Another nail in the GB coffin. NB

[EME]

Re: Hold on

Well we established you weren't an economist but you have a great future in politics ! If you look at GDP compared to any other European country , you will see that we have not as done as well - apart from recent years which is what everyone is decrying ( Source : IMF)
Guess we won't agree so you can have the last word if you like !

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=blue>I am WHAT I say I am</font color=blue>

 

[tome]

Re: Puhleese

TK

You should know better than to quote the worked statistics from FCO. They are shaped by indices which are tailored to government targets.

There are lies...

Expect a better argument than this or we stop burnishing the plate.

Tom

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: Puhleese

2.5 million are b'crats dealing with the paperwork and that still leaves 12.5 million people (jobs) that have nothing to do with yurp.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

the only game in town ... ?

hmm ... well maybe ...

when adenaur and de gaulle executed monet's plan for europe the uk was caught, almost, completely unaware but now, with an additional (however many countries it is) joining the eu, none of whom owe their freedom from behind the iron curtain or elsewhere to france but do to america, the opportunity for the UK to shape the eu in a way never possible before is obvious except that the eu under it's "previous" management carries too much baggage which has to be got rid of .. starting with d'estaing's constitution etc ...

for that to happen, Blair must get out from Bush's arse, the tories need to sort themselves out ... all a bit unlikely?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Keith]

Re: Global economy according to TK

Ken, lot of sense in that, maybe we ought to go the whole hog(not that i agree with half of it) join EU and bin NATO, now theres a thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..keith

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

Re: Global economy according to TK

I wonder if there has ever been a publicly available cost/benefit analysis comparing EU to Commonwealth or NAFTA, or even being uninvolved with any/all of the above.

Preferably done by someone with no especial axe to grind.

<hr width=100% size=1>Two beers please, my friend is paying.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Global economy according to TK

>Preferably done by someone with no especial axe to grind<

Aye, there's the rub.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[Koeketiene]

Re: Old joke ...

France isn't a member of the NATO military structure - De Gaulle didn't want French troops under Yank command.
Details, details....

<hr width=100% size=1>Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills.

 

[Koeketiene]

UKIP

Welcome to the forum, Mr Kilroy-Silk

<hr width=100% size=1>Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Shortly to be renamed

RKSIP

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[Guest]

BONG ..... wrong !!!! Yanita

France has a clause that allows it to decide when and if it will fight / ally with other Nato forces ...... as far as I am aware - that has not been revoked or changed ...

So actually France is sitting on the fence and is NOT a full member - but similarly is not not a member .... if you see what I mean !!

I was told in my History of 20th Century Lessons at school .... that the reason was because France wanted to retain 100% unconditional control of its troops and particularly worried later on about Nuclear weapons and not wanting to hand control to a US or Brit etc. It was also told to us - that it was perceived that if France retained the option to keep wrapped up Nuclear weaponry and didn't push the button - that dear ol Soviet Union would spare France the Nuclear holocaust .......


<hr width=100% size=1>Cheers Nigel http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/searider/

 

[Koeketiene]

Re: BONG ..... RIGHT !!!! Yanita

Don't step on my patch boy! D

France's military are not part of the integrated military command structure. That’s why at every NATO operational military command (like at MCC Northwood - where I work) there's a French Military Mission totally separate from the NATO command structure, as a liaison element.
French troops exercise/operate with NATO troops on a regular basis, but are never integrated into the NATO command structure. That's why French navy ships exercise with, but are never part of, permanent NATO forces such as MCMFORNORTH or STANAVFORLANT.
France fully participates in the civilian side of NATO, and has a seat on the North Atlantic Council (NAC) in Brussels.

What you've been told about the nuclear forces is wrong.
Small history lesson: you have to remember that when France pulled out of the military side of NATO De Gaulle was president. He was very suspicious of the UK & US due to his experience during the war. The US in particular tried to shaft him numerous times during WWII.
So when it came to nukes the US wanted to be top dog in NATO, they wanted a finger in every pie & have a say on development & deployment of all nukes owned by NATO countries. How "independent" do you think our Polaris & Trident nukes are? France on the other hand went her own way and developed a truly independent nuclear deterrent. Built her own nukes & delivery systems. It cost them more money, but they had something to show for it. That's why the French now have a (now European) space programme and we try lobbing a Beagle at Mars & missing. Sad, but true.

Another factor was naval forces in the Med. After Suez the RN effectively withdrew from the Med. The French navy was then top dog in the Med, and France claimed the hat of NAVSOUTH (NATO naval commander Med - Naples). The US wouldn't have it, as it would have given France a say over the US 6th Fleet permanently stationed in the Med. De Gaulle went ballistic - the US expected everyone to place their forces under US control, but wished to retain sole command of US forces?

So he withdrew French forces from the NATO military command structure. This also led to the move of NATO HQ from Paris (Fontainebleau - Napoleons chateau) to Brussels.

Here ended the lesson - class dismissed.


<hr width=100% size=1>Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills.

 

[mickshep]

Re: UKIP

Name still Mick!
Oh, and bye the way,this week D Blunkett signs the papers that will allow Brussels to decide our immigration rules. Anti-immigration? NO! Anti harmonisation for trade? NO! Worried about our Country having it's ability to make it's own laws taken away and handed to a corrupt self serving system that can't account for a large percentage of the money we pay now? Damned right! Mick.

<hr width=100% size=1>My Mum say's I'm not a fat b@st@rd, just heavy boned.

 

[halcyon]

Re: UKIP

I do wonder these days how much truth we see in / on the media. The other night whilst surfing Sky came on a American news prog that was doing a bit regarding Greece entry into the Euro, and that they were under investigation for using creative accounting to justify there entry. They then intimated that other counteries were also guilty of creative accounting. Last week on early BBC financial news they had a report saying that Greece and the other counteries were doing well in meeting the requirements to join the Euro.
It struck me which do you believe, as they are at each end of the spin option, why do we take as gospel what a stranger on a TV tells us the truth.
If you have faith in the media, you should get hold of a copy of the old 3 part TV series, the first was the House of Cards, how an MP became Prime Minister by using manipulating the media and spin. Only thing is it came out around 1980, reminds you of new Labour, includes the Prince of Wales splitting from his wife, the media running headlines to get him to stand down in favour of his son, both organised by Downing Street.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Journalistic manipulation

Or read the book, still in print.

'House of Cards' by Michael Dobbs

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[mickshep]

Re: Journalistic manipulation

Couldn't agree more. But the facts would seem to suggest that despite all the assurances to the contrary we are being railroaded into Europe to the point where a referendum will become pointless.
Whatever the Pro's and Cons, we are not getting what we were promised, a 'European Market'. Whilst I agree that being mis-led by government is no new thing, we are after all dealing with the wholehearted handing over of this country to a bunch of none elected beaurocrats who's governing interest's are, to say the least, not those that may best suit this country, and there appears to be not a damn thing we can do about it.
I might also add that this has nothing to do with how 'nice' the wine, people, or for that matter the weather may be in France/Germany etc.
Mike.

<hr width=100% size=1>My Mum say's I'm not a fat b@st@rd, just heavy boned.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Journalistic manipulation

Quite agree there are many structural problems with EU, but the answer is to get stuck and sort them out, not pretend you've lost your plimsolls and be left shivering on the sideline spectating.

PS - remember reading somewhere the number of 'eurocrats' cf the number of UK civil servants. Far fewer eurocrats.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>