Congratulations France!

[teamsaint]

And what makes you imply (if indeed you do so, which I assume you to do) that those things to which you point your accusing finger would really have been any different or any better had this NOT happened? People in poisitons of power will surely almost always do what interests them and regardless of anyone else's interests - you really don't have to have an EU-style framework in order to enable this!

well that is a good question.

to which one might respond, why did the people with the power set Europe on this path, unless it was in their interests?
who benefits? bigger trough? more control?

[Simon]

Well, you're right again, TS, but you do better than me if you can understand AH's "logic"!

If the EU hadn't happened then of course the corruption and all that I accuse it of wouldn't have happened.

And of course you don't have to have the EU for certain groups of people to be greedy and corrupt. They are thus in other places and organisations as well.

But all that, though perfectly true, isn't the point.

The point is that we DO have the EU and that the accusations I have made about it stand.

[ahinton]

Well, you're right again, TS, but you do better than me if you can understand AH's "logic"!

If the EU hadn't happened then of course the corruption and all that I accuse it of wouldn't have happened.

And of course you don't have to have the EU for certain groups of people to be greedy and corrupt. They are thus in other places and organisations as well.

But all that, though perfectly true, isn't the point.

The point is that we DO have the EU and that the accusations I have made about it stand.

Whilst it may indeed be the case that TS "does better than you" in this, I have to admit that it's far harder still to grasp your logic - or, indeed, even to find it at all! It runs thus. Had EU not existed, the corruption (and, by implication, inefficiency, incompetence et al) of which you accuse it would not have happened. Fair enough, as far as it goes. However, greed and corruption (and, by implication, inefficiency, incompetence et al) are in other places and organisations as well. Ergo, such corruption (and, by implication, inefficiency, incompetence et al) would have occurred elsewhere, therefore plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose except that the actual identity/ies of the guilty party/ies would have been different (i.e. not EU) That, however, is apprently not the point, which appears instead to be that you are not interested in accusing anyone else of any of these things because your vendetta is directed at EU alone. If that's logic, I'm an Englishman!

I have never held up EU as a model for anything but I do not allow that fact to blind me to what would almost certainly have occurred in Europe had its foundation been indefinitely postponed - and that would not exactly have been pleasant to contemplate, especially in the light of what happened leading to and during WWs I & II.

Now that you seem to have clarified that you would like to see EU disbanded altogether, would you care to explain how much you imagine that this would cost overall and who, especially in the present parlous climate of international economic woes and indebtedness, would willingly and unquestioningly lend each country its share of that cost in order to dismantle it all and replace it with something else, just because Simon (who has elsewhere declared himself to be against the majority of borrowing in any case) said that this should happen?

If I understand you correctly (which I may not and expect to be put right if not), your stance on EU appears to be predicated upon regarding isolationism as some kind of virtue; does this mean that you have problems in finding much favour in most political, economic, fiscal, cultural, &c. unions between states? Let's consider a few examples. What is your view on the past existence of the League of Nations and of its successor organisation the current United Nations? What about NATO? What about the United States of America? What about the so-called British Commonwealth and, for that matter, the for the time being United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Should we even consider dropping from use terms such as "North America" (meaning geographical North America, i.e. including Canada) as I have even heard Canadians do? Should we likewise stop referring to "Central America as a term to cover eight non-unified states as though they are nevertheless in some way unified? - or "South America" as though its twelve states are ditto? Only you can answer those questions if you will but, while awaiting those answers, it does in the meantime seem as though your map of the world has its national boundaries drawn as a matter of Simonesque principle with much thicker and darker lines than the maps that most of the rest of us would use.

Independence for Derbyshire, I say! No, seriously, I do think that what your view might be of the UK as an united group of states might come to look a little odd if and when that union dissolves which, whilst by no means a certainty, is far from unlikely and, with such impending dissolution on the cards, the question has already been asked - if not yet answered authoritiatively or maybe even at all - as to whether an independent Scotland will maintain sterling or apply instead to adopt the Euro (assuming that it's still around following such independence)...

[ahinton]

Overheard recently:

"now that the Sarkophagus has been carted unceremoniously away and la France has subjected itself to rule from Holland, what price its traditional liberté, égalité, austerité now?"

As you were...

[Beef Oven]

Overheard recently:

"now that the Sarkophagus has been carted unceremoniously away and la France has subjected itself to rule from Holland, what price its traditional liberté, égalité, austerité now?"

As you were...

?

[ahinton]

?

Not my quote, M. le Bœuf, but which bit are you questioning?

[Beef Oven]

Not my quote, M. le Bœuf, but which bit are you questioning?

How very dare you, addressing me in that incontestibly foreign manner.

[ahinton]

How very dare you, addressing me in that incontestibly foreign manner.

How incontestably(sp.) foreign a manner of English use is "how very dare you"?! At least I refrained from addressing you as "M. de Rosbif"! Anyway, assuming that I nevertheless understand your meaning, I "dare" quite easily, thank you - and, indeed, rather more easily (or so it would appear) that you can answer my question as to what it was about that quote that you were questioning...(!)...

[Dave2002]

well let us hope that Mr Darling takes some personal inspiration from M Hollande's success ....

there are a lot of French people living in the UK and the dog does not bark .... the Poles build and Plumb, Italians wait etc ... what do Les Francais get up to? we should be told!

M Hollande claims to be an enemy of Finance ...we shall see if he is and if he can survive the bond markets .... the right wing cobblers 'reckless spending' has already started

According to various sources, London is the 6th largest French city! See also http://about-france.com/tourism/main-towns-cities.htm This puts it comparable with Nice and Bordeaux in terms of French citizens.

[Beef Oven]

How incontestably(sp.) foreign a manner of English use is "how very dare you"?! Atg least I refrained from addressing you as "M. de Rosbif"! Anyway, assuming that I nevertheless understand your meaning, I "dare" quite easily, thank you - and, indeed, rather more easily (or so it would appear) that you can answer my question as to what it was about that quote that you were questioning...(!)...

Their definately aint nothing wrong with my spelling - anyone could of seen that. You were just 'chomping' at the bit to have a dig.

[ahinton]

Their definately aint nothing wrong with my spelling - anyone could of seen that. You were just chomping at the bit to have a dig.

Like wot your mixing yer mettafers, incha!

[Beef Oven]

Like wot your mixing yer mettafers, incha!