User removed 4
New member
Course you will...........
The world is in one helluva mess and so is this country
- Thread starter goldstone
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
daveinprague
New member
this
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,517
its a "thats the theory" matter. yes, it should in theory avoid steep increases in prices because of changes that mean shortages come about. however, long term base prices are held up artificially. it does assume theres a surplus, because there is, otherwise the subsidy wouldn't be needed. the original purpose of the subsidies was precisely to keep agriculture in Europe economically viable, to ensure some basic self sustainability. remember the wine, butter and grain mountians of the 80's and 90's? they only went away because the subsidies switched to set aside, paying farmers not to grow produce. meanwhile the price of basic food crops is propped up, leading to higher general averge prices, albeit lower in individual years if there were poor harvests. and thats before getting on to the bat shittery of paying subsidies for crops used in making veggie deisel, and mandating they are used, leading to land being turned over from food crops to oil producing crops. generally, subsides screw up supply/demand whatever way you look at it.
That's not quite true. In 1983 Labour's policy was withdrawal from the EU (or EEC as it was then), in 1987, it also had an anti-EU policy (fell short of withdrawal but called for a renegotiation of CAP and an end to EU interference in national laws).
What happened? In those two years, Labour suffered its heaviest post-war defeats so I think that the idea that there's an anti-EU majority itching for a major party to vote for is a bit far-fetched.
User removed 4
New member
The idea that labour under foot in 1983 and kinnock in 1987 lost the election due to their anti EU stance is a bit far fetched.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
But a lot has changed since then. Europe and the rest of the world is a completely different place.
RexCathedra
Aurea Mediocritas
7 billion people on the planet. If one in a hundred of them is an absolute knee-biter, that's 70 million nutters.
A nation the size of France, in other words.
Sometimes the Law of Large Numbers isn't your friend. And maybe Stephen Pinker is right...
A nation the size of France, in other words.
Sometimes the Law of Large Numbers isn't your friend. And maybe Stephen Pinker is right...
That's not the point though. Westdene Seagull said the parties had identical policies and I was pointing out that that wasn't true.
Clearly the Labour party had other issues in those years but WS implied that if a major party came out with an anti-EU policy then it would attract a lot of votes. That's just not true: while there may be many people unhappy with EU membership (I'm one of them) I don't think it's a deciding factor in the way that many people vote.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
User removed 4
New member
I think the rise in support for UKIP contradicts your view.
User removed 4
New member
I remember that !
That was 30 years ago ! Anyway, Labour could have promised to pave the streets with gold in 1983 and they would still have lost the election. People could still remember the shambles of the previous Labour government and the Falklands factor couldn't be over looked.
I've never seen any proof that Labours anti-EU stance in those two elections had anything to do with their defeats -it was just then the EU issue was considered a single policy problem. Now the EU has been highlighted as being something that effects lots of parts of our life hence the rise of UKIP.
Regardless, any of the three main parties could kill the problem by just having the balls to hold a proper in/out referendum - the argument would be resolved for the foreseeable future. Of course that would mean them allowing democracy to really take place and many of them possibly not having the chance of highly paid EU jobs when they leave office.
My post was clearly in the present tense.
Hmm... this is the Conservative manifesto from 2001 (just 12 years ago). It's not dissimilar to the Labour approach of 1987 (and, I suspect, will be similar to the Conservative's policy in 2015).
Oh yes, like with Labour's anti-EU manifestos of 1983 and 1987, the Conservatives got battered in that election too.
The next Conservative Government will secure our independence and use Britain's great strengths to help create a flexible Europe of nations, to maintain the Atlantic Alliance and to develop the role of the Commonwealth.
"The next Conservative Government will keep the pound. We will maintain our national veto on European legislation."
In Europe, not run by Europe
The guiding principle of Conservative policy towards the European Union is to be in Europe, but not run by Europe. We will lead a debate in Europe about its future, promoting our own clear and positive vision.
The European Union has, with the prospect of enlargement, reached a fork in the road. Down one route lies a fully integrated superstate with nation states and the national veto disappearing. The Government is taking us down this route.
The alternative is a Europe of nations coming together in different combinations for different purposes and to differing extents. In other words, a network Europe. If Britain leads the debate, we can make this alternative a reality.
We will insist on a Treaty 'flexibility' provision, so that outside the areas of the single market and core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive EU, countries need only participate in new legislative actions at a European level if they see this as in their national interest.
At the same time, we are willing to support the principle of 'reinforced co-operation' in Europe, under which small groups of countries can become more closely integrated if they wish to do so, providing it does not damage Britain's national interest.
The next Conservative Government will keep the pound. We will maintain our national veto on European legislation. Giving up either would put our ability to govern ourselves at risk. We will not ratify the Nice Treaty but will renegotiate it so that Britain does not lose its veto.
We also propose to amend our domestic law to include 'reserved powers'. This will prevent EU law from overriding the will of Parliament in areas which Parliament never intended to transfer to the EU.
This policy will be reinforced with a determination to veto further transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels. Should any future Government wish to surrender any more of Parliament's rights and power to Brussels they should be required to secure approval for such a transfer in a referendum.
We intend to press for the single market to be completed and for competition laws to be stronger so that British businesses which play by the rules are not undercut by other companies that do not.
We will also press for Europe to tackle fraud and maladministration as a matter of priority. If the EU reduced waste and abandoned ill-considered programmes, it could make significant reductions in the overall size of the European budget.
Oh yes, like with Labour's anti-EU manifestos of 1983 and 1987, the Conservatives got battered in that election too.
The next Conservative Government will secure our independence and use Britain's great strengths to help create a flexible Europe of nations, to maintain the Atlantic Alliance and to develop the role of the Commonwealth.
"The next Conservative Government will keep the pound. We will maintain our national veto on European legislation."
In Europe, not run by Europe
The guiding principle of Conservative policy towards the European Union is to be in Europe, but not run by Europe. We will lead a debate in Europe about its future, promoting our own clear and positive vision.
The European Union has, with the prospect of enlargement, reached a fork in the road. Down one route lies a fully integrated superstate with nation states and the national veto disappearing. The Government is taking us down this route.
The alternative is a Europe of nations coming together in different combinations for different purposes and to differing extents. In other words, a network Europe. If Britain leads the debate, we can make this alternative a reality.
We will insist on a Treaty 'flexibility' provision, so that outside the areas of the single market and core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive EU, countries need only participate in new legislative actions at a European level if they see this as in their national interest.
At the same time, we are willing to support the principle of 'reinforced co-operation' in Europe, under which small groups of countries can become more closely integrated if they wish to do so, providing it does not damage Britain's national interest.
The next Conservative Government will keep the pound. We will maintain our national veto on European legislation. Giving up either would put our ability to govern ourselves at risk. We will not ratify the Nice Treaty but will renegotiate it so that Britain does not lose its veto.
We also propose to amend our domestic law to include 'reserved powers'. This will prevent EU law from overriding the will of Parliament in areas which Parliament never intended to transfer to the EU.
This policy will be reinforced with a determination to veto further transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels. Should any future Government wish to surrender any more of Parliament's rights and power to Brussels they should be required to secure approval for such a transfer in a referendum.
We intend to press for the single market to be completed and for competition laws to be stronger so that British businesses which play by the rules are not undercut by other companies that do not.
We will also press for Europe to tackle fraud and maladministration as a matter of priority. If the EU reduced waste and abandoned ill-considered programmes, it could make significant reductions in the overall size of the European budget.
- Thread starter
- #156
I don't know their ages, but based on their posts I would guess at maybe 7 or 8.
So probably best to sit them down and tell them a) their toys are locked in the cupboard until they stop bickering, b) give each other a big hug, and c) they'll have to all the housework until they become firm friends again.
User removed 4
New member
he started it.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,517
while it may not have any bearing on the Labour polling in the 80's, it does highlight the simplistic "pro-EU" tag is false. i dont think either party is decidely "pro-EU", and to say so starts the debate from the wrong place. while some individuals in both parties are pro-EU, many are decidely anti-EU for various differing reasons. "EU" is far too specific yet broad as it rolls up 30 years of treaties that many dont really like much but accept as part and parcel of journey we are apparently forced upon. and that applies to much of Europe too, hence "no" votes (and indeed no votes) on Lisbon and Euro membership. thats why theres no in/out referendum, because that not something with universal political appeal, some want out altogether, some want out of x treaty others want the full breakfast with danish bacon, brockwurst and crossiants.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
oh do f*** off you dull wanker.
User removed 4
New member
I'd be careful if I were you, he could be the sort of arsehole who cant take a joke and starts offering people out .