Grendel
Well-Known Member
This far right paper seems to disagree with you
The European economy is improving – but there’s a catch when it comes to youth unemployment
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
This far right paper seems to disagree with you
The European economy is improving – but there’s a catch when it comes to youth unemployment
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Guess Nigel has now been recruited by the independent.
The European economy is improving – but there’s a catch when it comes to youth unemployment
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
There is most certainly not a widespread desire amongst the Italian youth to leave the EU. If anything they are much more outward looking than the youth here.
Italy's problems run very deep and are due to decades of corruption. I've always said it's a country for rich old men.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Kingokings204
Well-Known Member
Not all is the EU fault of course I agree. Their main problem is immigration and low wages.
The euro isn’t suited for the youth either. Funny how it doesn’t suit Greece and Spain either. Countries totally different to France and Germany. It doesn’t work.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Interesting how you now deem it to be a worthy source after dismissing it before. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of anger towards the lack of support from the wider EU to help with the migration crises, but to claim that the election was fought with eurosceptisism at the centre of it all is wrong.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
The main problems are illegal migration and the Mafia. The Mafia sucks the life out of the country, it's very sad. The wages are lower but there is a lot of working in the black where thousands go undeclared and they are less consumeristic and save a lot.
No. Nigel is firmly on the side of the bullshitter in chief and speaking at his rallies ( CPAC ). The article says things are getting better and doesn’t mention the youth blaming the EU. We have crap papers here, but nothing as bad as the Mail, Sun or Express to make people angry against the EU.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
They need a clean the decks style reform, but I think it is unlikely that oil tanker can be turned round in my lifetime or even the next 100 years.
Not suited for youth? It doesn’t work? No country has left and I doubt whether any will. People want to join the Euro. They want the purchasing power of a stable currency. The Brexiteers want it to fail, but the people with it in their pocket don’t. You can see the inflation caused by the Brexit devaluation of the pound. Short term export gain. Gets eaten up by increased prices of raw materials. Italy used to continually devalue to get the export hit, but millions of their population remained poor and couldn’t afford imported goods.
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
You wouldn't - you dont have time. You're too busy scouring the internet looking for items to bash the Tories, discredit Brexit & promote the EU
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Tories are bashing themselves. No need to even loook. Brexit is discrediting itself. Not long ago it was 'sailing into a glorious sunset', now it is 'will have to face some hard facts', 'life will be different', 'ok short term it will be worse', or at best 'the EU will suffer as well'..... I don't need to promote the EU. As an alternative to a total fxxk up, it stands alone.
Suspect that Bitcoin will fail as it is the first really big alternative. It will soon be outdated, but the idea of an international payment system independent of government policy will prevail.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
But running a common currency covering a number of different economies all performing at varying levels goes completely against fiscal and monetary control principles. And when one starts to fail (let’s say Greece) the currency would usually be devalued to help them stabilise, but nope the EU just decides “tough shit” and that’s the end of that country. Farcical really that it was ever introduced.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
And yet you do with a religious kind of zeal, bit of a contradiction there. To a non-EU supporter you sound exactly the same as an Islamic extremist: "Ours is the only way and if you disagree with us you are damned for eternity".
Astute
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't know what has been said on here. Gave up on the same repeated bullshit.
But what I do know is that yiu continually said you were moving to Italy because we are racist and they are not.
Astute
Well-Known Member
No political party in the UK is doing well. They are all bashing themselves.
The EU is good? Look at the population through the EU. The anti EU and what could be seen as racist vote is growing throughout the EU. Previously strong parties are seriously losing votes. Yes nobody has left yet. But we will soon. Then the billions we put in each year will be lost. So how will this be covered?
I can't see them cutting down on their own 'wages' or astronomical pensions. I can't see them cutting down on their own gold plated goodbye payments when they lose their role in the EU. I can't see them cutting down on their expenses.
The few countries left that put billions more in than they take out don't want to cover the loss of what we put in. So that means a reduction of what is given out. That won't be a vote winner in those countries. Italy are saying now that they need more help. The EU say migrants must register there and not travel further. Greece needs more help. Will that be cut back? I suppose they can cut back on what the french farmers get. IIRC they get about 9 billion a year. And 80 % of EU payments go to farmers. But it goes to a small percentage of farmers.
The payments are to grow less. This keeps the prices up. I suppose it will be good to see the french farmers back with their infamous blockades. Most of the money goes to the rich. Very typical of the EU.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Hahahaha...yeah, if you say so. I won't even bother asking you to show me any proof of that.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
UK can expect a 'stronger' relationship with Saudi Arabia after Brexit
It's much better to get closer to these lot than the EUSSR!
It's much better to get closer to these lot than the EUSSR!
I think a close union is the only way. I don’t think 28 nation states will get us any further than it did in the past. 1945 was the final proof that 28 plus nation states putting themselves first will inevitably lead to disaster in Europe. Just to speeden things up, we have Putin and the inept Trump potentially helping the decline into chaos. I am certainly not damning anybody, but if you look at past experience, Europe could well be damning itself.
