Yes, the anti-EU parties did get a surge but they are still only about 50 MEPs out of 732! Add to this the fact that the continental "eurosceptics" take the position of "reform from within" it leaves about 12-15 MEPs working to remove their countries from the EU - and 12 of those are, no surprise, from the UK.
Nighthawk is right, the people of the UK have never voted on it - and polls show they would reject it even in spite of a mass of eu propaganda issued forth via and by the Government.
We agreed, in 1975, to a free trade agreement - that is all; or, at least, that was what was presented as fact.
Nighthawk is also right when he speaks of the political elite over here, the ruling class of politicians...
They have violated oaths, broken the law of treason and violated the British Constitution. Parliament, according to our laws, cannot bind its successors and cannot yield supremacy through treaties etc. It is unlawful!
So, technically, we are not legitimately in the EU.
We had Dick Morris (President Clinton's campaign manager) over here on a debate programme a few days ago - out of a panel of Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers he was the only one defending our sovereignty. And he got a lot if unkind things said to him. This shows you the true colours of our ruling class. It is, I think, getting quite scary.
I think, JB, many people do not care and are certainly ignorant. Few have a clue about the nature of the EU and what we lose in being in it.
This thread is about trade/economics - let me tell you the EU (starting off with the promise of trade) is the *worst* institution for trade and economy that has ever existed - we are losing billions as a country every year and it will only get worse the further we integrate!
I've recently added some of the economic statistics to my ongoing essay on the EU at: https://www.freedom-central.net/euandbritain.html
I don't want my country to be enslaved. Please *do* tell any UK friends you may have about this essay - and, if you know anyone in the US who is willing to help financially then have them contact ukip.org - our country is being taken over.
As in the War of Independence, the people of Britain do not support the Government in this thing.
International Level: Junior Politician / Political Participation: 100 10%
Wasn't the original idea behind the "common market" to allow the smaller European countries to compete on more even footing with larger countries like the US and the then Soviet Union? In that capacity it does seem to be working. Look at the value of the Euro vs the dollar for example.
However, I think where it is flawed is in the fact that you can't take a group of small nations, each with there own agenda and separate wants, needs and even leaders, lump them together and think they will act in a manner similar to what a larger country would. The problem is that a large country is still just one country with one group of leaders, one "people" so to speak, so there is much more common need/desire. Only the interests and goals of that one country are of concern.
The European Union is a group of individual countries. Each with their own sovereignty, their own leaders, and each country has it's own societal fabric to which it's citizens adhere. How can you ever really work such a body in a manner that satisfies the needs of each of these countries successfully. Naturally, each country does whatever it can to protect the interests of their own citizens. They really don't have a common purpose because I don't think just economics is enough to draw people together.
Edited: tenaheff on 21st Sep, 2004 - 4:05pm
International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 32%
U.S. EXPORTERS NOT HAPPY WITH CONGRESS
While record trade deficits and lost manufacturing jobs are campaign issues, U.S. exporters are fuming because Congress has yet to change corporate tax laws that threaten their sales in Europe, America's biggest foreign market.
Free Trade can be very good, when observed for equal benefit. Quota/Visa requirements are good when a country wants to protect one of its strongest markets - especially a small country that produces only a few items and a larger country can flood that market with the same items for very little charge. Here are a few Free Trade Agreements that the United States has:
U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Information
The US-CFTA provides for the elimination of the merchandise processing fee (MPF) and the immediate or staged elimination of duties and barriers to bilateral trade in goods and services originating in the United States and/or Chile.
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
The purposes of this Act are-
(1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement
between the United States and the Republic of Singapore
entered into under the authority of section 2103(B) of the Bipartisan
Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002;
(2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between
the United States and Singapore for their mutual benefit;
(3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through
the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods
and services and to investment; and
(4) to lay the foundation for further coop
AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act)
Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA)/Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA)
Beneficiary Countries of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA)
The CBTPA defines a "CBTPA beneficiary country" as any CBERA beneficiary country that the President also designates as a beneficiary country for purposes of preferential tariff treatment under 19 USC 2703(B)(3).
Antigua and Barbuda
St. Kitts and Nevis
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
British Virgin Island
Jordan Free Trade Agreement (JFTA)
International Level: New Activist / Political Participation: 14 1.4%
From my thinking, free trade is only something that we can strive for but I'm not sure it can exist anytime in our lifetime. There are many barriers that exist. When developed countries trade with developing countries currently, issues such as safety regulations, environmental protection, and living wage make the playing field uneven. Here in the U.S., corporations are finding it difficult to keep pace with labor from foreign countries where the workforce is willing to work under conditions far different than mandated here. Other nations such as China gain an immediate advantage because they can provide cheap labor. So, the jobs go to China while the consumers remain in the U.S. This leaves the U.S. importing more from China than exporting to China. This won't start to balance out until the Chinese gain enough wealth to become consumers of other nation's products. And when that market stabilizes, it will benefit everyone. So to me, the question isn't whether free trade is a good thing. The question is, how quickly should it be allowed to happen?
I believe the WTO has overlooked some key issues with respect to free trade. For example, if no environmental regulation standard is placed on trading nations, who will pay the consequences later? Booming Chinese industry could effect weather, ground water, and air quality for the people of China and surrounding nations. Is it fair trade if the UK requires safeguards on all of it's machinery that adds cost to products but saves lives, while other nations don't require the same safeguards? Should the U.S. be allowed to place lofty standards on incoming crops that force poorer nations to trade at a disadvantage? I'm of the opinion that basic standards in these areas should have been set to trade in the world community so that corporate benefit doesn't outweigh individual human rights. What does everyone else think of the World Trade Organization agreements?
|QUOTE (dubhdara @ 18-Jun 04, 6:22 PM)|
|I think trade is fair when it is truly free. When governmental "bodies" start getting involved they will inavriably favour one country or set of countries over another. The best way to keep things fair is to have independence, to decentralise rather than centralise.|
International Level: Activist / Political Participation: 29 2.9%
Bush warns protectionism will cost U.S. jobs
President ramps up free trade blitz amid flagging support for new pacts. Alarmed by slipping support for free trade even among Republicans, President Bush is arguing that protectionism will cut Americans out of chances for more - and better - jobs.
With a global marketplace free trade will eventually make it thought it might hurt many before the benefits are seen. I am thinking of artificially made markets that are heavily subsidized such as dairy farmers. For a country to go to free trade then I think first they need to get the free market concept in their country to work first. It will be hard for all just in different ways.
International Level: Senior Politician / Political Participation: 188 18.8%