Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Sunday Telegraph:Become British or be sacked, Commonwealth troops are told | |
Author: Matt(UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:10:06 11/21/04 Sun Hundreds of Commonwealth troops working in sensitive positions in the Armed Forces have been ordered to adopt British nationality or lose their jobs, The Telegraph can reveal. The ultimatum from the Ministry of Defence has angered the estimated 8,000 Commonwealth servicemen serving in the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Private Tukatukawaqa, who died in Iraq, was Fijian They are incensed that their loyalty is being questioned after years of risking their lives for Britain in war zones. Some of those asked to switch nationality have decided to resign rather than comply. MPs and British servicemen are also furious at the move, which they say questions the troop's commitment and professionalism. The so-called loyalty test has been ordered as part of a wide-ranging security review of personnel employed in positions with daily access to top-secret and classified information. It is aimed at tackling espionage and terrorism. Troops serving in the special forces, such as the Special Air Service (SAS) and the Special Boat Service (SBS), in addition to intelligence, submarines and other "sensitive" jobs have been asked to become British or face demotion. The Ministry of Defence refused to say how many servicemen were affected by the ruling. The Telegraph has seen a copy of a letter sent from the Directorate of Naval Life Management, the section of the Navy that deals with personnel issues, to a New Zealand leading seaman serving on a submarine. The letter, from a Royal Navy officer, informs him that "changes in the world situation as well as advances, particularly technical changes in equipments, and access to nationally caveated material, have meant that the Royal Navy has had to review which branches and specialisations can be open to personnel who have a particular nationality status". The letter warned the serviceman that if he chose to keep his New Zealand nationality he "would be unlikely to spend any further time in submarines . . ." Servicemen are, however, allowed to have dual nationality. The letter claimed that "no one is doubting your loyalty, integrity or trustworthiness". It explained how the submariner could apply for British citizenship using a fast-track naturalisation process. The Telegraph has been told that the serviceman has decided to leave the Royal Navy because of the "loyalty test". The man, in his mid-thirties and married, with a small child, is planning to retrain and move back to New Zealand after 17 years in the Royal Navy. "I've never been so insulted in my life," he told a friend. Servicemen and women from the 53 Commonwealth countries traditionally have been recruited by the Services since the creation of the Commonwealth in 1949. They have fought in many campaigns, from the post-colonial wars through to the Falklands and the current Iraq war. The SAS, in particular, has a long reputation of recruiting Commonwealth troops, especially those from Fiji, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The last British Army soldier to be killed in action was Pte Pita Tukatukawaqa, 27, who was Fijian. He was killed on November 8 while on patrol from Camp Dogwood in Iraq when an off-road mine detonated against the side of his Warrior armoured fighting vehicle. Andy McNab, the former SAS soldier turned best-selling novelist, said he was appalled at the test. "There are other security vetting systems to filter out potential spies or terrorists," he said. "My first squadron major in the Regiment [SAS] was a Fijian and to question his loyalty would be ridiculous." All service personnel are vetted and must sign the Official Secrets Act. Those involved in sensitive work may also undergo "developed vetting" - the process for recruiting MI5 agents. Patrick Mercer, the Tory shadow minister for homeland security, said: "The security aspects are nonsensical. Why would any al-Qaeda 'sleeper' who has bothered to get himself into the Armed Forces blanch at this extra piece of bureaucracy?" The Queen is certain to have private concerns about the move if, as likely, it causes alarm among serving Commonwealth soldiers and their governments. The Queen has repeatedly praised the courage of Commonwealth servicemen, and last year she marked Armistice Day by unveiling an Australian war memorial at Hyde Park Corner. Deary Me!! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Pathetic. The 'Commonwealth' slips further into oblivion.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:26:54 11/21/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: What the hell is wrong with the government? How dare they presume to allow this useless step to be taken that will only weaken our security and compromise our international relations? | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:35:33 11/21/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:28:14 11/21/04 Sun A combination of Mr Blunkett's new anti-terrorism laws and the fact that the poor blighters don't have EU passports, I should think. I am also coming to suspect that the anti-Commonwealth thing with this government is actually part of a wider republican agenda. One of HM's last real roles within the constitution is as head of the Commonwealth; she mentions the Commonwealth in every speech and every troop review, she wears her 'non-British' insignia whenever she can, and, moreover, she is more or less the only person in public life who still gives the impression that the Commonwealth is the most important aspect of Britain's position in the world. In this context, they can undermine the Queen by destroying the Commonwealth, neatly getting rid of two huge barriers to Euro-Federalism. Is this a weird conspiracy? Not, in my opinion, necessarily, as we have all seen that this government operates to secret agenda planned years in advance... like true Fabians, wearing down their enemy in tiny stages so that the enemy doesn't even realise that it is being attacked. Ave Fabius Strategus. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Conservatives | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:07:13 11/22/04 Mon And yet I've heard little about this from other media sources. Let's hope the Conservatives have a more measured pace and realise that alienated your life-time allies and reducing the size of your army does not increase your security. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Blair | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:43:22 11/22/04 Mon Of all the legislation I have seen introduced by the Blair government, this is definantly the most offensive. It is a gross insult to the fine men and women from all over the Commonwealth who serve in the British armed forces. This is probably part of a wider agenda to ban all Commonwealth citizens from service, then replace British citizenship with EU citizenship, finally creating a single EU army and abolishing all ties between British and Commonwealth forces. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Almost certainly | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:09:12 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: What a low act from the MoD | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:38:37 11/22/04 Mon That New Zealander in his mid 30s was BORN British, had that status taken away from him while he was still a child, and now must beg to have it back to be able to continue in his work? Stuff that for a lark. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I suspect... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:16:17 11/22/04 Mon Commonwealth servicemen are an obstacle to the EU Army. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Though his British subject status wasn't taken from him by Britain, remember.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:43:43 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: No, I wasn't suggesting that | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:15:03 11/22/04 Mon Just the irony of having to ask for something that he was born with. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Now that I come to think about it... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:10:10 11/24/04 Wed The Commonwealth citizenship issue seems to me to be rather like a Commonwealth Midlothian Question. The lines drawn between Brits, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders were on paper - of which the renunciation of British citizenship is the prominent example. I say 'on paper', because it did not reflect the reality that the people of the former dominions were still essentially British and, amongst other things, fought in the British army, navy and air force. So long as the theoretical change was not reflected in policy, there was no problem. But it was inevitable that at some point, bureaucrats and politicians being what they are, an attempt would be made to rationalise in policy a decision which was taken as a symbolic gesture of independence rather than a renunciation of all cultural and historical ties, not to mention practical ties. Many of our best laws are the best laws precisely because they are not enforced. The laws on cannabis are a good example: their illegality reflects our beilief that its mental and physical effects are far from healthy, but our decision not to enforce it reflects our tolerance of people who realise this but are entitled to make their own decision anyway. But socialists do love to enforce laws, don't they, and that mucks up the whole system. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: The reasons why... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:53:07 11/22/04 Mon Any logic would dictate that the "loyal" commonwealth keep their privilages and that that CANZUK citizens should move closer rather than further away. So much for reason. Like fox-hunting, this is an issue that has been brought in because the "Tory" establishment will hate it. The most disturbing feature of the present government that they enact legislation on the basis that it will piss-off the opposition in our own country rather than concentrating on what might actually benefit the nation. This government has done nothing that a socialist government should be expected to do - e.g. attempt to help the poor. They have built less state housing than even Margret Thatcher's lot did! I am rather happy that they have not buggered-up the economy completely yet (yet because there are actually very strong underlying structural problems within the British economy and huge government borrowing) but deep down I wish that the backbenchers would vote for their socialist beliefs, rather than voting for essentially Tory policies just to keep their seats (and their salaries well beyond their earning potential). They instead are persuaded to vote against their beliefs in exchange for "anti-toff" legislation, which is of course based on the politics of twisted envy and blind prejudice, far from the enlightened ideals many of them would like to think that they have. The worst aspect of it all is that this lot think that they are naturally to be in power and that the establishment has been against them because the establishment was somehow "wrong" or put in place deliberately to hold them back. The truth though is that these people are actually dangerous loonatics with a highly suspicious agenda. They are not to be trusted one inch. Atlee played by the rules when he was in power, Blair does not. These are wasted words to this forum but examine the Iraq war, the only real recent test of loyalty between CANZUK. Canada and NZ objected, Australia and the UK agreed, as is quite possible with four nations with different parliamentary governments. If (real) socialists had been in power in OZ and the UK and tories in power in Canada and NZ then it would probably have been the other way round. However, the objectors of this group did not go out of their way to attempt to screw-over Australia and the UK. France was sending inteligence reports to Saddam's Iraq until a few days before the war. And Germany, France and Belgum coordinated efforts to block a Turkish request for extra NATO defences to defend Turkey's airspace in the run-up to the inevitable war and they refused, as they did in the first Gulf war, to fulfil an amunition supply contract. This blind trechery and disloyalty should not pass unnoticed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Indeed... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:33:11 11/22/04 Mon Paddy, you hit a few nails on the head with you analysis of this Government. They are not the worst Government we have ever had. They are not even the worst Labour Government we have ever had. Their regime has not embraced the misguided principles of true socialism in the manner of previous Labour administrations, with the result in propelling our country to banana republic status. So why do I detest them so much? They are a politically amoral and deceitful Government. The only philosophy behind their regime is power itself. They cannot be trusted, and they cannot be taken at face value. Every statement and action has an ulterior motive. Now more than ever, we need a written constitution in this country – and not one written in Brussels. Our unwritten constitution has outlived its usefulness, and was adequate when Governments were chivalrous and respectful of our institutions and processes. We need new powers to curtail the Government, as our present monarch will not stand up to Tony Blair. I am horrified by what is being proposed in this week’s Queen’s speech (written by Tony of course). This session of Parliament will cast aside centuries of tradition, and put our nation on a course towards totalitarianism. This Government is fast tearing up Magna Carta. Blunkett wants to abolish juries in terrorism cases, but only in serious ones. So who defines what is serious, the same people who judged fox hunting as worthy of the Parliament Act? We are getting to a situation where this Government could conceivable use the Parliament Act to extent their electoral term in office. What defines the five year term? It’s not a written constitution, but the precedence of law, and acts of parliament. These are things this Government has already demonstrated a total lack of respect for. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: and... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:46:43 11/22/04 Mon The 1949 Parliament Act has been used four times in total, three of which, have been by Tony Blair's Government! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: What were the other three occasions under Mr Blair? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:55:02 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:57:50 11/22/04 Mon 1999 European Parliamentary Elections Act 2000 Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2004 Hunting Bill [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What were the 1999 and 2000 pieces of legislation about? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:00:23 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:10:38 11/22/04 Mon The 1999 regionalisation of the UK for the Euro elections and the reduction in age of consent amongst other things. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:56 11/22/04 Mon I can vaguely see some justification in the use of the Parliament Act for those two. The first one deals with the electoral system, and the second with consolidating the individual rights of minorities. But using it for foxhunting strikes me as being for the exact opposite purpose: restricting the individual rights of minorities. A bit sinister, that. The thought occurs, though, that if they wanted to make the age of consent the same for homosexuals as heterosexuals, then they could have proposed raising the heterosexual one into conformity with the homosexual one, i.e., 18. Alternatively, they could have gone with the Portuguese option and made both so young that no-one is worried about equality, since 12 and 13 year olds are very rarely imbued with the "Wilkes and Liberty" rhetoric! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Written Constitution | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:40:16 11/22/04 Mon I completely agree that you need a written constitution. Written constitution's limit extremist governments and ensure that governments do not abuse their powers (as is the present day case in Britain). It is frankly quite scary some of the things Tony Blair has got away with - particulary on EU related issues, such behaviour would never be tolerated in Australia. We have never really had a government that has been grossly disrespectful to our institutions and processes in the way of Tony Blair (except perhaps the 1972-1975 Whitlam government). The Hawke and Keating governments were to some degree, although what they could do was limited by the Australian constitution and thus the consent of the Australian people, they did not inflict a large amount of damage. I am also concerned about new legislation being introduced (particulary in the area of terrorism) that intrudes upon civil liberties, for this reason I support a bill of rights. Britain's parliamentary system demands that the Monarch stand up to protect the people from an extremist government, this is clearly unacceptable in a modern world which is why Britain needs a constitution and bill of rights. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Bills of rights... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:46:17 11/22/04 Mon We have a bill of rights - indeed, we have many such things, the principle ones on the statue book being Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill. The trouble is that, without a written consitution, any Act can be made which supercedes these pieces of legislation. When Hurd signed the Maastricht Treaty, Richard Body and Rodney Atkinson tried to have him indicted for Treason according to the presrciptions of various of these Acts. The courts threw out the case, on the grounds that the unwritten 'constitution' means that any subsequent piece of legislation simply cancels out any previous contradicting ones. As has been stated here, this works fine when we have a moderate government - as we have always had until now. But now that our way of life and independence etc are under threat, there is a very strong case for having a written constitution. Write it down, nail the buggers to it, and they can't fool around with it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh My God! | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:03:37 11/22/04 Mon The Queen’s speech contains some more horrors. In addition to the juryless trials, Blunket is seeking to bring prosecutions on "suspected" foreign terrorists, despite the fact that they have committed no crime in the eyes of the law. If the terrorists are seeking to destroy our democracy, they are succeeding. This is a literal case of the blind leading the blind! If foreign suspects are believed to be up to no good, then by all means deport them, but stop screwing around with our legal system. Of course, we can’t deport them, because that we contravene their “human rights”. What a farce! I have a sneaky suspicion though that the European Court of Human rights will come into play here. This is something that the Labour Government couldn’t wait to sign up for. Hopefully we will get to see them hoisted by their own petard! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The way to preserve democracy is not to stuff it under the carpet everytime it gets annoying. Both the US and the UK could learn from this. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:24:16 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Petards | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:35:15 11/22/04 Mon I believe that this has already happened. Do you remember a few years ago, when the government signed up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECRH), and the next month legislated to detail all asylum seekers in secure 'camps' while their applications were considered? It didn't matter that the camps had free food, free housing, satellite TV, free English lessons, free solicitors, comfy rooms (frankly I think I'd like to live in one), because, according to ECHR legislation, not allowing them out of the extensive, land-scaped, park-like grounds by enclosing it with a high-fense contravened their human rights, since it had not been proved at this point that they had committed the 'crime' of illegal entry. So, they had to let them all out (they've all disappeared, of course), and demolish the camps which cost hundreds of millions of pounds... That, I think, is being hoist by one's own petard. But did the blighters learn? Nope. Here they are, trying something similar with terrorists, and exactly the same thing will happen: convicted in London, cleared in Strasbourg, and so let free, because, of course, as members of ECHR Strasbourg takes precedence. It is ironic that, for once, I think that ECHR would be in the right: you can't muck around with trial by jury and habeas corpus... it's just not a straight bat. Such a shame that ECHR's other rulings are all awful. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh yes, and... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:39:03 11/22/04 Mon Interesting parallel with the House of Lords reform (another iniquitious piece of legislation). It happened just after the H of L gave a favourable ruling about the extradition of that bastard Pinochet. Labour said that, no matter that the old Lords had, in this case, done the right thing, it didn't alter the fundamental principle that it shouldn't be them doing it. I think that this could apply to the ECHR's presumption in stopping Blunkett from imposing totalitarian South African style anti-terrorist measures. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: How ironic then... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:50:42 11/23/04 Tue ... that we should come to rely on European institutions in order to preserve our legal charter! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: to be fair, Keating introduced the reforms that have made the Australian economy competitive over the last two decades | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:11:46 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Keating | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:07:21 11/23/04 Tue True, in the area of economic policy the Hawke and Keating governments have an impressive record and pursued important reforms (although these reforms only really reversed the damage inflicted by successive post-war governments). Unlike Britain, most of the economic reform in Australia has been pursued by the Labor party. In other areas of policy, however, such as respect for the Monarchy and other institutions, their record is less impressive. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: After the banning of Commonwealth personnel in British Forces, will any EU citizens be then free to join up? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:25:55 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Not yet, but give them time... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:28:20 11/22/04 Mon The EU want to control our entire military eventually, not just our rapid reaction force. German military officials have also stated that they want their finger on our nuclear button too... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: An indicative opinion | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:14 11/22/04 Mon You can see how the body of conservative opinion in this country has reacted to this news by looking at the Telegraph's leader column from today's paper, which is at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=MDS0AJQHMTE15QFIQMFCM5WAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/11/22/dl2202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/22/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=45836 [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: It's a bloody disgrace! Blair is a traitor as well as a liar! You vote him back in and you are finished. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:55:42 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes Jim, however... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:31 11/22/04 Mon We know that, however, people of our disposition do not hold the balance of power in this country. We are reliant at the next election, on the 80% of the population whose idea of political debate, is who should win the coveted Pop Idol contest. Unfortunately, people have to realise what is actually at stake, and to suspend their ignorance to carry out an informed choice that our forebears fought to provide under universal franchise. People have to understand that they should not be substituting Celebrity Big Brother for the real thing. I am bemused by the level of debate that the media in this country promotes, particularly with important issue like the single European currency. I am fed up listening to intelligent people on TV making banal arguments in favour of the currency, like being able to avoid the Bureau de change when going on holiday. If you want a single currency for ease-of-use purposes, get a bloody Mastercard. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Times online Article: EU ARMY!!!!! | |
|
Author: Matt(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:48:00 11/22/04 Mon I'm beginning to hate my own country. It's disgraceful the way our loyal brothers and sisters in the Commonwealth are treated. Soon Noboby will want to do what the those 8,000 do becasue they'll be so offended. The Crown Commonwealth is already turning away lets not give them a shove! As for the EU Army...Scew it! I can't wait for this referendum, both of them. Unless the majority is brainwashed by some Pro-European propaganda machine Britain will reject the closer integration and the Labour government (if elected) will be left stranded. November 21, 2004 Britain joins EU army BRITAIN is to commit more than 2,000 troops to a new 18,000-strong European Union army that will be deployed as a peacekeeper to the world’s trouble spots, write Adam Nathan and Nicola Smith. Despite concerns within the military about overstretch, ministers will announce this week that at least one battle group will be ready by January. They will also say the force will expand by 2007 to comprise a multinational force of up to 12 elite rapid-reaction battle groups — each with 1,500 soldiers. At least two of these groups will be ready to deploy at 15 days’ notice to humanitarian or peacekeeping emergencies, primarily in Africa. Soldiers from the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines have been earmarked for the new force. A British official said: “A commander could immediately draw on 1,500 troops who will be sitting in the barracks with their boots on, ready to go.” The creation of the force was signalled earlier this year by Tony Blair following the crisis in Darfur, Sudan, and comes only a week after Britons had to be evacuated from fighting in the Ivory Coast. Although it is not envisaged that the battle groups would be deployed to the Middle East, they could have a role in supporting policing and the rule of law. An EU team is to visit Iraq within the next fortnight. The force — which would comprise the rapid-reaction units in an EU army that supporters want to expand to 60,000 — is already prompting some concerns that it could duplicate the role of Nato. Nicholas Soames, the Conservatives’ defence spokesman, said: “We believe the EU defence contribution should be under the Nato umbrella. Anything that undermines Nato is damaging. We will be studying the details but this sort of duplication is an expensive waste of time.” Some Nato planners are concerned that the new force should not be used as a cheaper substitute for the alliance and insist that EU military units must be trained to Nato standards. “It is right to pose the political questions, but at the moment we do not need to sound the alarm bell,” said a diplomat at Nato HQ in Brussels. Any deployment would require an emergency meeting of the EU’s council of ministers. Membership of a battle group would not be compulsory and individual nations would retain a veto over deployment. Military command in the field would lie with the country with the biggest contingent. Britain, France, Italy and Spain will each provide one battle group made up solely of its troops, while Britain will share a second battle group with the Dutch. Seventeen EU countries have committed soldiers. General Jean-Paul Perruche, French head of the EU’s military staff, said the creation of the battle groups was a “significant” development. “It is the adaptation of the capabilities of Europe to the new context of crisis in the world. To be able to commit at short notice a significant trained force, to intervene in an emerging crisis ,” he said. It has also been mooted as an attempt to encourage European countries to investment more in military capabilities. There is growing concern within Britain’s armed forces about their ability to meet their commitments after it emerged that more than £1 billion is to be cut from “frontline” forces. Senior officers — including, it is believed, General Sir Michael Jackson, chief of the general staff — are concerned that it will leave the army without the funding needed for 1,000 soldiers, about 1% of its force. Commonwealth troops working in sensitive positions in the British armed forces have been told to adopt British nationality or lose their jobs. Some 8,000 Commonwealth troops work for the services and the ultimatum will affect those with access to sophisticated equipment and sensitive information, particularly in the special forces. The Ministry of Defence said: “There are various criteria that must be satisfied for personnel with access to sensitive material, one of which is nationality. The Home Office will fast-track dual nationality, but if they do not wish to take it we will endeavour to move them to another part of the service. We are not asking them to turn their backs on their countries.” [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Italy is sending troops? but they never commit until they know who the winner is, do they? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:16:49 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: In that case, they're probably backiing the other side. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:31:53 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, and then they carefully join the losing side. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:42:27 11/22/04 Mon But you know, it's interesting, these remarks about political opinion. Yes, of course, people are more interested in Pop Idol and the figure of the girl on Page Three than what Miss Western called "affairs of state", but whenever it comes to Europe people are hostile. If referenda were held tomorrow, or ever, on the Eurodollar and the EU constitution, Britain would vote No. The confusing thing is that, whenever a Euro-election vote is held, this is clearly what they do say. Note the results of the latest EEC elections in Britain. I was home for the campaigning, and went around pubs distributing UKIP beermats. I did this in the West Midlands and East Midlands regional divisions, and I'd walk into a pub, ask the landlord or landlady if they minded, and they'd look up from their Sun or News of the World with suspicion and even hostility, and ask, "who for [sic]?" I'd say UKIP, and light would come into their eyes and they say, "Sure, we'll have those. Got any more?" But then, when it comes to national elections, they consistently vote for the pro-EU party. They seem to distinguish totally between the purpose of national votes and the purpose of EEC votes. In a way, this is healthy, as it demonstrates that the only time they