Political Crossfire Forums

[angusrae]

DSwain wrote:
I'm sure Tony Blair and the Labour whips would get a kick out of reading your post, Eton. A government with a majority of 66 still gets voted down on key planks of policy. And 16% of Scots electors casting votes in 2005 voted Conservative - I thought you were the great supporter of greater proportionality in government?



Which gained them 1 seat an excellent arguement for PR there DSwain
but that is a debate for another time. A Conservitive government in Westminster and a Labour or SNP led executive in Scotland would bring a whole level to party poltics in Britain.

Do you agree or Disagree everyone?

[Eton]

16% of Scots voted Conservative and how many seats did they win? ONE!
Another grievence I have - our electoral system. Perhaps by introducing PR, 16% of Scottish seats will be conservative and then we can rest assured that any UK government Tory or Labour will have Scottish MPs.

I have always considered the EU to be the same as the UK but with a few extra languages. Nobody is saying it is perfect, and I have my own criticisms of the EU, but the solution isn't just to run away to our insular island. We should try to make it a more efficient entity. They are just the same and just as different as you and I. Frankly any people I can get drunk with, be treated at a doctor's surgery, attend school with and f**k, is a people I know I can work with.

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: DSwain wrote:
I'm sure Tony Blair and the Labour whips would get a kick out of reading your post, Eton. A government with a majority of 66 still gets voted down on key planks of policy. And 16% of Scots electors casting votes in 2005 voted Conservative - I thought you were the great supporter of greater proportionality in government?



Which gained them 1 seat an excellent arguement for PR there DSwain
but that is a debate for another time. A Conservitive government in Westminster and a Labour or SNP led executive in Scotland would bring a whole level to party poltics in Britain.

Do you agree or Disagree everyone?

I think PR should be looked at, just not the STV - I'd prefer the Aussie ATV. But anyway....

It would be a very interesting turn in British politics - certainly a lot more 'European'.......

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: 16% of Scots voted Conservative and how many seats did they win? ONE!
Another grievence I have - our electoral system. Perhaps by introducing PR, 16% of Scottish seats will be conservative and then we can rest assured that any UK government Tory or Labour will have Scottish MPs.

I have always considered the EU to be the same as the UK but with a few extra languages. Nobody is saying it is perfect, and I have my own criticisms of the EU, but the solution isn't just to run away to our insular island. We should try to make it a more efficient entity. They are just the same and just as different as you and I. Frankly any people I can get drunk with, be treated at a doctor's surgery, attend school with and f**k, is a people I know I can work with.

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

There are lots of Europeans I've met who are fine people. Ditto - Americans, Australians, Canadians, Indians, Nigerians....Simply because Europeans can be splendid chaps is not an argument for a single European state.

To segue things - look at the tension we are discussing in this thread concerning the UK. The UK as a political union is 300 years old; we share the same language, history, lots of culture (high and low) - we've been at the top together and the bottom. Yet we're still talking about can this Union survive. Now the idea of poltical union in Europe: 25 nations with WILDLY different traditions of democracy and governance, with 21 (!) official languages, covering several time zones, with divergent economies. If you slam these countries together in an unnecessary and unwanted political union, purely at the behest of those poltical elites who consider those who dissent as mere impediments, then you're on the road to civil strife and warfare.

[Eton]

Once and for all, yes there are 21 official languages, but ONLY three working languages. That means that it is hoped that every European citizen will speak at least ONE of those three working languages. Incidently 230 million Europeans speak one of the working languages as a first language, the remaining 120 million in the EU speak at least one of the others. It aint that difficult to learn to speak another indo-european language. Most of them have a common ancestry. English is the bastard language of German and latin-French, so for us it should be easy to learn French or German.

Yes the UK is 300 years, but it is a question of usefulness. It had a purpose in 1707 - to carve out an empire and mutual defence in a hostile europe. Now Europe is not the enemy, in fact Europe is the only part of the world with Australia/New Zealand/Canada that share our values. The world is increasingly hostile. China and Russia have set up the 'Shanghi Group' of like minded dictatorial powers who are all in favour of mutual support for their fellow thugs. China is also dominating ASEAN. The US is clearly moving further away from Europe AND the UK, they are becoming more evangelical and showing a distint lack of regard for international law. Do I need to even say anything about the middle east.

