Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

"The service sector dominates the UK economy, contributing around 78% of GDP."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... ed_Kingdom

That's abnornally high and is problematic for the UK economy.

I can't find any statistics about percentages of EU-related trades in the City of London, but as far as I know it is crucial to the City's survival and it acts as the financial center for the whole continent nowadays.

You are assuming that all that will magically stop. think about it. Is it any benefit to EU private Enterprise for any of that to stop? Do you think they care about the UK's EU status?

Do you think the EU will impose any restrictions on the UK?

If they did, it is just as damaging to them.

When I say I do not support the EU, I am careful about the RoC's predicament. I recognize that the EU is fundamental to the Security Situation of Cyprus and consider NATO to also be vital to the RoC. Other than that, I see no value in the EU, just liabilities.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

Likewise then, you can piss off back to the UK! Ta!

Paphitis, as an recent immigrant to Australia with no roots there, how would you feel if a REAL Australian (They are the ones of European stock that they can trace back at least 2-3 generations in Australia) told you, as an obvious immigrant who professes admiration for Arabs, even looks like one and spends a lot of time on Jihadi websites "....... to piss off back to Cyprus" would take that as any thing less than an insult ?

Those comments only show you to be of ignorant peasant stock with a very poor social education! 'WE' are above that!

[Tim Drayton]

I see things very differently, I am afraid. You need to look at European history. For many centuries, Europe was a war-ridden continent. Barely a decade passed without major conflict and there were minor skirmishes all the time. If you look at Syria now, that was what Europe was like then. In the last century, conflict in Europe engendered two world wars each of which gave rise to a level of destruction that had never been witnessed before. Following the Second World War, the whole continent was almost literally entirely in ruins. Then, the realisation was born that this could not go on. The many people in Britain who have been brainwashed by the right-wing tabloids to hate the EU believe it to be some sort of plot by funny garlic-eating foreigners, but in fact our own Winston Churchill was one of the visionaries who, at that time the continent was in rubble, started to expound the vision of a continent united in purpose rather than constantly fractured through conflict.
In a famous speech on September 19 1946, he said:

I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced?

...

I now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. Therefore I say to you "Let Europe arise!"

http://www.cfr.org/europe/churchills-un ... ich/p32536

In fact, the UK and especially Churchill was one of the major architects behind the scheme to build a new Europe. It is unfortunate that De Gaulle then shut Britain out, and that is another story. Even so, I see what we now have as being the realisation of the dream that Churchill set out in that speech. Sure, the EU is going through a very sticky patch just now, but it has brought peace, stability, prosperity and a sense of common purpose to our continent. I lived in Germany (West Germany as it then was) twice in the 1980's. The first time I went there was in 1981 just 36 years after World War 2 had ended. The war was in living memory yet there I was living in peace and harmony in the former enemy country and not experiencing any visible hositlity in the new Europe that had been created. My father and one of my grandfathers fought Germans in world wars. I was living in peace among Germans. I know which Europe I prefer to live in and to now see a resurgent fascism hell bent on destroying all that we have acheived is too much to bear. It is notable that the millions of displaced people from Syria do not choose to flood into your beloved Saudi Arabia, but want to come to my beloved Europe where there is peace, stability and human rights prevail (although with the rising tide of fascism I do not know how much longer the latter will apply).

[Tim Drayton]

...

You are aware, I take it, that the UK is not part of Schengen and has border controls. There is even an arrangement at the channel tunnel for immigration formalities to the UK to be conducted at the French side.

No I wasn't but ...

You are a well-informed individual and talk a lot of sense, but even so there are gaps in your knowledge. The UK actually has a lot of opt-outs from EU policy at the moment - this is a privilege that comes from being quite an old member that can refuse to enter any new arrangements that are not to its liking - and if the UK leaves and then, a decade or so later has to reapply to join (which I am sure is what will happen), the UK will not have any of these privileges and will have to accept the whole package, take it or leave it.

[Lordo]

Add to that all the rebate mrs t got from the eu too. that will have to be paid in full. once there is no free trade access and we operate on wto rules it will be like an ice cold shower to uk in general. then we shall see how much more we arepaying for access to the eu. and of course by then the assholes who caused it and those who voted for it too will be inactive or dead. that will just leave the young and middle aged racists to feel the pain with the rest of us.