care about Europe is when they have an opportunity to object to it. On the other hand, it is discouraging, as it shows a lack of understanding of just how immediate the threat is. Ten or twenty years ago it was safe to separate the two, since the EEC had fewer teeth back then. But now, if we want to object to Europe, we have to do it at a national level, because it has penetrated so far into the national sphere. But which party is prepared to campaign on the European issue primarily? It is the most important issue facing us today, and yet we hear a lot of tedious drivel about the NHS, the hunting bill, crime, schools, etc. If we don't do something soon then all these things, however important they are, will be beyond our control anyway; so even if you imagine that these are the most important political debates, we have to leave Europe first or they will be debated and decided for us by a polyglot bureaucracy which meets in secret in a foreign capital. Until people understand this - that domestic and European questions are not distinguishable in any real sense - then however Eurosceptic the British public is or becomes, we will be unable to get rid of a Europhile government by the ordinary democratic means. People, they say, get the governments which they deserve. I hope that this is not true, or else we're in serious trouble! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I can just imagine the French pushing through a bill to defend their liberty by outlawing religious and cultural symbols in Europe and banning the use of the English language... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:21:28 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes indeed... the French do tend to do the Wrong Thing for the Right Reasons... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:31:56 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: BUT! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:05:40 11/23/04 Tue It is becoming clear that English is the only practical lingua franca for the European Union. I have heard it used in the Euro 'Parliament' by people of various nationalities. I like to tell the story of how, in India, I met a Hispanophone Columbian guy and two Portuguese girls - and they could only communicate in English! The Mediterranean countries and the new members from Eastern Europe seem to have no problem with this. Their motivation to play a role in Europe is entirely based on practical self-interest, and not the paranoiac fear of cultural decay which motivates France, Germany, the Low Countries and Scandinavia. The Franco-German axis is going to have a real fight on its hands if it tries to exclude English as the de facto primary language in Europe, because the other members simply will not understand why: it makes sense, so why not use it? QED. They just can't understand that the Franco-German European Dream is based not on practicality but on fear: the fear of decline, of irrelevance, of marginalisation. It is also based on embitteredness: their ideas, their values, their politics, their aspirations, have been held up to competition with the English-speaking world and have been shown to be unworkable, dysfunctional, self-destructive, obsolete and uncompetitive. But if history has taught us anything, it is that wounded animals are the most dangerous. If they go down (which they certainly will), they are determined to take us with them. Their pride will allow for nothing less. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the words "deckchairs" and "Titanic" spring to mind | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:27:30 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Don't believe Hollywood | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:35:35 11/22/04 Mon Many people survived the Titanic - and so did the White Star company, which went on to launch many other even bigger, more iceberg-proof vessels; and the only one of which sank was the Lusitania, which was torpedoed by Germans, which doesn't count... But whatever Leonard Caprio and Kate Winslet might make you believe, the passengers and crew of the Titanic went out down with their national dignity, courage and pride intact. I only hope that when the time comes for me, like Cato, to put an end to it all along with my country's freedoms, Britain will be remembered for the right reasons. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Brits, don't hate your country, just its government | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:34:28 11/23/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: its ok Jim | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:28:45 11/23/04 Tue Jim, in many ways the governemnt is the country. Its not like this is a dictatorship. Dont worry though I hate the country, thats why I am doing what I can to make it better, bring it back to the way it should be and once was. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ha ha ha | |
|
Author: Mister New Statesman [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:42:26 11/23/04 Tue Ahem. Owain? You're, what, fourteen? Sixteen? Eighteen, at most? How in God's name would you know how the country used to be? You're being fed sentimentalist garbage by the "Land of Hope and Glory" lobby and their propagandist rag, the Daily Mail (maybe you read intelligent trash and pick up a copy of the Times every so often, but I can't for a second imagine that you'd ever read a decent paper like the Telegraph or the Independent). How would you know how Britain "should be"? You don't know how good you've got it, m'lad. More kids are going to university every year than ever before (and yes, that probably means that you can't buy a place at Oxbridge any more, but you're probably heading to Durham or some other rugger bugger establishment anyway). Britain's economy is one of the most dynamic in the world, thanks mostly to an alumnus of my university, Edinburgh (Gordon Brown, if you hadn't worked it out). Living conditions have improved, and people are living longer as well. Plus, we have personal lifestyle freedoms that we'd never have had under Thatcher. Do you really want to give that all away? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Dont be silly | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:53:57 11/23/04 Tue My comments is not related to our standard of living. Iknow all of what you said, inafct its what I usualy say to peopel who say they want to go live in another country (something I believ to be truly rediculous). Its not my standard of living I believe to be at stake. Its about nationhood. The existance of my nation is in jeaprody (reffering to Britain here not Wales or England). I see my nation threatened everywhere by seperatists, europhiles, republicans, anti-traditionalists and the extreme left. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh and... | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:56:19 11/23/04 Tue I am infact old enought to remember how Britain should be. Pre-1998 was just fine for the most part, at least when it comes to the issue most on my mind. I am 16 in 13 days btw. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well, couldn't you possibly argue that Britain is where it is today because of Europe? | |
|
