Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Overloading the EU juggernaut – how far can enlargement go?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Overloading the EU juggernaut – how far can enlargement go?
When Charles de Gaulle spoke of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, he was promoting an alternative vision of the continent to the ‘ever closer union’ of the EEC: one which spanned economic systems and didn’t impinge on national interests as the EEC did (and which in his mind was incompatible with France’s position as a great power).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
However I never envisaged anything other than a Western European Union; a union of those with Germanic or Romance languages and consequent traditions; something like, geographically, a secular successor to the Holy Roman Empire plus a Britain which had by then been largely shorn of it's Empire trading links (with the exception of New Zealand dairy products!).
I really feel enlargement has gone too far too fast and the EU has, in it's pursuit of continent wide free trade and movement, neglected the necessity of establishing proper, and popularly understood and accepted, democratic structures.
I'll still vote to stray in if we ever have another referendum, though.
Machiavelli wrote in The DIscourses (I think) that a federation of republics could only be around 4-6 in number before, necessarily, the divergent interests of the member nations with one another and quite probably the federation itself reduced the federation to absurdity.
The EU as it stands is not merely failing to work, it's incapable of ever doing so. The eurozone's creation remains an act of insanity. Now the eurozone is holding a wolf by the ears: it can't hold on and it can't let go. If the eurozone disappeared certain countries would see their living standards decline immensely and their debt levels sore as their individual currencies, without the strong Deutsch-Euro element, weakened rapidly on the markets. If the eurozone remains then the structural problems cannot be overcome, and when it finally does break up the pain will be even worse. In a few decades, perhaps less, we'll see mass civil protest, violence, and perhaps even war on the fringes.
The EU, meanly, is hell-bent on empire-building for the sake of it. I can well imagine someone from a small and poor country, or from a nation with no sense of identity (yes, Belgium, you) feeling that being a European was a sort of national identity too. But that is not true for the major powers, for Britain and France (the oldest countries in Europe, if we grandfather in England) and Germany, as well as Italy and Spain.
The lack of transparency, democracy, accountability (quite literally, given the numerous consecutive auditing failures) speaks well of the EU's nature. It's a cabal of bureaucrats and shysters, a gravy train for cretins with a fantasy for rebuilding the Roman Empire but who lack the wit to realise that Rome's greatness involved the point of a sword and minimal local interference. When the sword failed and barbarians arose the empire fell.
Now the eurozone is failing. Closer integration will be attempted, and it will ultimately fail.
However, Mr. Herdson does raise a very interesting point regarding Ukraine and Bulgaria. My guess would be once they (and perhaps Turkey) either join or are given a permanent Nein we'll see the EU eunuchs plotting to try and rapidly increase the practical powers of the EU, particularly regarding taxation and military force.
Bit sleepy, so apologies if the above is rambly and typo-ridden.
But the institutions can now handle more members, and Enhanced Cooperation reduces the need for more treaties, apart from the accession ones. Ukraine will join if and when they really want to, if they ever do. Not sure about Turkey, as France has cultural issues and Greece has long-standing grudges, and Turkey probably doesn't need it as much.
[For my German A-level coursework I wrote a diary of a Turkish worker in Kreuzberg, a district of Berlin which, at the time, had the third largest number of Turks at any one place in the world].
All that remains is explaining for OldNat why the Greens gaining the SLD MEP is even less likely than Lab gain, SNP gain, SLD hold or UKIP gain. The only thing Grn gain beats in terms of lilelihood is Con gain, and that ain't saying much.
In the case of Turkey, two factors make it less likely for them to join than was the case just five years ago. One is internal to the country, the other external.
1) As the Eurozone has been plunged into crisis, Turkey's economy has been doing much better - a steep plunge in GDP in 2009 was followed by an equally large increase. Why would they want to constrain themselves by joining the EU?
2) The ruling party, the AKP, is turning out to be more than moderate Islamist. The more Islamist Turkey's government becomes, the less likely it is for certain countries to allow them into the EU.
To put it bluntly: what would Turkey gain from joining the modern EU?
I think most people in 1975 expected that they were voting for a European trading community and little else. Not the massive political group it has become.
But onto more important matters - the cricket.
Successful sportsmen seem to routinely get honours. Could we award a few un-honours to some of this bunch. An OTC? The Order of the Chicken, for instance.
