Don't know what to make of this tbh. ""The European Union was set up after the Second World War and because there was so much famine and food shortages during the war, the EU paid subsidies to farmers from that time," Becki explains. "This was to make sure that small farms could carry on farming and that they could provide food." ""Since we've left the EU, our government now have decided to get rid of the subsidies that came from the EU. They sort of wound them down over a five year period and basically gave quite a few farmers, especially smaller farmers, a pay off to get out of the industry." https://www.lancs.live/news/lancash...n=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
I'm sure you have your reason for picking up on the least significant part of this lady's serious concerns. She's talking out loud from the heart, not giving evidence to the Supreme Court. Besides, you're wrong ... ... seems she knows more than you. "The European Union was created against the backdrop of post World War II Europe. During a speech in Zurich in 1946, Winston Churchill spoke of the need to form a 'European Family' or a 'United States of Europe' to ensure peace and prosperity for Europe."
No, I’m not. The EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force on November 1, 1993. The treaty was designed to enhance European political and economic integration by creating a single currency (the euro), a unified foreign and security policy, and common citizenship rights and by advancing cooperation in the areas of immigration, asylum, and judicial affairs.
I thought Churchill done a grand job in our hour of need, tbh. Not sure why you’re so bothered you’ve been corrected. You’re always pulling people up when you believe what they’re saying is false. Give it. Take it.
Only in your tiny mind. Besides I'm backing up what the lady in the article said, not defending anything I'd said ... ... so I wouldn't have been wrong in any case. Turns out she's right and you're wrong. Since the beginning of the institutionalised modern European integration in 1948, the development of the European Union has been based on a supranational foundation that would "make war unthinkable and materially impossible"[1][2] and reinforce democracy amongst its members[3] as laid out by Robert Schuman and other leaders in the Schuman Declaration (1950) and the Europe Declaration (1951). This principle was at the heart of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (1951), the Treaty of Paris (1951), and later the Treaty of Rome (1958) which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). The Maastricht Treaty (1992) created the European Union with its pillars system, including foreign and home affairs alongside the European Communities. This in turn led to the creation of the single European currency, the euro (launched 1999). The ECSC expired in 2002. The Maastricht Treaty has been amended by the treaties of Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2007), the latter merging the three pillars into a single legal entity, though the EAEC has maintained a distinct legal identity despite sharing members and institutions. please log in to view this image The European Union as we know it started its journey over half a century ago. Visionary leaders came together to create economic and political stability to ensure long term peace in Europe. From then on, many others have followed in their footsteps, striving to build on this vision through successive treaties.
I think from the info given you are both right and a little wrong. In effect the EU was formed to bring together previously agreed treaties and to formalise what was in place and bring everything under 1 banner and kind of changed from the EEC to the EU in layman's terms, almost like the premier league. In effect if you won the old first division do your titles mean nothing because football did not exist before the formation of the premier league. or do they still count.
I'm neither right nor wrong mate, I'm simply quoting what someone's said in an article. She's saying that 'a union in Europe' was set up post-war, not that it's the EU as we know it. I posted quotes from Churchill, etc, to back up the lady's words, not saying it was actually the EU which is irrelevant tbh. TBH the hair splitting saga of terminology is irrelevant and hardly the point of the article. The point is that she's saying Brexit has caused farms big problems.
I'm sure its debatable but Russia should have been somewhere in the plan of a United Europe, and imo would have been if not for the triumphalism of the USA thinking they had WON the cold war, when Gorbachov held out his hand the Hawks and their puppets bit it off. Shame Corbyn could not have been blamed for that.
You’re technically correct. Just like Bairstow was technically out. Of course your answer completely avoids the essence of the article about the plight of farmers. Pedants will be pedants I suppose.
Agreed was just trying to add some context to the conversation but again agree that the main point was her perspective of the treatment of farming and not what date the EU was formed
I know mate, I was just trying to make it clear it wasn't me making that claim., just quoting an article. It seems to be the case of someone saying 'a' and someone deliberately seeing it as 'the' ... ... it's a bit like the Mags seeing 'The Fairs Cup' as 'The UEFA Cup' Furthermore the woman is actually 100% speaking in her context. She's saying the European Union started subsidising farmers after the war ... ... it's the post-Brexit actions of our government that's taken away the subsidies the EU gave.
well, i am sat here blasting some 'Rush' out and find it far more soothing than debating and wondering who exactly is right and who exactly is wrong. truth is: leavers were lied to and are left wondering. remainers were lied to and are left wondering. the government did not do what they promised and have been found wanting. leavers and remainers are unhappy (to say the least) while the government appear to have filled their own bank accounts and those of families and friends and are happy...while the people have plenty to argue and disagree about, tory v labour, black v white, muslim v christian etc etc etc nothing will change, debates will clarify nothing.
Spot on mate, that's about it for me. All I'm doing, with this thread, is posting anything I see as a defecit of Brexit ... ... other people can list the benefits. Some would rather we didn't mention Brexit at all, which is why I'm taken it off the Boris thread. I assume they're the ones who really wanted to leave but can't find much to boast about. I hope Brexit turns out to be wonderful, I'm not stupid enough to wish otherwise and hurt myself, but I'm still totally convinced it was a huge mistake. Time will tell mate, if me and you have enough left
i voted leave and even though i am extremely doubtful of any elected leaders we 'choose' i was, in fairness, stupid enough to think that those tasked with the job would have an extremely well thought out plan of action to be put immediately into place...i was also expecting maybe 5 years worth of adjustment before we started to see any benefits. yet we are still sitting waiting for any change to be made while suffering for the 'forced' changes, no idea why i expected an elected party to actually do as they said they would but i guess that is why even after so many let downs by successive governments we keep putting our trust in them... would have been nice to see the government working to get brexit 'properly done' then i could hold my hands up and either admit i was wrong or be happy with my choice but then that goes for every single voter.
That’s a lot of sense squashed into one post. It seems that every step of the way has been ****ed up so far. For something this important, along with the NHS and adult social care, I think that politics could be put aside and a group formed to work out the best solutions possible. A combination of cross-party MPs, trade experts, environmental experts, selected members of the public, etc. Thrash out a workable version of a post-Brexit UK that at least will satisfy a good proportion of leave and remain voters.
Someone said yesterday that we should have had someone experienced in instead of Hancock, but is there really any MPs experienced in any departments they just move them around when ever one resigns or gets the boot. They haven’t got a bloody clue about the department they are in.
