EU referendum deal (title edited)

Len Rum said:
It hardly touches the issue of benefits. A four year graduated reduction of in work benefits over a one off seven year period (emergency brake) and then after this we can't apply these reductions again( I'm still not sure whether we have to get permission from the other member states for the emergency brake).
The impact on the numbers of migrant workers will be minimal and it will save about 2s/6d.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine it will actually cost a fortune when the minimum wage rises to a living wage, assuming cost of living will rise and welfare payments will rise accordingly.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
Not true!
Click to expand...
Peace and security in Western Europe has ensued because of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, all military decisions,
all major purchases, every military exercise, has been within the remit of that organisation. There is no separate group
within the EU cooperating on defence, to my knowledge, and even if there were it would not overule any NATO directives.
Whether we're in or out of the EU, our security has nothing to do with it.
 
For all the deluded outers who think there is a raft of countries desperately lining up to do business with good old Blighty.
A reality check.

This Op Ed by Gareth Evans (Foreign Minister of Australia from 1988 to 1996)

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...JDJLPv6sbFu.99

kicks off in fine style:

"One of the most bizarre arguments made by the people who support Britain’s exit from the European Union is the notion that a self-exiled UK will find a new global relevance, and indeed leadership role, as the center of the “Anglosphere.”
(...)
"Perhaps I am just a jaundiced colonial, but let me count the ways this all seems to me to be a fantasy. The basic problem for Anglosphere advocates is that none of the candidates for membership of this new club are likely to have the slightest interest – geostrategic, economic or political – in joining it."

and finishes strong:

"Probably the hardest truth that Britain’s Anglosphere dreamers must confront is that there is just no mood politically, in any of the candidate countries of which I’m aware, to build some new global association of the linguistically and culturally righteous. We just don’t particularly think of ourselves as Anglo any more."
 
CityStu said:
I'd imagine it will actually cost a fortune when the minimum wage rises to a living wage, assuming cost of living will rise and welfare payments will rise accordingly.
Click to expand...
Ok, 3s/6d,and for a one off seven years only, subject to agreement by other member states(?), and then only if there's an 'r ' in the month.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
To say its got 'nothing' to do with the EU, merely demonstrates an inability on your part to think objectively about the subject matter, AC.

It could be said its role was partial, minor or even nugatory (I'd disagree with all three) but to say that a union of nations, created with the express and enduring intention of closer co-operation, that has survived intact for over 60 years, in a period of unprecedented peace for our continent that is broadly concurrent with those 60 years, are completely unconnected, is absurd and as ridiculous as suggesting NATO played no role in that peace either.
Click to expand...
Morning Gord, let's just say bollox to the FA cup, before this chat.
Partial, minor or nugatory, of those three adjectives, I'd say that the last one is the only one I'd concede. At no stage during the inception
of the common market was defence ever a basis for closer economic cooperation, as NATO had already covered the eventuality of aggression against
Europe. What you seem to assume, and I can understand why, is that if we're all holding hands and cooperating economically with each other, then the threat
of fighting amongst ourselves is less likely. This is true, but at the first sign of aggression from Russia re the Ukraine, or the migration
crisis, this so called safety has been blown apart, as borders are erected by EU members, and squabbling is still continuing.
Do you honestly believe that this country will be less safe because we've decided to quit a Europe dominated by a federalist Germany?
I don't, our membership of NATO continues, the EU has no defence strategy, and is irrelevant concerning defence.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
Morning Gord, let's just say bollox to the FA cup, before this chat.
Partial, minor or nugatory, of those three adjectives, I'd say that the last one is the only one I'd concede. At no stage during the inception
of the common market was defence ever a basis for closer economic cooperation, as NATO had already covered the eventuality of aggression against
Europe. What you seem to assume, and I can understand why, is that if we're all holding hands and cooperating economically with each other, then the threat
of fighting amongst ourselves is less likely. This is true, but at the first sign of aggression from Russia re the Ukraine, or the migration
crisis, this so called safety has been blown apart, as borders are erected by EU members, and squabbling is still continuing.
Do you honestly believe that this country will be less safe because we've decided to quit a Europe dominated by a federalist Germany?
I don't, our membership of NATO continues, the EU has no defence strategy, and is irrelevant concerning defence.
Click to expand...
Morning AC; yes bollocks to the FA Cup :-)

Securing peace is about a combination of dialogue and co-operation with military force. You seem to feel its merely down to the latter. 'Jaw jaw' can be just as effective as the threat of 'war-war'.

My answer to your question is ultimately, yes, as it will make Europe less stable and secure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.