Author: Mister New Statesman [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:33:40 11/23/04 Tue Let's consider for a second why so much capital resides in the city of London: it's because London is a financial hub, but more specifically because it is the economic capital of Europe. And the reason for its continued success, despite Britain's non-membership of the Euro, is because the city has adopted the single currency de facto, if not de jure. Most of the transactions now taking place in Britain's financial markets are done in Euros. And companies situate themselves in Britain because Britain gives them an entry into the European market. If we pulled out of the EU, all that capital would leave. Joining EFTA? What a joke. EFTA pales in comparison, and only allows for free trade in a very limited number of commodity markets. The reason for Norway's (and Switzerland's) prosperity is because they have other ways of making money: the Norwegians have oil, the Swiss have an immoral and fraudulent banking system (the Nazis hid their money in Swiss banks, as did Idi Amin and Yasser Arafat). So don't give me this anti-European nonsense. Yes, in budgetary terms, the British government gives less to the EU coffers than it receives (though it pays less per capita than the Dutch, the Germans or the Italians). But it more than makes up for this cash in trade benefits. And Ed? Polyglot bureaucracy meeting in secret? The new constitution actually opens up previously-secret Council meetings to media scrutiny. And if you'll look at this Commission fun we're having of late, Parliament is actually doing what it is supposed to do, for once. As the EU gains more powers, it will become more democratic (and let me remind you that 10 whistle-blowers were recently fired from British civil service posts, so don't suggest that British politics is any more honourable). Germans will not accept being governed by corrupt bureaucrats. Neither will the Austrians, nor the Dutch, nor the Scandinavians - and together with the Brits, that's a powerful lobby for change. Owain, what you can't seem to understand is that Europe is not trying to take your nation away. If anything, the continent is becoming more British. If you're looking for a new arena to dominate, Europe is your place. I was talking to a French friend yesterday who works for UKIP in Brussels (oddly enough) and she told be something that's quite apposite to this comment: "You British, you always try to run things. You're just like us French: we're both stubborn and want to get our way. The French press is saying exactly the same thing about you that yours is saying about us - British exceptionalism is dictating the whole European agenda, and la perfide albion is always telling us what to do." [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Britain is doing well because it threw out hard left socialism in the 1980's | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:01:08 11/23/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Depends what you call "better", m'boy... | |
|
Author: Mister New Statesman [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:24:10 11/23/04 Tue Are you a Nozickian or a Rawlsian? Do you believe that the hardship of the worst-off is balanced by the fabulous riches of the best-off? Or do you think that, ultimately, we can sacrifice a little wealth in exchange for a better deal for those on the "wrong side of the tracks"? Because I have no problem paying a few more quid in taxes in exchange for decent public services, better living conditions for the poor and a better quality of life. I've lived in the welfare states of Europe (well, some of them, at least) and the level of general happiness and contentment among the population was much higher than what I'm encountering up here in Scotland (though, I must admit, I've only been living north of the Tweed for a few months). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I remember Britain in the 1970's and I am not a socialist | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:33:04 11/23/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ah, yes, but the problems of Britain in the 1970s were to do with oil, not with socialism | |
|
Author: Mister New Statesman [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:29:59 11/23/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: London | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:48:59 11/24/04 Wed The idea that London is full of capital because of the EU and that it is dependent upon the EU is simply laughable. The City deals globally and is equipped to deal with whatever currency is required in order to carry out transactions. It is the world's financial centre. Yes it is the "European" financial centre due to it's geographical location, but it has nothing to do with the European Project. London is also the financial centre of South America but this does not give evidence of South American domnance over London. Similarly, it would be technically accurate to say that the ideas in Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath are "European" in origin, while in fact they had little historical relevance on the continent of Europe. They are actually British. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Norwegians have half of North Sea oil? Who do you think has the other half? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:59:53 11/23/04 Tue And I'm not sure about your figures for Italy. The locals here are quite convinced that they get more money per capita from the EEC than they contribute to it. As far as I am concerned, Britain and Germany are the greatest net-contributors to the Euro-'budget'. Holland gives more per head than either, but has a population of about three people and so hardly contributes that much. Britain used to give more per head to charity than the USA, but the USA still gave three times as much, because of its more signigicant population. (Now that we are more prosperous, of course, we give less than the USA per capita by about 60%...) Moreover, you seem to be mistaking British members of the FCS for 'little Englanders' - those chaps who want our island to be an island in every sense: culturally, economically, politically, intellectually. On the contrary; the word "federal" in the title is your clue that we are, in fact, just as much federalists as Europhiles. We differ not in the principle of internationalism, co-operation and harmony; but we differ from the Europhiles simply in that we believe in a Federation with a different set of people. It is cultural and sentimental as much as economic: it is a failing of socialists such as yourself to see no human motive but the economic imperative. A stable and harmonious relationship is good for Britain, but that does not mean that I feel that creating a single European state reflects my fundamental interests. Moreover, you express your admiration for Europe and the European way of life. I too love Europe - I have been living here for some time - but that does not make me European. I like women, but that does not make me a woman. In addition, I've met dozens of people like me - British students who have been studying in Europe - who say exactly the same thing. I simply will not accept that, in an era of free trade, we need to live in a European Superstate in order to maintain our economic interests. To be sure, the US of E would not harm our economic interests. But given the political attitudes of France and Germany, our cultural identity - for which you may not have much respect, but I do - would certainly be erroded. Go and read Jean Monnet, where he says that he wants "to create a political, economic and military superpower TO RESIST THE ENCROACHMENT OF ANGLO-SAXON VALUES." Does this inspire your confidence in the tolerance of Europeans towards our distinctive historical and cultural experience? Maybe it does exactly the opposite, and that is why you approve of it. Like Messrs Blair and Brown, you instinctively deride British traditions because they somehow call to mind images of the past which you don't like, although you're not sure what they are. So, if we can enjoy the same economic prospects outside and inside, but our cultural integrity only on the outside, why not stay out? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: RE: To Mister So and So | |
|
