EU,Canada,NZ & Australia.

[Logain]

Originally posted by Damien

Directives from Brussel are mandatory.60% of the laws in France stem from Brussel and the french parliament actually votes 40% of the laws.

The directives may be mandatory but they are not imposed by some mindless mandarins in Brussels. The governments have to agree with them first. Some subjects are under QMV but in a lot of others the governments have a veto.

The governments don't really advertise this fact because if the electorate back home don't like the directives they can blame them on Brussels.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Switch625
I don't see France ever relinquishing control of French Guiana, and the people there don't seem to mind French rule much. French Guiana is where France has it's spaceport. They'll want to hold on to that.

They can rent the control on the spaceport like the Russians in bAIKONOUR.

About the directives,there are sanctions if they aren't applied.

 

[MrPresident]

About the directives,there are sanctions if they aren't applied.

Like with the French refusing our beef? That just goes to show that you can do what you want if you really want to do it.

To me, the only oversea territories that should be kept by the EU are the Canaries,Madeira,the Azores,St Barth and St-Pierre & Miquelon.

What about Bermuda? The Cayman islands? And all those small pacific islands that are owned by France and Britain?

since many natives there are racist against whites

And they have no reason to be do they.

There is a significant school of thought in the UK (and to some extent in the US) that we should adjust our membership of the EU to just a free-trade agreement

Significant school of thought? You mean the UK Independent party? Get real. Most people accept that the EU is good for the UK and realise that we can't just leave it. Apart from the legality of leaving, I don't think it is realistic to leave the EU then come back the next day and ask for a free trade agreement. Why would the Europeans accept that? You can't have the benefits without the costs. Anyway you can't have a decent free trade area without removing barriers to trade. That includes tariffs/quotas, physical barriers (such as checkpoints) and basically means the removal of national boundaries. Also as soon as we are outside the EU we will have to pay the common external tariff on most goods even if we negoiate a free trade agreement. And that is not to mention the effect it will have on foreign direct investment. I think you should accept that the UK will only become more integrated into Europe, it is not only the logical thing to do it is the best thing for Britain.

What I would like is that the politicans be honest about it, and admit that the ERR is driven by the French wish to be totally non-reliant on the US.

I don't think it is just the France. There are a lot of people in most European countries that can see the advantage of having a European force not reliant of America help. Take for example the reason problems with America involvement in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. It shows that maybe it isn't the greatest thing for Europe to be so dependant of American military help. However I think it should be said that this is hardly a matter of great importance. There will be no split between Europe and America, maybe a re-addressing in the balance of power, but no split

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Like with the French refusing our beef? That just goes to show that you can do what you want if you really want to do it.

>>>Exactly

What about Bermuda? The Cayman islands? And all those small pacific islands that are owned by France and Britain?

>>>Ok for those islands too

And they have no reason to be do they.

>>>I know they have good reasons,i explained it in my post.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Like with the French refusing our beef? That just goes to show that you can do what you want if you really want to do it.

To the UK Government, I would suggest a phrase that begins with "He who lives in a glasshouse."

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Damien
They can rent the control on the spaceport like the Russians in Baikonour.

I'd say that the Russian Federation really stretches from Belarus in the west and Uzbekistan to the south. While the former SSRs have political autonomy, President Putin has almost absolute influence over the former SSRs.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ainwood
I am pointing out that the UK is not really that interested in the Commonwealth anymore, following integration into the European Union.

What exactly has changed since we entered The EU?

Originally posted by ainwood
What benefits do Canada, NZ and Australia (not to mention India, Pakistan, West Indies etc) get from the Commonwealth.

What benefit does Britian get from The Commonwealth? What benefit does any country get from The Commonwealth?

It is possibly one of the weakest international organisations in existance.

Originally posted by ainwood
You are right - Britain does not have to support the Commonwealth countries economically, however there is a marked difference between not-supporting and actually destabilising, as has happened in a de-facto way since their entry into the EU. I see this as a case of the "Home Country" deciding to remove any support for the former colonies, despite what these colonies have done for them throughout the 19th and early parts of the 20th centuries.

