logo Sign In

To Folks in the European Union

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
What do you think will happen if France votes no to the constitution? Do you believe it will hamper the expansionist policies of the EU? Do you think it could cause further damage to already sensitive political ties?
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Aw crud. I thought you meant the StarWars EU.
When I first saw the title, I thought the same thing. Almost immediately after, though, I realized the phrase was wrong, To the folks in the EU??

I opened it really to see what was meant.

On topic:
I don't know enough about the EU constitution or about what France's reasons for opposing it might be, so I really cannot say much.
I did, however, see an article recently that talked about how its bad for Chirac if the frenchies vote down the constitution.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Aw crud. I thought you meant the StarWars EU.
When I first saw the title, I thought the same thing. Almost immediately after, though, I realized the phrase was wrong, To the folks in the EU??

I opened it really to see what was meant.

On topic:
I don't know enough about the EU constitution or about what France's reasons for opposing it might be, so I really cannot say much.
I did, however, see an article recently that talked about how its bad for Chirac if the frenchies vote down the constitution.


Should have said European Union...

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
From what I gather from the UK news, a french no vote looks like a certainty and I think the netherlands vote a week later, would a united states of europe be a good idea? i don't know

The main issue I gather is with people fearing the loss of identity.
Egon "Don't Cross the streams it would be very bad"

Peter "i'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing"

Egon "lmagine the 97 Star Wars Special Editions"
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: norinradd
From what I gather from the UK news, a french no vote looks like a certainty and I think the netherlands vote a week later, would a united states of europe be a good idea? i don't know

The main issue I gather is with people fearing the loss of identity.


A US of Europe would not necessarily be a bad thing. A US of Europe united behind a socialist agenda is a SCARY thing. I'm curious to know how it will play out when France votes no, since they were one of the biggest proponents.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Zooropa...
Which is the more foolish, the fool (the OT) or the fool who follows (the PT)?

"Stay back, or Mr...Fett gets it!"
Author
Time
Post link
watch right now the american economy is going into resession, The EU will come out on top as the new superpower in the world, yes the 20th century wasnt the greatest time for europe they were pretty much america's and USSR's bitch for the second half of the century, but can yo blame them after both WW1 and WW2 man handled the region. the EU is the sleeping giant that is only now reawakening, they are already starting to catch up to america in man of te science races, the European space agency is going wild right now, it wont be long till they get into space and start to expand, this is more then you can say for either russa or the US. there economy is going wild to the euro since it was first introduced has risen to the point where its high in value then the US dollar.
Author
Time
Post link
Not hard really considering the US dollar is shit right now. I love when I come to visit cos the value of my money doubles, it's fucking brilliant.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Not hard really considering the US dollar is shit right now. I love when I come to visit cos the value of my money doubles, it's fucking brilliant.


Enjoy it while you can before they start taxing currency exchanges. The ultimate tool to drive everyone to a single currency...

And, a few more "no" votes and the Euro may be in the toilet and would probably push the US $ and BPS up, no?
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
as it is the EU and the euro are very stable, infact the really factor is giong to be china, if china decides to change to the Euro the US dollar will be sunk.and the euro wil sky rocket to the point where it might even beat the pound, if that happens who knows maybe the UK will decide to join and what then.
Author
Time
Post link
Bad news for the US, because there is no way in hell the gov't would give up the greenbacks.
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
as it is the EU and the euro are very stable, infact the really factor is giong to be china, if china decides to change to the Euro the US dollar will be sunk.and the euro wil sky rocket to the point where it might even beat the pound, if that happens who knows maybe the UK will decide to join and what then.


In the short term the Euro will lose ground. The Dutch voted "no" today, I believe. The economic news in the US is good right now...GDP is up, manufacturing orders are up, inflation is under control.

The US Dollar and BPS are in trouble against the Euro eventually, that's why the US Govt is going to push CAFTA, which is really a move to create an EC type economic sphere between Canada and Mexico (God help us) to compete with the EU, eventually pushing us into a regional government modeled after the EU.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
yeah i dont knwo whether canada would get rid of te dollar, i cant see us joining that. at least not right now. especially people here in BC man the amount of bull shit pur province has had to deal with, with damn american loggers breaking international free trade laws. it down right wrong. right now the US owes us millions of dollars in money that they took through illegal terrifs on soft wood lumber.
Author
Time
Post link
I'm from England and I don't want the Euro, I love my pounds.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
yeah i dont knwo whether canada would get rid of te dollar, i cant see us joining that. at least not right now. especially people here in BC man the amount of bull shit pur province has had to deal with, with damn american loggers breaking international free trade laws. it down right wrong. right now the US owes us millions of dollars in money that they took through illegal terrifs on soft wood lumber.