I repeat once more, nobody is talking about creating a European Nation, but it makes sense to work together and it would be more efficient if some of those decisions were made in Brussels.

The mob opposes it because they don't know enough about it, having recieved most of their information from the Sun/Hate Mail.

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: Once and for all, yes there are 21 official languages, but ONLY three working languages. That means that it is hoped that every European citizen will speak at least ONE of those three working languages. Incidently 230 million Europeans speak one of the working languages as a first language, the remaining 120 million in the EU speak at least one of the others. It aint that difficult to learn to speak another indo-european language. Most of them have a common ancestry. English is the bastard language of German and latin-French, so for us it should be easy to learn French or German.

Yes the UK is 300 years, but it is a question of usefulness. It had a purpose in 1707 - to carve out an empire and mutual defence in a hostile europe. Now Europe is not the enemy, in fact Europe is the only part of the world with Australia/New Zealand/Canada that share our values. The world is increasingly hostile. China and Russia have set up the 'Shanghi Group' of like minded dictatorial powers who are all in favour of mutual support for their fellow thugs. China is also dominating ASEAN. The US is clearly moving further away from Europe AND the UK, they are becoming more evangelical and showing a distint lack of regard for international law. Do I need to even say anything about the middle east.

I repeat once more, nobody is talking about creating a European Nation, but it makes sense to work together and it would be more efficient if some of those decisions were made in Brussels.

The mob opposes it because they don't know enough about it, having recieved most of their information from the Sun/Hate Mail.

I'm sorry you're losing your patience with me, Eton - having to "..repeat once more..once and for all..." I'm clearly one of those ill-informed peasants who are impertinent enough to disagree with your view of Europe.

58 million Italians and 41 million Spaniards would be thrilled to hear of the 2nd Division relegation you propose for their native languages.

You're dissembling on the language point Eton - those 120 million who speak one of your 'working' languages as a second tongue speak it to the standard of being able to hold a simple conversation ie, where is the train station? Or, may I have a kilo of tomatoes please. I suppose all of those people who live in the 19 nations for whom your 3 'working' languages aren't official tongues can get jobs as information kiosk workers or greengrocers when the Euro zone stifles their local economies. And obviously we peasants who don't have a smattering will just have to lump it - but keep paying the taxes, of course.

You're throwing out China and Russia as the bogeymen, to scare the minnow states into throwing in our lot. Bi-lateralism works rather well, you know. At least the vast majority of countries seem to think so - as that's how they do their business. The imminent collapse of Doha shows just how effective bi-lateralism can be - it's a shame that Mr Mandelson doesn't wise up. I'm going to ignore the anti-American bent of your post as it's just too tiresome to debate here.

You're not for a European state? So what exactly are you 'for'? You despise the nation state and now you profess no liking for a United States of Europe. What's your vision for the future?

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

DSwain wrote:

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

UK is not a nation either.But it is a country...

[angusrae]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: DSwain wrote:

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

UK is not a nation either.But it is a country...

The UK is not an nation nor a country it is a political entity which came into being in 1707

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: DSwain wrote:

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

UK is not a nation either.But it is a country...

The UK is not an nation nor a country it is a political entity which came into being in 1707

Well until a majority of Scots agree with you angusrae, looks like you're stuck in this political entity. With a British passport.

[angusrae]

DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: DSwain wrote:

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

UK is not a nation either.But it is a country...

The UK is not an nation nor a country it is a political entity which came into being in 1707

Well until a majority of Scots agree with you angusrae, looks like you're stuck in this political entity. With a British passport.

Well is the UK a country or a alliance (Political Union) of nation states DSwain?

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: DSwain wrote:

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

UK is not a nation either.But it is a country...

The UK is not an nation nor a country it is a political entity which came into being in 1707

Well until a majority of Scots agree with you angusrae, looks like you're stuck in this political entity. With a British passport.

Well is the UK a country or a alliance (Political Union) of nation states DSwain?

It's a country - we are British citizens. The people of the United Kingdom are British. However - there are four nations within our country.

You do acknowledge that you are a British citizen? Regardless of whether you call yourself Scottish, European or whatever and in whichever order.

[angusrae]

DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: DSwain wrote:

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

UK is not a nation either.But it is a country...

The UK is not an nation nor a country it is a political entity which came into being in 1707

Well until a majority of Scots agree with you angusrae, looks like you're stuck in this political entity. With a British passport.