You haven't actually explained what Britain could have done to better the situation, or why joining The EU weakened Commonwealth ties, or how joining The EU 'removed support' for them.

You really seem to be stuck in a strange notion that it was Britain's job to completely support all these countries economically, as in the days of empire. Well, I'm sorry, but it wasn't.

Newsflash - The Commonwealth is a grouping of independant states that is little more than a talking shop of countries that have a common historical link. It is not The Empire in miniture.

Originally posted by ainwood
In terms of support, I would actually imagine that the Commonwealth countries that supported Britain's entry did so in the belief that they would benefit.

In what way, exactly?

Originally posted by ainwood
And I also must disagree with you re the trade bloc - the commonwealth had the real potential to be an economic power. The potential existed, even if it was not realised.

No it didn't. All the respective countries were not going to be trading with each other, with the individuals members spread over vast distances, and with, in all fairness, a lot of the members woefully underdeveloped economically, when they could all trade with their nearer, richer neighbours - I point you towards the amount of trade Canada does with The US, and the amount Britain does with Europe.

This process was, simply, inevitable, as the imperialist notions of economics were replaced with capitalist ones.

I think you haven't really grasped the nature of capitalism on this point.

Originally posted by Rodgers
I believe THEY complained when WE joined the EU

But they didn't.

Originally posted by Pillager
No non-European country (particularly the ex-Empire countries) would be able to join the EU because whatever the continentals might say there were two main reasons for the formation of the EEC. Firstly, to tie Germany economically into France, thus preventing a repeat of 1914 and 1939, and, secondly, to provide an alternative to the supposedly evil United States.

Neither of those were ever the stated aims of The EEC. Nor has The EEC/EC/EU pursued any such policy that coresponds to them.

One reason was to prevent another European war - but this would be achieved by closer co-operation between all, not just some sort of Franco-German axis.

Originally posted by Pillager
Don't let them pretend either this is just economic, although that's as far as it goes for the moment.

Errrrmm, The EU doesn't pretend that it's 'just economic', and it is a political organisation.

Originally posted by Pillager
The impetus for this is quite simply so that there is no reliance on American military resources.

What a load of old crock.

One of the sources impetus is from The Americans, for god's sake, so if another Bosnia or Yugoslavia comes around (God forbid) we can do a decent job of taking care of it on our own.

Originally posted by Pillager
Only the UK and France of the European countries have significant armed forces,

I think you may be confusing 'significant' with 'advanced'

I point you towards Italy, Spain and Germany. All these countries, Germany especially, have very decent armed forces, really. They simply don't see much action.

Originally posted by Pillager
There is a significant school of thought in the UK (and to some extent in the US) that we should adjust our membership of the EU to just a free-trade agreement, and enter NAFTA at the same time.

No, actually it's a significant school of non-thought.

We could never be a member of The EU and NAFTA at the same time. EU trading regulations would be incompatible with any such arrangment.

Simply, Britain (or indeed any other country) being a member of The EU and NAFTA is an impossiblity. Anyone saying otherwise is talking out of their posterior.

Originally posted by Pillager
This course of action has a lot to recommend it

No it doesn't.

British trade:

EU: 57%
US: 15.7

You must be mad if you think we should make any moves towards jeapordising our current trading status with The EU. There are absolutely no benefits to joining NAFTA for Britain, either politically or economically.

Originally posted by Damien
About the 60%,this was said on the french TV.

Until I find a credible source for this, I don't intend to believe it for one moment because it sounds completely absurd.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Like with the French refusing our beef? That just goes to show that you can do what you want if you really want to do it.

Have you being living in a box for the last few years?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1707000/1707824.stm

The penalties for France uphoalding this ban are increasing all the time. Fines will soon be imposed, I believe.

Membership of The EU is, incidentally, about the only way we can tackle the French ban.

