Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Why should we give 7,000,000,000 to Ireland? How many nurses and doctors would that pay for here? It would stop all the proposed health service cuts. If your neighbour was 1 million in debt would you pay 10,000 into his bank account?

They wanted to be independent of the UK so let them be independent.

Whilst Cameron's and Osborne's rhetoric sounds Christian and amiable with the British Tax Payers' money. They are disillusiopned when it comes to Ireland and the Irish. A large number of them bere a grudge against Britain which is maintained relentlessly,and they will unlikely change as the myths are perpetuated from generation to generation. Even amongst their educated elite the grudge is there. Look at the funding that came from the American Irish to fund the grotesque Terrorism, waged against Britain in the most cowardly and underhand way. Their Banks crept into Britain under the auspicis of the totally discredited EU. The so called Tiger Economy was paid for by Britain and Germany's tax payers. In addition the EU allowed Dublin to act as a Tax Haven for corporates poaching hundreds of companies out of the British, German Tax regimes to their Tax Payers huge loss.Cooperation is a two way process ,if you ask me it looks all one way ,what suits the Irish/ Tney will try and charm the birds of the Tree, but dont believe one word of it. Ireland will never be a competetive Economy unless Corporation Tax is half the rest of the EU, To=day Hewlett Packard threatened to withdraw its investment in Ireland if the Corporation Tax is changed. Case proven,

Ireland, where IRA terrorists convicted in Columbia of helping FARC terrorists to develop their bomb making techniques, walk the streets free as a bird, after being mysteriously spirited out of the country whilst awaiting sentence. Ireland, the country from where IRA terrorists plotted and exported their expertise to murder and maim British soldiers and civilians in England, N.Ireland. Germany, Holland and Gibraltar. Ireland the country that is happy to line its pockets with subsidies from the EU but unwilling to contribute troops to actually fight when and where the going gets tough. Ireland, where honest prime ministers are hard to come by. Bail the Irish out, you cannot be serious, let them sink or swim by their own efforts.

Take that as a no then T I M

This is me,

I do agree re why should we bailout Ireland, but this time it might be a case of having to.
I am about as anti Euro as you can get, and when I feel that dogmatic about a subject, nothing usually changes my mind.
But yesterday an article in The Telegraph by Jeremy Warner, a regular finance columnist changed my mind 'somewhat' regarding the bail out.
Jeremy Warner is a well know anti Euro, and I follow his column with interest, and usually agree with his views. He has for many years stated that in his opinion the Euro was never going to work for the obvious reasons of 'one size does not fit all'.
And yet his message was that the EU including the UK has no option but to bale out Ireland.
1 Alistair Darling signed us up to the bail out, just before the Coalition took over (yet another labor mess making decision).
2 It is the best of 2 evils, as if Ireland went under there would be several others who would follow, causing an effect on the UK far worse than the cost of the bale out. Just one example being British Banks have far more many billions invested in Irish Banks alone than the bail out cost.

His main theme though was 'EU must abandon this bail-out madness.
So although he stated the bail out had to happen, he then goes onto say that once the said bail out is out of the way, everything must be done to stop the rot.
He is suggesting that re-imposing market disciplines of varying credit spreads so that capital flows are reduced. He also advocates, countries then start to look at leaving the euro.
He also states that the only reason to refuse the bail-out would be if we thought that the disintegration of the Euro and the banking system was inevitable.
That is why I still think the bail out should not have taken place, as I still feel nothing except total European union, in all matters is the only thing that will save the Euro.
And I just can't see any countries, except Germany and France even contemplating this.
The EU is dead. I just wish they would get on with the funeral, and bury the bloody thing.

What an immature rant!

1) Cooperation is a two way process, if you ask me it looks all one way ,what suits the Irish

2) Ireland, where honest prime ministers are hard to come by.
===========
1~)

I believe one of the tory policies is, sorry was, to cut co-operation tax.

That utterance I assume was to put off the companies of other countries from investing in Britain.

(Mind it seems that a lot of try ministers put their spare cash off shore, prior to the election.)

=======

2)

I think Irish honesty compares well when considering the duplicity of, and the posturing of the ham actor Cameron and his various cohorts.

It seems to me, that this government for the last three months have hailed one policy after another on one today, to retreat from them the next.
(Strong firm government is what the country needs, is laughable.)

Tell me, which pre-election pledges are the present ideologues, who some say, are in charge, are going to go back on next.



====================

By the way, is Osborne a member of the Irish landed gentry?

Don't know!

LOL jimmy

If the bail out had any hope of working then there would be a pragmatic argument for it. However the Greek bail out has just posponed the their bust and similarly Ireland is going down sooner (if an election is forced) or later (next year probably) Spain and Italy can't take the strain of their share of the bail outs and the whole house of cards just needs and puff of wind and it will all come tumbling down. Osborne might as well have blown up all the hospitals in London or flushed the 7,000,000,000 down the creaking sewage system in London.

From a letter to The Telegraph yesterday. They likened the bail out to 'Giving a patient with an gaping open wound, a blood transfusion'. I think they were spot on.
I think more like,' Trying to giving a corpse the kiss of life', or should that be 'Kiss of death'.
No doubt there are many such analogies our there. Any offers.

"They likened the bail out to 'Giving a patient with an gaping open wound, a blood transfusion'. I think they were spot on."

Are suggesting the surgeons repair the wounds, but in the meanwhile allow the patient to bleed to death, or not be in a state to make a reasonable and possibly quick recovery?

Perhaps, later standing around with drinks in hand congratulating themselves on their surgical skills, while the "patient" is being buried.


The pathways, which appear to be being suggested by Greek and TIM, have similarities to that chosen by Roosevelt and America chose early in WW2, those are the policies of isolationist. The philosophy of little Englanders.

America revised its position, only after Pearl Harbour, with the realisation that America was not insulated from the world.
Britain, now is a small ineffectual state in a globalised world where the size and effect of its economy are more important than blustering.

I hope Ireland is bailed out and that the approach is successful.
If necessary, I hope the EU do the same for Spain and Portugal.
If the policy is unsuccessful the contagion will probably spread to Britain and without the support of the EU, Britain may really be up ships creek.

The only long term benefiters, from the processes being advocated by some at the moment, are those manipulating the financial markets for their own personal gain.

.

Mnamreh,

Agree with your every word.

.

N,
The European Union could be considered to be initiated in 1951 with the treaty of Rome in 1951, and concreted more firmly in 1957 as EEC and subsequent consolidations of the state up to the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.

That is, without considering any negotiation prior to 1951, a period of approximately 60 years. A more than reasonable period of existence for unions of the type it is. During that period, there seems to have been a gradual and generally appropriate integration and consolidation of culture, economic, foreign policies and humanitarian standards and other processes.

However, during that period, and under different political
administrations, Britain has been a constant thorn in the flesh of Europe. Many in Europe would have preferred that Britain had expelled itself completely and continued with its free trade politics and policies elsewhere. That would have been disastrous to Britain and not generally beneficial to Europe, but for the latter probably only a minor hiccup. (You wouldnt have the French bail out of the Royal Navy without our peripheral membership of the EU.)

For a five year period, after I retired, I wandered around Europe and I was surprised by the commonality of the people and the cultures of the different countries, rather than the differences. The humanity and aspirations of the majority of the communities, seemed have more similarities, than differences. The emotional and primitive, irrational nationalistic, or, tribal positioning, which is advocated by the far right of this country, was not often evident. (Of course, there were differences and certainly condemnation of America and Britain over Iraq.)

You use the word amorphous, but I dont think a the EU has to be formless, unformed, shapeless, unshaped, structureless, unstructured, indeterminate, ill-organized, vague, nebulous .

It has to have a political and legal system respectful of the diversities of the community as a whole. There is minutia of the regulations and laws, which are problematic. Even these can be negotiated and amended as necessary, rather used as obstruction to mutual development.

(If you look at the people from the North of England and compare them with the South, there often superficially seems tremendous differences. Dig a little deeper and the South could almost be seen as very similar.~)

As far as disenfranchising the populace, think of the French form of representative system of government, from the village up to central government. (It may have some problems, but in general it works very well and the French wont give it up. (Rightly so.))

Anyway, I found it fascinating to travel around Europe, without having to proffer my passport at borders, change currencies and be charged exorbitant rates by the money lenders for doing so. Also, finding the majority of the populace of various countries friendly, helpful and informative.

.

Fred

'Britain has been a constant thorn in the flesh of Europe' Good! can't have it too easy now can they. I once heard that many of the EU politburo were communists in their formative years, I never bothered/had time to check this out but should surely cause some concern if true.

Do you not think its is a little strange for the UK to be devolving powers to the Welsh Assembly when Westminster is reliquishing powers to your beloved EU? Is there any point? Which would you prefer, a fully devolved Wales or an EU that keeps sucking in the oxygen?

Would you like to see Wales fully devolved from the UK?

It could be construed from your post that the best bit of the EU is that it allows you cross borders without your passport and fx and i'm glad you enjoyed your 5 year walkabout. Did you tend to visit similar places in each country or did you step far enough off the beaten track to see the opposite side of the utopia you witnessed?

Raw,

Many "horrid" Henries grow up be quite nice adults and vice versa.

Having had close contacts with many communists and full blooded tories, generally preferred the latter, but thought bother suffered because of simplistic ideology that some in both groups to be deluded.

