Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: Brexit
I dont think EU is that elitaristic in its core. You mentioned EU produces damages for people. What do you mean by that? EU projects? I dont know about Italy but here you can apply with a project of whatever kind and be granted EU money to make it happen if its a viable and useful project for your country. You can be a minister or a street sweeper, doesnt matter.
Not project financed by EU, but the project that EU does (political, militar, social etc)
BTW the same money you get from EU you can have by a national state.
EU started because steel and coal industries in different countries needed standard solutions for their products to gain maximum profit. I think it was indeed pretty elitaristic and gave profit to a select few but it has had huge development to be what it is today and it has only grown positively for the whole continent.
EU started like that because it was useful, now it's not.
About the second argument: Banks are what make Europe.
We need banks, not to be regulated by banks. That's all. we need financial industry AS MUCH as other.
The fact banks would need the same currency for some reason it's simply false. It's shown by the fact that the worst banks crisis are in euro area.
Euro is needed to protect money lenders from currency floatings.
But currency floatings are needed to absorb the change in productivity equilibrium.
When you are in a fixed exchange rate system the only way you can absorb them is lowering salaries.
So the currency union is useful for rentiers and dangerous for workers.
Banks. Their one and only goal is to keep possession of money.
no, it's to invest them where it is more productive.
All this for making the boat a single strong unit. If you make a boat from materials from every single country you would have a mess noone understands or orientates in. And that brings us back to the first statement, how can every EU country separately have any kind of advantage over cheaper and more populous countries? Its impossible.
this current argument is simply false.
You don't need in any way to get bigger to better compete.
That's false, there are a lot of studies (look on FMI or anywhere else) that demonstrate that national state are mostly the efficent level for legislation and market protection.
And You don't need standardization in order to get better, you need what you need.
Maybe you need standardization with China for chemical-free food, and not any standard with france for public balance rules.. to decide that onesizefitsall politic is always right is stupid.
Without EU smaller nations in Europe would be as useless as countries in Central Asia currently are since they can´t compete at all.
in next years S. Korea are predicted to begin the first county in the world for standard of life. They have nothing of it...
This common idea that bigger is better has no fondament at all.
and facts shows it.
the more we are connected the worst it goes. the only area economically depressed in the world is euro area..nowadays..
Its only a matter of time since the balance of power shifts from America-EU to America-Asia.
I can't understand it. What power do you talk about?
that's another common idea, but I can't understand wht power for doing what with it. are you talking of sending armies around the world to enslave people and rob resources?? And except of it, why it's neede a big state? European history shows that the bigger progress were done in a national structure..
Let's think how to improve and work and produce, not how to rule someone else.
And about the food stuff you talked about
So you think it's good for EU people to decide to ban over 200 species of tomatoes from commerce or to decide the diameter of zucchini and their curvature?
Do you think that allowing a certain control and not others over anti-biotics in livestocks, is a better for consumer? Where is the advantage here?
But in general, why can't we regulate it at local level?
You prefer a standard with russia? DO it.
I prefer 7 different standards in italy, what's the problem?
the problem is you first decide that there must be a open market and then you need to make one rule for all.
maye the real problem is that we don't need a common open market.
its all connected somehow and same rules for everyone benefits eachother more than it penalises eachother.
the fact that standardizing and make product uniform and tradable without costs, benefits each other is not always true. The point is here: this can't be the solution for all products and services.
If someone take it as a religion mantra (or an ideology) we have the demonstration he's no more thinking about critically.
And ideology (or religion) is the key to understand the majority of EU politics:
free market, standardization, public balance control, privatization, liberalization in work laws.
More of them can be good or bad in differente situation, but when they get a brainless mantra..
Not project financed by EU, but the project that EU does (political, militar, social etc)
BTW the same money you get from EU you can have by a national state.
EU started because steel and coal industries in different countries needed standard solutions for their products to gain maximum profit. I think it was indeed pretty elitaristic and gave profit to a select few but it has had huge development to be what it is today and it has only grown positively for the whole continent.
EU started like that because it was useful, now it's not.
About the second argument: Banks are what make Europe.
We need banks, not to be regulated by banks. That's all. we need financial industry AS MUCH as other.
The fact banks would need the same currency for some reason it's simply false. It's shown by the fact that the worst banks crisis are in euro area.
Euro is needed to protect money lenders from currency floatings.
But currency floatings are needed to absorb the change in productivity equilibrium.
When you are in a fixed exchange rate system the only way you can absorb them is lowering salaries.
So the currency union is useful for rentiers and dangerous for workers.
Banks. Their one and only goal is to keep possession of money.
no, it's to invest them where it is more productive.
All this for making the boat a single strong unit. If you make a boat from materials from every single country you would have a mess noone understands or orientates in. And that brings us back to the first statement, how can every EU country separately have any kind of advantage over cheaper and more populous countries? Its impossible.
this current argument is simply false.
You don't need in any way to get bigger to better compete.
That's false, there are a lot of studies (look on FMI or anywhere else) that demonstrate that national state are mostly the efficent level for legislation and market protection.
And You don't need standardization in order to get better, you need what you need.
Maybe you need standardization with China for chemical-free food, and not any standard with france for public balance rules.. to decide that onesizefitsall politic is always right is stupid.
Without EU smaller nations in Europe would be as useless as countries in Central Asia currently are since they can´t compete at all.
in next years S. Korea are predicted to begin the first county in the world for standard of life. They have nothing of it...
This common idea that bigger is better has no fondament at all.
and facts shows it.
the more we are connected the worst it goes. the only area economically depressed in the world is euro area..nowadays..
Its only a matter of time since the balance of power shifts from America-EU to America-Asia.
I can't understand it. What power do you talk about?
that's another common idea, but I can't understand wht power for doing what with it. are you talking of sending armies around the world to enslave people and rob resources?? And except of it, why it's neede a big state? European history shows that the bigger progress were done in a national structure..
Let's think how to improve and work and produce, not how to rule someone else.
And about the food stuff you talked about
So you think it's good for EU people to decide to ban over 200 species of tomatoes from commerce or to decide the diameter of zucchini and their curvature?
Do you think that allowing a certain control and not others over anti-biotics in livestocks, is a better for consumer? Where is the advantage here?
But in general, why can't we regulate it at local level?
You prefer a standard with russia? DO it.
I prefer 7 different standards in italy, what's the problem?
the problem is you first decide that there must be a open market and then you need to make one rule for all.
maye the real problem is that we don't need a common open market.
its all connected somehow and same rules for everyone benefits eachother more than it penalises eachother.
the fact that standardizing and make product uniform and tradable without costs, benefits each other is not always true. The point is here: this can't be the solution for all products and services.
If someone take it as a religion mantra (or an ideology) we have the demonstration he's no more thinking about critically.
And ideology (or religion) is the key to understand the majority of EU politics:
free market, standardization, public balance control, privatization, liberalization in work laws.
More of them can be good or bad in differente situation, but when they get a brainless mantra..
BTW the same money you get from EU you can have by a national state.
How? Where would this money come from?
EU started like that because it was useful, now it's not.
It was useful for a selected few, now its useful for alot more people. How is it now worse than what it used to be? I dont get your argument.
We need banks, not to be regulated by banks. That's all. we need financial industry AS MUCH as other.
The fact banks would need the same currency for some reason it's simply false. It's shown by the fact that the worst banks crisis are in euro area.
Euro is needed to protect money lenders from currency floatings.
But currency floatings are needed to absorb the change in productivity equilibrium.
When you are in a fixed exchange rate system the only way you can absorb them is lowering salaries.
So the currency union is useful for rentiers and dangerous for workers.
Basically what you are saying is that currency union is useful for Europe and not so useful for foreign workforce. And thats a bad thing how? Thats excatly what i said, bank regulations keep money in Europe.
this current argument is simply false.