 

[newfangle]

I think Canada, NZ and Australia should nestle a little bit closer to Soviet Union. We could start the flow of a red tide which would eventual sweep through the entire globe. Buwahahahaah!!!!

Oops, did I say soviet Union, I meant Russian Federation.

 

[MrPresident]

The penalties for France uphoalding this ban are increasing all the time. Fines will soon be imposed, I believe.

The ban was declared illegal a year ago and there has been no serious punishment yet. I think it is you who has been living in a box. Fines should have been imposed long ago and should be far more severe than is proposed. You can't live in a free trade area if one country has an import ban on another.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Fines should have been imposed long ago

It was only declared illegal under a year ago, and these sorts of international legal matters move about as fast as the law itself.

Originally posted by MrPresident
You can't live in a free trade area if one country has an import ban on another.

Errr, this unwaranted action is why it's been declared illegal.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Baleog
I wonder if Canada would benefit from joining the EU? Would the increased freedom of movement, trade to Europe counter balance all the money they'd have to give to the EU development fund?

We already give a considerable amount, as also do Japan the US and a few other non-European nations.

 

[sysyphus]

It's reasonable to say that over the next 10 years the EU and the USA will stand as the two major powers of the world (economically anyway).

Canada of course is geographically locaed essentially between the two (little bit of trivia: St. John's Newfoundland is actually closer to Berlin than it is to Vancouver).

Canada is linked with America via NAFTA but our more social-liberal political values link us somewhat to EUrope as well.

I suggest we just stay here, maintain equal ties with both, let the trade go through our territory and take our cut of the action.

Or, I think that we should form a secret society with Australia and NZ, begin a massive secret arms proliferation over several years then invade both Europe and America and teach all you how to live (insert evil laugh)

 

[HotDog Fish]

Originally posted by sysyphus
Or, I think that we should form a secret society with Australia and NZ, begin a massive secret arms proliferation over several years then invade both Europe and America and teach all you how to live (insert evil laugh)

Not so loud! It supposed to be a secret!! I mean, what ever could you possibly mean?, we would NEVER do anything like that....
:tank:

 

[Baleog]

Originally posted by sysyphus


We already give a considerable amount, as also do Japan the US and a few other non-European nations.

Really???
An example if you please.

(Not that I don't believe you, just for the sake of it.)

EDIT: If you joined, any donations would be mandatory, and would have very little room for negotiation. Considering the rich nations give to the poor, Canada's high standard of living - the cost would be considerable.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by HotDog Fish

Not so loud! It supposed to be a secret!! I mean, what ever could you possibly mean?, we would NEVER do anything like that....
:tank:

Oh, ok. I was a little worried.

Psst...hey Europe. Europe. Lets liberate Quebec. After we could stroll by The province of Ontario and lets say divide it between the U.S., Europe, and Quebec. Toronto itself would be divided, too. DONT'T TELL THE CANADIANS, AUSSUIES, OR THE NEW ZEALANDERS. They would never suspect it.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Hamlet
What exactly has changed since we entered The EU?

What benefit does Britian get from The Commonwealth? What benefit does any country get from The Commonwealth?

It is possibly one of the weakest international organisations in existance.

The very first line in my first post in this thread was something along the lines of "The Commonwealth is dead and dusted". I don't pretend that it is a powerful organisation.

What has changed? The freedom and ability of Commonwealth citizens to move to and work in Britain. The access of commonwealth countries to the British markets. This works for the benefits of both side, incidentally. With the current shortage of teachers / doctors / nurses in the UK, they could have been provided by the Commonwealth, and this would have benefited all parties. This is made quite difficult by the restrictions placed on non-EU nationals trying to get work permits in the UK. I don't see EU doctors or teachers rushing to Britain!

You haven't actually explained what Britain could have done to better the situation, or why joining The EU weakened Commonwealth ties, or how joining The EU 'removed support' for them.

By joining the EU, imports into the UK from Commonwealth countries were slashed. This certainly weakened Commonwealth ties.

