Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thatcher (and then Major) actually pushed for the Euro along with President Mitterand of France. They basically made Germany commit to it as a condition for not blocking German reunification because they thought that would tie Germany into European institutions and prevent any resugence of German nationalism which was still a concern for people of that generation back in the early 1990s.
Margaret Thatcher was only in power until 1990, th euro was officially adopted on 16 December 1995 in Madrid anf esd introduced to world financial markets as an accounting currency on 1 January 1999.
Physical euro coins and banknotes entered into circulation on 1 January 2002, making it the day-to-day operating currency of its original members, and by March 2002 it had completely replaced the former currencies
How could Mrgaret Thatcher support the Euro before it even existed, there was of course the European Exachange Rate Mechanism (ERM) but Thatcher was never an advicate of it, although Major later took us in to it with disasterous results, as people like George Soros manipulated the currebcy markets in order to make vast sums of money, in what was known as Black Wednesday.
How anyone can state that Thatcher was in any way Pro-European is beyond me, and it was Laboir policy to leave the EEC back in the early 80's, before Kinnock took power, although Kinnock and his wife, later did very well out of the EU earning around £10 million from the EU. Lord Kinnock earned £1.85million in salary during his 10 years at the EU and qualified for a residence allowance for living in Brussels worth £276,962, an installation allowance of £25,348 for taking the job, a resettlement allowance of £13,745 for leaving the job and a transition allowance, to help adjust to life outside Brussels, worth £355,143. Lord Kinnock also qualifies for a pension which pays out £83,089 a year and would cost £1.1 6million to buy in the private sector.
Lady Kinnock earned £774,838 during her time as an MEP and was also entitled to a daily subsistence allowance worth £505,818 over that time, travel allowances worth almost £1.25million and general allowances worth £577,071. In addition, she was entitled to secretarial allowances worth more than £2.3million, although these are to pay staff.She also has a pension worth £67,836 a year, which would require a pot of £950,000 to buy in the private sector.
Peter (Lord) Mandelson also made a vast sum from his time at the EU, whilst Tony Blair even had ambitions to become the European Unions (unelected) President, a position that pays more than President of the United States.
So you can see why many politicians in the UK Parliament are reluctant to give up the European Gravy train, which many go in to after leaving British politics.
You also do realise that Tusk, Junker and Barnier are all multi-millionaires, with massive expenses and chauffeur driven limousines, and even private jets to travel to foriegn meetings. They also have obsene pensions and don't even face elecions, it's little wonder they want the EU to stay as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MnM258
Millions of Eastern Europeans have moved to Western Europe after 2004 when the EU expanded, but they didn't all go to the UK despite the UK government choosing not to use the 7 year transition period on migration that most other West European countries did (i think only Ireland and Sweden went with the UK and implemented freedom of movement straight away). Spain has many more Romanians living there than there are Romanians in the UK for example.
Germany and other countries blocked Polish and EU Citizens from living and working there for many years, however Tony Blair's Government didn't think many would migrate to Britain, which proved to be very very wrong. Then again Tony couldn't care as long as he is making money from Merchant Banks, Wars and being on the board of directors of numerous companies.
Freedom of movement has to occur though, and i'm surprised the EU (or more specifically the country applying for membership) would agree to any transitional restrictions at all.
Otherwise you'd have free movement of goods, but not people.
This would produce imbalances and cause substantial disruption of local industries.
For example, say we allow all goods such as textiles to enter Poland when they join the EU, but place restrictions on what countries Poles can go to find work. The infusion of tariff-free goods (textiles in this case) into Poland would disrupt the local textiles market and those employed in that industry would have no way to compete, no chance of moving to where the jobs are.
It strikes me as absurdly unfair. It's a price that some applicants appear are willing to bear evidently, for a time - since there have been 'transitional' periods for freedom of movement. But overall it strikes me as bad for business and bad for people.
In May of last year, only 16 per cent of Leave voters thought the economy would be worse off after Brexit and incredibly 42 per cent thought the economy would be better. Barely nine months later, after all the political infighting and negative news from business leaders, economists and government-related experts alike – the shift is dramatic and it can be translated a bit like this.
The margin of those who believe the decision was “wrong” to leave the EU is now eight to 10 percentage points — much larger than the margin in favour of Leave back in 2016. In other words, one way of putting this is that if the question was not Leave or Remain – but will the economy be Better or Worse as a result of leaving – approximately 57 per cent would vote to Remain, a huge swing from the original 48.1 per cent originally. The suggestion here is that given a second referendum, many would indeed change their minds and vote to remain.
There are of course a lot of polls, studies and reports to say anything depending on what Brexit stance you have. However, the translation of all this must surely be – are we better off or worse off by voting to leave the EU. And by far, the data confirms the same as each quarter performance is reported – everyone is worse off now and will be much worse off in years to come if the trend continues.
In fact, the average household is now known to be losing almost £2,000 worth of resources (mainly lower private consumption, but also lost public spending and investment). This number is broadly consistent with estimates the governor of the Bank of England gave in May.
Some interesting news that the Tory party has added 30,000 new members in the past year.
Much is being made of a blue wave of insurrectionists joining to de-select prominent Remainer MPs who have campaigned against Brexit despite standing for election in favour of it.
Hard to see but I do get a feeling in my waters that there are seismic shifts beginning to be made in the traditional party system in Britain.
Interesting times for despondent Leavers.
That is an interesting statistic on the Tory party membership. They also in sheer votes soared up here in Scotland at Council MSP and MP level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
