# f*ck off europe!



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

we voted for a common market not a state... so fuck off!
we voted for a community, not a state, so we dont need a constitution,.. so fuck off!
i dont want my vote to be diluted a million fold in a state i dont want .....so fuck off
i like my pound, dont want a euro... so fuck off!
why cant we cooparate on trade, security and harmonising law 
do we have to "get married" to achieve it?.. no! ..so fuck off!
did all the men who died in wars to preserve our identity and in order for us not to be ruled by foreign powers die in vain? i hope not ..so europe..FUCK OFF!


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

did someone say fuck off ?


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Now there's a good example of xenophobia. Impressive.


----------



## Matthew (Oct 6, 2003)

I couldn't give a toss about the pound itself - It's only money. Who cares what picture it has on the note or what the coin looks like? It's never in my pocket for more than an hour anyway before someone demands their slice of the pie and I have to give it up.

I don't get this attachment to the pound - So many people seem to be confusing that with a potential entire change in the prcing of goods in our country. If someone is against adopting the Euro due to the affect it will have on our country's financial wellbeing and our daily lives, jobs etc. - Fine, that's their opinion and they are rightly entitled to it, but those simply attached the the design of the note and being able to refer to it as "The Pound" who can't see further than "I want to keep those lovely notes with the Queen's head on it" need to just find something more important to worry about. Because there are a LOT more things to be concerned about today.

Did we see complaints when the 1/2p coin went? What about when we changed the picture on the Fiver and got rid of the Â£1 note.


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

I wouldn't worry about the Queen's head on your money. When President Bliar makes the UK a republic you won't have to worry about money any more.

Obviously the British people cannot be trusted with money. Therefore President Bliar will collect all wages and salaries in at source and give everyone a little bit of pocket money as and when needed following the completion of 16 forms in triplicate and submission of your new 40GBP ID Card.


----------



## SteveS (Oct 20, 2003)

Matthew said:


> I couldn't give a toss about the pound itself - It's only money. Who cares what picture it has on the note or what the coin looks like? It's never in my pocket for more than an hour anyway before someone demands their slice of the pie and I have to give it up.
> 
> I don't get this attachment to the pound - So many people seem to be confusing that with a potential entire change in the prcing of goods in our country. If someone is against adopting the Euro due to the affect it will have on our country's financial wellbeing and our daily lives, jobs etc. - Fine, that's their opinion and they are rightly entitled to it, but those simply attached the the design of the note and being able to refer to it as "The Pound" who can't see further than "I want to keep those lovely notes with the Queen's head on it" need to just find something more important to worry about. Because there are a LOT more things to be concerned about today.
> 
> Did we see complaints when the 1/2p coin went? What about when we changed the picture on the Fiver and got rid of the Â£1 note.


I agree with the point about the queens head and "Our Pound" entirely, as a non-monarchist I'd even go so far as to say good riddance (bet the British Euro notes would keep her :evil. However having read up on it a bit (I'm no economist, there may be one along in a minute :wink, as you alluded, I think the problem is not with the physical money rather the fact that we would then be locked into any inflationary/deflationary/reflationary, or whatever the terms are, cycles with the rest of Europe. Currently I believe we are doing rather better than most of the rest of Europe so we don't want our economy as closely tied as a single currency. For those old enough to remember the ERM there's the real warning, and IIRC that had some flexibility in it that a single currency doesn't. (probably explained that terribly, but the subject has never held my interest long enough to really grasp it )


----------



## sattan (Sep 10, 2002)

Yes - whilst I don't really care what it says or shows on our physical currency the point is that we will be tied to the same inflation/etc. rates as the rest of Europe - I doubt that will lead to much stability!

especially when you consider the number of nations that joined Europe at the weekend, they aren't exactly the richest nations in the world are they?

I'm sure someone will be along soon to object about how selfish this is - but at the end of the day our govt. is there to protect our national interests and way of life.

I'm pretty sure countries join the EU because it works for them financially - Southern Ireland has benefitted massivley from the EU - I've seen 1st hand all the roads they have built recently and how it has helped the economy boom there.

But being as we would be one of the 'bigger brothers' in financial terms of Europe like France & Spain I can't help feeling that we would be paying out far more than we get back, even in the long-term.


----------



## Antwerpman (Nov 4, 2002)

Well, I think it would be great if the UK adopted the euro....then at least next time I go home I would not find myself at the Dartford tunnel with no means of payment...... :?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

See - Europe - all people can see is the loss of the Pound. :?

SGs point about the 2 WWs is fairly valid - the loss of millions to defend ones national boundaries and national identity - less than 30 years after the end of WW2 the EU was setup - in the late 60's 70's it was more about trying to get the central nations to get on and also to boalster trade a little (no bad thing either). However nowadays this has faded into a distant memory and the EU has turned into an oragnistation trying to legislate from a central point. Single currency - single intrest rates etc etc - single common policies blah blah. Funny thing too the main protagonists France and Germany have already broken the fiscal policies and are currently owing the EU substantial amounts in fines. Grrrrrreat.

Loss of the Pound does not worry me - the Euro looks and acts alot like our Pound anyway - what I don't want is the central government "thing" - just look also at the last EU elections 16% turnout we really do love Europe don't we.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

I'd love it if we adopted the Euro too. Fair enough, it's probably not the best idea to tie ourselves into an economy over which we have only partial control, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't adopt the currency. What people seem to forget is that a currency by itself has no value whatsover. It's the goods and commodities tied into it which have value. 
A substantial amount of business in third world countries is done in US dollars, but it doesn't devalue the dollar itself. And to be honest I'd be happy to start using the US$, although less happy to adopt daft monochrome notes which all look the same.


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

What if I told you that if we had the single currency you'd only be paying around 2.50% on your mortgage?



> Funny thing too the main protagonists France and Germany have already broken the fiscal policies and are currently owing the EU substantial amounts in fines. Grrrrrreat


Oh you mean the Stability and Growth Pact that this year the UK would also be in breach of were we in the Euro?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> What if I told you that if we had the single currency you'd only be paying around 2.50% on your mortgage?
> 
> That is the point what I was going to say too. The mortgage rates would be so much smaller. But if the mortgage was so small, people would go and borrow lots more, which is not a very sensible thing to do.
> 
> Also if the Euro is adopted, the coins will still carry the national identity of the Queen, as all the other countries did this. So the Queen's head will still be on the coins to keep the Queen's friends happy.


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

We are British not European.....


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

paulatt said:


> We are British not European.....


We are actually both. In fact we're more likely to remain European than British, unless you've worked out a method of shifting tectonic plates around.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Steve_Mc said:


> What if I told you that if we had the single currency you'd only be paying around 2.50% on your mortgage?


Steve - are you saying that that is a good or bad thing? OK, we'd have more money in our pockets, but it's all very inflationary.

I don't give a stuff about "the pound" from a historical point of view (well, maybe a little bit) and of course I'd find it a lot more convenient if we adopted the euro from a travel point of view. However, to lose control of monetary policy would concern me, given the cyclical nature of the various economies in the EU. OK, one day they may move together, but probably not in my life-time, and I'm not prepared to make that sacrifice for my grand-children (selfish I know, but that's what you get from a Thatcherite!)


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

we voted in the seventies for a common market not a bloody state!
the pound represents our individuality 
we are an individual country that cooperates on a european level
nobody has asked the british people in a referendum if we want to become part of a federal state.
why are they asking us to vote on a constitution for a single state of europe that nobodys voted to be a part of?
it seems to me that germany and france are trying to rule or run europe by stealth rather than war but the bloody results going to be the same
are you too young or daft to see that?
saying in effect that you dont care about the pound even though thousands died to preserve it because it makes it easier to go on holiday or get through a tunnel ought to be ashamed of themselves.
visit the battle fields of europe, remind yourselves of the sacrifices these brave men made for us.
they are trying to model europe on the U.S.A
but it will never work!
america is made up of states with no history or individual culture
bit like england made up of counties
there is to much history,national pride and sacrificee for individual countrys to melt and be recast in a single lump called europe
im british want to stay british want to cooperate with our neighbors 
but not be ruled by them!
i for one am not fooled by the power hungry intentions of france or germany so i shout loud and clear A FEDERAL STATE OF EUROPE?
NEVER! SO EUROPE..... FUCK OFF!


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

paulatt said:


> We are British not European.....


Here here.

I don't think stephengreens view is xenophobic. He is not saying we should cut ourselves off from the rest of europe and live in isolation. We can still govern ourselves and co-operate with the rest of Europe. It's the slow erosion of our identity, culture, and legal system that is so annoying. There are such huge differences between the different countries of Europe. That's what makes it so much fun when you go on holiday. Blair just wants to mix up all of europe into one boring shade of grey, and then become president of it.

Uncle Blair will pat us on the head and tell us that having national pride is a now a very out of date concept. Infact the EU are about to legislate to make it illegal. In not too distant past Blair would have been hung as a traitor.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

phil said:


> paulatt said:
> 
> 
> > We are British not European.....
> ...


Paula is not good in Geography!


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Politically I dont understand why the government are devolving power of the 400 year old (4 member state) United Kingdom whilst getting closer to becoming a member of the Federal/United States of Europe.


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

mighTy Tee said:


> Politically I dont understand why the government are devolving power of the 400 year old (4 member state) United Kingdom whilst getting closer to becoming a member of the Federal/United States of Europe.


Because they are a useless bunch of weak lapdogs that have tied themselves up in reams of PC of their own creation. It's now virtually impossible for them to resist the intentions of the US or the European Parliament. Going to war in another country is far more important.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Get it off your chest stephengreen why don't you! :wink:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

mighTy Tee said:


> Politically I dont understand why the government are devolving power of the 400 year old (4 member state) United Kingdom whilst getting closer to becoming a member of the Federal/United States of Europe.


because the idiot blair belives they have no more right to individuality than
we do in a federal europe.
the idiot blair gives as much thought to the millions that died in europe as the hundreds that died in n ireland before he eventually talked to terrorists
idiot blair only thinks of his own destiny not ours 
idiot blair cant remember more than a two week period in history 
instead of scientists cloning fucking sheep why dont they clone maggie so we can wake up tomorrow and still be in a country called britain!


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Politically I dont understand why the government are devolving power of the 400 year old (4 member state) United Kingdom whilst getting closer to becoming a member of the Federal/United States of Europe.
> ...


Can I safely assume we agree Blair is an idiot?

Until I was watching a history of Maggie program the other night I had forgotten we had had a PM who stuck up for Britain.


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

raven said:


> Steve_Mc said:
> 
> 
> > What if I told you that if we had the single currency you'd only be paying around 2.50% on your mortgage?
> ...


Ed, I didn't say it was good or bad :wink: But I'm sure a few voters could be bought for the extra Â£140 a month they'd save on mortgage payments. Failing that I'm sure they could be swayed by the European law restricting all employees to a maximum 35 hour week?

As for the war comments :roll: :roll: I could of sworn WW II was to liberate allies invaded by an unhinged despot with a side line in mass genocide, not an exercise in defending borders (although it nearly came to that). Why else where the Americans in the war, to defend California from the Japanese? Mr Green I think you need to get back on your swinging tyre and get on with scratching your arse with your copy of the Sun  :wink:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

mighTy Tee said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > mighTy Tee said:
> ...


im not that politically minded (honest) but im old enough to remember what a fucking mess this country was in the seventies
maggie gave us our pride back, gave us respect through out the world both economicly and politicaly.she went wobbly at the end but that shouldnt dilute her achievments.
now this fucking idiot blair is taking us back with his increasingly leftist policys.brain washing the young that britain and the pound that represents our country and individuality dont matter any more.
the rest of europe isnt doing as well as us but idiot blair would rather run a weak europe than a strong britain

He has a vision of a "im gonna be president of europe mentality".FUCK OFF BLAIR!
leave us alone you ,selfish lying, PC, looney left wing bastard.go fuck up your life ,instead of all of ours!


