Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 15:19:45 GMT
Another lot of Economist stepped into the Brexit Debate today predicting,higher wages,cheaper prices and an expanding Economy if Britain were to leave the EU. The difference in the economic outlook to the IN camp who of course predict Armageddon is apparently because for some unexplained reason the IN camp base their Economic Argument on keeping the TARIFFS that the European Government levy on the rest of the world at the moment,as is. The BREXIT camp meanwhile base their predictions on simply saying to other countries,what is your price for the goods we want ? This is a very interesting point and goes back once again to the fact that the IN camp can only offer more of the same and have muddied the waters by attempting to create a climate of fear.I would love to here some opinion on these two polar opposite Economic Theories I believe we all would.Why can't we?
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Apr 28, 2016 15:41:51 GMT
Because 'OUT' have vision. 'IN' dont want you to know the possibilities incase you like what you see
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 16:01:41 GMT
Because 'OUT' have vision. 'IN' dont want you to know the possibilities incase you like what you see Yeah but what I am saying is the discussion on these two polar aspects of Economic Theory has been non existent anywhere. It is absolutely shocking that this climate of apathy is being fostered by the Media,where are the TV debates etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Apr 28, 2016 16:25:27 GMT
They dont want to play, IN dont want the debate because they know they would struggle to defend their case face to face. They probably feel at present they will win the vote on the day so why prejudice that result by giving the Outers that chance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 16:40:04 GMT
They dont want to play, IN dont want the debate because they know they would struggle to defend their case face to face. They probably feel at present they will win the vote on the day so why prejudice that result by giving the Outers that chance. Macwolfelee has been great on this thread,I suppose as he is an IN he maybe feels he has said all there is to say, I don't know if you read his comments ?
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Apr 28, 2016 16:47:12 GMT
They dont want to play, IN dont want the debate because they know they would struggle to defend their case face to face. They probably feel at present they will win the vote on the day so why prejudice that result by giving the Outers that chance. Macwolfelee has been great on this thread,I suppose as he is an IN he maybe feels he has said all there is to say, I don't know if you read his comments ? I have , and understand one of his main reasons for staying in would be to avoid the collapse of the EU. I have no problem with the collapse of the EU which at present is only just holding its swollen fat head above water. Once its all fallen, let them come back to us with a proposal for a Common Market and nothing more and we can all shake hands and start again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 16:55:23 GMT
Macwolfelee has been great on this thread,I suppose as he is an IN he maybe feels he has said all there is to say, I don't know if you read his comments ? I have , and understand one of his main reasons for staying in would be to avoid the collapse of the EU. I have no problem with the collapse of the EU which at present is only just holding its swollen fat head above water. Once its all fallen, let them come back to us with a proposal for a Common Market and nothing more and we can all shake hands and start again Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 28, 2016 16:58:02 GMT
Macwolfelee has been great on this thread,I suppose as he is an IN he maybe feels he has said all there is to say, I don't know if you read his comments ? I have , and understand one of his main reasons for staying in would be to avoid the collapse of the EU. I have no problem with the collapse of the EU which at present is only just holding its swollen fat head above water. Once its all fallen, let them come back to us with a proposal for a Common Market and nothing more and we can all shake hands and start again I am with you on this I want the common market but all that would involve is a dept from each country talking to each other. The whole of the EU building could be sold and the money divided by countries that funded them not the ones in now. The Eurocrats well if their own countries want to fund the payouts and pensions they can but I have no interest if funding it at all
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 28, 2016 17:00:14 GMT
I have , and understand one of his main reasons for staying in would be to avoid the collapse of the EU. I have no problem with the collapse of the EU which at present is only just holding its swollen fat head above water. Once its all fallen, let them come back to us with a proposal for a Common Market and nothing more and we can all shake hands and start again Precisely.
Agree, also some EU countries are hell bent on collapsing with us in, I would like someone to try and debate that the Eu will not collapse with us in. I suppose it wont collapse as Germany, france and us would continuously bale it out. Id rather be out than continually bailing out these failing countries with no chance of the loans being paid back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 17:11:30 GMT
Agree, also some EU countries are hell bent on collapsing with us in, I would like someone to try and debate that the Eu will not collapse with us in. I suppose it wont collapse as Germany, france and us would continuously bale it out. Id rather be out than continually bailing out these failing countries with no chance of the loans being paid back.
With the exception of Germany Europe is comprised of nothing but tin pot economies and as Gerrmany is export led they have no option but to keep it afloat.When you think about it not much has changed since ww2
|
|
|
Post by macwolfelee on Apr 29, 2016 9:46:36 GMT
People don't seem to realise that things have moved on since the 60s and 70s. Don't you remember we had two superpowers and a sometimes not very Cold War? Europe was just a collection of small states without any ability to influence the face-off between the US and the Soviet Union, which sometimes became very tense indeed.
