Single market

[The PNP]

That's rich from the forums Euro Dummy, your posts just keep exposing your ignorance like so many things you claim knowledge or experience of.

The paucity of your understanding of the aims of the EU is laid bare.

To put it bluntly you don't have a clue but worse think you do.

That's not my take on post #118. All facts contained within appear to check out ok, so please 'lay bare' the errors you have apparently found?

[sandGroundZero]

That's rich from the forums Euro Dummy, your posts just keep exposing your ignorance like so many things you claim knowledge or experience of.
The paucity of your understanding of the aims of the EU is laid bare.
To put it bluntly you don't have a clue but worse think you do.

local you have scolded bensherman.
Now, please be good enough to elaborate your own "understanding of the aims of the EU" for our edification. Will you?

[local]

local you have scolded bensherman.
Now, please be good enough to elaborate your own "understanding of the aims of the EU" for our edification. Will you?

So do you agree with this?



It would appear you have never understood the point of the EU
It is a confederation, not an empire.
It was never intended to, nor tried, to impose cultural and political uniformity on its members ; one of the reasons why our "sovereignty" argument was always bogus.
It would be a major surprise if across over 30 countries and 450 million people, there would not be racism somewhere. I don't like what is happening in Poland and Hungary, for example. But their ability to pursue their own path demonstrates the fraud behind our sovereignty claims.
And at least EU citizens can use the ECJ route to call their governments to account. By contrast our government is busy eliminating constraints on its actions.

[sandGroundZero]

So do you agree with this?

It would appear you have never understood the point of the EU
It is a confederation, not an empire.
It was never intended to, nor tried, to impose cultural and political uniformity on its members ; one of the reasons why our "sovereignty" argument was always bogus.
It would be a major surprise if across over 30 countries and 450 million people, there would not be racism somewhere. I don't like what is happening in Poland and Hungary, for example. But their ability to pursue their own path demonstrates the fraud behind our sovereignty claims.
And at least EU citizens can use the ECJ route to call their governments to account. By contrast our government is busy eliminating constraints on its actions.

You've suggested bensherman has a poor "understanding of the aims of the EU".
Please provide your own succinct "understanding of the aims of the EU".
Then I will happily make known to you my judgement as to which of you has a more accurate assessment.
I am confident you will comply. Thank you in advance.

[silver fox]

You've suggested bensherman has a poor "understanding of the aims of the EU".
Please provide your own succinct "understanding of the aims of the EU".
Then I may make known to you my judgement as to which of you has a more accurate assessment.
I am confident you will comply. Thank you in advance.

No chance, when it comes to Brexit, Local's mantra includes sovereignty, freedom, border/immigration control, nationalistic chest beating and very little else, all of which we already had or have failed miserably with, plus of course the pie in the sky dreams of the world now beating a path to our door eager to trade with us at better terms than any EU deal, all of that has also gone really well.

[bensherman]

local seems blissfully unaware of the fundamental contradictions in his position.

On the one hand, the EU is an overbearing, interfering bureaucracy that prevents its member countries from being themselves...not something which the vast majority of EU citizens have noticed, but there you are.

On the other hand, though, it has fostered racism or at least not acted to prevent it in the 27 countries..again unnoticed by the great majority. He seems to think it should have stopped countries showing racist trends, using powers only he seems to know about.

The EU in its original form was entirely an economic entity, aimed at co-ordinating coal and steel production., and even today it is very largely still focused on economic matters but has widened its scope to include, to great benefit, the single market and agriculture.

[local]

local seems blissfully unaware of the fundamental contradictions in his position.

On the one hand, the EU is an overbearing, interfering bureaucracy that prevents its member countries from being themselves...not something which the vast majority of EU citizens have noticed, but there you are.

On the other hand, though, it has fostered racism or at least not acted to prevent it in the 27 countries..again unnoticed by the great majority. He seems to think it should have stopped countries showing racist trends, using powers only he seems to know about.

The EU in its original form was entirely an economic entity, aimed at co-ordinating coal and steel production., and even today it is very largely still focused on economic matters but has widened its scope to include, to great benefit, the single market and agriculture.

Tough, you have been outed as a Eurodunce.

[local]

No chance, when it comes to Brexit, Local's mantra includes sovereignty, freedom, border/immigration control, nationalistic chest beating and very little else, all of which we already had or have failed miserably with, plus of course the pie in the sky dreams of the world now beating a path to our door eager to trade with us at better terms than any EU deal, all of that has also gone really well.

All you have to do is tell me you agree with Ben Sherman .

That's not hard is it ?

[sandGroundZero]

All you have to do is tell me you agree with Ben Sherman .
That's not hard is it ?

Think of local as a popule [i.e. a singular instance, anglicized of latin populus — people] in the general discussion of 'populism'.

S/he is forever foundering, endlessly confusing matters. National chauvinism or jingoism with occasional appeals to Socialist Worker and /or a pretense of speaking for the common man result in recurring incoherence. When her/his argument falters (as it does), demeaning epithets substitute. In short, a mishmash.

[bensherman]

Tough, you have been outed as a Eurodunce.

Great answer

[said]

You've suggested bensherman has a poor "understanding of the aims of the EU".
Please provide your own succinct "understanding of the aims of the EU".
Then I will happily make known to you my judgement as to which of you has a more accurate assessment.
I am confident you will comply. Thank you in advance.

While Marco Hafner claims that:
"The European integration process has been motivated by political and economic concerns. The EU Single Market, which has led to the removal of barriers to trade in goods and services, as well as capital and people, across the European Union, aimed to promote intra-European trade, increase competition, create more jobs and make Europe more attractive to foreign direct investment......which has not reached it's full potential, I beg to differ.

When one country sets up a single market - then it becomes very popular as traders all want to see simplified rules and reduced charges. But, as with any new idea that is profitable - others soon copy. There is now all over the world numerous groups of countries with their own single market that are more conducive to specific nationalities. Each of these single markets offer better deals than the EU among their own membership. This means that the EU will have to constantly reduce tariffs or create better deals if they want to continue trading with any group of countries. This will lead to an impasse and the EU single market would not be able to trade competitively.

Under the guise of the single market, the EU included protectionism, giving favour to undeserving companies and forcing others to remove certain popular goods from shelves. This was very unfair.

Trade deals with the EU always included an offer of jobs and training to nationals of the countries they were making a deal with. This introduced a back door tax that was not taken into consideration. All additional foreign workers had to be found employment that was often created in service areas, they were given all the benefits of the local peoples while not having contributed to any. Initially, benefits included being given grants to purchase vehicles to transport them to work, free utility grants, housing grants and grocery grants. These have now diminished but immigrants still receive financial help while either not paying full taxes or having taxes refunded to them. They cost the country that hosts them.

To initiate the single market, it was necessary for each member country to kerb and channel their exports. Many industries were closed down in order to satisfy a single trade. There would be no point of a single market if each country was supplying the same goods.

As for creating more jobs - even with thse unnecessary jobs being created, there is a far higher rate of unemployment in EU countries as opposed to many other countries. As for creating investment, this area is very tenuous, investors will only be confident if the stock market is confident. The stock market fluctuates continuously.

[local]

Great answer

Well it is true and despite my invitation no one has made any defence for your lack of understanding have they?

[said]

local seems blissfully unaware of the fundamental contradictions in his position.

On the one hand, the EU is an overbearing, interfering bureaucracy that prevents its member countries from being themselves...not something which the vast majority of EU citizens have noticed, but there you are.

On the other hand, though, it has fostered racism or at least not acted to prevent it in the 27 countries..again unnoticed by the great majority. He seems to think it should have stopped countries showing racist trends, using powers only he seems to know about.

The EU in its original form was entirely an economic entity, aimed at co-ordinating coal and steel production., and even today it is very largely still focused on economic matters but has widened its scope to include, to great benefit, the single market and agriculture.

I would delete from '.......and even today...' That is a fallacy.

[bensherman]

While Marco Hafner claims that:
"The European integration process has been motivated by political and economic concerns. The EU Single Market, which has led to the removal of barriers to trade in goods and services, as well as capital and people, across the European Union, aimed to promote intra-European trade, increase competition, create more jobs and make Europe more attractive to foreign direct investment......which has not reached it's full potential, I beg to differ.

When one country sets up a single market - then it becomes very popular as traders all want to see simplified rules and reduced charges. But, as with any new idea that is profitable - others soon copy. There is now all over the world numerous groups of countries with their own single market that are more conducive to specific nationalities. Each of these single markets offer better deals than the EU among their own membership. This means that the EU will have to constantly reduce tariffs or create better deals if they want to continue trading with any group of countries. This will lead to an impasse and the EU single market would not be able to trade competitively.

Under the guise of the single market, the EU included protectionism, giving favour to undeserving companies and forcing others to remove certain popular goods from shelves. This was very unfair.

Trade deals with the EU always included an offer of jobs and training to nationals of the countries they were making a deal with. This introduced a back door tax that was not taken into consideration. All additional foreign workers had to be found employment that was often created in service areas, they were given all the benefits of the local peoples while not having contributed to any. Initially, benefits included being given grants to purchase vehicles to transport them to work, free utility grants, housing grants and grocery grants. These have now diminished but immigrants still receive financial help while either not paying full taxes or having taxes refunded to them. They cost the country that hosts them.

To initiate the single market, it was necessary for each member country to kerb and channel their exports. Many industries were closed down in order to satisfy a single trade. There would be no point of a single market if each country was supplying the same goods.

As for creating more jobs - even with thse unnecessary jobs being created, there is a far higher rate of unemployment in EU countries as opposed to many other countries. As for creating investment, this area is very tenuous, investors will only be confident if the stock market is confident. The stock market fluctuates continuously.

Setting aside the execrable English used in that piece, it is a collection of unimpressive and unsubstantiated opinions . By the way, it is quite possible that unemployment in the EU is higher than in some other countries..that is irrelevant to the purpose and effectiveness of the EU.

[The PNP]

By the way, it is quite possible that unemployment in the EU is higher than in some other countries..that is irrelevant to the purpose and effectiveness of the EU.

Whilst here in the UK we've a shortage of staff in retail, hospitality, health service, agriculture, transport, etc......Wonder why all those unemployed EU'ers can't just hop on a plane/ferry and come find work here?