As a matter of EU security, further engagement with neighbouring countries is highly desirable. The EU has one neighbour, Belarus, which is by any measure a dictatorship and another, Russia, which is not far off. It has a third, Ukraine, which is unstable and in which (like it or not) the EU is an essential player.
The EU's soft power has much to do to help in Ukraine and Turkey, and elsewhere (as the western Balkans quietly show). The EU may not be very popular on British political websites, but compared with the alternative ideologies on offer in those areas, it's pretty damn good.
Finally, there has been no consideration about what's needed for stimulating the moribund EU economy. Turkey is a highly dynamic economy of 80 million people. We are pushing it away because it's complicated.
It's always easier to turn inwards than to look out. When you look out, it gets messy and complicated. But looking out is how the EU and its member states are ultimately going to return to their path of prosperity.
As probably the strongestt Europhile on pb, I agree there's a problem - having more big members will push the further away from integration and more towards a basic trading community with not much more. But like antifrank I think that multi-speed urope is the answer - let them join the Single Market for a start, and then let's take it a step at a time.
Incidentally, does anyone talk about Ukraine splitting? Unlike most splits, the case for it seems very strong. It's obvious that the western half is sincerely keen on joining Europe, and the Eastern half is sincerely keen on joining Russia, both for strong cultural and ethnic reasons. A solution of a plebiscite by region seems reasonable, and it's the way Schleswig-Holstein was eventually solved as a problem. Treating it as a zero-sum game where one side triumphs over the other (as both sides there seem to do) is nuts.
By the way, Germany is AFAIK in favour of Turkish membership. It's France that is strongly opposed.
They haven't lost away since September and the only games they have lost are at Wigan, QPR and Reading. Much as I admire Eddie Howe Bournemouth are not at that level, have already lost five at home and will be missing the influential Harry Arter.
Russia will never join. Perhaps they no longer see themselves as the Third Rome, but being a mere member of the EU would be at odds with its sense of identity (I suspect).
José Manuel García-Margallo, the Spanish foreign minister, “Spain does not work on hypotheses. What I do say is that the attitude of the United Kingdom would be the determining factor at the time of deciding our vote.”
Spain's beef has always been making sure that it did not give Catalonia any space to claim similar.
The EU never makes anything easy or quick.
Let's begone with the wastrels: If a Turk is a lesser European than a Slav then the ideal [sought by EU-philes] is misted by bigotry, religious-hatred and ignorance. Let's get rid of the EU and Scotland before England is damaged by such misguided hatred....
However both Turkey and the Ukraine are undergoing violent upheavals at the moment and the picture may be totally changed in a few weeks or months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Turkism#Germany
http://www.dw.de/german-turkish-politician-injured-in-racist-attack/a-2027025-1
Below is an interesting essay on being Turkish in Germany. I think some children of immigrants in the UK could write similar stories...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/essay-on-racism-growing-up-turkish-in-germany-a-932154.html
Turkey though is different in size, and in geography. While Istanbul is quite european in orientation the east is much less so. We would have a border with Syria and Iraq. Politics in Turkey is becoming less pro-EU, and also the lack of tolerance to religious minorities is a bar. EU membership may also mean a much more diverse Anatolia as parts of the coast become German, British or even Greek enclaves again. Free movement of peoples works both ways.
I would quite like Ukraine to join, the western bits of old Austria Hungarian Galicia are very european in outlook, and in time I would like Russia to join. I was discussing this with a Russian recently. She felt it certain that Ukraine would join, it was just a question of whether it was 10 years away or thirty.
One point I didn't follow up on in the piece was about the Ukraine-Russia relationship that's such a factor in the current situation. Nick talks downthread about the possibility of a future split and while there's some logic to that (the border of the country is something of an administrative construct not necessarily grounded in cultural homogeneity), there doesn't seem to be much internal support for that, from what I've seen. Even if it was, I don't think it would resolve the problem on a bigger picture.
It's hard to understate the cultural and historic significance of Kiev to Russia. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to describe it as the mother city of all the Russias. As such, and despite the fact it's clearly Ukrainian, its inhabitants want it to be so and to look west rather than east or north, I'm not sure Russia's ever got used to it being outside their borders. It's different from, say, Lithuania, which was independent between the wars anyway.
There's also the security angle that Russia's no doubt concerned about. EU and NATO membership are rightly seen as two pillars of the same western edifice (yes, there are exceptions in Europe but in recent years, joining one has gone hand-in-hand with joining the other). It's bad enough from Moscow's viewpoint for NATO's borders to have extended to a few miles from St Petersburg; for the Ukraine to join too would be a massive statement about what and where legitimate spheres of influence are - and would no doubt be followed by interest from Georgia and perhaps Armenia and Azerbaijan.
To which end, Russia is going to be hostile to any further EU or NATO expansion eastwards unless the EU can itself give Russia something worth having in return - which at the moment, it can't. All of which is one reason why Putin won't play ball on Syria, for example.
The solution to what's going on really lies in Moscow. While Putin's in the Kremlin, it will remain firmly under lock and key.
Nick and left leaners. I wonder how you guys think labour should campaign to get the vote out in the EU elections. Why does voting labour in these polls matter?
(a) Mr Cameron can resolve all this with a formal inquiry to the EU, which he is refusing, contrary to the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement;
(b) Czech Republic and Slovakia got sorted out quickly
(c) Scotland is ALREADY in the EU as part of the two-nation alliance of formally and legally equal partners that forms the UK. So, as the Spanish say, the situation is quite different.
It will be realpolitik which resolves it - but I notice that little attention has been given to the point that what is the case for Scotland is exactly the case for England, given that the Treaty of Union was an international agreement and remains the sole written constitution for the UK, and that Scotland and England are equal partners therein.
So I wonder if every unionist who gleefully screams that Scotland will be flung out into the outer darkness is prepared to accept precisely the same fate for England etc .
It should also be noted that Scotland will be seeking to remain a simple member, but if current rhetoric is any guide England, or rather the Westminster Government (whose legitimacy will vanish the moment the Treaty is abrogated, so let's hope they have that sorted out in advance) will be claiming to be the successor state to the UK. This is far more tendentious than the simple matter of Scotland's membership, and if anyone is going to have problems it will be EWNI.
There is also the logical inconsistency of the same people claiming that being outwith the EU is a terrible fate, while (often) demanding a referendum to take England out of the EU, and drag the rest of the UK with it (unwillingly, given current polling).
If Scotland leaves the UK, it will be the seceding state (and having to start from scratch), while the rest of the UK will continue as before. That's pretty obvious to all bar the obsessed, but two seconds' reflection on the legal status of northern Ireland once Scotland becomes independent should help even the obsessed to appreciate the point.
A shame as there are many intelligent, welcoming and optimistic people there trying to make ends meet, that want honest and competent government far more than a grand diplomatic tilt East or West
The UK would happily fit within the EEC and countries like Turkey could join too since the free movement of people would only apply to the EU counties not the EEC countries.
The UKIP European campaign strategy will be to leave the EU
The Lib Dem campaign will be to stay in the EU regardless
What will the Labour campaign position be - anyone know?
(a) Mr Cameron can resolve all this with a formal inquiry to the EU, which he is refusing, contrary to the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement;
(b) Czech Republic and Slovakia got sorted out quickly
(c) Scotland is ALREADY in the EU as part of the two-nation alliance of formally and legally equal partners that forms the UK. So, as the Spanish say, the situation is quite different.
It will be realpolitik which resolves it - but I notice that little attention has been given to the point that what is the case for Scotland is exactly the case for England, given that the Treaty of Union was an international agreement and remains the sole written constitution for the UK, and that Scotland and England are equal partners therein.
So I wonder if every unionist who gleefully screams that Scotland will be flung out into the outer darkness is prepared to accept precisely the same fate for England etc .
It should also be noted that Scotland will be seeking to remain a simple member, but if current rhetoric is any guide England, or rather the Westminster Government (whose legitimacy will vanish the moment the Treaty is abrogated, so let's hope they have that sorted out in advance) will be claiming to be the successor state to the UK. This is far more tendentious than the simple matter of Scotland's membership, and if anyone is going to have problems it will be EWNI.
There is also the logical inconsistency of the same people claiming that being outwith the EU is a terrible fate, while (often) demanding a referendum to take England out of the EU, and drag the rest of the UK with it (unwillingly, given current polling).
Carnyx, Your post will be way over the heads of the Little Englanders on here, given they are a world power they will be treated differently and those johnny foreigners will deal with them with the deference their greatness deserves, whilst thy will punish Scotland for daring not to want to remain slaves to westminster.
