1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

What did the EU ever do for you?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by eljefeb90, Apr 16, 2019.

  1. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    They'd been trading for centuries. If trade stopped wars the world would be a much more peaceful place. People worry about the balance of power between the USA and China, yet they are each the other's largest trading partner.
  2. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    One thing I think we can all agree upon that the EU has done for mendacious politicians, journalists, dullards and bigots, is to provide ample opportunity to spread lies about.

    Whether it was the banning of curved bananas or demands to quieten bagpipes, those who made up those lies knew perfectly well they were lies. The question we needs to ask is why they would do such things and whether any sane person would ever trust a word they say.
  3. T34

    T34 Lead commenter

    The only method of getting out of the political union.
    Is the EU an economic or a political union?
    needabreak likes this.
  4. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    There are treaties on trade such as the Single market. yet there is no treaty on creating a political Union. Only a commitment to creating an ever closer union of peoples, that Britain opted out of.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019
  5. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    Ukrainians and Russians and Serbs and Croats had been trading for centuries too. In fact even with the current proxy conflict Russia and Ukraine are in a free trade agreement and Russia is Ukraines biggest source of imports.
    The world is a more peaceful place than it was when there was less globalised free trade. Globalisation has resulted in more peaceful relationships and more democracy. Still, the enviromental impact of globalisation and the effect of big tech on stability are major risks.
  6. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    because we have free press owned by editors with various social and political agendas and stories sell, but a free press also brings many democratic benefits.,
  7. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    The treaties include a lot of what most people would see as steps towards political union - the creation of a parliament, the establishment of presidents and ambassadors, the setting-up of a supra-national court, the formation of its own Central Bank and the use of a common (although not yet universal) currency.

    It is also obvious thatits ambitions include what would, in effect, be a United States of Europe, with its own army. Some EU states are already clamouring for the EU to have a permanent seat at the United Nations. This is all very much more than just a trade association.
  8. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    That's no excuse to make things up. There are no democratic benefits to be had from lies.
  9. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Quite, and I wish them well without the EU funds they have been accustomed to.
  10. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    No but if the alternative is State ownership and control which do you choose... Consider the Huawei thread.
  11. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Because newspaper editors know that doing so strikes a chord with large sections of the British public.

    It is a symbiotic relationship. Many are deeply suspicious of the way the EU has developed from a perfectly acceptable trade association into something that is becoming am empire, a "United States of Europe". The latter does not appeal to the ethos of many UK citizens. Newspaper editors, knowing this full well, build on this distrust with their tales of curved bananas and banning imperial weights and measures. That is "why they would do such things" - it sells newspapers and provides their readership with what they want to hear.

    The EU have always fought a losing battle in the UK when it comes to PR. For some time now, this country has concentrated on devolution of power. The EU is too much about the accretion of power and centralisation.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019
    mila_romanovskaya2 likes this.
  12. alexei_yanovich

    alexei_yanovich New commenter

    Subsidies must only be paid to farmers who truly improve the environment and country communities. The eu policy was a disaster for wildlife and health of European ecology. If subsidized, already very wealthy landowners lose their bold Brussels subsidies, then this is a good thing if the payday is a sustainable agricultural future.
    andorian and lexus300 like this.
  13. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    I don't suppose it took the EU long to work out that for every lie they corrected, there would be another ten come along to deal with. It's a never-ending battle. If they point to their successes, the liars call it propagada with an ulterior motive.

    That's just one viewpoint propagated by those intent on gaining power themselves. Divide and conquer all over again.
  14. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    Ironic post of the day.
    andorian and mila_romanovskaya2 like this.
  15. dleaf12

    dleaf12 Lead commenter

    I agree with most of what you say. I think however that there is a danger in talking of "the EU" as if it is a monolithic entity.

    There are the trappings of a centralised power with the ambitions you describe in the European Commission, but these are still held in check by the 28 heads of state in the European Council, and the European Parliament it seems is still working out what its for, however - understanding that tension is key to understanding "the EU", and I think the battle for it's soul (centralising or devolving) is yet to be fully resolved. UK within the EU did much to slow the centralisers. Without the UK its not clear which way they'll go.

    We aren't so accustomed in this country to having such a structure in charge of things - its "the government" and "the opposition" (currently missing in action).

    I think those same self-serving UK media folks have found rich circulation pickings by allowing this structure to be blurred - so any proposal, no matter how tentative, from the commission can be sub-edited into a screaming "they want to <insert whatever> to us!" headline that sells papers and makes Joe Public think that the big bad EU wolf is out to get us. Nothing sells papers better than good old paranoia (apart from s*x).

    In some ways our current predicament arises because of the lamentable lack of rational public political debate in this country, and for that the Media must share a chunk of the blame.
  16. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    I was thinking more of things such as changing their CAP so that it supports struggling farmers rather than giving money to the richest landowners in the UK, and things such as ending the waste of more than £150 million of taxpayers' money every year on the farce of moving their parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels each month.

    I don't know who else is planning to take over Europe. Do you?
  17. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    Giving money to the wealthiest landowners in ENGLAND. The Welsh and Scottish government capped the payments. We could have done that UK wide. But the CAP, despite its reforms, is still a great waste of money and is to the benefit of agribusiness rather than the environment.
    florian gassmann likes this.
  18. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    It may well be a waste to you but remember land alone does not mean that people are stinking rich, unless they sell it to developers and its in the South East, people can be asset rich and cash poor which is why farmers have often struggled to cover costs including labour and maintenance costs (it can be as much of a liability as anything else), especially with fluctuations in weather and demand/price... Risks that might pay dividends but risks many would not be prepared to take with their livelihoods so coupled with hard graft I'd say they deserve to reap the rewards of their efforts and should be supported as we need their produce and the industry (fewer air miles/lower carbon footprint too). Anyway much of that 'wasted' money came from the EU though we paid into the pot too whether we accessed it or not so daft not to if our industry needed support, which was an EU qualifying factor.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2019
  19. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Does that leave all the more in the pot for the Queen, Prince Charles, the Duke of Norfolk and others? I rather prefer the proposal in the current Agriculture Bill for the government to make the payments to farmers in return for their delivering a cleaner and healthier environment.
    burajda likes this.
  20. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    No the biggest and wealthiest landowners get the most subsidies - the Royal family, The Duke of Westminster, Sir James Dyson and assorted Arab Sheikhs and Chinese investors in cereal production, where nearly all of the subsidised crop gets exported to China. I voted to Remain but The CAP (and the CFP) is truly bonkers. It is going to be reformed again anyway by The EU for precisely this reason and if and when the UK leaves the budget will be slashed.
    florian gassmann likes this.

Share This Page