(That is from my positioning, which is obviously sane.)

Mixed feelings about Welsh Assembly, but don't feel the job they are doing is to bad and don't think they would lose by becoming an integral part of the EU. I applaud their position on Education and NHS, but wonder if they will be able to continue financing as of previous.

Devolving, from UK, I feel that both countries are to intertwined to do so.

Wandered through all strata other than the elite and although I spent more of my time in the country areas and smaller towns, I did have more exposure to the latter.

I did watch with interest over a number of years the improvements of "living", health, accommodation infrastructure in Portugal and Spain.

A large amount of the improvements benefited from the financial support and influence of the EEC and EU.

(I wonder how much British money contributed to the economic crash, which is occurring in Spain due to the housing bulge collapse.)

Rawdm999,

Devolution is not always bad. I have been pushing for Yorkshires independence from the rest of you ordinary folk, for many a year.
Remember, we have the upper hand. We have all the sheep.

But seriously, your post says it all re the Wales/Scotland and EU issues.

'A large amount of the improvements benefited from the financial support and influence of the EEC and EU.
(I wonder how much British money contributed to the economic crash, which is occurring in Spain due to the housing bulge collapse.)'

Sometimes don't understand how your mind works. On the one hand you are saying EEC & EU money is ok to pump into the economy but on the other hand with your Britain Bash you say we contributed to the crash. The EEC/EU money temporarily inflates the economy and when that money is spent the economy must be self sustaining at the new/false inflated level, otherwise bust/unemployment etc. Maybe, having finished the infrastructure projects the Spanish authorities had too many spare construction workers to deal with and the obvious answer was to build houses, illegally or not. It also works in both directions, we had foreign investors inflating the prices of our housing stock, however, our economy is broader based than Spains.
Santander did pretty well out of our housing crash.

Greek

You can have devolution as long as you agree never to restrict exports of your real ales and in times of shortage you Yorkshire folk, with the goodness of your heart, export them first and save the dregs for domestic consumption.

edit. you can keep the sheep but the welsh invasion may arrive shortly.

Rawdm999,

OK agreed.

Also your bit answering ,''A large amount of the improvements benefited from the financial support and influence of the EEC and EU", is again correct. Of course the bottom line must be, We contribute more to the EU than we receive. Simple economics prove what a raw deal we are getting.

No longer see Fred's posts (squelched), but from some replies that must be to him, it is obvious he is still arguing for the sake of it.

Thursday November 25,2010
By Daniel Hannan, Conservative Euro MP for South-East England Have your say(0)
HERES a nasty coincidence. All the welfare cuts put together will save 7billion: precisely Britains share of the Irish bail-out.


In other words, every penny we save from these painful benefits reductions will go to prop up the euro.

That 7billion is in addition to the 14billion which we pay into the EU budget every year: a budget that keeps rising.




Britains share of the increase for next year not our share of the budget, our share of the increase will be 435million: enough to pay for 12,000 nurses, 15,000 police officers or 22,000 Army privates.

But our direct contributions are only part, and not the most important part, of the overall costs of the EU.

The Common Agricultural Policy hurts our farmers and costs every household an extra 1,200 a year in higher taxes and higher food bills. The Common Fisheries Policy has wiped out what ought to have been a great renewable resource off our coasts.

Worst of all is the cost of red tape. Here, I can do no better than to quote a survey by the most recent internal market commissioner, Gunter Verheugen. He found that the cost of regulation in the EU was 600billion euros a year. On the European Commissions own figures, the advantages of the single market are worth only 120billion euros a year.

In other words, Eurocrats themselves admit that the costs of the EU outweigh the benefits by five to one.

What about commerce? We are often told that half of Britains trade is with the EU. True, but look at the balance of that trade. For most of the period of our membership, we have run a healthy surplus with the rest of the world but a deficit with Europe.



Since the financial crisis hit, we have run a small overall deficit on the non-EU share of our trade, too. Even so, our deficit with the EU last year was 14.4billion, as against just 1.1billion for the rest of the world.

Those figures are the answer to those who say that, if we left, our exports would suffer.

The other members benefit far more from cross-Channel commerce than we do. In any negotiation, the customer generally has the last word over the salesman.

In any case, we dont need to be part of the EUs political structures to be part of the single market.

Norway and Switzerland both sell around twice as much per head to the EU as we do.

They participate fully in the freedoms of the European market but are outside the CAP and CFP, police their own borders, settle their own human rights issues, trade freely with non-EU countries, and make only token contributions to the EU budget.

Oh, and unlike EU members, they pass the majority of their own laws.

Norway and Switzerland are thriving as independent states. So could Britain.


http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/213564/European-Union-Costs-are-five-times-the-benefits