What is more, the EU may not be able to give an accurate answer until the time comes and the exact settlement between the UK and Scotland is decided - much would depend on that.
Scotland's membership would come down to negotiation. Not being in the Euro would be a problem, but a surmountable one at a price. The main problem would be the countries who face their own separatist movements, or those which would see an independent Scotland as a rival. It will be in their interests not just to say no, but to delay the moment that they have to say no for as long as possible.
And all this would take time; perhaps many years. The EU works at a glacial pace at the best of times. What will Scotland's fate be during that period? They'll be forced to use Sterling with no power within the BoE. Some interim measures may be put in place to protect Scottish trade, but again that may take time.
It also needs to be considered what the EU may demand from Scotland in order to become members.
These are all unquantified risks. The Yes camp will say they've all been sorted and the future will be rosy, but they're nowhere near being sorted.
Still, it's a slightly pointless debate, as it looks as though Scotland will vote no.
But what does that make you? A Tiny Scotlander? A Titchy wee mite? A pimple on Europe's ar@e?
To crown it all your pathetic comment,from a person that knows the square root of zero on Scotland, that the vote will be no says it all. No sensible person would claim that at this point.
So in your mind, no sensible person would claim that the vote would be no, when no has a lead in almost all polls?
Well, it's a view.
Your argument is presumably that the Treaty of Union is somehow abrogated by the 1800 union, and since then partial disunion, with Ireland? Of course I have considered that, but I just can't see how the argument works. This is because the 1707 Union Treaty was not itself modified and has never been abrogated. In the Anglo-Scottish context, anyway, the relevant date is surely 1707. The Westminster Gmt indeed argued (in its commissioned constitutional law review) that Scotland was extinguished in 1707 but this argument is illogical legally unless England was also extinguished into the new UK - in which case England or EWNI cannot be [edited to correct slip] the successor state any more than Scotland today.
England could in a sense be regarded as the sole remaining state in terms of realpolitik of the time, and the document pretty much said that as I recall, but that simply transfers the same argument to post-2014 and leaves EWNI open to the views and machinations of other EU members if and when Scotland abrogates the Treaty and dissolves the UK of 1707 (whatever EWNI chooses to call itself). These other members can, after all, point to the wording of the 1707 Treaty.
(The new state argument, of course, also means that EWNI keeps all the national debt as well as assets. And Scotland is hardly starting from scratch - much of the administrative structure is there, as is the Parliament. But those points have been well rehearsed elsewhere. I'm more concerned here with the wider implications of indy - and the issues it raises for both sides.)
As for SeanF's point about staying in the EU - it may well be that departure or a free trade agreement might be the best on balance at the time, but some renegotiation is inevitable; for one thing, there is the matter of the fisheries horsetraded away by the government of the time in London when seeking a rebate from Brussels.
I would like to see any quotes by current Spanish ministers that might indicate they'd wave through immediate Scottish membership of the EU in Spanish, in context and with a date attached. This is something I have followed for a number of years and I can think of no recent example of any Spanish pronouncement that is not unambiguously clear about where Spain stands on the EU status of secessionist states.
Incidentally, did Churchill not offer a "solemn union" to France in 1940? I know that circumstances were somewhat desperate at the time, but that doesn't suggest he saw Britain as outside being Godfather. Or even benevolent uncle.
The Kremlin would move quickly to reoccupy and re-integrate the core Slavic countries of the former Soviet Union if it considered its regional interests were threatened. Such a response would be widely supported by the Russian speaking peoples, both within and outwith the borders of the Russian Federation. who mostly remain unreconciled to the break up of the former Soviet empire.
The Ukraine used to be the "bread basket of Europe" but today it is merely fifty million hungry mouths with no mineral or energy resources and no manufacturing infrastructure to pay for its food. Put bluntly, it comprises the 'bad assets' part of the Former Soviet Union Bank.
Where the EU would benefit from an expansion east would be in preferential access to Russia's mineral and energy resources, but the cost of obtaining such preference would be high. China and Asia will be aggressive bidders at the auction for favours.
The way forward for both the EU and Russia is for negotiations to proceed between supranational blocs, say the EU and CIS, rather than for the EU to pick off individual countries. A free trade agreement between the two blocs, on the lines of NAFTA, is a realisable and safer medium term goal than any creeping and provocative EU 'divide and rule' EU strategy.