You don't need in any way to get bigger to better compete.
That's false, there are a lot of studies (look on FMI or anywhere else) that demonstrate that national state are mostly the efficent level for legislation and market protection.
I agree a single national state is more flexible and could be more efficient. BUT only if there is equal grounds on the market. As i said not a single european country can compete with lower costs of populous industrial countries of Asia. Thats why we need an union.
I can't understand it. What power do you talk about?
that's another common idea, but I can't understand wht power for doing what with it. are you talking of sending armies around the world to enslave people and rob resources?? And except of it, why it's neede a big state? European history shows that the bigger progress were done in a national structure..
Let's think how to improve and work and produce, not how to rule someone else.
I didnt talk about any armies.. I talked about money and power. If China buys Belgium sized lands from european countries every year to produce crops for their industry its gonna be a problem very soon. Thats the kind of shift we will face soon. And if we dont have EU regulations a single country can very easily sell his land or factorys for a big profit that eventually ends up in China instead of europe. Give me one proof that shows EU economies face the biggest downfalls due to what EU does. I might be wrong but didnt USA had alot bigger downfall few years back and Russia currently, also China last year?
So you think it's good for EU people to decide to ban over 200 species of tomatoes from commerce or to decide the diameter of zucchini and their curvature?
Do you think that allowing a certain control and not others over anti-biotics in livestocks, is a better for consumer? Where is the advantage here?
But in general, why can't we regulate it at local level?
You prefer a standard with russia? DO it.
I prefer 7 different standards in italy, what's the problem?
As i said some regulations are too far, but 90% of them are not. They are actually useful to protect the market. Of course Italy could regulate at their own level but what is the difference there? All you get is more costly food and pretty soon you cant afford it. If you are Russia who can produce everything inside their own nation from energy to food then you are fine to some degree but i dont think Italy could. Do you understand what is going on in Russia at the moment? Pretty much the same princible where regulations on national level pretty much dictate what people can eat and whats better for the nation, not the people. And thats because they cant produce everything at low cost anymore.
But i agree with some points that nations cant follow EU no matter what. But i dont see any nation doing it like that. Nations gain alot more from EU than they give to EU.
Anyway all this theoretical talk doesnt matter much, as you can see it has been 1 day since referendum and already British anti-eu are starting to eat their words about their promises and pro-eu are starting to find ways to keep trading agreements. So nothing will change in longer perspective.
The biggest mystery to me is why did british government even wanted to do that referendum. 80% of young people want to stay in and 80% of old people want to get out. Seems to me like the problem would have cooled down and dissappeared given some time.
How? Where would this money come from?
EU started like that because it was useful, now it's not.
It was useful for a selected few, now its useful for alot more people. How is it now worse than what it used to be? I dont get your argument.
We need banks, not to be regulated by banks. That's all. we need financial industry AS MUCH as other.
The fact banks would need the same currency for some reason it's simply false. It's shown by the fact that the worst banks crisis are in euro area.
Euro is needed to protect money lenders from currency floatings.
But currency floatings are needed to absorb the change in productivity equilibrium.
When you are in a fixed exchange rate system the only way you can absorb them is lowering salaries.
So the currency union is useful for rentiers and dangerous for workers.
Basically what you are saying is that currency union is useful for Europe and not so useful for foreign workforce. And thats a bad thing how? Thats excatly what i said, bank regulations keep money in Europe.
this current argument is simply false.
You don't need in any way to get bigger to better compete.
That's false, there are a lot of studies (look on FMI or anywhere else) that demonstrate that national state are mostly the efficent level for legislation and market protection.
I agree a single national state is more flexible and could be more efficient. BUT only if there is equal grounds on the market. As i said not a single european country can compete with lower costs of populous industrial countries of Asia. Thats why we need an union.