You really seem to be stuck in a strange notion that it was Britain's job to completely support all these countries economically, as in the days of empire. Well, I'm sorry, but it wasn't.

Actually, it was the Commonwealth countries that supported Britain. As I have posted before, it is not Britain's job to support these countries economically, however I think that given the support provided to Britain by the Commonwealth Nations in the past, it is with shameful disregard that Britain turns around and hurts them economically. The message being sent is that in times of adversity, Britain needs the Commonwealth. Any other time, the Commonwealth can get stuffed. Where did England turn during the foot & mouth crisis?

Newsflash - The Commonwealth is a grouping of independant states that is little more than a talking shop of countries that have a common historical link. It is not The Empire in miniture.

In this it appears that you agree with me, yet seem compelled to patronise me.

In what way, exactly?

Access to the European markets.

No it didn't. All the respective countries were not going to be trading with each other, with the individuals members spread over vast distances, and with, in all fairness, a lot of the members woefully underdeveloped economically, when they could all trade with their nearer, richer neighbours - I point you towards the amount of trade Canada does with The US, and the amount Britain does with Europe.

Of course countries trade with their neighbours more - this is due to the free-market forces, and basically that the transport costs are lower.

This process was, simply, inevitable, as the imperialist notions of economics were replaced with capitalist ones.

I think you haven't really grasped the nature of capitalism on this point.

Rubbish. I think that you hven't really grasped the nature of socialism on this point.

Explain why New Zealand and Australia can produce and ship meat products halfway round the world to Britain, and land them in your supermarkets cheaper than the local farmers can? (and certainly cheaper than the rest of the EU farmers can). Yet, surprisingly (not), quotas and tariffs are put on them to limit imports. This is not capitalism! This is simply socialist protectionism!

 

[MrPresident]

Where did England turn during the foot & mouth crisis?

To the slaughtermen (and women).

Of course countries trade with their neighbours more - this is due to the free-market forces, and basically that the transport costs are lower.

It helps if your neighbours are as advanced as you are (perhaps even more advanced).

Explain why New Zealand and Australia can produce and ship meat products halfway round the world to Britain, and land them in your supermarkets cheaper than the local farmers can?

The same reason why bananas are cheaper if they are grown in the caribbean than in Cornwall (southern part of england if you didn't know).

Yet, surprisingly (not), quotas and tariffs are put on them to limit imports.

It is called a single market. To establish a single market you need to do the following:

1. Remove custom duties on all goods travelling between member states
2. Create a common external tariff that is placed on all goods entering the single market from non-member states
3. Remove all barriers to trade
   [/list=1]

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by MrPresident

To the slaughtermen (and women).

Wrong, in this context.

It helps if your neighbours are as advanced as you are (perhaps even more advanced).

Now you sound like RM. Ever been to NZ / Canada / Australia? I would argue that from a consumer facilities perspective, they are well ahead of the UK.

The same reason why bananas are cheaper if they are grown in the caribbean than in Cornwall (southern part of england if you didn't know).

Actually, I would have said south west.

It is called a single market. To establish a single market you need to do the following:

1. Remove custom duties on all goods travelling between member states
2. Create a common external tariff that is placed on all goods entering the single market from non-member states
3. Remove all barriers to trade
   [/list=1]

1. Contradictory / irrelevent in the context of my response. Hamlet was saying that the reason that the UK didn't trade with the commonwealth was that the distances made it uneconomic, and that trade via the EU was a purely capitalist influence in getting the cheapest goods to the consumer. I was pointing out that it was NOT a capitalist system that created the EU trading bloc, it is a socialist / protectionist one.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Baleog


Really???
An example if you please.

(Not that I don't believe you, just for the sake of it.)

Currently there is a major project to clean up the mess at Chernobyl funded by the EBRD. I'm privy to some of the info as my company is becoming involved with this project, but I can say that there is $22M (US) that Canada has contributed to this, along with $77M (US) that the USA has doled out, I forget how much came from Japan.

The G7 as a group is heavily involved with European Redevelopment.