Do you want to go back to those days? The EU if properly united at least will provide a third force to temper expansionism and self-interest on both sides. I agree that Russia feels aggrieved by their loss of territory since Soviet days, and that the US should back off on this - they became even more paranoid about Communist influences on their doorstep 50 years ago.
Disintegration of the EU instead of extra unification will give no such buffer, and further wars in Europe will become more likely, to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 29, 2016 10:08:23 GMT
People don't seem to realise that things have moved on since the 60s and 70s. Don't you remember we had two superpowers and a sometimes not very Cold War? Europe was just a collection of small states without any ability to influence the face-off between the US and the Soviet Union, which sometimes became very tense indeed.
Do you want to go back to those days? The EU if properly united at least will provide a third force to temper expansionism and self-interest on both sides. I agree that Russia feels aggrieved by their loss of territory since Soviet days, and that the US should back off on this - they became even more paranoid about Communist influences on their doorstep 50 years ago.
Disintegration of the EU instead of extra unification will give no such buffer, and further wars in Europe will become more likely, to put it mildly. I'm very unsure about your reasoning in this case. If you are talking about Europe providing a third "military power" in this scenario you are very much wrong. Nato is no longer the military force to be reckoned with that it once was. Britain's military ability is very circumscribed nowadays, in fact the British Army would not have to reduce it's numbers by much to be no longer entitled to that title and would have to be called a National Defence Force.
The USA's vast military muscle makes anyone else's views almost irrelevant. Just in one area the power of the USA's forces beggar belief. The US navy operates 10 vast Nimitz class aircraft carriers each of which has the strike power of many nations total airforce. In addition it also operates 9 other vessels classed, by them, as amphibious assault craft, these vessels, if in any other navy in the world would also be classed as aircraft carriers. Britain has to borrow deck space from the French ........ As I say, they will do as they damn well like and to hell with what anyone else says or thinks.
Let's be honest The USA ALWAYS puts its own first and to hell with the rest
|
|
|
Post by macwolfelee on Apr 29, 2016 10:53:23 GMT
People don't seem to realise that things have moved on since the 60s and 70s. Don't you remember we had two superpowers and a sometimes not very Cold War? Europe was just a collection of small states without any ability to influence the face-off between the US and the Soviet Union, which sometimes became very tense indeed.
Do you want to go back to those days? The EU if properly united at least will provide a third force to temper expansionism and self-interest on both sides. I agree that Russia feels aggrieved by their loss of territory since Soviet days, and that the US should back off on this - they became even more paranoid about Communist influences on their doorstep 50 years ago.
Disintegration of the EU instead of extra unification will give no such buffer, and further wars in Europe will become more likely, to put it mildly. I'm very unsure about your reasoning in this case. If you are talking about Europe providing a third "military power" in this scenario you are very much wrong. Nato is no longer the military force to be reckoned with that it once was. Britain's military ability is very circumscribed nowadays, in fact the British Army would not have to reduce it's numbers by much to be no longer entitled to that title and would have to be called a National Defence Force.
The USA's vast military muscle makes anyone else's views almost irrelevant. Just in one area the power of the USA's forces beggar belief. The US navy operates 10 vast Nimitz class aircraft carriers each of which has the strike power of many nations total airforce. In addition it also operates 9 other vessels classed, by them, as amphibious assault craft, these vessels, if in any other navy in the world would also be classed as aircraft carriers. Britain has to borrow deck space from the French ........ As I say, they will do as they damn well like and to hell with what anyone else says or thinks.
Let's be honest The USA ALWAYS puts its own first and to hell with the rest
Agreed that NATO is no longer the deterrent that it once was, but doesn't that make the need for a 'third force' even greater? An EU force would not be the same as NATO, not only because it would not be under the command of the US, but because its purpose would be different. The very fact that the UK itself has a much weakened military makes it essential that it is integrated with the rest of Europe.
Unfortunately the vast military force of the US pitted against the rather smaller military force of Russia, with a motley collection of powerless European states looking on, is a recipe for disaster. A European force would be the equivalent of Russian forces, and with that on his actual doorstep Putin would be less willing to take back a few states, for example. It would also be more efficient at countering cross-border terrorism if the military were integrated.
I certainly agree that the US always looks after itself first. That's why we need a credible force acting on our behalf.
By 'we' and 'our' of course I mean Europe and Europe's. There is no chance of the UK achieving that on its own.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 29, 2016 11:00:34 GMT
I disagree. A European military force would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Think through the political interference that occurs with anything to do with the EU. A military force hamstrung by having to answer to such a bureaucratic monstrosity, would be worse than useless.
edit to change a full stop to a comma
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 29, 2016 12:58:35 GMT
I disagree. A European military force would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Think through the political interference that occurs with anything to do with the EU. A military force hamstrung by having to answer to such a bureaucratic monstrosity, would be worse than useless.
edit to change a full stop to a comma I agree John I have worked in the AMFL which brought european and others together I wouldnt like to think that it was going to protect us, far to much infighting and to many wanting to be chiefs rather than indians add the EU and we might as well give Russia the keys and all go home
|
|