Similar considerations, but with less geo-political risks apply to Turkey. Turkey's best role must be to lead the eastern and southern mediterranean muslim countries in an economic bloc with with which the EU can "do business" but without taking on the burdens and risks of full integration. If the Syrian conflict is resolved it is not hard to envisage such a bloc running along the coastline from Istambul to Agadir.
Bloc alliance and not membership expansion is the way forward for the EU.
Which far from being what 'no sensible person would claim that at this point' is what every sensible person would claim at this point.
Unless that is you can show me an opinion poll or betting market which suggests otherwise.
To slightly misquote the Japanese Emperor at the end of WW II this plan has developed in ways not necessarily to our advantage. The introduction of the Euro has created and will continue to create a greater degree of integration than anything previously contemplated with banks, monetary policy and inevitably domestic budgets ever more regulated and controlled for those who have the same currency and who feel the effects of socialistic incompetence in other member states much more directly than they would feel before. Within a few years France, the supposed great power of de Gaulle, will be in special measures and being told that it will cut its state whoever they are daft enough to vote for.
The problem that the UK now has with expansion is that any potential new members, like, say, Scotland, will be required to join the euro creating an ever more dominant euro bloc over which we have ever less influence. This is the exact opposite of Baldrick's, sorry Major's, cunning plan and means we are changing our position.
From my experience of Turkey on holiday over the last few years I would point out that in tourist areas they already use the euro as a dual currency and would probably find the change relatively straightforward. The critics of the euro who described it as foolish and doomed (and I include myself in this category) will be chewing the carpet in frustration for a long time yet.
I hope you wore it while you were carving the turkey.
Perhaps you could recommend to RN which suit to buy as I'm going to offer him the same bet on Osborne meeting his declared targets.
Surely the tales of the Baron suit the disney-folk better...?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xdqnDyoVSk1D2w-L_-c_OPpOx-3H367Kpqr8_EqgPg0/edit?usp=sharing
http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/
Obviously until it happens they will not give a YES or NO but the 17th statement is as close as you can get.
Odds are changing as well , YES price is diminishing and as reality sets in it will shorten even more , just a pity I did not have funds to cash in.
EU to become EU [ Earth Union ]. Then humanity will be one.
His statement to the Commons in May 1953 summed this up perfectly:
“We are with Europe but not of it; we are linked but not compromised. We are associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.”
He was also clear on what membership of the Common Market would mean as shown in a comment to the Cabinet again in 1953
"We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth-wide character".
Likely forum being the UN - how realistic is it for the UK (with or without Scotland) to keep that seat much longer anyway? It can't even defend home waters - we've had yet another Russian naval 'visit' in Scottish waters to which the RN could only send a ship from the Channel port, now we don't have Nimrod to provide patrol and rescue/economic area cover.
And many thanks to all for the various comments on the EU expansion more generally as well as on Scottish indy (and in the latter case eve, and especially those opposed to my comments). Very good to see the range of views..
As to GO not meeting his declared targets, did you see my post on Christmas Eve showing the undershoot on debt issuance this fiscal year? George has been so frugal in the first two thirds of the year that he has had to revise down DMO gilts and t-bills issuance by £15.5 billion over the final quarter. Re-read that, ar. £15.5 bn over a single quarter!
So my advice to you is to think carefully before offering RN any bets on government debt rising under St. George.
Hmmm ...
That must be why President Romney is in the White House.
Its possible to want something so much that you lose all sense of critical analysis.
You've reached that point Malcolm.
Please check your facts first. I don't think you are the worst SNat here but- :sighs: - your argument undermines itself when exposed to reality....
And please observe how posters interact: I only have a limited supply of monkey-nuts! Most people have been through the same arguments before, over many years: A more nuanced approach may help you to be taken seriously....
:many-thanks:
No is well in the lead in the Scottish Independence Referendum and it is not remotely even close whatever your wishful thinking tells you .
I forget which one this was, there's been so many its hard to keep track.
Its a pity that the ONS keeps showing the true borrowing number, you remember the number those of us in the real world will have to pay back.
But sill I've thought of a nice money making scheme you and I can indulge in.
You give me your pension fund assets to spend and I'll give you my pension fund assets to spend.
We wont bother about the future liabilities instead we'll let the taxpayers fund those.
Deal ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10537773/Britain-will-become-biggest-economy-in-Europe.html
The Treasury hailed it. Good. So they are in favour of more immigration as that is what is driving this virtuous circle.
More immigration, more young workforce, more taxpayers, prosperity for all !
I was taught, when dealing with legal matters, always check what the paperwork says, and if the Treaty of Union says X, then there must be some good reason to conclude that Y in fact applies (one being, of course, realpolitik, as I entirely agree).
If these arguments have really been thought through over the years then this is a very unusual website.
Given what has been achieved and what was acheivable for the most indebted country per capita in the world the argument that Osborne is some sort of incompetent because he will not match his objectives in his 2010 emergency budget which contained what turned out to be wildly optimistic OBR assumptions of EZ growth is quite perverse, indeed I would say irrational.
I would not go as far as you do in recommending Osborne to sainthood Avery but only the economically illiterate would fail to recognise that he has made very substantial progress in very difficult conditions in getting this country out of the death spiral it was in in 2010. There is a long way to go yet and the state may still have to look substantially different by the time he is finished but real and substantial progress has been made.
I will be eagerly waiting for it. Even with the Post Office Pensions skullduggery.
The beauty is that Turkey will overtake France in GDP terms. Ha ha ha !!!
As has been pointed out often enough on here, the free movement of peoples and the welfare state are fundamentally incompatible. Those on the left who see both as red lines will have to choose sooner rather than later which of these great principles they wish to abandon.
D.Y.O.R. Ireland became part of the United-Kingdom from said date. It is not rocket science: Should the people of Scotland 'grow-a-pair' independence will not occur over-night! *
* A point I made to Unckie'-malc which you put your Clark [kiddies] size-six into; uninvited....
You really believe that crap,more people looking for housing,health centres full,hospitals can't cope,infrastruture at breaking point,more water shortages ,shortage of school places and Quality of life starts to suffer.
It's quite likely that less than half of SNP supporters will vote Yes.
I am well aware that the vote may be NO even though I hope otherwise. However I well know that the betting to date has been extremely stupid given that NO at 1/7 is a joke , just as YES at 11/2 was the same.
It will be interesting to see where we are come the spring.
I will say again that in my opinion the current polls and betting are miles out on the reality of what will happen, it will be very close or YES in my humble opinion.
I agree, it is not fixed. but borrowing £2bn a week is much better than borrowing £3bn. Having a plan by which you stop borrowing at all is important too. So is having at least an aspiration to start paying it all back.
By the election we will be down to borrowing £1.5bn a week. This is not good. But considering where we started and how the world economy has performed over the last 5 years it is little short of miraculous.
Then the British people face a very important choice. Do they continue to take the medicine and endure considerable discomfort as a result in the expectation of becoming well or do they go on another binge? I wish the answer was obvious but it isn't.
D.Y.O.R. Ireland became part of the United-Kingdom from said date. It is not rocket science: Should the people of Scotland 'grow-a-pair' independence will not occur over-night! *
* A point I made to Unckie'-malc which you put your Clark [kiddies] size-six into; uninvited....
Thank you. I was thinking in legislative terms rather than implementative terms but in the latter case you are quite right with 1801. While we are, quite rightly, on the level of detail, it is Clarks shoes, not Clark shoes, sans the apostrophe (rather surprisingly). C. & J. Clark, as they were, are a very interesting company with a Quakerly history.
D.Y.O.R. Ireland became part of the United-Kingdom from said date. It is not rocket science: Should the people of Scotland 'grow-a-pair' independence will not occur over-night! *
* A point I made to Unckie'-malc which you put your Clark [kiddies] size-six into; uninvited....
Dear dear fluffy , using Wiki as your proof , how desperate is that. Our pair is well grown and you suckers will be shell shocked come September. Once you have to start paying your own bills it will be really funny.
:sniggers:
Although you are correct in pointing out the uselessness of the OBR - its just another government agency making economic forecasts, in that way no different to the Treasury or BoE and thus entirely superfluous.
Anyway that's enough from me for now as I've got a football match to go to.
Quakers have a lot to answer for in Sarf' Luhn'dahn! Very few pubs along the A206 and back to Grove Park. Whiskey-Galore my back-side....