Originally posted by Baleog


EDIT: If you joined, any donations would be mandatory, and would have very little room for negotiation. Considering the rich nations give to the poor, Canada's high standard of living - the cost would be considerable.

We already have a similar system within Canada where the richer provinces pool money into the federal governemnt which is then doled out to the poorer provinces.

Whther the economic benefits of joing the EU would outweigh the contributions I'm not sure.

Really though, it is impractical for us to join the EU, though we should maintain equally close ties with Europe as we do with America.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by ainwood
What has changed? The freedom and ability of Commonwealth citizens to move to and work in Britain. The access of commonwealth countries to the British markets. This works for the benefits of both side, incidentally. With the current shortage of teachers / doctors / nurses in the UK, they could have been provided by the Commonwealth, and this would have benefited all parties. This is made quite difficult by the restrictions placed on non-EU nationals trying to get work permits in the UK. I don't see EU doctors or teachers rushing to Britain!

I don't know much about this issue, so I would appreciate some sources.

Originally posted by ainwood
Actually, it was the Commonwealth countries that supported Britain. As I have posted before, it is not Britain's job to support these countries economically, however I think that given the support provided to Britain by the Commonwealth Nations in the past, it is with shameful disregard that Britain turns around and hurts them economically.

But there you are again. You are utterly contradicting yourself in the stroke of a few lines.

You say Britain should have been allowed to pursue it's indepedant policy, as Commonwealth Countries can. They are not linked by empire anymore, and shouldn't have to be stuck in such a notion.

However, you then go around and say that it was 'bad' for The UK to join The EU, as this was to the detriment of The Commonwealth, and it some sort of ambiguous duty to protect them somehow, and favour them economcially for historical reasons -I find this quite shocking hypocracy, in light of your protectionist mumblings later on.

These two statements are, despite your prtoestations to the contrary, in direct conflict, and I would appreciate it if you resolved them. Make your mind up - do you feel Britain has imperialist duties to Commonwealth countries or no?

Should it be allowed to pursue it's own policies, and what is in it's best intrests or should it completely disreguard what is best for itself in case it 'offends' The Commonwealth?

Membership of The EEC was going to hurt all non-EEC countries Britain traded with somehwhat. However, Britain was doing what is best for it's own economic intrests, like every other country on the planet does.

Unfortunately, Soverign states do what is in their best intrests economically, and cannot take into full account what detrimental effects X action will have on X state. If they had to, international commerce would grind to a halt.

Originally posted by ainwood
The message being sent is that in times of adversity, Britain needs the Commonwealth. Any other time, the Commonwealth can get stuffed.

'Sierra Leone'

Perhaps you should be thankful that you still have an ally in Britain.

Originally posted by ainwood
Where did England turn during the foot & mouth crisis?

It tackled the disease on it's own for the most part, and with some foreign assistance.

Originally posted by ainwood
Of course countries trade with their neighbours more - this is due to the free-market forces, and basically that the transport costs are lower.

Thank you for just disproving your argument that The Commonwealth could have worked as a trading bloc.

Originally posted by ainwood
Explain why New Zealand and Australia can produce and ship meat products halfway round the world to Britain, and land them in your supermarkets cheaper than the local farmers can? (and certainly cheaper than the rest of the EU farmers can).

Well, you have picked up on a single thing here and blown it out of all proportion.

CAP is horrible and needs terrible amounts of reform. Not to mention the state of British farming.

However, you have yet to demonstrate to me how a Commonwealth trading system could have worked.

Obviously, business in Britain has found it more attractive to trade with Europe since WW2. Hence, joining The EEC was logical.

Originally posted by ainwood
Yet, surprisingly (not), quotas and tariffs are put on them to limit imports. This is not capitalism! This is simply socialist protectionism!

What rubbish. Has it ever occured to you that The Single market is in place to encourage and focus competition within The Single Market, and has it struck you that a huge amount of Right-wing parties, including The Conservative party support The Single Market up to this day?

You may as well say that any Free trade area is 'protectionist'.