Tarrifs are used to protect the jobs/markets of the IMPORTING country. That's the way a true free market economy is supposed to work. Unfortunately our politicians "fast tracked" us into a never ending web of "Free Trade" agreements that do nothing but favor our competitiors and ship our jobs overseas. I'm all for free trade, provided it's a level playing field, and that it's TRUE free trade.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
free trade is when products can cross borders with out being taxed or tarrifed, There is a free trade policy between canada and the US and there are alot of things that the US send to canada that hurt our own home industries but we do not put a tax on them why because we cant. look at the words free meaning not costing money trade meaning exchange of goods. the whole basis for free trade is that good do not get taxed when crossign the boarder, america broke that rule and there is currently an inquirey about it.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
free trade is when products can cross borders with out being taxed or tarrifed, There is a free trade policy between canada and the US and there are alot of things that the US send to canada that hurt our own home industries but we do not put a tax on them why because we cant. look at the words free meaning not costing money trade meaning exchange of goods. the whole basis for free trade is that good do not get taxed when crossign the boarder, america broke that rule and there is currently an inquirey about it.


No, free trade is when a country is free to import and export, tax and tarrif as it sees fit. The countries on the other end of the deal are free to accept or decline the terms as THEY see fit and to set their own rules. This is not the case for hardly anyone now that we're all tied to the WTO and IMF. Canada shouldn't accept our goods if they don't like the terms of the deal. Tarrifs are the only means a country has of protecting internal suppliers of the same goods/services. Unfortunately, they're not being used in the correct fashion in the US, and when they are all the other members of the WTO whine about the US actually PROTECTING it's own companies.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
here is the definition of free trade.

Google definition

the first 4 definitions all explicitly say that it is either a suvere reduction or elimiation of tarrifs and artifical barriers. free trade is what Corperations like nike use to get there products into the country from there factories in poor LEDCs.

i will again restate it, the tariffs that the US put on canadian soft wood lumber was illegal under a Free trade system.

what you are discribeing is regular trade.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
here is the definition of free trade.

Google definition

the first 4 definitions all explicitly say that it is either a suvere reduction or elimiation of tarrifs and artifical barriers. free trade is what Corperations like nike use to get there products into the country from there factories in poor LEDCs.

i will again restate it, the tariffs that the US put on canadian soft wood lumber was illegal under a Free trade system.

what you are discribeing is regular trade.


There are many definitions that can be gotten from a lot of different sources. Many people, myself included, will tell you that the "free trade" definitions and laws in use today are veiled socialist redistribution mechanisms. The US is bleeding wealth and jobs because of trade deficits and "free trade". It's a fact.

When has there ever been a society that didn't tax goods? While tarrifs may be a violation of the spirit of Laizze Faire, they've always been a tool to protect native suppliers. In the US, the power to impose tarrifs is provided for in our founding documents.

Do foreign countries have a "right" to dump cheap goods on the markets of others, putting pressure on their economy vis a vis unemployment and trade deficits without them being able to protect themselves? "Free trade" globalists will say that the standard of living will become more "equitable" in the countries being affected, eg: socialism.

And, let me restate: If Canada doesn't like the deal she's getting, she shouldn't accept the terms and should go elsewhere to import/export her goods.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I like the fact that if the US continues at such a high rate of consumption of oil, and if China gets up to speed and matches us any time soon, in less than twenty years we will have depleted all of our sources of oil. So, now seems to be the time to start investigating alternative sources of power.

And war is not a viable option...why go to war for something that there is so little of? And the War In Iraq has nothing to do with oil...just look at the export charts, Iraq has very little.

Oil will be the end of us all.
Which is the more foolish, the fool (the OT) or the fool who follows (the PT)?