[Londonrake]

............................if the UK leaves and then, a decade or so later has to reapply to join (which I am sure is what will happen), the UK will not have any of these privileges and will have to accept the whole package, take it or leave it.

If you believe that you will believe anything. For instance - it's hypothetical I appreciate - do you think that if the UK were not a member of the EU and the referendum had been held to ask the electorate if they wished to join that the answer would have been in the affirmative? If so then you are fantisising.

There are certain fundamental contradictions within the foundations and structure of the European Union, different in essence but somewhat akin to those which existed in the former Soviet Union. Not least of these is the idea that you can have a common currency - within a very large diversity of cultures and beliefs - without having central political control over all of the organs of State. That would of course have to include some sort of debt union in current circumstances.

The greater the move towards centralisation the greater discontent it creates. Instead of acknowledging the disparity of countries and creating something more harmonious it seems to me that the EU's solution to this conundrum is invariably the same. More Europe. It's a Catch-22 and equally unresolvable.

Nobody knows but if you look more objectively at what's happening across the continent you have to have something akin to blind faith to think that the EU will exist at all in 10 years without some sort of radical reformation. It's ironic that the very essence of the idea of a united Europe - to create peace and stability - has become the vehicle for the complete opposite.

[Tim Drayton]

Never mind, Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox (a brain-dead Brexit fundamentalist) was waxing lyrical about a big wide world out there waiting to be traded with - presumably implying that we don't have to worry too much about losing our European market. However much the little-Englander biggots may hate the wops, froggies, krauts etc., the inalterable geographical fact is that they are just over the channel and every country's most important trading partners will inevitably be its most immediate neighbours. We are told that countries are queuing up to make trade deals. Of course countries want to trade with us. Of course there will be deals. The devil is in the detail. Will the terms of the new deals be more favourable for us or them? Will they be better than the existing deals within the customs union negotiated from a position of strength by a massive trade bloc? I doubt it. Who gets a better deal in negotiations with a factory - a hypermarket that wants to buy 100,000 units or a high-street independent shop that wants to buy 20?

[Tim Drayton]

............................if the UK leaves and then, a decade or so later has to reapply to join (which I am sure is what will happen), the UK will not have any of these privileges and will have to accept the whole package, take it or leave it.

If you believe that you will believe anything. For instance - it's hypothetical I appreciate - do you think that if the UK were not a member of the EU and the referendum had been held to ask the electorate if they wished to join that the answer would have been in the affirmative? If so then you are fantisising.

There are certain fundamental contradictions within the foundations and structure of the European Union, different in essence but somewhat akin to those which existed in the former Soviet Union. Not least of these is the idea that you can have a common currency - within a very large diversity of cultures and beliefs - without having central political control over all of the organs of State. That would of course have to include some sort of debt union in current circumstances.

The greater the move towards centralisation the greater discontent it creates. Instead of acknowledging the disparity of countries and creating something more harmonious it seems to me that the EU's solution to this conundrum is invariably the same. More Europe. It's a Catch-22 and equally unresolvable.

Nobody knows but if you look more objectively at what's happening across the continent you have to have something akin to blind faith to think that the EU will exist at all in 10 years without some sort of radical reformation. It's ironic that the very essence of the idea of a united Europe - to create peace and stability - has become the vehicle for the complete opposite.

Well, I have always been a European federalist but I believe it is a goal that can only be obtained gradually and at a speed that the people of Europe are prepared to accept. I think the project has moved ahead of itself and expansion has been too fast, and what we need is the idea once formulated by Lenin of taking one step backward to take two steps forward. Certainly, the EU should have taken account of sensitivities in the UK about the huge flow of migrants from new member states under freedom of movement and considered some kind of temporary cap. Instead, it blindly insisted on forging the project ahead come what may. The price for that folly was paid on 23 June, sadly.

