The cost of post Brexit sterling crash

[Guest rael]

FunsterJohn - 2020-01-30 11:40 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-27 7:48 PM

 

FunsterJohn - 2020-01-26 6:47 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-26 7:36 PM

FunsterJohn - 2020-01-26 6:16 PM

Brian Kirby - 2020-01-26 6:58 PM

FunsterJohn - 2020-01-26 5:43 PM...…………….... Take away a small number of bricks and the edifice will collapse.

To be replaced by what, exactly, were that to happen?

A Common Market of trading nations. You know, what we signed up for originally.

But we didn't, did we? It was Margaret Thatcher who persuaded the (somewhat reluctant) EEC to introduce the Single Market and the Customs Union, before which a "Common Market" proper didn't exist. What we joined was the "European Economic Community", which was never the "Common Market" it was sold to the UK electorate as being. It was clever, 'though hollow, packaging for something that was even much more than a mere "Common Market". Look at the statements of its founders. See here: http://tinyurl.com/hy4k8ls Second paragraph under the heading "Background" refers. I do hope you didn't vote remain under that misapprehension in '75! :-)

 

I think you know what I mean. A trading conglomerate without the waste of two parliamentary locations, massive expenditure, corruption on a huge scale, courts that override ours and a currency that disadvantages poorer nations who have no control over their exchange rates.

 

If we'd had such an arrangement there'd probably have been no ground swell to leave.

In truth no, I don't know what you mean.

 

I'll accept the two parliamentary locations (though I have great doubts over the proposed move of the HOL to York on similar grounds).

 

I don't understand your objection to "massive expenditure", or to what, of that expenditure, it is that you abject.

 

Corruption is a serious problem, but it is highly debatable, given the historic background of the nation states involved, that its scale would be any different in a 2020 EEC than it is in a 2020 EU. If you got your wish to revert to the EEC, sadly, I suspect you would still have the same complaint.

 

Courts that overrule ours? Which courts? Overrule how? To my knowledge there are two. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The ECJ had been formed 20 years before we joined the EEC, so was part of the deal, and the ECHR has nothing to do with the EEC/EU having been formed in 1959 by the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founder member (1949). With a group of individual nation states all indulging in "free trade", which logically implies common standards and freedom from non-tariff barriers, there must be a pan-national referee. The ECJ is that referee.

 

Yes the currency benefits the richer states and disadvantages the less rich states. However, adopting the Euro is optional - in that those who don't want to take it up don't have to join the EU. It is noteworthy that Montenegro and Kosovo have voluntarily adopted the Euro though neither is rich or a member of the EU, and that 22 other countries have pegged their currencies to it. Its advantage seems to be its greater stability which is beneficial to international trade - a factor I assume the states adopting it have taken into account.

 

So, to return to my point, how would the collapse of the EU be beneficial overall? It would bring in chaos on a grand scale, but little more that I can see, and as to the prospects for reducing corruption in that world...……………………………………………..???

 

Yes, the ECJ was there when we joined, but so what? That's why people like me want to leave the EU, to rid ourselves of the parts of it that we don't like.

 

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws

 

There are many reasons that I wanted us to leave, control of our borders being one, regaining lost jobs in Britain's fishing industry is another. I don't want every Albanian pimp or Latvian rapist to have unfettered access to my country. I want to decide whom we let in.

 

I don't want to splash out billions to support this empire whose objective appears to be greater federalism. You brush off the twin parliament fiasco with a remark about York. You know that will never happen but I don't recollect that proposal being about packing up the entire House of Lords and moving it to York and every six months packing it up again to go back to London.

 

As for chaos if the EU finally decides that the game is up, why should there be chaos? Is there chaos now because we're going? It can be managed.

 

Finally, the world should be moving to greater individual freedom for its nations. Why should Kosovo have been part of Serbia when 90% of its population is Albanian? Why can't Catalonia be independent? And yes, if Scotland wants to break up the Union, let them. We can still have trading agreements without the need for the overweening and overbearing EU.

Interesting line.."I don't want every Albanian pimp or Latvian rapist to have unfettered access to my country" Is that because we have enough British ones already?

Oh well, suppose it make a change from blaming the Poles for everything. I smell xenophobia.