I1L2T3 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Another reason to leave is Martin Schultz's desire for a United States of Europe, emulating one of the previous politicians (someone from Austria, in fact) who also wished to create a single superstate albeit by force. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/07/german-spd-leader-martinschulz-seeks-united-states-europe-2025/ To you Schulz = Hitler? You are joking right? Do you know how stupid you look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Car Boot Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 At what point does famine relief become dumping? Famine relief doesn't come into it. The EU has devastated African economies and the livelihoods of farmers. The criminal Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) £35 billion a year food subsidy means the EU is permitted to dump thousands of tons of heavily subsidised food into Africa every year. Local African producers cannot export their food because they must compete with the lower prices made possible by the CAP. Just take one product - sugar. EU farmers are guaranteed a price for their sugar which is three times higher than the world price. Mozambique, Swaziland, Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal have all been hit by cheap, subsidised imports from Europe while being restricted from exporting their food to the EU. The EU and its wicked CAP would rather have Africa dependent upon famine relief than allow it to trade fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) From the fall out of what David Davis said today,it looks like the post agreement arguments resulting from the ambiguity of that agreement have started. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/ireland-says-it-will-hold-uk-to-binding-deal-on-post-brexit-border-1.3322001 The Government has hit back at a British government suggestion that a deal reached on the post-Brexit Border was a “statement of intent” rather than “a legally enforceable thing”. The Government issued a statement on Sunday afternoon following the British comments, saying Ireland and the EU will hold the British government to the agreement made last week. The Government statement pointed to article 46 of the agreement made on Friday, which states: “The commitments and principles . . are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom. ” A Government source said that because it assumed that the British government would honour its word, it expected the commitments on the Border to be implemented. The deal reached by European Union and British negotiating teams on Friday set out guarantees that there would be no “hard border” between the Republic and Northern Ireland when the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. Ireland secured a commitment that there will be no hard border, even if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. However, on Sunday, Britain’s Brexit secretary David Davis moved to calm fears of hardline leavers in the Tory party, who were alarmed by a section of the agreement which said Britain would have “full alignment” with the EU on regulations and standards that impacted on Northern Ireland. Mr Davis insisted the phrase had been changed from “non-divergence” which would have meant “cutting and pasting” rules from Brussels. The Brexit secretary said full alignment meant reaching similar outcomes, stating: “We want to protect the peace process and we also want to protect Ireland from the impact of Brexit for them. “This was a statement of intent more than anything else. Much more a statement of intent than it was a legally enforceable thing.” The comments came after reports that some hardline Brexiteers had been assured by the British government that the term full alignment was “meaningless”. The Government’s chief whip Joe McHugh branded the Brexit secretary’s comments as “bizarre”. He told RTÉ: “We will as a government, a sovereign government in Ireland, be holding the United Kingdom to account, as will the European Union. “My question to anybody within the British government would be, why would there be an agreement, a set of principled agreements, in order to get to phase two, if they weren’t going to be held up? That just sounds bizarre to me. “This, as far as we’re concerned, is a binding agreement, an agreement in principle Edited December 10, 2017 by chalga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ez8004 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Another reason to leave is Martin Schultz's desire for a United States of Europe, emulating one of the previous politicians (someone from Austria, in fact) who also wished to create a single superstate albeit by force. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/07/german-spd-leader-martinschulz-seeks-united-states-europe-2025/ Why are you talking nonsense? Do you read history or are just ignorant of it? Ted Heath in 1975 wrote a letter to the country that joining the EU was not simply just about trade but about closer political union. Do you know who Ted Heath was? Oh yeah, a former PM of the country. So ANYONE that says we only joined for for trade is either ignorant, stupid or have no idea what they are talking about. Let’s wind the clock back further to 1949. A certain former PM mentioned the need for a United States of Europe. He was Winston Churchill. So yes, the whole politics union thing is only a Franco / German idea right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Why are you talking nonsense? Do you read history or are just ignorant of it? he supports ukip, facts and sense or indeed joined up thinking dont come into it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Why are you talking nonsense? Do you read history or are just ignorant of it? Ted Heath in 1975 wrote a letter to the country that joining the EU was not simply just about trade but about closer political union. Do you know who Ted Heath was? Oh yeah, a former PM of the country. So ANYONE that says we only joined for for trade is either ignorant, stupid or have no idea what they are talking about. Let’s wind the clock back further to 1949. A certain former PM mentioned the need for a United States of Europe. He was Winston Churchill. So yes, the whole politics union thing is only a Franco / German idea right? Middle wicket. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) Famine relief doesn't come into it. The EU has devastated African economies and the livelihoods of farmers. The criminal Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) £35 billion a year food subsidy means the EU is permitted to dump thousands of tons of heavily subsidised food into Africa every year. Local African producers cannot export their food because they must compete with the lower prices made possible by the CAP. Just take one product - sugar. EU farmers are guaranteed a price for their sugar which is three times higher than the world price. Mozambique, Swaziland, Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal have all been hit by cheap, subsidised imports from Europe while being restricted from exporting their food to the EU. The EU and its wicked CAP would rather have Africa dependent upon famine relief than allow it to trade fairly. Supporters of the CAP argue that the world’s 50 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are already able to export unlimited quantities of agricultural goods to the EU duty free under the “Everything But Arms” initiative. In addition, the EU has steadily been phasing out farming export subsidies, and agreed during a WTO summit in Kenya in December 2015 to abolish them completely. http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/01/07/are-european-subsidies-hurting-the-worlds-poorest-farmers/#.Wi2iRNSF6t9 https://www.adamsmith.org/news/everything-but-arms Today, with the release of the UK Government's briefing paper on future customs arrangements the Adam Smith Institute welcomes the government's continued support post-Brexit of the EU's current Everything But Arms initiative with Least Developed Countries. Sam Bowman, Executive Director of the Adam Smith Institute, says: "It’s good news that the UK government had pledged to maintain the EU’s Everything But Arms and Generalised System of Preferences initiatives even after we leave the Customs Union. These give exporters in many of the world’s poorest countries duty-free and quota-free access to EU markets, preferential market access for many other developing countries’ exporters, and less strict rules of origin checks on goods. Free trade is one of the best tools we have to reduce poverty in the developing world and it is an encouraging sign that the UK has committed to maintaining openness to the world’s poorest producers. Edited December 10, 2017 by chalga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Why are you talking nonsense? Do you read history or are just ignorant of it? Ted Heath in 1975 wrote a letter to the country that joining the EU was not simply just about trade but about closer political union. Do you know who Ted Heath was? Oh yeah, a former PM of the country. So ANYONE that says we only joined for for trade is either ignorant, stupid or have no idea what they are talking about. Let’s wind the clock back further to 1949. A certain former PM mentioned the need for a United States of Europe. He was Winston Churchill. So yes, the whole politics union thing is only a Franco / German idea right? I quite agree that a united Europe could be good if it was was every country ( sorry it would state) paid the same tax the same contribution and getting the same benifit, sound cool is that wat you seek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Car Boot Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Why are you talking nonsense? Do you read history or are just ignorant of it? Ted Heath in 1975 wrote a letter to the country that joining the EU was not simply just about trade but about closer political union. Do you know who Ted Heath was? Oh yeah, a former PM of the country. So ANYONE that says we only joined for for trade is either ignorant, stupid or have no idea what they are talking about. In June 1971 an EEC membership leaflet from the Heath government was circulated to every house in the UK which stated: "There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty". In a TV political broadcast in January 1973 Prime Minister Ted Heath spoke to camera and said: "There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified." Ted Heath deliberately deceived the British public to ensure we joined on January 1st 1973. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 The EU has been flooding (dumping) Africa with cheap food for decades, damaging farmers livelihoods and ruining economies. Funny how the UKs foreign aid budget (which is what you are referring to) is higher than that of most EU nations. Ah that mirror, how is it working out for you Car Boot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts