David Cameron

I used to like seeing the Union Flag, with the words, “Made in Great Britain”, on many items, once upon a time.Now it’s made in Japan, China, India, etc.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

I rest my case.;)

Charlie.
Perchance, this is the reason we have dropped the word “GREAT” from, Great Britain.
Personaly, I try, if possible to buy anything I want, that is made in G.B. but it’s getting harder and harder.

I used to like seeing the Union Flag, with the words, “Made in Great Britain”, on many items, once upon a time.Now it’s made in Japan, China, India, etc.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

I think there is a degree of incorrectly accepted wisdom there, although the UK is certainly one of the better behaved members in blindly bowing down before the great god in Brussels.

For their part France and Germany have both argued vociferously against edicts, as you call them, and France is always reluctant to accede to these if they are against French interests.

Part of the reason for the UK position, I am sure, is that, as you may be aware, the day to day process of governance in this country is through the Civil Service not the Ministers of Government. And the Foreign Office has been pro-EU for years and is stuffed with EU apologists: which is probably one of reasons why our “esteemed Foreign Secretary is becoming less EU hawkish than he was.

Charliehunt.
Why is it, as I asked before, that France and Germany, can “Cherry pick” what edicts suit them, but we follow them to the letter?.
Why can’t we give Brussels “The Bird”.
Who “Unelected” them to govern our daily lives anyway?.

WHY do we have to do what they say?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

It would never work because there would be no manifestos, only aspirations and hopes. Over to the voters. In any case I am not sure I have ever thought that a party would be able to implement evetything they promised, even if they genuinely wanted to. Once the “books” are opened after the installation of the new government all bets are off, anyway.

I have always wanted pre-election manifestos to be legally binding once a Government is voted in. We are their in effect customer they need provide the service they promise, this means in first year of Government changes should start to be seen and polices put in place etc. If they fail to do so they need go back to the electorate and let the country decide. By the next General election the EU may well have split up anyway, I very much doubt it will be in its same form by then and would guess some sort of reform will come in as the EU changes shape or falls apart. The next year or so are going to be a bumpy one to say the least as many countries will probably default on loans etc, send the Euro and EU into freefall. So in reality Cameron is just buying time as he is scared to make a move himself, he knows very well the EU does not work and knows the country will vote against it, however he also knows its a club to be in at the moment and does not want to upset them. One day we will have politcians with the courage to make the bold moves and not feather their own nests, until that time we will have one shower of sh1t after another blaming the Government before it for all the problems. Difficult times need a strong leader we don’t have one anywhere at the moment,do we?.

[QUOTE=TonyT;1937628]Parties should have their pre election promises made legally binding and they should end up in court with severe financial punishments against them if they fail to carry them out during their tenure…

It would stop all this pre election promising the world and delivering squat…

Tony, I wish I had as many££s as times I have said that:rolleyes:
I should like to see them have a referendom on their Pensions,
Why is it that when an edict comes from the “Gravy train castle” Both France and Germany, when it suits the, give Brussels “The Bird?” and take no notice, but the U.K. follow it to the letter?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

The problem was that a federal Europe was always the ultimate aspiration of its founders but it was nicely dressed up as a trading block for ease of transition.

Parties should have their pre election promises made legally binding and they should end up in court with severe financial punishments against them if they fail to carry them out during their tenure…

It would stop all this pre election promising the world and delivering squat…

As for Europe, that turkey Brown signed our rights to govern away, the problem with Europe was it was envisaged as a trading partnership, unfortunately they exceeded its original concept and laws are now being produced by unelected officials with no powers to veto them.

Wether the UK stays in or ops out of the EU, in the grand scheme of things, it makes very little difference. In this age of globalisation, the day of the nation state having the last word in its economic policies is virtually over. Their economies have been, and always will be, subordinate to the policies of the banks, various global financial institutions, and multi national business. On the good days, we’ll benefit from when these faceless ‘grey suited wizz kids’ get it right, and on the days when they don’t, we’ll be reeling from the results of it, and they’ll walk away to have a go another day. Faceless apparatchiks are not unique to the dear ‘ol EU I’m afraid. IMO, in the real world, nation states no longer have a real last word in formulating their own fiscal/economic policy, no matter what the governments may claim, more’s the pity.

Never mind the EU, the larger issue is the fact that there are the beginnings of a seismic economic shift to the East, China, India and Latin America. In the future, their economic policies will have a far greater impact on the ailing economies of Europe, be they in the EU or not. As the economic clout of the new emerging economic powers grow, and it will, there can be no argument about that, they will eventually eclipse even the US, in both the economic and ideological fields.

In the context of the present world economic order, and the new one looming on the horizon, does anyone seriously think that the pronouncements of a certain Mr Cameron or any other PM or President for that matter, are going to concern or infuence the worlds real economic decision makers? Somehow, doubt it.

On a day to day basis those of us in industry see huge advantages in homogenized regulatory bodies rather than each country having their own.

That might be the case in your industry Derekf, but in mine the imposition of EU-driven regulation has been, and continues to be, mainly negative in terms of the ability of UK brands to develop innovative products, even in light of clear research to show their benefits to many consumers.

The “pre-EU” UK market (and those in a few other EU States such as Netherlands) allowed consumers far more freedom of choice (and posed no more of a risk to consumer health or safety) than in one or two other large EU States, but those two large States had far more restrictive rules – based on the “Nanny-State knows best” mentality, whereas UK was firmly based on a safety-based approach to regulation.

During the lengthy debate over “harmonising” regulations in my industry, the UK and the a couple of other more “liberal” States were in a minority, and so the process used to develop EU-wide regulations tended to result in the majority view getting their way, and thus ended u formulating rules and regulations that restrict the previous freedom enjoyed by the UK market, whilst having little if any effect on the market in most other EU states.

Many in my industry would no doubt agree that IN THEORY, a harmonised set of rules and regulations should benefit an industrial sector, but as seen in our area of business, it does not always work this way due the way EU Legislation is “harmonised”. The majority view generally tends to hold sway, and one or two vociferous States can “influence” a number of smaller States during the drawn out debates, and so swing votes in their favour. This can have a major impact on individual markets who have previously operated to a very different set of National rules than those in those two “noisy” States. In my industry the EU Directives have tended to drive things downwards towards the lowest common denominator, simply because that is the way the two large States have chosen to regulate their individual markets in the past, rather than impose safeguards yet still leave room for innovation.

So your comment that “those of us in industry see huge advantages in homogenized regulatory bodies rather than each country having their own” is not applicable to all industries. It may have worked well for your area of industry, but it has not been the same experience for all 🙁 .

..And no I don’t read the Daily Mail :diablo: my views are formed based on 15+ years of “hands-on” experience trying to help ensure EU Legislation does not have a negative impact on a small UK industry sector – and of seeing UK views get steam-rollered by one or two particular EU States on far too many many occasions (no names-no pack-drill, but you can probably guess which States they are 😉 ).

And the costs (financial and environmental) involved in meeting these ever changing, and ever-more restrictive, pieces of Euro-nonsense in my industry are significant.

Paul F

Governments of all colours know the consequences of leaving the EU so don’t want it to happen.
Sadly the real issues involving Europe will be ignored and it will become a bun fight about straight bananas, “being ruled from Brussels”, and “foreigners” anyway.

You should only be allowed to vote on EU memebership if you can prove you have read and understood all of the Treaties of the European Union. Your vote will then be based on an intelligent choice and not based on the Daily Mail or Express.

Not being part of the largest trading bloc on our doorstep would be foolish in the extreme. On a day to day basis those of us in industry see huge advantages in homogenized regulatory bodies rather than each country having their own.

Why should your opinion be more valid than someone else’s, just because you’re “in industry”. The reasons for leaving are not purely economic, and nor should they be. people from all walks of life, with all levels of education should be free to decide.

What’s wrong with objecting to being ruled by Europe? Surely not wanting our day to day lives being dictated by Foreign nations is common sense? That doesn’t make me racist.

If being part of the EU trading block means us having to sacrifice our way of life, including our free market instincts, then the EU be damned.

We should be looking to form closer alliances to our natural partner nations, our family if you will, the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth nations. Groups of nations with similar values to ourselves.

Regarding your second paragraph, if that was applied to everything on which people have the vote I think the numbers of voters would be dramatically reduced. I wonder what the percentage of voters is, who actually read each party’s manifesto from cover to cover, before making their choice.

In the long term it is unlikely that our best economic interests will be served by being harnessed to a failing economic hybrid. That having been said there is no evidence whatsoever, merely scaremongering, that our departure will have any effect at all. Why should countries stop exporting to us or buying froim us, just because we are not in their club? Many other parts of the world are not stagnating in a mire of onerous commercial legislation and we should be tapping into that growth and that potential instead of staring across the Channel with blinkers on. And we would be better off to the tune of about £8 billion p.a. and growing well above the rate of inflation.

I agree entirely with what you say on this.;)
Jim.
Lincoln .7

DerekF.

That begs the question, how on earth did we manage without them previously?

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Governments of all colours know the consequences of leaving the EU so don’t want it to happen.
Sadly the real issues involving Europe will be ignored and it will become a bun fight about straight bananas, “being ruled from Brussels”, and “foreigners” anyway.

You should only be allowed to vote on EU memebership if you can prove you have read and understood all of the Treaties of the European Union. Your vote will then be based on an intelligent choice and not based on the Daily Mail or Express.

Not being part of the largest trading bloc on our doorstep would be foolish in the extreme. On a day to day basis those of us in industry see huge advantages in homogenized regulatory bodies rather than each country having their own.

Regarding your second paragraph, if that was applied to everything on which people have the vote I think the numbers of voters would be dramatically reduced. I wonder what the percentage of voters is, who actually read each party’s manifesto from cover to cover, before making their choice.

In the long term it is unlikely that our best economic interests will be served by being harnessed to a failing economic hybrid. That having been said there is no evidence whatsoever, merely scaremongering, that our departure will have any effect at all. Why should countries stop exporting to us or buying froim us, just because we are not in their club? Many other parts of the world are not stagnating in a mire of onerous commercial legislation and we should be tapping into that growth and that potential instead of staring across the Channel with blinkers on. And we would be better off to the tune of about £8 billion p.a. and growing well above the rate of inflation.

Governments of all colours know the consequences of leaving the EU so don’t want it to happen.
Sadly the real issues involving Europe will be ignored and it will become a bun fight about straight bananas, “being ruled from Brussels”, and “foreigners” anyway.

You should only be allowed to vote on EU memebership if you can prove you have read and understood all of the Treaties of the European Union. Your vote will then be based on an intelligent choice and not based on the Daily Mail or Express.

Not being part of the largest trading bloc on our doorstep would be foolish in the extreme. On a day to day basis those of us in industry see huge advantages in homogenized regulatory bodies rather than each country having their own.

Well, a hypothetical question because it will never happen…but if it did, forget all the hype – you’d probably hardly know the difference except for a 6 month hiatus!!;);)