"Stay back, or Mr...Fett gets it!"
Author
Time
Post link
your definition of free trade is not the one that is in effect. the one that is in effect stats that NO tarrifs shoul dbe in place when moving goods over the borders, if you want to argue about it the by all means good ahead, but these are the facts, the amercan gov threw an unfar level of taxes on canadian soft wood lumber. to the point where ist being taxed over 30% now that is unfair. Canada appealed to the WTO which ruled in canada's favour, NAFTA is also doing its own investigation and is likely to rule in favour of canada. If your definition was correct both of these international bodies would not be ruling in canada's favor.


and find me a source for your definition of free trade i am very curious to see one that states that a government can put what ever tax they want on product coming in to the country.
Author
Time
Post link
here are some more definitions

International business not restrained by government interference or regulation, such as duties. ( www. investorwords.com) taxing is a form of government interference.

heres the goal of NAFTA the agreement which both canada and hte us fall under.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), accord establishing a free-trade zone in North America; it was signed in 1992 by Canada, Mexico, and the United States and took effect on Jan. 1, 1994. NAFTA immediately lifted tariffs on the majority of goods produced by the signatory nations. It also calls for the gradual elimination, over a period of 15 years, of most remaining barriers to cross-border investment and to the movement of goods and services among the three countries. Major industries affected include agriculture, automobile and textile manufacture, telecommunications, financial services, energy, and trucking. NAFTA also provides for labor and environmental cooperation among member countries. The pact contains provisions for the inclusion of additional member nations. Labor representatives have criticized NAFTA, claiming the agreement has led to numerous jobs lost in the United States because industries have moved plants to Mexico (see maquiladoras); NAFTA proponents point to the U.S. jobs created because of increased imports by Mexico and Canada. The agreement has negatively affected the economies of several Caribbean countries whose exports to the United States now compete with duty-free Mexican exports.

key sentence, the gradual elimation of over a period of 15 years of most of the remainin barriers. key word elimination. since 1996 the US has increased the tarifs on soft wood lumber from 14 to 19 to over 30% that is in direct conflict with what the agreement states.

you know its funny cause canadian do so many favours for the US but when it comes to one of our key industries they leave us out to dry. you knoe california owes BC billions of dollars in electrical power, infact you would be shocked at the amount of power that is generated in canada then moved to america without canada increasing the prices. its not much but Canadian power bills are higher becauce of the amout of power we send over. like i said thou we have tons of it and dont mind sharing at all but it just goes to show.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa
here is the definition of free trade.



the first 4 definitions all explicitly say that it is either a suvere reduction or elimiation of tarrifs and artifical barriers. free trade is what Corperations like nike use to get there products into the country from there factories in poor LEDCs.

i will again restate it, the tariffs that the US put on canadian soft wood lumber was illegal under a Free trade system.

what you are discribeing is regular trade.


There are many definitions that can be gotten from a lot of different sources. Many people, myself included, will tell you that the "free trade" definitions and laws in use today are veiled socialist redistribution mechanisms. The US is bleeding wealth and jobs because of trade deficits and "free trade". It's a fact.

When has there ever been a society that didn't tax goods? While tarrifs may be a violation of the spirit of Laizze Faire, they've always been a tool to protect native suppliers. In the US, the power to impose tarrifs is provided for in our founding documents.

Do foreign countries have a "right" to dump cheap goods on the markets of others, putting pressure on their economy vis a vis unemployment and trade deficits without them being able to protect themselves? "Free trade" globalists will say that the standard of living will become more "equitable" in the countries being affected, eg: socialism.

And, let me restate: If Canada doesn't like the deal she's getting, she shouldn't accept the terms and should go elsewhere to import/export her goods.


when has the world ever been connected so closely that i can chat with a person in england in real time.the world is changing and the fact is that the globalization is happening there is nothing that can be done to stop it. IT is also making the world a better place, thing about it the consumers in amerca no long have to pay such high prices for there products. by imposing taxes he US may be saving some jobs but it is creating huge amounts of inflation. and tell me looking at this from a global POV as a citizen of earth doesnt it make more sense for the areas of the world that produce certain goods in large amounts to be able to sell there stuff on a global market so that the places that dont produce the product dont have to. it all comes down to integrating the world together. and as for jobs and such you shouldnt be complaining about free trade you shoul dbe complaining about transnation organisations they are the primary distructors of jobs in america.

here read the it does a much better job of explain it then a post i wrote in five mins

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1429