----------



## Thinksta (Mar 26, 2004)

If the Americans then were anything like now, they probably went to war because it was a Tuesday...


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> saying in effect that you dont care about the pound even though thousands died to preserve it because it makes it easier to go on holiday or get through a tunnel ought to be ashamed of themselves.


Well I don't know if you're trying to be offensive or not. People died to preserve our freedom, not because of money. Trying to twist it so that that's what being British is is frankly insulting.

Yes, Britain was in a mess in the 70s, and we have the unions to thank for that. While Thatcher sorted the mess out she did it at the expense of British Industry. That's why we're all driving around in German cars, remember?

Personally I'd rather we ditched Britain and went back to being England. (and Scotland & Wales & let Northern Ireland decide for themselves what they want to do).



stephengreen said:


> why are they asking us to vote on a constitution for a single state of europe that nobodys voted to be a part of?


First of all, the constitution's not about a single state. Maybe you've been reading the tabloids. Get your facts right.
Second, if you didn't vote at the last general election then that's your problem. If you don't like the current system of democracy we have then say so. But in this country we vote in people to represent us in a government. Those people vote in parliament on issues which may or may not become laws.
I don't recall personally voting for having council tax. I'd rather we had poll tax. But that's the system we have.



stephengreen said:


> it seems to me that germany and france are trying to rule or run europe by stealth rather than war but the bloody results going to be the same are you too young or daft to see that?


OK Now that's xenophobic. Back up with something a bit more specific and it might be credible (Hint: try the CAP). And I find the implication that those two states are running Europe rather amusing. Neither are doing particularly well right now, in case you missed it.

You might also find that there are people in many parts of England (not to mention Scotland and Wales) who feel exactly the same way about being ruled by Westminster as you do about the French.



raven said:


> I don't give a stuff about "the pound" from a historical point of view (well, maybe a little bit) and of course I'd find it a lot more convenient if we adopted the euro from a travel point of view. However, to lose control of monetary policy would concern me, given the cyclical nature of the various economies in the EU.


See that's a reasoned argument. Or maybe I'm only saying that because I agree 



stephengreen said:


> maggie gave us our pride back, gave us respect through out the world both economicly and politicaly.she went wobbly at the end but that shouldnt dilute her achievments.


Yeah that was her problem. There's a lot of people who still can't forgive her for the way she destroyed British industry, rather than fixing it. You just need to look at that to realise we're already being run by foreigners now. Check for yourself how many of the privatised utilities are run by foreigners.

Also, although we're moaning about interest rates going up, remember the housing crash.



stephengreen said:


> im not that politically minded (honest)


Apparently. Tony Blair's far from left wing. Unless by "left" you mean "prick".

It's exactly this issue which is keeping me from voting Tory. I just don't think they've thought it through, and they're just jumping on their soap boxes like you are Stephen. And the Sun.

I'll probably vote them in for London mayor though. Anything to get rid of that twat who's running it now. Now there's a leftie.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

i can't wait until we get the Euro - if only to see the look on the faces of all you right wingers. It'll be priceless.


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

PaulS said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Politically I dont understand why the government are devolving power of the 400 year old (4 member state) United Kingdom whilst getting closer to becoming a member of the Federal/United States of Europe.
> ...


is it iggy pop or the guy from the chilli peppers :?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Dubcat said:


> i can't wait until we get the Euro - if only to see the look on the faces of all you right wingers. It'll be priceless.


This will happen sooner or later. Nobody can avoid it. It is just delaying the unavoidable for the time being.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I just found this very relevant article in today's BBC news homepage.

It talks about the Thatcherite economics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3685881.stm[/quote]


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

phil said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > saying in effect that you dont care about the pound even though thousands died to preserve it because it makes it easier to go on holiday or get through a tunnel ought to be ashamed of themselves.
> ...





phil said:


> [
> 
> 
> > Well I don't know if you're trying to be offensive or not. People died to preserve our freedom, not because of money. Trying to twist it so that that's what being British is is frankly insulting.
> ...


we already have a constitution!
they are asking us to vote on a set of rules that dont apply
and if you consider idiot blair not to be "left" because your comparing him to a lunatic like livingstone and your opinion is typical than i fear for my countrys indentity


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Completely agree with Stephen Green.

It would appear that anyone who dares to express a view which is contrary to that of The Guardian are labelled as xenophobic or a racist., thus stifling any proper debate on the subject.

It is no secret that the eventual aim of the Common Market is a European super state and it is an aim openly talked about by certain high profile continental politicians. The original Treaty of Rome has been superseded at depressingly regular intervals, with each succesive treaty removing some element of decision/law making from our shores. Although we did manage to secure an opt out on the Maastricht treaty (the one about EMU) the UK govt is under constant pressure to comply and join the Euro.

I'm quite sure that someone will pop up and say that we must kow tow as soon as possible, sign away all our remaining sovereignty and ditch the pound...............to show the rest of the world what good Europeans we are.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Yeah - kowtow and kiss EU ass....

No TY


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Anyone care for the services of the 2,000,000 (est CBI) extra tradesmen who do _not_ expect to earn Â£50K pa and can be mobilised from the new members?

Anyone thought that if we were _really_ smart, we could put corporate America in it's place through united economic might of EC member states?

Anyone thought that the national obsession about property ownership and interest rates may actually shift over time to a more European model ie rental properties and invest more for future personal financial security outside property (much of which can drive economic prosperity, employment and social conditions far more than endlessly discussing how much equity one has made at tedious middle class dinner parties), instead of fuelling the ridiculous property market in this country?

