Welcome aboard the good ship blighty, everyone else is here so you may as well come join the party as well!
croatia:
‘…Croatia is new member in EU. Hope this is good news …’
It has come to pass that the UK effectively pays approx £50 million per day for life-sapping news like this. Surely the UK is apathetic - at best 
However, as welcome by some that Croatia may be to have ‘joined’ this covert, blood-sucking, Fourth Reich gravy-train, problems definately exist in that:
1 UK Mainstream political parties treat the UK electorate (who fund their identity robbing jollies) as children 
2 Thousands of grey-faced, career appeasers/politicians (‘Baroness Ashton’ anyone?) make a mint by sucking up to kindred, foreign, short-termist ultra-liberals (as the Fourth Reich chuckles inwardly)
3 No British elector under the age of approx 55 has been consulted about the EU or it’s jaunts since the mid 1970’s - and thus have a ■■■■ good right to feel thoroughly alienated by it’s undemocratic methodology: Meanwhile, many electors over 55 feel embarrassed to have been schmucked by the ‘pro-Common Market’ propaganda that, in the 1970’s - as today - outweighed the ‘NO’ financial budget to spout their distorting manipulation by about 50/1 in ££’s sterling*
*Never forget that when a nation says ‘No’ to the EU that a vast budget gets slathered on it until that nation eventually complies with Brussels wish
Yawn …sorry, and yeah, lets all shrug a shoulder of indifference for Croatia 
Yeah fifth wheel, thats true, but for a few years now Turkey gets the same trade deals as a fellow member anyway, the only part of Turkey thats in Europe is Istanbul, the rest of it ( over the Bosphorus ) is in Asia. Germany has the largest population of turks outside of Turkey, and i really cannot see them ever gaining entry as a member of the EU, but will retain the rights of trade.
truckyboy:
‘… Germany has the largest population of Turks outside of Turkey…’
But aren’t such nationalistic notions futile to cling-on to?
If a similar ratio were in the UK then the PM is duty bound (as was Gordon ‘the moron’ Brown) by the EU to identify them as being British - like when that slippery monkey slyly advocated “British jobs for British workers” 
Surely the EU identifies it’s citizens (or part thereof) by their geographical location not by the old fashioned & bigotted perception of national identity
I’m only questioning what our politicians neglect to point out (ie, the bleeping obvious, Cybil) when we, the tribally blinkered, vote them in 
Happy Keith:
Surely the EU identifies it’s citizens (or part thereof) by their geographical location not by the old fashioned & bigotted perception of national identityI’m only questioning what our politicians neglect to point out (ie, the bleeping obvious, Cybil) when we, the tribally blinkered, vote them in
The idea of identifying citizenship by location is no different to the policy which we’ve had for years in the case of citizenship being based on place of birth not descent and ethnicity.Which is a policy which numerous governments have established here long before we joined the EU and which is all about maintaining an open door immigration policy in the interests of cheap labour.It’s ironic that the argument is all about being governed by our own government not the EU when it’s actually our own government which has been the biggest problem.
Happy Keith:
3 No British elector under the age of approx 55 has been consulted about the EU or it’s jaunts since the mid 1970’s - and thus have a ■■■■ good right to feel thoroughly alienated by it’s undemocratic methodology: Meanwhile, many electors over 55 feel embarrassed to have been schmucked by the ‘pro-Common Market’ propaganda that, in the 1970’s - as today - outweighed the ‘NO’ financial budget to spout their distorting manipulation by about 50/1 in ££’s sterling*
Correction if you don’t mind ,no British elector has ever been consulted on EU membership,we where consulted on the common market ,basically a trade agreement to make trading in Europe easier .What we have now bears absolutely no resemblance to the original idea we voted on ,our trade with Europe is lessening and our trade with the rest of the world is growing(despite massaged figures by EU bigwigs denying the Rotterdam effect exists) ,we do not need Europe anywhere near as much as they need us
croatia:
limeyphil:
For the first time in a long time the EU have a new member …I would stop here.
As would I 
One question …WHY would you vote a government into power that clearly wants to tear your country apart ,a government that wants to be told what to do by Germany ,a government that as of tomorrow has no real decision making power .
PS welcome to Britain
martyh:
Happy Keith:
3 No British elector under the age of approx 55 has been consulted about the EU or it’s jaunts since the mid 1970’s - and thus have a ■■■■ good right to feel thoroughly alienated by it’s undemocratic methodology: Meanwhile, many electors over 55 feel embarrassed to have been schmucked by the ‘pro-Common Market’ propaganda that, in the 1970’s - as today - outweighed the ‘NO’ financial budget to spout their distorting manipulation by about 50/1 in ££’s sterling*Correction if you don’t mind ,no British elector has ever been consulted on EU membership,we where consulted on the common market ,basically a trade agreement to make trading in Europe easier .What we have now bears absolutely no resemblance to the original idea we voted on ,our trade with Europe is lessening and our trade with the rest of the world is growing(despite massaged figures by EU bigwigs denying the Rotterdam effect exists) ,we do not need Europe anywhere near as much as they need us
I think most voters in the referendum were aware that the whole project involved a ‘bit’ more than just a trade agreement which in itself put us at an obvious disadvantage considering the strength of German industry and the German economy v that of Britain’s.We had every thing to lose in the form of effectively giving away oil in return for manufactured goods which we could make for ourselves with the lose lose situation that doing so also resulted in loss of our own manufacturing industry together with massive taxation increases and public sector cut backs to pay for the privilege of being a ‘member’ of the whole scam.It’s fair to say that the stupid British public was conned into accepting all that by the massive yes campaign which was put up by the bankers and their cronies in the government probably on the basis that they would benefit from it because they’d been investing money earn’t here previously in the European economies not ours.Together with the fact that those like Heath were scared of upsetting the Germans.
Carryfast:
Correction if you don’t mind ,no British elector has ever been consulted on EU membership,we where consulted on the common market ,basically a trade agreement to make trading in Europe easier .What we have now bears absolutely no resemblance to the original idea we voted on ,our trade with Europe is lessening and our trade with the rest of the world is growing(despite massaged figures by EU bigwigs denying the Rotterdam effect exists) ,we do not need Europe anywhere near as much as they need us
I think most voters in the referendum were aware that the whole project involved a ‘bit’ more than just a trade agreement which in itself put us at an obvious disadvantage considering the strength of German industry and the German economy v that of Britain’s.We had every thing to lose in the form of effectively giving away oil in return for manufactured goods which we could make for ourselves with the lose lose situation that doing so also resulted in loss of our own manufacturing industry together with massive taxation increases and public sector cut backs to pay for the privilege of being a ‘member’ of the whole scam.It’s fair to say that the stupid British public was conned into accepting all that by the massive yes campaign which was put up by the bankers and their cronies in the government probably on the basis that they would benefit from it because they’d been investing money earn’t here previously in the European economies not ours.Together with the fact that those like Heath were scared of upsetting the Germans.
[/quote]
I was not old enough to vote in the 70’s but do remember my dad having doubts ,i think his actual words where “bloody german superstate” .However my original assertion that British voters , voted for a Common Market and not the EU as we have now still stands, so on that basis alone we should have an in/out vote ,even if the result means we stay in at least politicians can put that aside and get on with dragging us out the hole we are in without being distracted
Carryfast:
martyh:
Happy Keith:
(‘…anti-EU blah, etc…’)‘…Correction if you don’t mind…’
‘…We had every thing to lose in the form of effectively giving away oil … [and] … Heath … upsetting the Germans…’
Yeah, the correction amplifies distrust due to the (supposed) ‘Union’ to whom the UK also dismantled it’s fishing industry as well as gifting away the oil to appease dictators in Brussels.
Likewise as disastrous, the traitor Heath should be considered as a left-wing/liberalist appeaser who was schooled in politics by communist advocates but who sold it all to us -gargantuan as it now is - as being little more than a brew-up with our stall-holding mates, Jean-Paul & Jurgen, etc in a cosy market place.
Happy Keith:
Carryfast:
martyh:
Happy Keith:
(‘…anti-EU blah, etc…’)‘…Correction if you don’t mind…’
‘…We had every thing to lose in the form of effectively giving away oil … [and] … Heath … upsetting the Germans…’
Yeah, the correction amplifies distrust due to the (supposed) ‘Union’ to whom the UK also dismantled it’s fishing industry as well as gifting away the oil to appease dictators in Brussels.
Likewise as disastrous, the traitor Heath should be considered as a left-wing/liberalist appeaser who was schooled in politics by communist advocates but who sold it all to us -gargantuan as it now is - as being little more than a brew-up with our stall-holding mates, Jean-Paul & Jurgen, etc in a cosy market place.
Ironically I think Heath’s motives were probably more honourable than those of Thatcher and Wilson who were both obviously working to the agenda of the bankers.Ironically Heath’s mistake was,( probably understandably considering his wartime experiences ),in confusing fear of war with appeasement,considering his documented opposition to Chaimberlain’s appeasement policy.Effectively Heath sold us down the river because he was scared of what ze Germans might do again if things didn’t go their way.While Wilson and Thatcher then took adavantage of that to seal the deal to keep the bankers happy.
martyh:
Carryfast:
Correction if you don’t mind ,no British elector has ever been consulted on EU membership,we where consulted on the common market ,basically a trade agreement to make trading in Europe easier .What we have now bears absolutely no resemblance to the original idea we voted on ,our trade with Europe is lessening and our trade with the rest of the world is growing(despite massaged figures by EU bigwigs denying the Rotterdam effect exists) ,we do not need Europe anywhere near as much as they need usI was not old enough to vote in the 70’s but do remember my dad having doubts ,i think his actual words where “bloody german superstate” .However my original assertion that British voters , voted for a Common Market and not the EU as we have now still stands, so on that basis alone we should have an in/out vote ,even if the result means we stay in at least politicians can put that aside and get on with dragging us out the hole we are in without being distracted
It seems obvious that the whole thing was a federalist project from the start and federations usually end up going one of two ways.They either end up in a civil war in which secession is met by force of arms with the federalist/union forces winning as in the case of the USA,or they end up in a civil war in which the secessionist cause wins out as in the case of Yugoslavia.In this case the irony of one of those secessionist ex Yugoslav states now wanting to be part of an even bigger federation seems unbelievable.
Carryfast:
It seems obvious that the whole thing was a federalist project from the start and federations usually end up going one of two ways.They either end up in a civil war in which secession is met by force of arms with the federalist/union forces winning as in the case of the USA,or they end up in a civil war in which the secessionist cause wins out as in the case of Yugoslavia.In this case the irony of one of those secessionist ex Yugoslav states now wanting to be part of an even bigger federation seems unbelievable.
With the benefit of hindsight it probably does seem obvious especially given that the original aim of the Treaty of Rome was a more federalized Europe .The problem is that is not how it was sold to the British public ,if it was a PPI policy i would definitely get my money back .
What we have now is a Federal Europe slowly tearing itself apart and i think you are right it will end badly
limeyphil:
For the first time in a long time the EU have a new member that has a decent ecconomy, Low unemployment, A low crime rate, and a much higher GDP than most of its neighbours.
I don’t think we have much to worry about. It’s more a case of them being inundated with low paid migrant workers this time.
Should maybe point out that Croatia has 1 in 5 unemployed ,massive crime problems and a national debt classed as ‘junk’ ,i wonder what they can possibly offer the EU
martyh:
limeyphil:
For the first time in a long time the EU have a new member that has a decent ecconomy, Low unemployment, A low crime rate, and a much higher GDP than most of its neighbours.
I don’t think we have much to worry about. It’s more a case of them being inundated with low paid migrant workers this time.Should maybe point out that Croatia has 1 in 5 unemployed ,massive crime problems and a national debt classed as ‘junk’ ,i wonder what they can possibly offer the EU
It is true about unemployed. But it is also true that some 3000 English people have real estate in Croatia and that is answer what is what we can offer. About crime problem its all but not true. Economy depends on shipbuilding and tourism and its not god. Very big problem is taxes and its ruining all small bussiness, and there is where Germans come in and with them all our money go out.
Regardes from Croat.
Split was very good for drinking just before the war as was Dubrovnik. Then we had to fight in novi sad, pristine, gorni vakuf and all over the place was just slaughter. I remember lovely places all over Yugoslavia, but I’ve seen some horrible sights too which are etched onto my brain till the day I die! 
welcome to the hell hole what is known as the UK 
martyh:
limeyphil:
For the first time in a long time the EU have a new member that has a decent ecconomy, Low unemployment, A low crime rate, and a much higher GDP than most of its neighbours.
I don’t think we have much to worry about. It’s more a case of them being inundated with low paid migrant workers this time.Should maybe point out that Croatia has 1 in 5 unemployed ,massive crime problems and a national debt classed as ‘junk’ ,i wonder what they can possibly offer the EU
You could make a very similar point about Birmingham.
Carryfast:
‘… I think Heath’s motives were … honourable …’
Hmmm, really 
As I understand it, Edward Heath was determined to get his name in the history books by following a brief that he received one month before his premiership of the EEC’s real ambition to make a ‘…deliberate effort to drive out sovereignty…’ given him from a Common Market architect (and successor to Jean Monnet who wished for a ‘…European Superstate…’) named Arnold Toynbee - a Marxist
I reckon this sinks Heath’s image as being anything honourable and supports other motives for Thatcher disliking him.
Meanwhile, I’ll bet a brew that no 21st century Tory tribalist will be willing to come-in & bouy such evidence against the man and what really happened during his short sighted yet ultimately treacherous heyday
Tellingly, Heath’s former residence in Salisbury (acquired by dodgy means) wasn’t taking visitors & so packed-up: On two visits to that lovely city I couldn’t gleefully snub it adequately enough although, because I’m chilled & it’s summer I’ll grant him an honourable par with my [zb]
Happy Keith:
Carryfast:
‘… I think Heath’s motives were … honourable …’Hmmm, really
As I understand it, Edward Heath was determined to get his name in the history books by following a brief that he received one month before his premiership of the EEC’s real ambition to make a ‘…deliberate effort to drive out sovereignty…’ given him from a Common Market architect (and successor to Jean Monnet who wished for a ‘…European Superstate…’) named Arnold Toynbee - a Marxist
I reckon this sinks Heath’s image as being anything honourable and supports other motives for Thatcher disliking him.
Meanwhile, I’ll bet a brew that no 21st century Tory tribalist will be willing to come-in & bouy such evidence against the man and what really happened during his short sighted yet ultimately treacherous heyday
Tellingly, Heath’s former residence in Salisbury (acquired by dodgy means) wasn’t taking visitors & so packed-up: On two visits to that lovely city I couldn’t gleefully snub it adequately enough although, because I’m chilled & it’s summer I’ll grant him an honourable par with my [zb]
There’s no argument about the fact that the whole EU membership project was a sell out.However what you’ve described there just confirms the idea of the sell out.However the bit that I was referring to was the difference between Heath’s ‘motives’ for selling the country out as opposed to those of Wilson and Thatcher.
Heath’s motivation has been well documented in that he saw front line service during the liberation of Europe in WW2 and just like many of those with him in that he obviously saw some sights and heard some evidence,during his time at the Nuremburg war trials that followed,that turned him against the idea of it being about whatever it takes in looking after the country’s interests.To one of effectively appeasement in the case of selling Britain’s economic interests down the river in favour of ‘avoiding’ any further possibility of the Germans taking up arms again in the event of Germany’s population not getting what it felt that it was entitled to in terms of living standards an continued economic prosperity in the post war world.Being that there’s no way that Europe could ever be rich enough to provide the combined populations of both countries with equal living standards.IE Heath was just zb scared of further war.
Whereas Wilson’s and Thatcher’s support for EU membership was all about doing whatever the bankers told them to do.In this case that being taking advantage of Heath having lost the plot through fear of Germany to create an economic environment in Europe that reflected the fact that those bankers preferred to invest in the industry and economies of our European competitors than in our own industry.As I’ve said in that case Heath’s motives were more honourable if no less treacherous.As I’ve said Shore was the best and only credible leader that this country never had. 
martyh:
Should maybe point out that Croatia has 1 in 5 unemployed ,massive crime problems and a national debt classed as ‘junk’ ,i wonder what they can possibly offer the EU
dunno, been to croatia many, many times and you never had to worry about slashed curtains or nicked fuel, unlike in some places
otherwise, I have always wondered why such total dumps as romania and bulgaria were invited to join, while croatia was not.