[Tim Drayton]

There is a lot of misinformed comment about the euro. It has to be realised that comprehensive and strict Maastricht Convergence Criteria were drawn up to underpin the euro (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria). It is a myth that anybody thought the euro could simply function under a free for all in economies with greatly varying fundamentals, and it was well understood along with the euro, there would have to be significant convergence of the economies involved. The reason that the euro project is in crisis stems from a failure for certain countries to comply with the criteria, and one of those countries - a little country ruled by a cleptocratic oligarchy that has been the recipient of massive amounts of EU aid over the decades that has all made its way into crooked individuals' pockets rather than into developement projects that would aid the people - even submitted false statistics to get into the club on false pretexts and single handedly bears most of the blame for the euro crisis, yet turns round and claims to be the victim! The problem with the euro, again, was that it was rolled out too fast. If it had first been piloted in a smaller number of countries that have stable economies and fiscal discipline, and then rolled out elsewhere once it had been well established there, we would not be seeing the problems that are currently being faced.

[Londonrake]

Well, I have always been a European federalist but I believe it is a goal that can only be obtained gradually and at a speed that the people of Europe are prepared to accept. I think the project has moved ahead of itself and expansion has been too fast, and what we need is the idea once formulated by Lenin of taking one step backward to take two steps forward. Certainly, the EU should have taken account of sensitivities in the UK about the huge flow of migrants from new member states under freedom of movement and considered some kind of temporary cap. Instead, it blindly insisted on forging the project ahead come what may. The price for that folly was paid on 23 June, sadly.

Cameron went to the EU last February with a fairly modest shopping list of things he could sell as "reform" to the UK electorate prior to the referendum. His requests were all moderate and reasonable. Some were dismissed out-of-hand and at the end of the day even significantly watered down terms only received a vague commitment to perhaps look into some of it at a later stage. They absolutely were not going to concede anything which would result in a formal treaty change before the UK referendum. They didn't have to of course because they knew that Cameron was always going to campaign for a remain vote. The whole lot of them had made a disastrous mistake.

You have multiple posts.

I take your point about the Euro and Greece . Nevertheless, are you really of the belief that the likes of Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Cyprus have prospered under it? Each has been in crisis for years, unable to take action other than that deemed appropriate by the ECB and that charmingly (honest ) Eurocrat, Ms Lagarde. As Hague pointed out some time ago they are locked into the common currency, trapped in a burning building with no fire escapes.

Euro "strict criteria" it seems to me is a bit of a moveable feast. Germany and France didn't hesitate to break the 3% deficit limit in the Growth and Stability Pact. Then gang up together to ensure that there were no consequences (supported by the" world saver" Brown I will give you). Not so long after that they were both imposing "austerity" on other Eurozone countries.

Yesterday I wrote about how I changed from being a Leave voter with sympathy for those who voted to remain back in late June, basically to develop quite a hard assed attitude about it. (a tad harshly I confess - sorry). Today you provide us with a quite typical comment, the likes of which we have been reading, regularly for 7 months now:

"However much the little-Englander biggots may hate the wops, froggies, krauts etc."

Frankly that's a pretty disgusting, offensive thing to say. Nothing but pure infantile, spite. Similar remarks are posted on virtually all Forums by bad losers, no doubt made to feel better by childishly venting their spleens online. Reminds me of "I'll squeem and squeem and squeem until I'm thick!" Although not aimed at an individual (worse!) you can't expect to post supercilious rubbish like that and escape criticism in kind. Ad hominem is entirely deserved.

My own experience, whilst travelling extensively in the UK for 2 months last sumner, was that most of the Leave voters I met were solid, professional people with a good insight into the EU, its workings and deficiencies. Conversely, the Remainers tended to have voted either on a status quo basis or as a result of being successful victims of Mr Cameron's/Osbornes's disastrous fear campaigning. Their knowledge of the Federation being almost non existent. It was all very remote and they simply weren't interested. The view broadcast by many Remainers tends to be much like your own. That Leave voters are a bunch of moronic, lower class, poorly educated ignoramuses. What sort of attitude do you expect that to engender?

After the last 7 months crap and watching all these "democrats" at work I have no doubt personally that if there were a second referendum you would get a very nasty surprise. Your attitude to it all appears to be entirely in keeping with Brussels. Never mind the electorates, .........we know best.