Of course the major reservations exist: Brussels bureaucrats; corruption; wasted resources; pointless initiatives; and of course the fact that we are now the most highly taxed member state and therefore have least to gain. But that's a bit selfish...so fuck 'em :wink:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Anyone care for the services of the 2,000,000 (est CBI) extra tradesmen who do _not_ expect to earn Â£50K pa and can be mobilised from the new members?


its not just tradesmen its skills across the whole spectrum.
so lets hope you dont have to reflect on this post in the dole queue


garyc said:


> Anyone thought that if we were _really_ smart, we could put corporate America in it's place through united economic might of EC member states?


yes gary they have thats why people went to the polls in the seventies
so we could join the EEC to do precisly that.


garyc said:


> Anyone thought that the national obsession about property ownership and interest rates may actually shift over time to a more European model ie rental properties and invest more for future personal financial security outside property (much of which can drive economic prosperity, employment and social conditions far more than endlessly discussing how much equity one has made at tedious middle class dinner parties), instead of fuelling the ridiculous property market in this country?


 i doubt that becoming a federal state of europe is going to make any one sell their house and rent gary but if you want to lead by example be our guest!


garyc said:


> and of course the fact that we are now the most highly taxed member state and therefore have least to gain. But that's a bit selfish...so fuck 'em :wink:


mm....let me think about this one...we've got loads of potless countries joining to get loads of benifits for no contribution... we are selfish for not joining, for something to gain....mmm... :?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

stephengreenwe already have a constitution!
[/quote said:


> Well, erm, kind of. Of course, you'd have trouble pointing me at it and it would be hard to argue that the constituent parts that make up our uncodified constitution are easily available to the bulk of the population, written in a manner meaningful to modern life. After all, Magna Carta is what, nearly 800 years old, the Act of Settlement is over 300 years old and case law and political convensions are pretty fluid.
> 
> I think we need a unified, codified, constition. But I'd also like it to be a British one...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

phil said:


> Now there's a good example of xenophobia. Impressive.


I think 'jingoism' is a more apt term. :wink:

Main Entry: jinÂ·goÂ·ism 
Pronunciation: 'ji[ng]-(")gO-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> thats right phill people DIED to PRESERVE OUR FREEDOM, freedom to self govern not be governed by a foreign power.of course it wasnt about money! the pound is only mentioned as a symbol of the country that they died for weve had different kings and queens and prime ministers to represent us but the pound remains as a constant.


This isn't freedom. This is your personal opinion. Many people, myself included don't see our currency as a symbol of national identity. Having it imposed upon us, just like having the euro imposed on us, isn't an example of freedom no matter how much you rant about it.



> what british industry? it had been strangled to death by the unions.by the time maggie released their strangle hold it was already terminal,dont blame the rescuer for the state of the victim!


You've missed my point. My point was that rather than fixing the problem, she removed the problem altogether. I'm fully aware of the mess things were in. And what's left of the unions hasn't improved much today. You can blame them for creating the problem, but it was thatcher who was for blame for not fixing the problem.



> if it wasnt for her we,d still be a laughing stock ruled by unions the country didnt vote for, driving morris marina's!


Indeed. And while this is worse than us driving about in foreign cars, neither sitatuations are particularly anything to be proud of.



> if you consider idiot blair not to be "left" because your comparing him to a lunatic like livingstone and your opinion is typical than i fear for my countrys indentity


I wasn't comparing them. I was merely pointing out that your analysis of Blair as left wing was incorrect, and gave an example of someone who was. Your insistence that he is will only highlight your lack of knowledge of politics, and will weaken your ability to rationally argue the point on something which is obviously important to you.

And it's your failure to back up your arguments with justification which makes you appear to be little more than a facist xenophobe when in actual fact you may not be. Strong words, I know and I'm not trying to insult you. It just appears to me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and your ranting reminds me very much of (and you're not going to like this) Arthur Scargill. Obviously somewhat different opinions.....


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

phil said:


> This isn't freedom. This is your personal opinion. Many people, myself included don't see our currency as a symbol of national identity. Having it imposed upon us, just like having the euro imposed on us, isn't an example of freedom no matter how much you rant about it.


MY PERSONAL OPINION!
its not my personal opinion those men died to preserve freedom it its a fact!
this may not be your vision of freedom but it was the vision of the men who went to their deaths to preserve it.
you can dismiss their sacrifice if you wish but dont try telling me people agree with your twisted version of history.
i will use the vote they preserved for me to maintain our country as it is
as for our currency, if its not a symbol of national identity, as you claim ,then nobody will mind if we keep it will they!


phil said:


> You've missed my point. My point was that rather than fixing the problem, she removed the problem altogether. I'm fully aware of the mess things were in. And what's left of the unions hasn't improved much today. You can blame them for creating the problem, but it was thatcher who was for blame for not fixing the problem.


she didnt fix the problem?
phil the old industries were inefficent and uneconomic the unions were trying to enter a austin allegro in a global F1 race.
what was she suppose to do? run every industry single handed ?
if one lesson was learnt from those days it was nationlised companies dont work
so in my opinion thatcher did fix the problem. she created the right conditions for new leaner buisness's to florish.


phil said:


> Indeed. And while this is worse than us driving about in foreign cars, neither sitatuations are particularly anything to be proud of.


ive nothing against cooperation with europe on trade etc as ive already stated
its up to us to compete on quality of goods with the rest of the world not just europe.i will do my bit towards this aim, by buying the best product available.if we start getting lax because we dont have to try anymore, because someone else in the community will, and we'll get a subsidy, it will lead us right back to the seventies.we need to be part of a competing partnership not one giant inefficent state.


phil said:


> I wasn't comparing them. I was merely pointing out that your analysis of Blair as left wing was incorrect, and gave an example of someone who was. Your insistence that he is will only highlight your lack of knowledge of politics, and will weaken your ability to rationally argue the point on something which is obviously important to you.


your pointing out that my analysis is incorrect is defiantly an opinion and wrong at that
in my opinion blair is slipping increasingly to the left his stealth taxes are one example of this
your naivety of politics,and recent domestic, as well as global ,events is what blair thrives on, it keeps him in power which is what he craves.


phil said:


> And it's your failure to back up your arguments with justification which makes you appear to be little more than a facist xenophobe when in actual fact you may not be. Strong words, I know and I'm not trying to insult you. It just appears to me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and your ranting reminds me very much of (and you're not going to like this) Arthur Scargill. Obviously somewhat different opinions.....


no phil a xenophobe is something im definately not.
if you read my posts you would see that. but of course youve formed an opinion without reading them properly which isnt surprisining because youve done exactly the same when you glanced through the history book so i guess im in good company'
arthur scargill was a man who ranted passionately about his industry and stood up for what he belived in he also ranted to anyone that would listen that they would close down the pits and coal industry.he was right!
it was only his opposition that turned out to be wrong and thats where we differ!


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> MY PERSONAL OPINION!
> its not my personal opinion those men died to preserve freedom it its a fact!


I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that while you may view our currency as a symbol of our nation, it has nothing to do with freedom. We, the British, ransacked half the world, but let them keep their own currencies. They were far from free though.



stephengreen said:


> this may not be your vision of freedom but it was the vision of the men who went to their deaths to preserve it.


Again, I seriously doubt they went to war to save the pound.



stephengreen said:


> you can dismiss their sacrifice if you wish but dont try telling me people agree with your twisted version of history.


Don't insult me. Let's keep this objective. I'm not dismissing their sacrifice. I'm saying their sacrifice wasn't in aid of saving the pound, as you appeared to be suggesting.



stephengreen said:


> i will use the vote they preserved for me to maintain our country as it is as for our currency, if its not a symbol of national identity, as you claim ,then nobody will mind if we keep it will they!


Of course nobody will mind. And not the other way either. People had pride in themselves before we had the pound. We were still British after we lost the farthing, the sixpence, the thruppenny bit, the shilling etc etc. Decimilisation didn't destroy our identity, just like the kilogram hasn't.



stephengreen said:


> she didnt fix the problem?
> phil the old industries were inefficent and uneconomic the unions were trying to enter a austin allegro in a global F1 race.
> what was she suppose to do? run every industry single handed ?
> if one lesson was learnt from those days it was nationlised companies dont work
> so in my opinion thatcher did fix the problem. she created the right conditions for new leaner buisness's to florish.


She may have fixed the immediate problem but not in the best way. 150 years ago we were the envy of the world. The industrial revolution brought the fastest growth ever witnessed in this country. Of course nobody could blame thatcher for its decline. She just put the final nail in the coffin. 
I just can't see how she could possibly have got it right when we drive foreign cars, and foreign companies pillage what's left of our public transport. I just think it was a quick fix which was not without its consequences.



stephengreen said:


> ive nothing against cooperation with europe on trade etc as ive already stated
> its up to us to compete on quality of goods with the rest of the world not just europe.i will do my bit towards this aim, by buying the best product available.if we start getting lax because we dont have to try anymore, because someone else in the community will, and we'll get a subsidy, it will lead us right back to the seventies.we need to be part of a competing partnership not one giant inefficent state.


I'm totally with you here. Subsidies have been a disaster for Europe, which is why people have the perception of France and Germany feeding off our money. I don't think they're the worst for that though.



stephengreen said:


> your pointing out that my analysis is incorrect is defiantly an opinion and wrong at that
> in my opinion blair is slipping increasingly to the left his stealth taxes are one example of this
> your naivety of politics,and recent domestic, as well as global ,events is what blair thrives on, it keeps him in power which is what he craves.


Nah you've got me wrong here. I want rid of him, and never wanted him in in the first place. I never trusted the guy.
No I'm not naive and I know what he's up to. 
I'm not sure he's slipping to the left. His sneakiness and his current sucking up to the unions suggests that he maybe is, but I think he's just trying to dig himself out of a rather large hole. I think political ideals are the last thing on his mind right now.



stephengreen said:


> no phil a xenophobe is something im definately not.
> if you read my posts you would see that. but of course youve formed an opinion without reading them properly which isnt surprisining because youve done exactly the same when you glanced through the history book so i guess im in good company'


I didn't call you a xenophobe, and I don't believe you are. I was merely suggesting that the way you were banging on about it without backing up your views made you appear like the many xenophobes who offer similar opinions to yours. 
I'm glad to see you've changed your tack though. Sorry if I offended you but there are plenty out there who want the frogs, krauts, diegos etc out of our lovely little country. (Again I'm pointing out the extremes)



stephengreen said:


> arthur scargill was a man who ranted passionately about his industry and stood up for what he belived in he also ranted to anyone that would listen that they would close down the pits and coal industry.he was right!
> it was only his opposition that turned out to be wrong and thats where we differ!


Yeah OK I shouldn't have used him as an example 
But he was somebody who many people wouldn't listen too because of the way he went about things.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Arthur Scargill was a bent c**t who was every bit as culpable for the demise of the mining industry in this country as was Thatcher.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

garyc said:


> Arthur Scargill was a bent c**t who was every bit as culpable for the demise of the mining industry in this country as was Thatcher.


True.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

I don't quite understand why the fact that we all drive around in foreign cars is an indication that we are no longer "the envy of the world".

We have become a more service orientated society (finance, IT etc) rather than a manufacturing society. This is largely because labour is far cheaper in the developing world than it is in the developed world. It's also because all the UK's nationalised industries were astonishingly incompetent - that's not to say there aren't elsewhere - eg companies like France's Renault soaked up government funds like a sponge. Without a profit incentive, companies seem to be incapable of becoming efficient and just basically waste money.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

raven said:


> I don't quite understand why the fact that we all drive around in foreign cars is an indication that we are no longer "the envy of the world".
> 
> We have become a more service orientated society (finance, IT etc) rather than a manufacturing society. This is largely because labour is far cheaper in the developing world than it is in the developed world. It's also because all the UK's nationalised industries were astonishingly incompetent - that's not to say there aren't elsewhere - eg companies like France's Renault soaked up government funds like a sponge. Without a profit incentive, companies seem to be incapable of becoming efficient and just basically waste money.


I think its interesting at this point to realise why Britain was ever "Great".

In the first place, due to our barbaric attitudes and uncompromising nature in wars, we killed all our enemies in Africa and America and stole all their resources. This made us wealthy traders.

In the second place the industrial revolution kick started a race to global manufacturing supremacy. We got out of the blocks first and lead the world for 150 years until the first world war.

Banking, as a financial service, is only significant in that its hyper conservative attitude to lending following the first world war, an attitude that prevails today, lead to the bancrupcy of many third world nations and exacerbated the British habit of not investing in the future. And investment is what it all comes down to.

Investment can only be linked to likely returns. When your market is the UK your returns are X, when Europe is your market your returns are 3X. If you are Japanese the World is your market and is therefore 15X.

This small minded attitude to the world would be inthinkable for our forefathers that conquered so many small nations, and lack of investment equally so for the fathers of the industrial revolution.

We have achieved what Thatcher and Blair want. To be a nation of nice middle class types. We wouldn't say boo to a goose. We build big fences around our houses because we're scared that someone will come along and steal everything from us.

Having lived in continental Europe for several years before settling again in the UK I can tell you that we have nothing to fear. Because we are the meanest baddest bastards in Europe. We have the best engineering ability and sense of humour. These need to flourish, not die like they are today. The only thing is for Britain to lead Europe. Which it can from within. From without we're about as significant on a world scale as Gibraltar.

I'm well aware that nobody will agree with me, but it is important to understand that there is no right or wrong view of the future, but people in general only think about what is good for them personally.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

ag said:


> I'm well aware that nobody will agree with me, but it is important to understand that there is no right or wrong view of the future, but people in general only think about what is good for them personally.


I agree with you.

And regarding raven's point about Renault, nationalisation works with some things, and not with others, as I stated in another thread. The French subsidise their car manufacturers, which is why French cars are on the whole crap, and the only way they can compete abroad is through being cheaper than the competition.
Britain once had a thriving car industry, with loads of high quality manufacturers. This was ruined by British Leyland as it removed competition between the companies. (OK so some died beforehand through their lack of competitiveness, but that's just normal business).

The same happened with the railways when it was nationalised. The competition between companies disappeared and was replaced by competition from the car. Then Beeching came along and closed all of the inefficient branch lines. Unfortunately his big mistake was he didn't take into account the fact that those branch lines provided many of the customers for the main lines. Those customers, rather than trying to find somewhere to park near town centre stations, chose to complete their entire journey by car, further contributing to the demise of the railways, which became more dependant on subsidies.

Re-privatising the railways, while a good idea on paper, was disastrous in practice, because the damage had already been done 30 years previously. The same goes for the sale of Rover. It was already crap by then and there was no way on earth it could ever come back from that.

The difference is, although we can live fine as a country without the car industry, embarrasing though it is, or the coal industry, we depend on our transport system. Without it, all of our industry, beit service or manufacturing, can't compete.

OK so I'm rambling again, but the point is, you can't just say "let's get out of Europe" or conversely "Let's surrender to Europe" without considering the benefits and disadvantages. Saying "let's get into Europe and get the most out of it that we can" seems a better idea to me. 
Taking extremist political standpoints just leads to disasters.

I'm neither pro nor anti-Euro. On a selfish level it would be nice to not have to change money every time I went abroad, but there's a lot more to it than that. I'd prefer to lead it to economists to decide such a matter, rather than nationalists, socialists or anyone else who would base their decision on their political views, rather than on the facts.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Phil - yeah, I know what you mean about preferring to leave it to economists or "those in the know" rather than being emotional about it. However, there are more diverse opinions amongst "those in the know" than there are even amongst us on this Forum. Name me one economist who is pro-euro and I'll find you one who is against. I don't know what the answer is to be honest.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Part of the problem with the debate is that it is change. The onus is therefore on those wanting change to justify it. In this present situation stability does not exist. The world changes. You need to adapt to survive, that means changing!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

ag said:


> raven said:
> 
> 
> > I don't quite understand why the fact that we all drive around in foreign cars is an indication that we are no longer "the envy of the world".
> ...


What a fabulous post. Well done AG. Agree 100%


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Thanks Gary. You've all got me started now.

What people don't realise is that the decision is not whether or not we want other European nations to have a say in our internal affairs, they are our greatest trading partners so they do already. What it is really about is avoiding the "Africa Syndrome". This is where an economic area, rich in natural resources and ability, gets swiftly overrun due to petty in-fighting and an inability to organise itself across political borders.

Whilst we in Europe complain, and particularly the UK, about minor squabbles based on myths we are not focussing on the bigger picture. Divided we are powerless against the Asian nations.

As we speak the Chinese are preparing for war in the same way that Hitler did 60 years ago. Instead of building planes and bombs, they are producing everything we need in the way of manufactured goods. They currently have a stranglehold on the majority of raw materials required by industry. In the next few months we will see inflation rise all over the world as the Chinese up their prices and we are powerless to respond because they have all the raw materials. Watch futures prices for steel and solvents used in manufcture!

Ok, so we went to war with Iraq to stop them selling oil to the Chinese. The way they went about it was totally wrong, but at least there was some long term strategic thinking going on. That is where the strength of the United States lies. That is why closer ties with our European neighbours is essential. It is not about not speaking German or French anymore, it's about not speaking Mandarin!

Then of course, there's India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Corea, Taiwan. Japan probably isn't a genuine threat as it has already adopted too many Western values.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

ag said:


> Thanks Gary. You've all got me started now.
> 
> What people don't realise is that the decision is not whether or not we want other European nations to have a say in our internal affairs, they are our greatest trading partners so they do already. What it is really about is avoiding the "Africa Syndrome". This is where an economic area, rich in natural resources and ability, gets swiftly overrun due to petty in-fighting and an inability to organise itself across political borders.
> 
> ...


*grin*

Sounds like something from a James Bond film. I bet they're running the whole show from an underground bunker, mysteriously "hidden" by a false lake in a crater. This bunker will be staffed by uniform (and uniformed) "foreigners", mostly carrying AK47s, but all with a wonderful ability to jump long distances when nearby (and stupidly placed) chemical barrels begin to explode...

Its OK though - despite every man and his dog (you've listed a veritable ""Who's Who" of wannabe "superpowers) wanting to rule the world, we always pull through eventually...


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

> Its OK though - despite every man and his dog (you've listed a veritable ""Who's Who" of wannabe "superpowers) wanting to rule the world, we always pull through eventually...


With repect Tim, we have previously had good relations with the super powers and in the past power has often been linked more with military might than industrial. We have all seen the problems that can be caused by small incidents. Examples being some of the recent computer viruses and, indeed, the Madrid train bombing. The latter changed, against all previous opinion polls, the leading party and consequently its foreign policy. This change was effected by a handfull of people!

I'm not suggesting it is all a conspiracy. But as an isolated country we are incredibly weak to defend ourselves. Our large corporations look like corner shops and a large proportion of our GDP is based on service industries.

These countries don't necessarily want to rule the world, but their way of carving themselves a little niche will enevitably carve us out of it if we are alone.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

ag said:


> > Its OK though - despite every man and his dog (you've listed a veritable ""Who's Who" of wannabe "superpowers) wanting to rule the world, we always pull through eventually...
> 
> 
> With repect Tim, we have previously had good relations with the super powers and in the past power has often been linked more with military might than industrial. We have all seen the problems that can be caused by small incidents. Examples being some of the recent computer viruses and, indeed, the Madrid train bombing. The latter changed, against all previous opinion polls, the leading party and consequently its foreign policy. This change was effected by a handfull of people!
> ...


I hear what you are saying. Really I do...

But stick the right man in a tuxedo and Aston Martin, equipped with the right gadgets and gismos, and we don't have to worry about ANY of that political crap.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

ag said:


> Examples being some of the recent computer viruses and, indeed, the Madrid train bombing. The latter changed, against all previous opinion polls, the leading party and consequently its foreign policy. This change was effected by a handfull of people!


It wasn't the Madrid bombing that changed the government. It was the Spanish government's attempt to deceive the voters by saying that the bombing was the Spanish terrorists (ETA or whatever they're called). In that, I think it served as a wake up call to all incumbent governments that we are not stupid, and will not have the wool pulled over our eyes.

The sooner governments realise this, and drop "spin" from their agenda, the media will tell a different sort of truth (I'm not saying they are lying, but they certainly don't always present the two sides to a story).


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

raven said:


> ag said:
> 
> 
> > Examples being some of the recent computer viruses and, indeed, the Madrid train bombing. The latter changed, against all previous opinion polls, the leading party and consequently its foreign policy. This change was effected by a handfull of people!
> ...


Maybe it WAS ETA...

We've all seen the films where the bad guys use foreign weapons, methods, bombs etc or even hire assassins from other countries to a) divert suspicion away from themselves, or b) cause a falling out between the target and the "shown" enemy (to split alliances etc)


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

ag said:


> Thanks Gary. You've all got me started now.
> 
> What people don't realise is that the decision is not whether or not we want other European nations to have a say in our internal affairs, they are our greatest trading partners so they do already. What it is really about is avoiding the "Africa Syndrome". This is where an economic area, rich in natural resources and ability, gets swiftly overrun due to petty in-fighting and an inability to organise itself across political borders.
> 
> ...


well AG youve put in a couple of interesting posts regarding global threats and the like but it doesnt change anything regarding the stance on europe.
the union such as it is, is corrupt, inefficiant and suffers from self interest actions from france and germany to name but two.why would joining a federal state with such limitations, help our cause? why wouldnt cooparation between member states, without becoming "as one", ward off the threats you so describe?
you stated
"Africa Syndrome". This is where an economic area, rich in natural resources and ability, gets swiftly overrun due to petty in-fighting and an inability to organise itself across political borders."

i'll tell you why this statment is true, and thats because its down to the mentalities of the indigenous people in power. it also explains why banks wont lend money to them, its nothing to do with not seeing the big picture, its to do with risk.you lend them money to buy a spanner they buy a gun, lend them money to build a factory, they buy a tank. worse, they keep the change, and tell the bank to whistle! would you invest money in a factory knowing someone like mugabee could just take it over?
it may be true that we took advantage of resourses in the past but these nations have squandered any opportunites since.the only african nations that have succeded in any shape or form are the ones run by europeans.
this isnt a racist comment merely an observation.this is in stark contrast to the other country mentioned in your post, america. europeans move into a land in a similar state of development as africa and within two hundred years or so turn it into a super power.this may have been to the distinct indignation of the native indians, but, in a darwinian sense, their days were numbered. this aside it shows whats possible when europeans cooparate. but it isnt going to happen as a federal state here because of our history's as individual countries that are too ingrained to be erased.
i think your opinion on china is a little to alarmest even for me.
theres no reason why economic forces wont apply to them as well as for the rest of us as regards trade.if their prices are to high some one some where will produce cheaper.they cant operate in a market if none of their customers can afford the product.however as a last resort perhaps europe could give africa a set time to get its house in order or suffer the same fate as sitting bull and his mates the developing world cant afford the wasted resources and opportunities that these people have squandered.we'd be better off colonising africa before the moon!this is no more a far fetched concept as the one about china bringing the world to ransome over the price of shoes!after all if we can do it once (america) why not again?personaly i think that in the long run we'd be doing the citizens of africa a favour by giving them a chance of a better way of life instead of being hacked to death by their neighbors!


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Excellent post Stephen (although I wish you'd find the shift key :wink: )

The usual bleeding heart brigade get totally wound up when comments such as "colonisation" come up, but you're right. Such people also suggest that third world debt should be written off, and that it's the cause of the problem, but as you say, the problem is the in-fighting and the fact that any investment is spent on arms.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Plus the fact that people like us, the French and the Americans keep selling weapons to lunatics.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> personaly i think that in the long run we'd be doing the citizens of africa a favour by giving them a chance of a better way of life instead of being hacked to death by their neighbors!


We already did that. And it's true. All of our former colonies love us.

Another question... what's the difference between uniting the states of Europe, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Where's the difference between a nation run by London and a nation run by Brussels, or wherever?


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

With the greatest respect to both Stephen and Raven, why are African countries buying guns? This is due to the same in-fighting that prevented them from resisting colonisation in the 16th and 17th Centuries. This same in-fighting between the states of Europe will result in our resources being used to compete with our near-neighbours and not against the greater and more real threats from further afield.

The European parliament is an absolute shambles. Why is this?
Because the majority of member states send either failed or has-been politicians, or, where there is sufficient anti-European feeling, Anti-European MEPs hold seats. All countries are guilty of this. Until the Parliament has some real teeth we will never vote in legitimate candidates. Instead we will have the never ending stream of Niel Kinnocks, Edith Cressons, Valerie Giscard D'Estaings and Jean-Marie Le Pens of this world using it as an elephant's graveyard.

Blair's pseudo support of the European dream is another nail in its coffin. Until people come forward and are prepared to say why they feel greater ties would be a good thing, instead of dodging the issues so as not to upset the North Americans or Chinese there can be no debate. Petty scare mongering is all we get.

I work in manufacturing industry and as a minority in this country I would probably get a better deal if the UK was run by a manufacturing nation such as the Germans!

Ask any 100 British people what their greatest concerns are and the answers will be the NHS, crime and transport. We are in the 7 richest nations in the world, our healthcare is rated at no33 by the WHO. The French, whom we hate so much are at No. 1. Violent crime in the UK is, and has been, on the increase for years. Transport? Do I need to comment? That is how well this country has been run for the last 30 years. But at least we have the pound and when we are waiting for an operation or dying from curable diseases we can all have that stiff upper lip and be safe in the knowledge that we can watch our imported Taiwanese DVD players as we wait to die.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

phil said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > personaly i think that in the long run we'd be doing the citizens of africa a favour by giving them a chance of a better way of life instead of being hacked to death by their neighbors!
> ...


mmm..australia (for instance) may or may not love us. but our colonising of the land means that, now at least, they can express their opinion, by means other than on a cave wall!
the differance phil is that europe isnt made up of states. northen ireland is
part of great britain.its not a proposal. brussels is in belgium and runs ITS nation and london is in.......if we want anyone else other than our parliment to run our affairs then we should be given the chance to say so (or not) in a referendum.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

ag said:


> With the greatest respect to both Stephen and Raven, why are African countries buying guns? This is due to the same in-fighting that prevented them from resisting colonisation in the 16th and 17th Centuries. This same in-fighting between the states of Europe will result in our resources being used to compete with our near-neighbours and not against the greater and more real threats from further afield.
> 
> The European parliament is an absolute shambles. Why is this?
> Because the majority of member states send either failed or has-been politicians, or, where there is sufficient anti-European feeling, Anti-European MEPs hold seats. All countries are guilty of this. Until the Parliament has some real teeth we will never vote in legitimate candidates. Instead we will have the never ending stream of Niel Kinnocks, Edith Cressons, Valerie Giscard D'Estaings and Jean-Marie Le Pens of this world using it as an elephant's graveyard.
> ...


ag - have you ever been part of a committee of people who all hold different views? If so, you will know that compromise is the result. The reason why the European parliament is a shambles is because they are always catering for the lowest common denominator. Any decision is not in the best interests of all involved. The individual countries of Europe are fundamentally different and any decision is most likely going to benefit the weakest. This is a barrier to enterprise and the result is a bureaucratic shambles.

We as a country have a lot to offer developing countries, but this will not happen in this environment (ie European Union) - we reduce ourselves to the lowest common denominator.

The problems with the NHS lie in the fact that for some reason everyone thinks it's the last bastion of true "Britishness" - some people still say unbelieveably that it is the best in the world. As you say, it's more like bottom decile. That's because (IMO) the state is too involved in what happens. Even France (that last bastion of socialism) has realised this and shoved their healthcare system in the direction of the private sector. I had an operation on the private sector last October and my consultant couldn't see me the following day because he was only allowed to spend one morning a week with his private patients. My health detiorated as a result. Without the private sector the NHS would fall apart, yet private sector patients are treated as second class citizens! It's pathetic!

One day the public will wake up to the spin that is "falling waiting lists" and "falling unemployment" and realise that it's all in the presentation. The reality is a nightmare and sadly it's only when things reach nightmare proportions that voters sit up and think something should be done.

I'm not naive enough to believe that the Tories would solve things overnight (indeed we all know that Blair is more right wing than John Major) but it's this kind of "non-conviction" politics that results in NO ACTION. We, the punters and tax payers are left in a vacuum of poor service and quality that is simply unacceptable given the sums of money involved.


----------