I can't understand it. What power do you talk about?
that's another common idea, but I can't understand wht power for doing what with it. are you talking of sending armies around the world to enslave people and rob resources?? And except of it, why it's neede a big state? European history shows that the bigger progress were done in a national structure..
Let's think how to improve and work and produce, not how to rule someone else.
I didnt talk about any armies.. I talked about money and power. If China buys Belgium sized lands from european countries every year to produce crops for their industry its gonna be a problem very soon. Thats the kind of shift we will face soon. And if we dont have EU regulations a single country can very easily sell his land or factorys for a big profit that eventually ends up in China instead of europe. Give me one proof that shows EU economies face the biggest downfalls due to what EU does. I might be wrong but didnt USA had alot bigger downfall few years back and Russia currently, also China last year?
So you think it's good for EU people to decide to ban over 200 species of tomatoes from commerce or to decide the diameter of zucchini and their curvature?
Do you think that allowing a certain control and not others over anti-biotics in livestocks, is a better for consumer? Where is the advantage here?
But in general, why can't we regulate it at local level?
You prefer a standard with russia? DO it.
I prefer 7 different standards in italy, what's the problem?
As i said some regulations are too far, but 90% of them are not. They are actually useful to protect the market. Of course Italy could regulate at their own level but what is the difference there? All you get is more costly food and pretty soon you cant afford it. If you are Russia who can produce everything inside their own nation from energy to food then you are fine to some degree but i dont think Italy could. Do you understand what is going on in Russia at the moment? Pretty much the same princible where regulations on national level pretty much dictate what people can eat and whats better for the nation, not the people. And thats because they cant produce everything at low cost anymore.
But i agree with some points that nations cant follow EU no matter what. But i dont see any nation doing it like that. Nations gain alot more from EU than they give to EU.
Anyway all this theoretical talk doesnt matter much, as you can see it has been 1 day since referendum and already British anti-eu are starting to eat their words about their promises and pro-eu are starting to find ways to keep trading agreements. So nothing will change in longer perspective.
The biggest mystery to me is why did british government even wanted to do that referendum. 80% of young people want to stay in and 80% of old people want to get out. Seems to me like the problem would have cooled down and dissappeared given some time.
here how it works the burocracy of antidemocratic EU
Yep, and that's exactly the reason why direct democracy is the dumbest thing to do. This is again prove of that. The last referendum in the Netherlands was also a stupid thing to do. A lot of people didn't even knew what they voted for, but the anti EU party told them to vote against it so they did. Dumb people don't think for themselves anymore and do what they are told by the politicians they blindly follow.
And it's not a coincidence this is happening the same time populism and xenophobia is rising. The same you see on this forum, it's not that difficult to find those who fit this profile. Some use a bit more words, but it's the same kind of people that are telling one 1 side of the story, often twisted to their believes and ideas instead of facts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/?tid=sm_fb
(editado)
And it's not a coincidence this is happening the same time populism and xenophobia is rising. The same you see on this forum, it's not that difficult to find those who fit this profile. Some use a bit more words, but it's the same kind of people that are telling one 1 side of the story, often twisted to their believes and ideas instead of facts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/?tid=sm_fb
(editado)
How? Where would this money come from?
from our taxes exactly as now..
in your post there are a lot of things like " now its useful for alot more people" .. why? where? numbers says the contrary..
or: "Basically what you are saying is that currency union is useful for Europe and not so useful for foreign workforce. "
that shows you didin't understand noting. Why foregin? all workers..
As i said not a single european country can compete with lower costs of populous industrial countries of Asia. Thats why we need an union.
but Italy france and germany ( i don't know about other) have a positive balance of trade vs every big state of Asia (F.e. china india etc..) so this is simply false.
And if we dont have EU regulations a single country can very easily sell his land or factorys for a big profit that eventually ends up in China instead of europe.
I can't undestand why you believ that a enormous inefficent burocracy can do something better than a national state. Why a national gov can't do the rules it needs?
As i said some regulations are too far, but 90% of them are not
the problem is WHY?
Pepole (and we should respect democracy) are not involved in this rule production, EU and nation politician uses one each other as a exscuse ("it's EU fault" "your gov didn't the homework" and other bullshits like that..) and can't control it.
Why can't we continue to make TREATIES instead of regulaments? Why?
But i agree with some points that nations cant follow EU no matter what. But i dont see any nation doing it like that. Nations gain alot more from EU than they give to EU.
1 Greece
2 Italy is a net contributor. we give a lot more that we get..
Eu get money from european, if someone get more.. someone else get less.. that mathematic..
So nothing will change in longer perspective.
In the long run we are going to see that EU is useless (or bad.) For UK nothing is going to change, what is good is going to be replicated in treaties.. so what's the need of EU?
The biggest mystery to me is why did british government even wanted to do that referendum. 80% of young people want to stay in and 80% of old people want to get out. Seems to me like the problem would have cooled down and dissappeared given some time.
I ask the contrary.
Are we all democrat?
So let's do it in all europe.
from our taxes exactly as now..
in your post there are a lot of things like " now its useful for alot more people" .. why? where? numbers says the contrary..
or: "Basically what you are saying is that currency union is useful for Europe and not so useful for foreign workforce. "
that shows you didin't understand noting. Why foregin? all workers..
As i said not a single european country can compete with lower costs of populous industrial countries of Asia. Thats why we need an union.
but Italy france and germany ( i don't know about other) have a positive balance of trade vs every big state of Asia (F.e. china india etc..) so this is simply false.
And if we dont have EU regulations a single country can very easily sell his land or factorys for a big profit that eventually ends up in China instead of europe.
I can't undestand why you believ that a enormous inefficent burocracy can do something better than a national state. Why a national gov can't do the rules it needs?
As i said some regulations are too far, but 90% of them are not
the problem is WHY?
Pepole (and we should respect democracy) are not involved in this rule production, EU and nation politician uses one each other as a exscuse ("it's EU fault" "your gov didn't the homework" and other bullshits like that..) and can't control it.
Why can't we continue to make TREATIES instead of regulaments? Why?
But i agree with some points that nations cant follow EU no matter what. But i dont see any nation doing it like that. Nations gain alot more from EU than they give to EU.
1 Greece
2 Italy is a net contributor. we give a lot more that we get..
Eu get money from european, if someone get more.. someone else get less.. that mathematic..
So nothing will change in longer perspective.
In the long run we are going to see that EU is useless (or bad.) For UK nothing is going to change, what is good is going to be replicated in treaties.. so what's the need of EU?
The biggest mystery to me is why did british government even wanted to do that referendum. 80% of young people want to stay in and 80% of old people want to get out. Seems to me like the problem would have cooled down and dissappeared given some time.
I ask the contrary.
Are we all democrat?
So let's do it in all europe.
I won't tell anything more to you.
Please do, and I will remind you of these words !!!!!!
Please do, and I will remind you of these words !!!!!!
Here are some other numbers, these numbers show a different side of the story, a trust issue in certain countries.
http://download.cbs.nl/pdf/2016-the-netherlands-on-the-european-scale-2016.pdf
See page 9, 10 and 11 for example, but chapter 2 (Happiness) is also interesting :)
And this is a link, always nice to see links, specially when graph are presented as 'facts'. Everyone can make graphs and anti EU will use their 'facts' that fit their story.
(editado)
http://download.cbs.nl/pdf/2016-the-netherlands-on-the-european-scale-2016.pdf
See page 9, 10 and 11 for example, but chapter 2 (Happiness) is also interesting :)
And this is a link, always nice to see links, specially when graph are presented as 'facts'. Everyone can make graphs and anti EU will use their 'facts' that fit their story.
(editado)
British millennials like me are the real losers in the Brexit vote
Decades of chaos have been unleashed by a generation of voters that barely possesses the digital literacy to use a USB stick.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/24/british-millennials-like-me-are-the-real-losers-in-the-brexit-vote/
Many of the younger generation voted to stay in the EU, unfortunately for them they will have to live with the heritage of xenofobic and poorly informed elderly and populists.
Decades of chaos have been unleashed by a generation of voters that barely possesses the digital literacy to use a USB stick.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/24/british-millennials-like-me-are-the-real-losers-in-the-brexit-vote/
Many of the younger generation voted to stay in the EU, unfortunately for them they will have to live with the heritage of xenofobic and poorly informed elderly and populists.
That movie is a lie.
lol
you didnt even see the movie man
and is all true and easy to find out...
lol
you didnt even see the movie man
and is all true and easy to find out...
I don't need to see more as I did, the fact that it presents lies is more then enough to know what this is about. Believe what you want. EU regulations about the pillow .... It has been checked an the 'movie' simply used other regulations to make their point, all lies.
Propaganda to fool people. But if you want to believe it, go ahead.
EDIT: watch a NRA movie about guns to find out the 'facts', watch a tobacco industry movie about smoking to find out the 'facts', watch an anti EU movie to find out .... you get the point.
(editado)
Propaganda to fool people. But if you want to believe it, go ahead.
EDIT: watch a NRA movie about guns to find out the 'facts', watch a tobacco industry movie about smoking to find out the 'facts', watch an anti EU movie to find out .... you get the point.
(editado)
dude the way that EU system working, the big burocracy, the antidemocratic way that decisions are made, the wages of burocrates (10000 people are taking more money from Cameron wage and they are not elected), the parliament that have no power, the interests that serves etc is not a secret and of course these are facts and anyone can find them with a little search...
you are doing propaganda cause you dont saying arguments but lies and personal attacks...
(editado)
you are doing propaganda cause you dont saying arguments but lies and personal attacks...
(editado)
You tell me the movie is all true but it isn't. Check it yourself before you start telling others all is true! You simply believe what the 'movie' is telling you and when I say it's not true you start telling me it is true eventhough I know it isn't.
So follow your own advice and check the so called 'facts' yourself before you spread the lies.
So follow your own advice and check the so called 'facts' yourself before you spread the lies.
not for Charles, but everone else:
page 12
Trust in EU
In none of the countries of the EU-24 do a
majority of the population trust the European
Parliament. The highest level of trust is reported
in Belgium (47 percent), closely followed by
Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland.
in NONE OF THE COUNTRY the majority of population trust the only representative body of EU!
GAME - SET - MATCH!
What else do we need?
page 12
Trust in EU
In none of the countries of the EU-24 do a
majority of the population trust the European
Parliament. The highest level of trust is reported
in Belgium (47 percent), closely followed by
Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland.
in NONE OF THE COUNTRY the majority of population trust the only representative body of EU!
GAME - SET - MATCH!
What else do we need?
You have to mention my name, don't you, obsessive creep. You can't even keep your word for less then a few hours! Why am I not surprised. h***** troll!
Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
EDIT: GAME - SET - MATCH!
Thanks for showing yourself so clearly!
This is indeed what you do on the forum, it has nothing to do with an open discussion, it's a fight you want to win and to constantly show your anti EU feelings that everyone already know for years.
(editado)
Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists
EDIT: GAME - SET - MATCH!
Thanks for showing yourself so clearly!
This is indeed what you do on the forum, it has nothing to do with an open discussion, it's a fight you want to win and to constantly show your anti EU feelings that everyone already know for years.
(editado)
So you have all the elements you need for understanding that problem man...
:D
it's a fight you want to win
Why I'm always discussing the topic and you are always discussing about me?
Why I'm not calling you obsessive creep, Hypocrite troll etc?
Because I like easy winning maybe.. definitely!!!
:D
:D
it's a fight you want to win
Why I'm always discussing the topic and you are always discussing about me?
Why I'm not calling you obsessive creep, Hypocrite troll etc?
Because I like easy winning maybe.. definitely!!!
:D