They, the 27, will reduce the budget and increase the contributions to cover our exit. „They“ until next year are us. We had over 70 MEPs and membership of the EU council. The EU is not a foreign body.
Many right wing people on the internet are also saying that asylum seekers register at the first safe country. If you are in the first country it is maybe no surprise to want to share the responsibility and for there to be tensions.
I wouldn’t be happy about the rise of the radical right. Simple solutions are not always the best. Take Trump‘s tariffs as an example of solving one problem, but creating more. An own goal.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
I bet this will upset you.
Back in black: UK in current budget surplus as IMF says Osborne was right to cut spending
Wonder why the British Biased Corporation hasn't covered this story?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I can't be arsed to trawl through this thread but there are definitely Brexiteers on here who have said the IMF always get's it wrong.
And austerity isn't an economic policy, it's an ideology, and as crime soars and the NHS falters I can' really get too excited about this news.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
True, but what i'm saying is that there are agendas out there and being selective about what you publicise is one way of skewing the 'news' that isn't technically censorship but comes as close as it can without crossing the line. They're all at it.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
that I agree with.
The report was done by Alberto Alesina a fiscal hawk. He proposes the opposite of Keynsian economics and has written many books over the years. His report surprisingly coincides with his views.
This budget surplus was mentioned a couple of day ago, but called „small“. What‘s the chance of significant pay rises for public service workers or investment in housing?
Alberto Alesina calls for cutting entitlements for the future benefit of countries. Will be popular with Brexiteers because he thinks splitting trade blocs and countries ( EU and Italy ? ) may be in their interests. Perhaps they will overlook his support of „austerity“ as an ideology?
Exactly, as your posting of news shows. Here’s one for reality Inflation deals another blow to under-fire retail sector in February, data shows
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
Oh I must've misunderstood. I thought you were in favour of a single international currency which was no doubt a Bitcoin goal
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
I have not said I am against Bitcoin, just that I think it will be superseded by something better. People see the advantages and the demand for some easy safe way of paying and receiving without being tied to one country’s currency. I am sure that a better system will evolve. Their are already others available.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Robert Peston’s take on things. Very insightful.
The EU’s guidelines for trade talks with the UK, which will be sent to EU members tomorrow or possibly later today, will confirm - if it were needed - that size matters in such commercial talks.
Because they will show that the countries remaining inside the EU’s giant single market intend to dictate the nature of our future access to that market - and that most of the rest of the EU has only limited enthusiasm for Theresa May’s vision of a trading partnership based on mutual recognition of rules and regulations.
The EU’s president Donald Tusk has listened politely to what the PM said on Friday about the kind of access we would like, namely a broader and deeper trading relationship than a classic free trade deal or FTA, and will respond with a conditional but unambiguous “no”.
Or rather his guidelines will signal that what the EU is prepared to negotiate is the least of what the PM wants, namely a free trade agreement similar to the arrangement it has with Canada - unless the prime minister is prepared to surrender some (at least) of her red lines.
Her hopes that so-called mutual recognition of our standards would provide many of the benefits of membership of the single market and customs union will be dashed - unless she is prepared to cross the red line that would then see her run over by Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson in that giant red Brexit bus, namely that the European Court of Justice must be the arbiter of whether the rules for our businesses really are in spirit and effect the same as theirs.
There is simply not the faintest chance that EU government heads will waiver from what for them is the sacred principle that when it comes to interpreting their law, their court has to be supreme.
British officials and ministers can huff and puff all they like that this is unreasonable, that there is plenty of precedent for other supranational bodies acting as permanent arbitrator of the kind of arrangement we want.
But the EU will say what matters far more is that the success of their single market is based on the primacy of European law. And they will not waiver from that principle.
By the way they will be minded to waiver even less by the success of eurosceptic populists in Italy’s general election. Compromise with the UK beyond a very limited point would be seen to encourage anti-EU politicians everywhere - which is the last thing they want.
For what it is worth, EU governments were pleased to hear Theresa May acknowledge that the UK cannot have the benefits of EU membership without the obligations. But they don’t think she yet properly understands which obligations are for them irrevocably paired with the commercial benefits we want to retain.
By the way this is a particularly chilling for the City and financial service firms - because it makes the government’s hope that a mutual-recognition deal on regulations would deliver the benefits to them of single-market membership even more unrealistic than it is for manufacturers.
A clear eyed assessment of all this presents the PM with three choices.
She can negotiate in the knowledge that the tariff-free and frictionless access to the single market she seeks will require her to sacrifice her red lines - most notably the supremacy of British law over European law, the future right to negotiate free trade deals with third-party countries like the US and China, and the end of meaningful payments into the EU’s budget.
But if she moves thither, she would have to appeal for support in Parliament above the heads of her Brexiter ministers and MPs - and that might well destroy her party.
So that it isn’t going to happen.
Or she could face up to reality and publicly acknowledge that the UK won’t get better than a Canada-style free trade deal, for as long as she insists on her red lines.
But parliament would never vote for such a limited deal. And as and when Parliament rejected such a deal, or it became clear that it would, she would be forced to reconsider the sanctity of her red lines - which would (obvs) also split her party.
So that isn’t going to happen either.
What is going to happen is that the conceit will be sustained by her and her colleagues that her speech is a rational basis for negotiation.
She will kick the can down the road in the Micawberish hope that something will turn up.
As a result, Brexit negotiations will continue to suck all the energy and initiative out of this government, and for many months and years they will continue to crowd out all other sensible government business.
Arguably the tragedy of Brexit is not Brexit itself, but the opportunity cost it represents, the way that it is preventing the UK mend itself.
The PM ended her important Brexit address on Friday by saying “let’s get in with it”. But those words will remain hollow until she is prepared to choose between what parliament would support and what would keep her party whole.
The EU’s guidelines for trade talks with the UK, which will be sent to EU members tomorrow or possibly later today, will confirm - if it were needed - that size matters in such commercial talks.
Because they will show that the countries remaining inside the EU’s giant single market intend to dictate the nature of our future access to that market - and that most of the rest of the EU has only limited enthusiasm for Theresa May’s vision of a trading partnership based on mutual recognition of rules and regulations.
The EU’s president Donald Tusk has listened politely to what the PM said on Friday about the kind of access we would like, namely a broader and deeper trading relationship than a classic free trade deal or FTA, and will respond with a conditional but unambiguous “no”.
Or rather his guidelines will signal that what the EU is prepared to negotiate is the least of what the PM wants, namely a free trade agreement similar to the arrangement it has with Canada - unless the prime minister is prepared to surrender some (at least) of her red lines.
Her hopes that so-called mutual recognition of our standards would provide many of the benefits of membership of the single market and customs union will be dashed - unless she is prepared to cross the red line that would then see her run over by Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson in that giant red Brexit bus, namely that the European Court of Justice must be the arbiter of whether the rules for our businesses really are in spirit and effect the same as theirs.
There is simply not the faintest chance that EU government heads will waiver from what for them is the sacred principle that when it comes to interpreting their law, their court has to be supreme.
British officials and ministers can huff and puff all they like that this is unreasonable, that there is plenty of precedent for other supranational bodies acting as permanent arbitrator of the kind of arrangement we want.
But the EU will say what matters far more is that the success of their single market is based on the primacy of European law. And they will not waiver from that principle.
By the way they will be minded to waiver even less by the success of eurosceptic populists in Italy’s general election. Compromise with the UK beyond a very limited point would be seen to encourage anti-EU politicians everywhere - which is the last thing they want.
For what it is worth, EU governments were pleased to hear Theresa May acknowledge that the UK cannot have the benefits of EU membership without the obligations. But they don’t think she yet properly understands which obligations are for them irrevocably paired with the commercial benefits we want to retain.
By the way this is a particularly chilling for the City and financial service firms - because it makes the government’s hope that a mutual-recognition deal on regulations would deliver the benefits to them of single-market membership even more unrealistic than it is for manufacturers.
A clear eyed assessment of all this presents the PM with three choices.
She can negotiate in the knowledge that the tariff-free and frictionless access to the single market she seeks will require her to sacrifice her red lines - most notably the supremacy of British law over European law, the future right to negotiate free trade deals with third-party countries like the US and China, and the end of meaningful payments into the EU’s budget.
But if she moves thither, she would have to appeal for support in Parliament above the heads of her Brexiter ministers and MPs - and that might well destroy her party.
So that it isn’t going to happen.
Or she could face up to reality and publicly acknowledge that the UK won’t get better than a Canada-style free trade deal, for as long as she insists on her red lines.
But parliament would never vote for such a limited deal. And as and when Parliament rejected such a deal, or it became clear that it would, she would be forced to reconsider the sanctity of her red lines - which would (obvs) also split her party.
So that isn’t going to happen either.
What is going to happen is that the conceit will be sustained by her and her colleagues that her speech is a rational basis for negotiation.
She will kick the can down the road in the Micawberish hope that something will turn up.
As a result, Brexit negotiations will continue to suck all the energy and initiative out of this government, and for many months and years they will continue to crowd out all other sensible government business.
Arguably the tragedy of Brexit is not Brexit itself, but the opportunity cost it represents, the way that it is preventing the UK mend itself.
The PM ended her important Brexit address on Friday by saying “let’s get in with it”. But those words will remain hollow until she is prepared to choose between what parliament would support and what would keep her party whole.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Subscribe to read
Yet another show of might.
Looks like it can't be shown but it's Washington preparing to offer an inferior flight deal post Brexit, which is a shock!
Yet another show of might.
Looks like it can't be shown but it's Washington preparing to offer an inferior flight deal post Brexit, which is a shock!
Astute
Well-Known Member
And here is the normal bullshit. You were leaving the UK because of the racism towards your partner. Now it wasn't said.
Another spanner in the works. They hope to find a compromise sometime in the future....... In the open skies agreement the airline company had to be majority EU owned, now it has to be majority U.K. owned on flights from the U.K. to the USA. I don’t know how far they have got on flights from the U.K. to and from the EU. Maybe with some airlines you will fly to the USA via Frankfurt or Paris.