Well is the UK a country or a alliance (Political Union) of nation states DSwain?

It's a country - we are British citizens. The people of the United Kingdom are British. However - there are four nations within our country.

You do acknowledge that you are a British citizen? Regardless of whether you call yourself Scottish, European or whatever and in whichever order.

The only reason I acknowledge being British is so I can travel abroad I would still dispute the Fact that Great Britain is a country we shall just have to disagree on this point as we will never agree. However I believe that any Country which can be split into nations is really only a political union,

[Eton]

DSwain wrote:



You're dissembling on the language point Eton - those 120 million who speak one of your 'working' languages as a second tongue speak it to the standard of being able to hold a simple conversation ie, where is the train station? Or, may I have a kilo of tomatoes please. I suppose all of those people who live in the 19 nations for whom your 3 'working' languages aren't official tongues can get jobs as information kiosk workers or greengrocers when the Euro zone stifles their local economies. And obviously we peasants who don't have a smattering will just have to lump it - but keep paying the taxes, of course.

You're throwing out China and Russia as the bogeymen, to scare the minnow states into throwing in our lot. Bi-lateralism works rather well, you know. At least the vast majority of countries seem to think so - as that's how they do their business. The imminent collapse of Doha shows just how effective bi-lateralism can be - it's a shame that Mr Mandelson doesn't wise up. I'm going to ignore the anti-American bent of your post as it's just too tiresome to debate here.

You're not for a European state? So what exactly are you 'for'? You despise the nation state and now you profess no liking for a United States of Europe. What's your vision for the future?

Once more you are using the piss poor language skills of British people to judge the language ability of our brethren. As I said before almost every european who attended secondary school speaks a second language (usually English/French/German) very well, not enough to discuss quantum mechanics, but certainly better than a lot of British people when they speak English!

You are living in a fool's paradise if you think bilateralism works. It only works for the more powerful. I refer you to the trade war between the EU and the US before the last presidential election. It was over steel subsidies that the US government handed out, the EU slapped tariffs on them as they broke WTO rules. The US imposed tariffs on certain British industries like cashmere etc, there was no way the UK could hurt America in the same way that the US could to us. What did the EU do? It slapped tariffs on industries in those states that Bush needed to win!! Beautiful! :lol: Needless to say the Americans backed down.

Can you imagine us being able to get a fair deal with China in trade? China one billion people with rapidly growing economy and ambitions to become a world power, and us 60 million people, regional power at best and very slow growth rate. There is no way in hell we could have an equal relationship. The EU however is another kettle of fish and is already a world super power in trade terms.

As for the future of the EU. I personally am in favour of a fully united Europe, with an elected President or Monarchy (I'm indiferant), a bi-cameral parliament with powers over thins that effect the whole of Europe. Meanwhile member states (much like Scotland in the UK) have powers over law and order, education, health, social policy, traffic etc etc. As I said that is my personal view and it is not shared by most federalists - at least the part about a European nation.

I've lived, worked and studied on the continent for four years. There are differences, but they are differences between class, educational background, political opinions, rural or urban background - there are no substantial differences between people based on nationality apart from language, but as I have already mentioned most people speak a second language so communication is not impossible.

[DSwain]

angusrae wrote: DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: DSwain wrote: angusrae wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: DSwain wrote:

The EU is not a nation. You'd better get to grips with that!

UK is not a nation either.But it is a country...

The UK is not an nation nor a country it is a political entity which came into being in 1707

Well until a majority of Scots agree with you angusrae, looks like you're stuck in this political entity. With a British passport.

Well is the UK a country or a alliance (Political Union) of nation states DSwain?

It's a country - we are British citizens. The people of the United Kingdom are British. However - there are four nations within our country.

You do acknowledge that you are a British citizen? Regardless of whether you call yourself Scottish, European or whatever and in whichever order.

The only reason I acknowledge being British is so I can travel abroad I would still dispute the Fact that Great Britain is a country we shall just have to disagree on this point as we will never agree. However I believe that any Country which can be split into nations is really only a political union,

By definition we are a Union - but our Union is a country and, most importantly, is a nation-state. It carries out the main function of the nation-state, namely that of defence against external aggression.

I am not against political unions. The United States works as a political union. IMO the European Union is not fit for purpose and I think political union is not the way ahead for Europe. The majority of its putative citizens do not want it. If and when the people of the UK wish to split they should have the opportunity to express that wish and in such circumstances the UK should cease. That would be a shame but you can't keep people united who do not wish to be. Nor can you force union on peoples who enjoy universal suffrage. This is 2006 and not 1707 or 1801.

Unwanted political union can have very unfortunate repercussions. Thankfully those of us who do not support the UK express our feelings in a civilised manner. The United States went through a civil war as did Yugoslavia much more recently. I think we've had enough warfare in Europe.

[Eton]

DSwain wrote:

Unwanted political union can have very unfortunate repercussions. Thankfully those of us who do not support the UK express our feelings in a civilised manner. The United States went through a civil war as did Yugoslavia much more recently. I think we've had enough warfare in Europe.

Although a child wearing an England football shirt is reason enough to be beaten up in Scotland! I can well understand the Romans putting up a wall to keep those barbarian Scots out. It is not the Scots who should be leaving the UK it is England!

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: DSwain wrote:



You're dissembling on the language point Eton - those 120 million who speak one of your 'working' languages as a second tongue speak it to the standard of being able to hold a simple conversation ie, where is the train station? Or, may I have a kilo of tomatoes please. I suppose all of those people who live in the 19 nations for whom your 3 'working' languages aren't official tongues can get jobs as information kiosk workers or greengrocers when the Euro zone stifles their local economies. And obviously we peasants who don't have a smattering will just have to lump it - but keep paying the taxes, of course.

You're throwing out China and Russia as the bogeymen, to scare the minnow states into throwing in our lot. Bi-lateralism works rather well, you know. At least the vast majority of countries seem to think so - as that's how they do their business. The imminent collapse of Doha shows just how effective bi-lateralism can be - it's a shame that Mr Mandelson doesn't wise up. I'm going to ignore the anti-American bent of your post as it's just too tiresome to debate here.

You're not for a European state? So what exactly are you 'for'? You despise the nation state and now you profess no liking for a United States of Europe. What's your vision for the future?

Once more you are using the piss poor language skills of British people to judge the language ability of our brethren. As I said before almost every european who attended secondary school speaks a second language (usually English/French/German) very well, not enough to discuss quantum mechanics, but certainly better than a lot of British people when they speak English!

You are living in a fool's paradise if you think bilateralism works. It only works for the more powerful. I refer you to the trade war between the EU and the US before the last presidential election. It was over steel subsidies that the US government handed out, the EU slapped tariffs on them as they broke WTO rules. The US imposed tariffs on certain British industries like cashmere etc, there was no way the UK could hurt America in the same way that the US could to us. What did the EU do? It slapped tariffs on industries in those states that Bush needed to win!! Beautiful! :lol: Needless to say the Americans backed down.

Can you imagine us being able to get a fair deal with China in trade? China one billion people with rapidly growing economy and ambitions to become a world power, and us 60 million people, regional power at best and very slow growth rate. There is no way in hell we could have an equal relationship. The EU however is another kettle of fish and is already a world super power in trade terms.

As for the future of the EU. I personally am in favour of a fully united Europe, with an elected President or Monarchy (I'm indiferant), a bi-cameral parliament with powers over thins that effect the whole of Europe. Meanwhile member states (much like Scotland in the UK) have powers over law and order, education, health, social policy, traffic etc etc. As I said that is my personal view and it is not shared by most federalists - at least the part about a European nation.

I've lived, worked and studied on the continent for four years. There are differences, but they are differences between class, educational background, political opinions, rural or urban background - there are no substantial differences between people based on nationality apart from language, but as I have already mentioned most people speak a second language so communication is not impossible.

Bi-lateralism does work, it's worked in the past and it will continue to work. Look at Doha. The inability of the EU negotiating team to offer anything substantive not only lets the US off the hook, but it holds up the whole show. The EU can't negotiate because certain nations have an arm lock on the EU position. I don't blame France or any nation that gains from CAP - it's the job of governments to defend the interests of its citizens. But it's disastrous for the rest of us. Yet while we get nowhere Japan, Australia and New Zealand have been busy making deals bi-laterally.

The view that bigger is better in trade negotiations doesn't play out. The argument that the bigger trade bloc has to win out over the smaller nation is wrong. If the larger trade bloc wants products and commerce from its smaller partner, then it trades with them. If tariffs come into it, then you have tit for tit - producers and commerce on both sides are hurt. The only way that the smaller nation loses out here is if it is a net exporter and buys NOTHING from the large trading bloc. Then its exports are hit and the importer loses much less. But that happens no matter how large the market, how large the country or bloc - be it New Zealand or China or the European Union. Britain is already signing bi-lateral deals with China outside of the WTO - we're still allowed to do that, thankfully.

Re language - are you seriously suggesting that in a proposed nation of Europe, with 300million+ people, that any worker who can't get a job in his own corner of Europe can up-stumps and move to another country in Europe where there is work and that language will not be an issue? There are too many obstacles already to the flexibility and mobility of workforces without adding a whole new strata.

As for your idea of a nation of Europe, just how do you propose getting there? If I could look 100 or 200 years into the future and I discovered that there was a United States of Europe and it had happened organically, because the people had clamoured for it, because the arguments in its favour had come to fruition and had been unanswerable - then I would have to say that was a 'good thing'. But today there is no appetite in any European country for a nation of Europe. And this isn't just your countrymen, who you really seem to despise btw, but across the continent. Can you give any evidence of a groundswell in any European country in favour of such a union? Or do you Eton, as outlined in previous posts, hold with the 'nanny knows best' school of government and politics? That we should have political union whatever we think we want?

[angusrae]

Eton having already answered made my feelings clear about that attack on another thread which I suggest you read. I would remind you the mindless thuggery happens in every country or perhaps you have missed the riots in Seattle, London, and elsewhere due to Anti-globalistion protesters attacking a policeman for doing his job or smashing a window in a busy McDonald's with the very real danger of hurting innocent bystanders can be viewed in the same light as mindless thuggery. However the slur's which have hurled at the Scots due to three attacks in Scotland conveniently forgets the thuggery of England's fans abroad or the racism of Spanish, Dutch, Polish and other Eastern European fans in their homelands. My wish to live in an independent Scotland has always been protested for and campaigned for peacefully for over many years.

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: DSwain wrote:

Unwanted political union can have very unfortunate repercussions. Thankfully those of us who do not support the UK express our feelings in a civilised manner. The United States went through a civil war as did Yugoslavia much more recently. I think we've had enough warfare in Europe.

Although a child wearing an England football shirt is reason enough to be beaten up in Scotland! I can well understand the Romans putting up a wall to keep those barbarian Scots out. It is not the Scots who should be leaving the UK it is England!

A thug is a thug is a thug.

[Eton]

DSwain wrote:

The view that bigger is better in trade negotiations doesn't play out. The argument that the bigger trade bloc has to win out over the smaller nation is wrong. If the larger trade bloc wants products and commerce from its smaller partner, then it trades with them. If tariffs come into it, then you have tit for tit - producers and commerce on both sides are hurt. The only way that the smaller nation loses out here is if it is a net exporter and buys NOTHING from the large trading bloc. Then its exports are hit and the importer loses much less. But that happens no matter how large the market, how large the country or bloc - be it New Zealand or China or the European Union. Britain is already signing bi-lateral deals with China outside of the WTO - we're still allowed to do that, thankfully.

Re language - are you seriously suggesting that in a proposed nation of Europe, with 300million+ people, that any worker who can't get a job in his own corner of Europe can up-stumps and move to another country in Europe where there is work and that language will not be an issue? There are too many obstacles already to the flexibility and mobility of workforces without adding a whole new strata.

As for your idea of a nation of Europe, just how do you propose getting there? If I could look 100 or 200 years into the future and I discovered that there was a United States of Europe and it had happened organically, because the people had clamoured for it, because the arguments in its favour had come to fruition and had been unanswerable - then I would have to say that was a 'good thing'. But today there is no appetite in any European country for a nation of Europe. And this isn't just your countrymen, who you really seem to despise btw, but across the continent. Can you give any evidence of a groundswell in any European country in favour of such a union? Or do you Eton, as outlined in previous posts, hold with the 'nanny knows best' school of government and politics? That we should have political union whatever we think we want?

My friend, be real. Malaysia's trade with China makes up about 1% of China's trade but it makes up about 30% of Malaysia's trade. So tit for tat tariffs are going to hurt Malaysia more than China.
We've been down this road before in the countdown to WW1 countries imposing tariffs on each other so that they became less dependent on each other and then war becomes more likely.


There are NO obstacles to a worker moving from one part of the EU to another - that is to say there are no official obstacles. The freedom of movement being one of the core principles of the EU. I have taken advantage of this myself. The obstacle of language really rather depends on the job. If it is manual work then I would suggest that the level of language ability need not be very high, on the other hand a lecturer will have to work on his language ability if he wants to teach at another university in another country. It can be done, one of my lecturers at my university in Holland was an Englishman, but the language of the lesson was in German!

As for the future of Europe, I have already said it is my views and not those of the elites 'guiding' the show. For me a united europe has always been about picking up the pieces from when the western empire fell - the greatest calamity to befall Europe.

Nanny always knows best. 8:)

[DSwain]

Eton wrote: DSwain wrote:

The view that bigger is better in trade negotiations doesn't play out. The argument that the bigger trade bloc has to win out over the smaller nation is wrong. If the larger trade bloc wants products and commerce from its smaller partner, then it trades with them. If tariffs come into it, then you have tit for tit - producers and commerce on both sides are hurt. The only way that the smaller nation loses out here is if it is a net exporter and buys NOTHING from the large trading bloc. Then its exports are hit and the importer loses much less. But that happens no matter how large the market, how large the country or bloc - be it New Zealand or China or the European Union. Britain is already signing bi-lateral deals with China outside of the WTO - we're still allowed to do that, thankfully.

Re language - are you seriously suggesting that in a proposed nation of Europe, with 300million+ people, that any worker who can't get a job in his own corner of Europe can up-stumps and move to another country in Europe where there is work and that language will not be an issue? There are too many obstacles already to the flexibility and mobility of workforces without adding a whole new strata.

As for your idea of a nation of Europe, just how do you propose getting there? If I could look 100 or 200 years into the future and I discovered that there was a United States of Europe and it had happened organically, because the people had clamoured for it, because the arguments in its favour had come to fruition and had been unanswerable - then I would have to say that was a 'good thing'. But today there is no appetite in any European country for a nation of Europe. And this isn't just your countrymen, who you really seem to despise btw, but across the continent. Can you give any evidence of a groundswell in any European country in favour of such a union? Or do you Eton, as outlined in previous posts, hold with the 'nanny knows best' school of government and politics? That we should have political union whatever we think we want?

My friend, be real. Malaysia's trade with China makes up about 1% of China's trade but it makes up about 30% of Malaysia's trade. So tit for tat tariffs are going to hurt Malaysia more than China.
We've been down this road before in the countdown to WW1 countries imposing tariffs on each other so that they became less dependent on each other and then war becomes more likely.


There are NO obstacles to a worker moving from one part of the EU to another - that is to say there are no official obstacles. The freedom of movement being one of the core principles of the EU. I have taken advantage of this myself. The obstacle of language really rather depends on the job. If it is manual work then I would suggest that the level of language ability need not be very high, on the other hand a lecturer will have to work on his language ability if he wants to teach at another university in another country. It can be done, one of my lecturers at my university in Holland was an Englishman, but the language of the lesson was in German!

As for the future of Europe, I have already said it is my views and not those of the elites 'guiding' the show. For me a united europe has always been about picking up the pieces from when the western empire fell - the greatest calamity to befall Europe.

Nanny always knows best. 8:)

And that's why tariffs and protectionism are so terrible, my friend. Bi-lateral deals are much more likely to keep tariffs to a minimum - it's two nations making a deal as opposed to one team representing 25 nations trying to make a deal while keeping 25 governments happy. In a scenario of a small nation in a trade dispute with a larger nation/trade bloc - if it gets as far as tariffs, then either side can take its business elsewhere. That's the great thing about bi-lateralism in trade - flexibility and adaptability. The performance of the EU in trade talks would be comedy if it wasn't so serious.

There are obstacles to workers moving about, but perhaps you've just been fortunate enough not to meet them. The obstacle of a worker having so few savings that he can't afford to move, family obligations or plain old fear. Now these are things that government can't do an awful lot about but that is why it's not the job of our government to add to these impediments. Not having ONE language among ALL of your workforce impedes mobility and mocks the efficacy of a common economic policy and one interest rate. Three, four, five common languages - how ever many more than one you're going to have you're going to exponentitally restrict mobility and freedom.

Please will you answer a question that has now been put to you several times by me and others and which again you have dodged -

Do you believe that the people have the right to decide whether they wish to be in a European political union.