considerable culture shock trading with, say, China. Please don't start on the tired old chestnut of the white commonwealth .... they have made other arrangements and in any case were never enough of a market to support UK industry.
"More Countries will be joining. I have never thought of Turkey as being a European country but Brussels seems happy to consider it to be so."
The capital of Turkey is in Europe. That is nobody's opinion it is a fact. Moreover the Turkish ( and the Iranian Farsi ) languages belong to the European group. Close cooperation with Turkey makes sense. Nevertheless it is wildly unlikely that Turkey would be able to accede to the EU. First and foremost France would have to hold a referendum and 90% of the French would vote "non". Secondly it has a very long road to travel so as to establish a proper democracy. So rabbiting on about Turkey UKIP style is just setting up yet another aunt sally.
"We are quite capable of running our own affairs"
Really?
" and not being a small voice in a monolithic bureaocracy"
The UK is the second largest economy in the EU and one of the world top six. It is not a small voice which is why it has been able to push forward such projects as the single market (an invention of Margaret Thatcher) despite French and Italian objections. Amond the benefits of the recent Brussels conference is a commitment to extend the single market much further into services which is the main strength of the modern UK economy.
" aiming to create a single state where we can be outvoted 27 to 1."
Rubbish. Do you really truly think that France for instance would go for that? If you made the effort to look at UK voting record you will find that 90% of the time votes go with what the UK wants. It has never been on the losing side of a critical issue.
"I am for out, although if that is the result I can see us being forced to vote again until the "right" result is obtained, as were the Irish."
I defend your right to be an idiot. The "Leave" campaign has been demanding a double referendum with the first vote to be followed up by more negotiation before a defining yes/no referendum .... again and again as you say but it is the "leave" camp, unsure of their argument, who want it in order to get the "right" vote. (Larfs)..
In the country of the blind the one eyed man is king.
|
|
What we need is fact.
No-one really knows what will happen if we leave.
Both sides are at best -guessing at worst telling lies.
Let us have FACTS.
|
|
ChrisofWessex , you are right ,it was for free trade ,if it had stayed that way it would still be o/k . that time we both voted to go in ....we wont be this time !!!
|
|
You won't be getting any facts from the "Leave" campaign because not only do they have none they regard them as superfluous.
Arguments must be crude, clear and forcible and appeal to emotions and instincts not the intellect. Truth is unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and pyschology.
The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big and stick to it. They keep up their lies even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
J.G.
|
|
Rollo,
I am not English (although I live in England) and we are talking about the UK staying or leaving.
Both sides could be lying and are both looking ridiculous.
|
|
"We should all be well acquainted by now with the pervasive pertinacity of political nonsense published in a few newspapers lately".
(With apologies to the late Will Durant of 'The Story Of Civilisation' fame for nicking some of his wise & valid sentiments.)
|