Author: Mister New Statesman [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:58:25 11/23/04 Tue "Nonsense - London has been a trading capital long before the Euro was a glint in a Eurocrat’s eye. If Europe and its institutions are responsible for London’s success, why have the cities that have embraced Europe’s institutions more enthusiastically not been more successful?" - Because London was a natural financial centre, and it makes sense to situate one's European HQ there: but only if Britain is in the EU, because there's no point in having a regional headquarters that is outside the region. I grant you the fact that the Euro does not make that much difference in all of this, for it is trade that is the primary concern here. "Oh my God, you don’t really believe that do you. Name a single political institution in the world that has gained more power, and somehow become more benign! Please." - One single political institution? What about the U.S. government? Let me remind you that, for the first few decades, Presidents were not popularly elected and the Senate was appointed by the states. You may not agree with the political decisions of the U.S. of A, but at least you can grant that (apart, of course, from that rather inconvenient electoral college nonsense) it is a democratic system. And one could further argue that, considering the fact that the Lords is an unelected house and that FPTP gives such enormous majorities, Britain's system is more like an electoral dictatorship. This is, of course, in contrast to European concensus politics in which the majorities are listened to and nobody has a stranglehold on power. I am not going to argue for the merits of either, because there are large and obvious weaknesses in proportional representation, but if Europe evolved into something like American democracy then at least it would be a democracy. "I’m afraid they [Northern Europeans] already have [accepted being governed by corrupt bureaucrats]." - No, they haven't. Let me remind you that two of the most vocal opponents of Barroso's election were German (Martin Schulz of the Socialists and Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the Greens), one was Danish (Jens-Peter Bonde, of the same group as UKIP) and one was British (Nigel Farage of UKIP). The same goes with this new furore over Jacques Barrot, the French transport commissioner who "forgot" to tell everyone that he was convicted of embezzlement a few years ago. People are raising a stink about this - you have to pay attention to European affairs. Pick up a copy of the European Voice every so often. Go on. "Replacing a sovereign Parliament with an unelected Commission, a puppet Parliament, European arrest warrants, presidential Government and unrestricted expenses are NOT BRITISH TRAITS as far as I can tell." - I was talking more about culture, actually, as in popular culture, language, music, literature and all that. But if you want to talk politics: Unelected commission? First of all, the commission is chosen by the member-states and not by itself. It is, thus, responsible to the wishes of the national governments. Plus, it only has power to initiate legislation, not to pass it. That is down to the Parliament and the Council. The Council is the ensemble of government ministers from the member-states, THUS representative of the wishes of the national governments, and THUS representative of the wishes of the people. Reading up on this might be a good idea. Talking out of one's arse is generally not a good idea. Puppet Parliament? Well, I thought that you wanted power for the member-states! The Parliament has so few powers because national governments do not give it powers. Now, however, it is beginning to flex its muscle. I am not sure what your opinion is on whether this is a good thing, because your views confuse me. European Arrest Warrants? Ah, yes, but issued by whom? The European Public Prosecutor. Who is responsible to whom? The member-states. Presidential Government? Utter crap. In fact, if anything the Commission more closely represents a European Cabinet, with the President of the Commission gradually becoming more and more like a European Prime Minister. He is elected, or at least his selection is influenced, indirectly by the European Parliament and not directly by the European people. As for Ed? Well, where do I begin? Yes, I have read Monnet's declaration at The Hague Conference, I think it was. I am a Political Science student, you know. But if you look at the contemporary European current of thought, it seems that he's not getting what he's looking for - if anything, we're getting a very Anglo-Saxon Europe. The welfare state is being dismantled, working hours are increasing, retirement ages are increasing, the usage of English is increasing. If you ask a European of the age of about 17 or 18 where he or she wants to study at university, it will either be their own country or Britain. This is a good thing, at least for you lot, because you want to propagate British "values" across the world. And Britain will not lose its identity in a US of E, because it has no reason to. Just because a federal system of government is developed does not mean that national identities will disappear. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Utter Garbage | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:25:31 11/23/04 Tue - Because London was a natural financial centre, and it makes sense to situate one's European HQ there: but only if Britain is in the EU, because there's no point in having a regional headquarters that is outside the region. I grant you the fact that the Euro does not make that much difference in all of this, for it is trade that is the primary concern here. The EU has nothing to do with it. Regional Headquarters have nothing to do with political boundaries. Most American companies’ “European” headquarters also encompass the Middle East and Africa. - One single political institution? What about the U.S. government? Let me remind you that, for the first few decades, Presidents were not popularly elected and the Senate was appointed by the states. You are trying to compare a single political entity with a group of nations that has only achieved the unity attained thus far by deception and lies. Don’t make me laugh. You may not agree with the political decisions of the U.S. of A, but at least you can grant that (apart, of course, from that rather inconvenient electoral college nonsense) it is a democratic system. And one could further argue that, considering the fact that the Lords is an unelected house and that FPTP gives such enormous majorities, Britain's system is more like an electoral dictatorship. An electoral dictatorship maybe – but also one of the few countries in Europe, that has not had a REAL dictatorship in the last two generations. "I’m afraid they [Northern Europeans] already have [accepted being governed by corrupt bureaucrats]." The European Commission is corrupt, and as they are EU members, they are subject to a corrupt institution. Unelected commission? First of all, the commission is chosen by the member-states and not by itself. Chosen is not elected, remember? The fact that our Governments selects them is irrelevant. You would presumably argue that we elect our judges, using the same logic. The Government does not have the power to dismiss them. Therefore there is no accountability, and no democracy. The Parliament that you referred to also does not have the power to dismiss them individually. The can only sack the entire commission, and the commission are under no obligation to respect the wishes of the Parliament, and can nominate the exact same members, should they choose. As you can see, I have read up on it. Talking out of one's arse is generally not a good idea. You would know all about that! Puppet Parliament? Well, I thought that you wanted power for the member-states! I want power for our own Parliament. The Parliament has so few powers because national governments do not give it powers. Now, however, it is beginning to flex its muscle. I am not sure what your opinion is on whether this is a good thing, because your views confuse me. My views are clear, see above. European Arrest Warrants? Ah, yes, but issued by whom? The European Public Prosecutor. Who is responsible to whom? The member-states You mean the member states’ Governments, and if they object to their actions, they can do what exactly? Presidential Government? Utter crap. The new constitution will introduce a EU present, or have you not read it? In fact, if anything the Commission more closely represents a European Cabinet Except for the fact that they are not elected. with the President of the Commission gradually becoming more and more like a European Prime Minister. Except for the fact that they are not elected. He is elected, or at least his selection is influenced, indirectly by the European Parliament and not directly by the European people. Influenced? Please explain how a mature democracy operates on the notion of influence, and not accountability. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: To Mister So and So | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:25:38 11/23/04 Tue You have some very strange ideas about Europe. “And the reason for its continued success, despite Britain's non-membership of the Euro, is because the city has adopted the single currency de facto, if not de jure. Most of the transactions now taking place in Britain's financial markets are done in Euros.” Nonsense - London has been a trading capital long before the Euro was a glint in a Eurocrat’s eye. If Europe and its institutions are responsible for London’s success, why have the cities that have embraced Europe’s institutions more enthusiastically not been more successful? And companies situate themselves in Britain because Britain gives them an entry into the European market. If we pulled out of the EU, all that capital would leave. Joining EFTA? What a joke. Nonsense – Who is going to turn their back on the world’s forth largest economy because we wish to run our own affairs? I believe it's called cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Join EFTA - we don’t need to, we were already members. I believe that swapping restricted free-trade with one continent, to free-trade across the world with whom we please, is a good thing. ”So don't give me this anti-European nonsense” I’m afraid it’s not nonsense. It is fact, and we are indeed giving it to you. “As the EU gains more powers, it will become more democratic “ Oh my God, you don’t really believe that do you. Name a single political institution in the world that has gained more power, and somehow become more benign! Please. “Germans will not accept being governed by corrupt bureaucrats. Neither will the Austrians, nor the Dutch, nor the Scandinavians” I’m afraid they already have. “what you can't seem to understand is that Europe is not trying to take your nation away. If anything, the continent is becoming more British” Replacing a sovereign Parliament with an unelected Commission, a puppet Parliament, European arrest warrants, presidential Government and unrestricted expenses are NOT BRITISH TRAITS as far as I can tell. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh dear oh dear, more shouting back and forth across the barricades | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:20:10 11/24/04 Wed Can I appeal for a greater degree of general civility? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Information | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:05:43 11/24/04 Wed The oil problems of the seventies did cause grief globally. However the socialists (who wanted out of the ECC at the time) spectacularly buggered up the economy. In 1979 the Tories inherited a country that had 28% inflation, that had rising unemployment, and that was producing subsidised antiques that nobody wanted to buy. The GDP per head was close to 50% of the contemporary levels of that of France. The U.K. was in near-critical decline, not even regarded as a European power let alone a world power. Under the circumstances it is not too surprising that the Crown dominions wished to cease being British subjects. Ordinary citizens in the 70s had to have their passport stamped to take even very small sums of money out of the country and were unable to buy their council house that they had lived in and considered to be their own. This Orwellian state severely restricted freedom for the ordinary man. Thatcher came in and changed all of this and put the U.K. back on the path to prosperity. The U.K. had been in the EEC since 1973 but prosperity came as a result of brave descisions by the Tories at Westminister, nearly a decade later. I would argue that Britain is where it is today because of Britain. Britain is presently richer that the EU average because we work longer hours and have (relative to the EU average) lower taxes. In the event of the UK opting out of the political side of the EU project, under WTO rules it would be illegal for the EU to impose punitive import levies etc... Also the UK has a massive trade deficit with the rest of the EU. Any trade war initiated on a non-EU UK would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot, especially so as the major economies of the EU are already half lame. With this unrestricted access to the EU markets the UK would be in a position of strength. If the government kept the UK competitive compared to the rest of Europe then in fact it is likely that many companies would actually choose to locate in the UK rather than in the EU. The above all holds true. The UK would certainly be better off outside the EU but with guaranteed free trade. The EU constitutional exit clause actually reduces the UK government controls over exiting the EU. Presently we can withdraw by repealing all acts at Westminister. Under the EU contitution we would hav to negotiate exit terms. Currently the rotten deal that we get over fishing rights is actually doing the EU a favour - we can repeal it any time. Post treaty the EU could say "of course you can leave but we will keep fishing rights in your waters". In the event of the UK separating from the EU (which of course could be done in a most friendly way), the natural direction to look is towards Australia, Canada and New Zealand, countries with whom we have the most in common. The trouble with political theory is that it is just theory. A great many political theorists like a theory so much that they are blinkered from the political realities. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I agree with what Ed said: the economy is not the whole story | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:34:59 11/24/04 Wed Both sides are putting forward economic arguments that may or may not prove to be correct in practice, but my reasons for wanting closer ties with Britain, Canada and New Zealand are not purely economic: these are simply the countries that I feel closest to. After all, you don't live with your family just because it's good for business. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Crikey, someone who agrees with me! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:23:22 11/24/04 Wed To quote a bloke with whom I ususally disagree: "Any nation that gives up its freedom for economic advantage deserves to lose both." The same could be said to apply to giving up a nation's friends. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: it's so easy to get sucked into "bottom line" arguments | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:38:18 11/24/04 Wed But I don't think we are really all capable of selling our grandmothers for a tax cut. We argue about economics because both sides feel the other will discredit them for being "impractical" if we don't. With that, we end up forgeting that these were not the reasons we started out with. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:52:54 11/24/04 Wed And it's futile anyway, because economics is more like politics than a science: two people can look at the same figures and come to different conclusions, just as two people can look at the same social problem and put forward different solutions. For once I think that Aristotle was dead wrong: politics and economics are not incompatible - they are broadly the same thing. Adam Smith knew. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Economics is more like alchemy than anything else... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:44:50 11/25/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |