Not signing the treaty

muckles:

Mike-C:

muckles:
What made Britain was using and exporting leading edge technology.

Not sure this bit is correct !!! Britain was probably worldwide leader in trade since maybe the 1600’s through to relativley recent history. The last leading edge technology we exported was probably the industrial revolution !! :laughing: :laughing:

muckles:

That was my point, we lead the industrial revolution, and it’s what built the Empire, (right or wrong) We then rested on our laurels expecting people to buy our products because they were British and forgot about giving the customer what they wanted when they wanted it. Meanwhile our competitors were giving the customer what they didn’t realise they wanted.

Mike-C:
And that is how we’ll get ourselves out of this, not by closing the doors.

Hmm, not sure how this works. We’re an Island with a massive 60 million population and massive consumer thirst for products/goods. The means to consume these goods is being taken from us by business’s as they pack up and go elsewhere as its cheaper for them. This then leaves them with a shrinking consumer base. Biting the hand that feeds you i think its called !!!

We’ll never mass produce goods like the Chineese do although I agree that mass relocation of companies to low wage economies is short sighted, but that’s one of the major problems with the system we have it’s about short term profit.

It’s like the story about Fords.

CIO President Walter Reuther was being shown through the Ford Motor plant in Cleveland recently.
A company official proudly pointed to some new automatically controlled machines and asked Reuther: “How are you going to collect union dues from these guys?”
Reuther replied: “How are you going to get them to buy Fords?”

I remember leaving school in the early 80’s, we really wondered what we were going to do for employment. All the traditional employers were closing and there didn’t seem to be anything else.
By the early 90’s I was working in a cutting edge business,Digital Mapping and Navigation software and hardware, we exported our stuff all over the World, in fact most of our stuff was exported, Including to the US and China (a market that was just starting to open up) this job even the technology didn’t exist when I’d left school less than a decade earlier.
The company did go under and some work especially mapping did go abroad, but I know of many UK and UK based companies that are World leaders. Working in Motorsport you get to see loads of small Hi-tech engineering companies making stuff for the Automotive and Aerospace industry and much of it is exported. But of course the biggest problem they have is finding well educated and qualified people to do the job and develop the next idea. Which is where the Education and apprentience system is letting us down and of course the old fashioned idea that an Engineer works in overalls and is covered in oil and thus the social status of engineers is seen as low. This doesn’t happen in other Countries, Germany being one example.

Mike-C:
Just pull out the EU, we’ll be fine.Switzerland, Finland do fine without being in it. And of course we thrived for hundereds of years before without being in it. EU is mostly good for business thats all, and as business’s grow and go global they do whats best for them, not the UK.

Finland is in the EU, I think you mean Norway. But Norway has a very small population to spread it’s large income from it’s natural resources round.
Also both Norway and Switzerland pay the EU to be part of the EEA and have to abide by certain agreements to gain access to the EU markets.

Furthermore, membership in the EEA is very expensive:
Since 2004, Norway has had to pay close to
227 million euros annually to the EU, about ten
times the past amount. This money is primarily to
help the new EU accession countries to move up,
economically and socially, to the old EU members.
Despite this generous participation in EU politics,
Oslo must accept the decisions on the Internal
Market and implement them in national law. Only by
becoming an EU member could the country have a
voice in EU decision-making.

Switzerland imports more from the EU than it exports.

The EU is Switzerland’s largest trading partner, and Switzerland is the EU’s fourth largest. Switzerland accounts for 5.2% of the EU’s imports; mainly chemicals, medicinal products, machinery, instruments and time pieces. In terms of services, the EU’s exports to Switzerland amounted to €67.0 billion in 2008 while imports from Switzerland stood at €47.2 billion.

The fact is we are in a much stronger position than both Norway and Switzerland because we’re a much bigger populated marketplace for EU exports.‘If’ we were to leave the EU we would just dictate to the EU on our terms in that we won’t accept it’s bs contribution terms,to pay for the east europeans to get rich at our expense,in order to trade with it and we’ll limit our imports from it to those that the EU takes in return,if not less.But fish stocks and North Sea Oil and gas are off the table.

Now let’s see how much bottle and backbone that Tory zb Cameron really has.It’s my guess he’s all mouth and no trousers.

Carryfast:
The fact is we are in a much stronger position than both Norway and Switzerland because we’re a much bigger populated marketplace for EU exports.‘If’ we were to leave the EU we would just dictate to the EU on our terms in that we won’t accept it’s bs contribution terms,to pay for the east europeans to get rich at our expense,in order to trade with it and we’ll limit our imports from it to those that the EU takes in return,if not less.But fish stocks and North Sea Oil and gas are off the table.

Now let’s see how much bottle and backbone that Tory zb Cameron really has.It’s my guess he’s all mouth and no trousers.

Isn’t that roughly where we’re at now?

Mike-C:
But a simplistic, although true overview of the situation is that we have exported jobs, outsourced goods/produce supply, imported labour and are now left with a massive employment problem. Even a 15 year old could work out what we should do, although EU rules prevent us actually doing a lot of it, maybe they call it ‘protectionism’ or something like that.
People tell lies, even officials. It would be hard to believe any official EU import/export figures as so much of this is fiddled. You can see evidence of this on this very forum if you havn’t seen it with your own eyes, trailers leaving with goods sealed and re imported with the same goods and seal intact. The government expected 10000 poles with the accesion of EU states? They made a website specifically for them, so they knew how to apply for work here, they never done that for any others, and luckily Tescos guessed better than the government, they where recruiting there before open day !!!
Of course large corporations pull the governments strings and not voters, so we will go whatever way ‘they’ decide. Pulling containers was quite an eye opener for me as i visisted closed down factories that once employed thousands, or hundreds of workers. I was there to take the machinery they previously used for export to the east. Quite sad when you looked at the empty canteens, massive clocking in rooms etc…all empty waiting demolition. But of course this is already widley known, this is why we’ve never had a referendum on the EU. So what if some can’t enjoy a second home in Spain, there a massive youth employment problem, no sign of it getting better any time soon. Some people think if you don’t want to be in the EU your a racist, or (i can;t think of the word) xenaphobe ? The truth is if we all looked after our own, then that would be the goal for everyone instead of large companies pushing us this way or that way. Everyone could do whats best for them which is not neccasarily at odds with each others aims. Thats the way i see it anyway.

^ +1

Mike-C:

Carryfast:
The fact is we are in a much stronger position than both Norway and Switzerland because we’re a much bigger populated marketplace for EU exports.‘If’ we were to leave the EU we would just dictate to the EU on our terms in that we won’t accept it’s bs contribution terms,to pay for the east europeans to get rich at our expense,in order to trade with it and we’ll limit our imports from it to those that the EU takes in return,if not less.But fish stocks and North Sea Oil and gas are off the table.

Now let’s see how much bottle and backbone that Tory zb Cameron really has.It’s my guess he’s all mouth and no trousers.

Isn’t that roughly where we’re at now?

Not as I know.We’re still in the position of having to pay a fortune in contributions all for the privilege of having a trade deficit with it because we can’t impose import quotas for goods and quotas for services like road transport under EU law and in which they still dictate who takes what and where from our fish stocks,we don’t just limit,what’s left of,our North Sea oil and gas reserves for the home market only,and last but not least we’ve got a totally open cross border labour market in which if the guvnor doesn’t want to pay a uk type wage cost he’ll just get an east european to do the job instead at an east european type wage cost.

And that’s before we even get started on the issue of needing some protectionist policies relating to shutting the door to imports from China etc. :open_mouth: :smiling_imp:

Carryfast:
The price is relevant and there certainly weren’t any shortages of Russian supplied fuel in Yugoslav petrol stations when I was there and the stuff was as cheap as chips compared to the type of post 1973 OPEC led prices which we were paying here and the Yugoslav government wasn’t exactly known for being co operative with Russia.

The prices are not relevant if you have more money than you can spend but you cannot buy anything for it. What the difference is if the fuel is 100 or 300 zł per litre, if you have 40 000 000 in your wallet but you are only allowed to buy 35 litres? And these milions will be worth half of what they are worth today at the end of the month?

I remember that myself, as I am old enough, and I dare to say that this qualifies me better in that matter than you “who happened to be there”. Just another example: I don’t know for Yugoslavia, but if you was as a foreigner in Poland you would not be able to buy ANY fuel until you were able to pay with hard currency. Because goverment was aware that its own money are worth nothing.

But petrol shortages and 200% increases in prices at the pump sounds just like here during and after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo.

I am not saying about petrol prices. I am telling about prices of pretty much everything. OPEC oil crisis is still something different as the price of oil simply shows the basic rule of suppky and demand: when they cut supply, the price has to go up.

It is completely different from the planned economy, when they set some price and keep it there ignoring the reality and out of sudden they realise that it cannot be like that and they want to put it to the level with the real economy…

As you’ll have seen I’m a great believer in the planned economy in the sense that if we’re going to have wage restraint,which we’ve had here since the late 1970’s,then you need price restraint to go with it just as Peter Shore wanted unlike Dennis Healey and all those who’ve followed that stupid zb,or you eventually just end up in a situation whereby most people,except the very rich,can’t afford anything.Which is where we’re headed now with unlimited prices for things like housing,fuel,and food etc etc and limited wages in the sense of if British workers ask for more money to keep up with the cost of living the employers just give send the work to cheap labour countries or import cheap labour instead.

Well, I fully understand you on that. Prices of pretty much everything raised dramatically since we joined EU “to keep up with the rest” but somehow noone was interested “to keep our salaries with the rest”. Maybe if that guy of yours was on that there would be no immigration, as the EEns could earn the same money home?

Where he would get money to do that is another question and pretty much answer to the question “why centrally planned economy must fail” :wink: But I agree that there should be a certain level of goverment influence on it.

So ironically a free market economy can have flaws that can be as bad,if not worse,than a soviet style command economy.However the ironic thing is that with all the free market bs that the bankers shout about they don’t mind circumventing the free market in wage costs when it suits them by using imported cheap labour from outside the country or exporting jobs to cheap labour countries while just taking the bits they want related to a free market in all other types of prices.Which all seems to make the idea of acting in the national interest of a free market economy country a bit of a joke.

The bankers remind me Polish trade union: when they have profit, they share it amongst them, saying “this is private company”. But when the company is at loss, they demand the goverment to help them out :wink:

orys:

Carryfast:
The price is relevant and there certainly weren’t any shortages of Russian supplied fuel in Yugoslav petrol stations when I was there and the stuff was as cheap as chips compared to the type of post 1973 OPEC led prices which we were paying here and the Yugoslav government wasn’t exactly known for being co operative with Russia.

The prices are not relevant if you have more money than you can spend but you cannot buy anything for it. What the difference is if the fuel is 100 or 300 zł per litre, if you have 40 000 000 in your wallet but you are only allowed to buy 35 litres? And these milions will be worth half of what they are worth today at the end of the month?

I remember that myself, as I am old enough, and I dare to say that this qualifies me better in that matter than you “who happened to be there”. Just another example: I don’t know for Yugoslavia, but if you was as a foreigner in Poland you would not be able to buy ANY fuel until you were able to pay with hard currency. Because goverment was aware that its own money are worth nothing.

But petrol shortages and 200% increases in prices at the pump sounds just like here during and after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo.

I am not saying about petrol prices. I am telling about prices of pretty much everything. OPEC oil crisis is still something different as the price of oil simply shows the basic rule of suppky and demand: when they cut supply, the price has to go up.

It is completely different from the planned economy, when they set some price and keep it there ignoring the reality and out of sudden they realise that it cannot be like that and they want to put it to the level with the real economy…

As you’ll have seen I’m a great believer in the planned economy in the sense that if we’re going to have wage restraint,which we’ve had here since the late 1970’s,then you need price restraint to go with it just as Peter Shore wanted unlike Dennis Healey and all those who’ve followed that stupid zb,or you eventually just end up in a situation whereby most people,except the very rich,can’t afford anything.Which is where we’re headed now with unlimited prices for things like housing,fuel,and food etc etc and limited wages in the sense of if British workers ask for more money to keep up with the cost of living the employers just give send the work to cheap labour countries or import cheap labour instead.

Well, I fully understand you on that. Prices of pretty much everything raised dramatically since we joined EU “to keep up with the rest” but somehow noone was interested “to keep our salaries with the rest”. Maybe if that guy of yours was on that there would be no immigration, as the EEns could earn the same money home?

Where he would get money to do that is another question and pretty much answer to the question “why centrally planned economy must fail” :wink: But I agree that there should be a certain level of goverment influence on it.

So ironically a free market economy can have flaws that can be as bad,if not worse,than a soviet style command economy.However the ironic thing is that with all the free market bs that the bankers shout about they don’t mind circumventing the free market in wage costs when it suits them by using imported cheap labour from outside the country or exporting jobs to cheap labour countries while just taking the bits they want related to a free market in all other types of prices.Which all seems to make the idea of acting in the national interest of a free market economy country a bit of a joke.

The bankers remind me Polish trade union: when they have profit, they share it amongst them, saying “this is private company”. But when the company is at loss, they demand the goverment to help them out :wink:

As I remeber it in Yugoslavia at the time all western currency had to be exchanged for local Yugoslav Dinars at government authorised change establishments and western tourists were warned that it was an offence to barter with local traders using western currency.So all purchases of petrol,like everything else,was just like the locals,done with local currency not western currency.I can guarantee that my tank in the car was almost empty when I went in and always full coming out. :smiley: But guess what no shortages and everyone,including the locals,was filling up cars there using cheap Russian petrol that could have been sold just across the border in Italy for (a lot) more.

The fact is virtually everything in a modern economy depends on the price of fuel and the rate of price rises during the 1970’s here proved it.Everything was being kept in some type of stability by continuous wage demands and strikes throughout that period although in the end it caused massive inflation.Which is why Peter Shore was correct in calling for a prices and incomes policy because it’s no good getting a 10% pay rise if prices go up by 15% after.However what we ened up with was the start of what we’ve got now.It’s a free market economy in everything except the cost of labour.

Which is why even the economists are saying that wages have now fallen massively behind prices and the cost of living.Which just means that no one is earning enough to afford to buy anything which means less taxes being paid in and less goods being moved and sold.Which means Dodgy Dave is telling everyone to tighten their belts and work for less ( if they can find a job because the Chinese are doing most of the work to pay for their German imports )and spend less while prices continue to rise and he’s telling everyone that we’ve got to get the economy to grow at the same time and pay more taxes to give to the banks and the EU so they can spend it on making the east europeans richer and paying off Greece’s debts. :unamused: :laughing:

Yeah, but if you had a slight knowledg on the subjec, you would not compare Yugoslavia with the proper Eastern Bloc countries. (knowledge available in wikipedia and in good history books) :wink:

orys:
Yeah, but if you had a slight knowledg on the subjec, you would not compare Yugoslavia with the proper Eastern Bloc countries. (knowledge available in wikipedia and in good history books) :wink:

What I knew of the place,from spending plenty of time there during the Summers in the 1980’s,they had the best of all worlds in that they had the bottle to stand up to Russia early on instead of letting the place walk all over them like many of the others did but even after that the Russians still helped them out as I’ve said with things like fuel supplies and defence.Which is why the Yugoslavs weren’t paying the same as the Italians were for fuel.

Wikipedia seems to confirm most of that but it’s difficult to believe that the Russians would have been so keen on providing cut price fuel and other help in defence hardware etc to Yugoslavia if Yugo was as close to America as Wikipedia seems to say they were ?.Maybe that’s why the Yugoslavs were known for locking up western tourists who they thought might have been taking too many photographs near Yugoslav military bases and the Americans probably weren’t aware of just how much Yugoslavia was still reliant on Russian economic support which wouldn’t be surprising considering that most Americans probably didn’t even know where the place was on the map :open_mouth: :laughing: .

What is relevant though to this discussion about Britain’s relationship with the rest of Europe etc is what Tito said about Yugoslavia’s relationship with Russia etc.

‘’ We are not going to pay the balance on others accounts,we are not going to serve as pocket money in anyone’s currency exchange,we are not going to allow ourselves to become entangled in political spheres of interest,why should it be held against our people’s that they want to be completely independent,and why should autonomy be restricted or the subject of dispute ‘’.In other words he was saying the same thing about Yugoslavia being tied to a ‘Union’ with Russia as I’m saying about Britain being tied to a ‘Union’ with Europe.

In simple terms he was saying zb em.It’s just that the Yugoslavs obviously had more bottle in standing up to the commie zb’s after WW2 than Poland etc obviously had and more bottle than Dodgy Dave’s got in standing up for Britain’s interests in the brave new EU and in the global ‘free market’ economy.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Rep … iro_period

muckles:

Conor:

chicane:
They say 40% of our exports go to EU countries therefore 60% goes elsewhere, we also import way more from EU countries than we export to them so in reality without the UK the other EU countries would be even more stuffed than they are already.

But 40% of our exports don’t necessarily go to the EU. The problem we have is that all our exports that end up going via Rotterdam are classed as EU exports even if their actual destination is outside the EU such as Russia.

So that’s how it’s worked out, so therefore does it follow that all those imports we are supposed to get from the EU are just because the container went to Rotterdam?

Correct. It is known as the “Rotterdam Effect” - Google is your friend. It goes like this:

All Trade passing through Rotterdam and Antwerp is included in the United Kingdom Balance of Payments data and will be shown against the Netherlands and Belgium, respectively, where they are the originating country of dispatch (for UK imports) and/or the country of ultimate destination (for UK exports).

Complications can occur in EU trade when dealing with the “Rotterdam Effect”. Some goods might be declared at an earlier than (final) country of dispatch and/or destination. Principally, the “Rotterdam Effect” causes imports and exports to be attributed to the country of transit as opposed to the “real” partner country.

Carryfast:
What I knew of the place,from spending plenty of time there during the Summers in the 1980’s,they had the best of all worlds in that they had the bottle to stand up to Russia early on instead of letting the place walk all over them like many of the others did

There is also one aspect of this case you seems to be missing: compare Geographical location of Yugoslavia with geographical location of the other countries, which were laying in so called by Russians “close abroad”, which was natural for them that it has to be their sphere of influence, kind of buffer guarding them from the west. This knowledge is available on any map of Europe.

So the other countries had the bottle as you call it to stand against USSR as well (to mention just Berlin events in 1948, Poland underground fighters and many others) but here Stalin was decided to keep them quiet. He was not to keen to be bothered about some country far away from his, especially that the Yalta agreements he wasn’t expected to have so much influence over them as he had over Poland for example.

The case of the Yugoslavia is also interesting for us for one reason: as long as everything was good there, everyone was happy to be together. When the crisis came, the nationalistic tensions started to take over and we all know the result.

You see the pattern here?
Soviet Union: When the union gets in trouble, nationalism win → mess
Yugoslavia: When the union gets in trouble, nationalism win → mess
European Union: When the union gets in trouble… [WE ARE HERE]

orys:

Carryfast:
What I knew of the place,from spending plenty of time there during the Summers in the 1980’s,they had the best of all worlds in that they had the bottle to stand up to Russia early on instead of letting the place walk all over them like many of the others did

There is also one aspect of this case you seems to be missing: compare Geographical location of Yugoslavia with geographical location of the other countries, which were laying in so called by Russians “close abroad”, which was natural for them that it has to be their sphere of influence, kind of buffer guarding them from the west. This knowledge is available on any map of Europe.

So the other countries had the bottle as you call it to stand against USSR as well (to mention just Berlin events in 1948, Poland underground fighters and many others) but here Stalin was decided to keep them quiet. He was not to keen to be bothered about some country far away from his, especially that the Yalta agreements he wasn’t expected to have so much influence over them as he had over Poland for example.

The case of the Yugoslavia is also interesting for us for one reason: as long as everything was good there, everyone was happy to be together. When the crisis came, the nationalistic tensions started to take over and we all know the result.

You see the pattern here?
Soviet Union: When the union gets in trouble, nationalism win → mess
Yugoslavia: When the union gets in trouble, nationalism win → mess
European Union: When the union gets in trouble… [WE ARE HERE]

The facts seem to show that Russia has always had a large interest in the Balkans.Cuba wasn’t in any way geographically close to Russia but it almost started WW3 by (trying to) do the same thing there as it tried to do in all of the other places where it had an interest with government’s that were sympathetic to it and there’s no evidence to show that Russia’s intentions in Yugoslavia were any different to it’s intentions in all the other places where it felt that it was in it’s interests to do so.

The only difference in the case of Yugo was that it’s government and regular forces,led by Tito,wasn’t either sympathetic to,and/or intimidated by,Stalin and Russia’s power and in the case of Yugoslavia Russia wasn’t just up against paramilitary irregular ‘underground’ movements,working against sympathetic (to Russia and it’s leadership) goverments and regular forces,as in the case of most of the other places where Russia had an interest such as those Polish underground fighters and Cuban dissidents who zb’d up the bay of pigs invasion of Cuba.

The interesting bit is how Tito managed to get support,according to wiki, from places like America :question: :confused: ,while still keeping the beneficial parts of it’s relationship with Russia like fuel supplies and armaments for it’s armed forces.I can certainly remember sitting on Yugoslav beaches and the peace was often shattered by Yugoslav Air Force,Russian supplied MiG aircraft,patrolling the coastline certainly not US supplied ones,all powered by cheap subsidised Russian supplied fuel,just like Yugoslav transport was. :laughing:

However those nationalistic tensions were always there regardless of wether times were good or bad and that was Tito’s mistake in forcing different ethnic groups together that should always have been kept apart and it’s no coincidence,or surprise,that the lid eventually blew off the place after he’d gone.

However regardless of all that you seem to be saying that any British ideas of going it alone and looking after itself and it’s own interests in some way has the same potential,for causing the type of ethnic strife in Europe,as that caused by the social experiment of trying to make the different Balkan states into one country :question: :confused: and it wouldn’t be the first time that the European dream believers have made the case that if we don’t want to accept the idea of merging the seperate nations of Europe into a Federal Union then the only alternative is war between them all instead.

It seems ironic that the ex Yugoslavia almost went to war with Russia to defend it’s independence from the Soviet sphere of influence and run the place in it’s own interests no one else’s,then went to war with itself to return the sperate states that made up the Federation of Yugoslavia to independence as sovereign states,and now are falling over themselves to enter into a new type of interdependent,possibly federal in future,European Union.

Maybe because,like the acceptance of that cheap Russian fuel etc,after telling Russia to zb off,they don’t really care too much just so long as they see a financial advantage in it.My question is would they,and Poland etc,be as keen on the financial interdependence of Europe if European membership was costing them more than it was worth to them and if Britain was no longer a member ?.

Because without us it may be a case of Germany having to ask the new east european entrant states for all the money back that they’ve so far recieved from the EU to help Germany to bail out Greece etc instead of being able to ask those mug British to pay even more into the EU than we have so far.That’s assuming that Germany hasn’t got the sense to join us in leaving the place as well.In which case you can bet that there wouldn’t be many east europeans queueing up at the border with Greece looking for a job there.

Carryfast:
Cuba wasn’t in any way geographically close to Russia but it almost started WW3 by (trying to) do the same thing there as it tried to do in all of the other places where it had an interest with government’s that were sympathetic to it and there’s no evidence to show that Russia’s intentions in Yugoslavia were any different to it’s intentions in all the other places where it felt that it was in it’s interests to do so.

Cuba was not close to Russia, but was close to… (map will help you). And as such it was a perfect place to store nuclear weapon. This is what Cuban crisis was about.

If you don’t see the evidence that Russian interest in Yugoslavia were different than, for example, in Eastern Germany, I don’t think it’s worth to continue this discussion.

The only difference in the case of Yugo was that it’s government and regular forces,led by Tito,wasn’t either sympathetic to,and/or intimidated by,Stalin and Russia’s power and in the case of Yugoslavia Russia wasn’t just up against paramilitary irregular ‘underground’ movements,working against sympathetic (to Russia and it’s leadership) goverments and regular forces,as in the case of most of the other places where Russia had an interest such as those Polish underground fighters and Cuban dissidents who zb’d up the bay of pigs invasion of Cuba.

Google “WÅ‚adysÅ‚aw GomuÅ‚ka” to gain more knowledge about other Eastern Bloc goverments who decided to choose their own path to the communism - just as Tito did. The only difference is a scale of abbrevation allowed by the USSR, which brings us back to square one - Yugoslavia not did more because their people were braver, but because their international position and situation allowed them to gain more independence from Moscow and it would mean for Stalin to reach too far if he wanted to put them back on track and he wasn’t willing to go for it.

My question is would they,and Poland etc,be as keen on the financial interdependence of Europe if European membership was costing them more than it was worth to them and if Britain was no longer a member ?.

Off course, maybe you have not noticed, since yous are not too interested in international Politics, but Britain is not main concern of Polish foreign policy for quite few years now.

As for the Polish stand: economist.com/node/21540683

Because without us it may be a case of Germany having to ask the new east european entrant states for all the money back that they’ve so far recieved from the EU to help Germany to bail out Greece etc instead of being able to ask those mug British to pay even more into the EU than we have so far.That’s assuming that Germany hasn’t got the sense to join us in leaving the place as well.In which case you can bet that there wouldn’t be many east europeans queueing up at the border with Greece looking for a job there.

See, the point is that thanks to the money they poured into Eastern Europe, they have such a big economcial growth - because of the trade exchange, because of the cheap manufacturing of their goods etc etc etc. They would not as anything back, because for them investition in Eastern Europe has already paid back with the ■■■■ margin of profit. If your goverment wasn’t able to gain anything from its investitions in EU, well, don’t blame me.

As an outside observer Britain looks for me as it sits over the fence in a way which has to hurt: they pay everything they are obligated to do so, but they refuse to get into many benefitial agreements… No wonder that people are not too happy with your membership in the EU at this basis.

I am all for the European Union, but it has to be done properly. Todays politians try to stay on the surface in a small gap between national states and union, but you can’t be here forever. Either you go to the one side, or to another. I think the EU as a form of federation with common rules and institution for everyone would be benefitial for everyone, but there is still long way to do that. And if the nationalist thinking win, then it would be much better for everyone if we just scrap the whole idea instead of trying to keep the mutant we have at the moment alive.

orys:

Carryfast:
Cuba wasn’t in any way geographically close to Russia but it almost started WW3 by (trying to) do the same thing there as it tried to do in all of the other places where it had an interest with government’s that were sympathetic to it and there’s no evidence to show that Russia’s intentions in Yugoslavia were any different to it’s intentions in all the other places where it felt that it was in it’s interests to do so.

Cuba was not close to Russia, but was close to… (map will help you). And as such it was a perfect place to store nuclear weapon. This is what Cuban crisis was about.

If you don’t see the evidence that Russian interest in Yugoslavia were different than, for example, in Eastern Germany, I don’t think it’s worth to continue this discussion.

The only difference in the case of Yugo was that it’s government and regular forces,led by Tito,wasn’t either sympathetic to,and/or intimidated by,Stalin and Russia’s power and in the case of Yugoslavia Russia wasn’t just up against paramilitary irregular ‘underground’ movements,working against sympathetic (to Russia and it’s leadership) goverments and regular forces,as in the case of most of the other places where Russia had an interest such as those Polish underground fighters and Cuban dissidents who zb’d up the bay of pigs invasion of Cuba.

Google “WÅ‚adysÅ‚aw GomuÅ‚ka” to gain more knowledge about other Eastern Bloc goverments who decided to choose their own path to the communism - just as Tito did. The only difference is a scale of abbrevation allowed by the USSR, which brings us back to square one - Yugoslavia not did more because their people were braver, but because their international position and situation allowed them to gain more independence from Moscow and it would mean for Stalin to reach too far if he wanted to put them back on track and he wasn’t willing to go for it.

My question is would they,and Poland etc,be as keen on the financial interdependence of Europe if European membership was costing them more than it was worth to them and if Britain was no longer a member ?.

Off course, maybe you have not noticed, since yous are not too interested in international Politics, but Britain is not main concern of Polish foreign policy for quite few years now.

As for the Polish stand: economist.com/node/21540683

Because without us it may be a case of Germany having to ask the new east european entrant states for all the money back that they’ve so far recieved from the EU to help Germany to bail out Greece etc instead of being able to ask those mug British to pay even more into the EU than we have so far.That’s assuming that Germany hasn’t got the sense to join us in leaving the place as well.In which case you can bet that there wouldn’t be many east europeans queueing up at the border with Greece looking for a job there.

See, the point is that thanks to the money they poured into Eastern Europe, they have such a big economcial growth - because of the trade exchange, because of the cheap manufacturing of their goods etc etc etc. They would not as anything back, because for them investition in Eastern Europe has already paid back with the ■■■■ margin of profit. If your goverment wasn’t able to gain anything from its investitions in EU, well, don’t blame me.

As an outside observer Britain looks for me as it sits over the fence in a way which has to hurt: they pay everything they are obligated to do so, but they refuse to get into many benefitial agreements… No wonder that people are not too happy with your membership in the EU at this basis.

I am all for the European Union, but it has to be done properly. Todays politians try to stay on the surface in a small gap between national states and union, but you can’t be here forever. Either you go to the one side, or to another. I think the EU as a form of federation with common rules and institution for everyone would be benefitial for everyone, but there is still long way to do that. And if the nationalist thinking win, then it would be much better for everyone if we just scrap the whole idea instead of trying to keep the mutant we have at the moment alive.

Why do you think that any disagreement,with your case that the Balkans weren’t considered as strategically important to Russia,isn’t worth discussing ?.At the time in question Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union and as such,if it was all about distance from the Soviet Border to Western held territory and NATO military forces,then Yugoslavia was as close,if not closer,to the Soviet borders as East Germany was.Which seems to be confirmed by the fact that Russia thought it was important enough to threaten Yugoslavia with invasion when Tito refused to co operate with Stalin’s agenda for the area.

I think that you’re trying to make excuses for the difference between governments and forces in eastern europe that were more sympathetic to Russia at the time,than that of Yugoslavia,by putting the blame on geography instead,when the fact is if the Russian military was happy to put down the rebellion in Hungary then it wouldn’t have thought twice about running a few more miles down the road into Yugoslavia.However after all that it’s obvious that Yugoslavia then returned to a more sympathetic line with Russia by refusing to join NATO and the re arming with Russian supplied equipment and then facing,not co operating with,NATO forces in the Adriatic.Probably not surprising considering all that cheap fuel etc that they were getting from Russia :laughing:.

It seems a bit ironic that although Britain isn’t a concern of Poland that so many of the Polish population seem to be voting with their feet by coming here to work instead of staying in Poland to keep contributing to all that money that Germany is supposed to be getting from them and if Germany has made such a big profit on the original EU ‘investments’ (subsidies) to the East European states why is it calling on us to help bail out the losers in the EU like Italy and Greece etc even though we’re in the zb ourselves and don’t seem to have any of those ‘profits’ showing on our balance of payments with the EU :open_mouth: :imp: .

The reason why we don’t ‘get into’ those so called ‘beneficial agreements’ is because we know by now,since the start of our membership,that the other members aren’t in it for our benefit and won’t agree to anything that’s beneficial to us,unlike they do with Germany and France.That also isn’t helped by our own government that say one thing,about looking after the country’s interests in europe,and do another,usually to the benefit of those other members,like Germany and France,and now the East Europeans,anyway.

But it seems obvious what it is that you’re calling for.You want a Federal United States of Europe which I don’t think is what was on the table when we originally joined the EEC in 1973 just as supporting the east european states at that time and having loads of east european workers coming here lowering wage rates wasn’t. :smiling_imp: :imp: .

Carryfast:
Why do you think that any disagreement,with your case that the Balkans weren’t considered as strategically important to Russia,isn’t worth discussing ?

It’s not the question of subject, it’s a question of your absolute lack of understanding of it and unwillingness to accept that there were significant differences. I am not making excuses, I am providing you with the fact, but your attitude do not allows any facts, as you have your opinion ready and accept only facts supporting it. Therefore I think further discussion with you is futile.

It seems a bit ironic that although Britain isn’t a concern of Poland that so many of the Polish population seem to be voting with their feet by coming here to work instead of staying in Poland to keep contributing to all that money that Germany is supposed to be getting from them and if Germany has made such a big profit on the original EU ‘investments’ (subsidies) to the East European states why is it calling on us to help bail out the losers in the EU like Italy and Greece etc even though we’re in the zb ourselves and don’t seem to have any of those ‘profits’ showing on our balance of payments with the EU :open_mouth: :imp: .

See, what I mean: you are dragging immigration to everything. Why UK should be out of interest, everything is all right between our countries, you are not the bigger investor or trade partner, and you are no longer main player in EU at your own wish. So what should we discuss? Yes, there are 1000s of Poles here, but they doing well and you don’t have much problems with this as well, I can’t see why amount of emigration should be main factor deciding about directions of our foreing policy.

But it seems obvious what it is that you’re calling for.You want a Federal United States of Europe which I don’t think is what was on the table when we originally joined the EEC in 1973 just as supporting the east european states at that time and having loads of east european workers coming here lowering wage rates wasn’t. :smiling_imp: :imp: .

Maybe it is something new for you, but the situation changes, many factors change and that call for the new solutions :wink:

Off course you see only things you want see so for you EU is only about Britons paying money to other countries… :wink: This is another reason why disusion with you is futile, as you are unable to see benefits UK has from its membership in EU. (even if there are smaller than costs, as some EU sceptic claim, there has to be some, don’t you think?)

Good night :wink:

I agree with you Carryfast in respect of what the UK joined in 1973 is a total different thing to what it is now and given the choice today I think most peoe would be pro having trade agreements etc but not pro what we have now.
Europe isn’t the USA we as nations are very different and the argument that the new eu nations economy will get up to speed with the more established economy is a joke as we are now seeing the traditionally more poor nations of the established eu the PIGS have come unstick closely followed by Italy. Then when the economy picks up and it looks like the east is booming the eu will let Turkey join for more cheap labour.

kr79:
I agree with you Carryfast in respect of what the UK joined in 1973 is a total different thing to what it is now and given the choice today I think most peoe would be pro having trade agreements etc but not pro what we have now.
Europe isn’t the USA we as nations are very different and the argument that the new eu nations economy will get up to speed with the more established economy is a joke as we are now seeing the traditionally more poor nations of the established eu the PIGS have come unstick closely followed by Italy. Then when the economy picks up and it looks like the east is booming the eu will let Turkey join for more cheap labour.

Notice how the issue of bailing out Greece and Italy etc all seems to revolve around Britain having to agree yet again to putting even more in even though we can’t even support our own industrial growth and puplic sector,and we’re all having to tighten our belts.

But how much of the problem in Greece,Italy and here has actually been caused by EU money,that should have been kept in the bank,for a rainy day in western europe,being given to eastern europe to grow their economies from a broken ex eastern bloc heap,to the point they are now compared to places like Portugal and Greece etc which are going backwards with us not far behind.

As usual though it’s the Germans who seem to be the least affected by the financial zb storm that seems to be hitting us harder than them so no surprises there.We saw exactly the same thing in the 1970’s even though we were swimming in North Sea oil and the Germans weren’t.

orys:
you see only things you want see so for you EU is only about Britons paying money to other countries… :wink: you are unable to see benefits UK has from its membership in EU. (even if there are smaller than costs, as some EU sceptic claim, there has to be some, don’t you think?)

Maybe you could identify exactly what they are based on our contributions to and our trade deficit with the EU.That’s even before taking into account other issues like fishing quotas and allowance of foreign fishing in British sea areas and the inability to impose quotas on EU imports and road transport service provision etc etc etc.

orys:
‘…Of course you see only things you want see so for you EU is only about Britons paying money to other countries…’

What’s the point in trying to see myself as Greek, Irish, Spanish, etc, etc? What do I want with a moussaka,
red wine & Guinness? Why should I envy their otherwise commendable & beautiful lives?

orys:
‘…discussion with you is futile, as you are unable to see benefits UK has from its membership in EU…’

And these ‘…benefits…’ are what? ‘They’ (whatever ‘they’ are) are surely not so sacred that they
cannot be courteously learned from and honed to suit the UK a bit better.

orys:
‘…benefits … there has to be some, don’t you think…?’

No: There’s supposed ‘benefit’ from having flu (in as much as it inoculates one against that strain for the future
and it kills off the weak)but I’d rather the UK did not have it in the first place.

So, when do you think the war will start?

limeyphil:
So, when do you think the war will start?

I’ve sent orys a note explaining that unless Poland and all the other parasites in Europe are prepared to hand back all of the subsidies they’ve so far received from the EU funds that we’ve been mug enough to give them and all east european immigrant labour here had gone home by 11.00 this morning this country would be at war with Europe.I can tell you now that no such undertaking has been received so consequently this country is now at war with Poland.
And Germany And France. :open_mouth: :laughing: :laughing: