AiA wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:


The EU has thrived and will continue to thrive. The only good thing UK brought into the EU was English language.

Bringing order to Africa through political and commercial alignment with the EU would be a huge bonus to the whole world.

It all sounds like another welcome step in the death spiral of globalist ideology.

PS Greg & Culture Warrior, how exactly do you work these IDs out. Do tell.

AiA wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 11:47pm:


Oh, I think you'll find it makes no sense at all. I think you'll find it's an elaborate fantasy dreamed up by exiled Brits like Bogie.

Europe is Europe. They won't even consider Turkey as a member state. African states would do whatever it takes to join the EU, or even do a favorable trade deal. The EU is, after all, the world's largest marketplace.

African states would do anything to get on board - well, anything other than crack down on corruption, put in viable democratic reforms, adequate taxation measures and other economic policies required by EU member states.

So lets face it, no African state even comes close to meeting the criteria for EU membership, even if there was a sinister global conspiracy for one-world government.

Believe it or not, John Elliot, as Liberal Party president, once suggested Australia join the EU. Keating, as treasurer, decided to go with Asia instead. It was a contentious debate at the time, and one that is still playing out in the politics of parties like One Nation.

Being a part of global trade is the only way to develop economically and preserve economic strength. The days of tariffs, fixed currencies, nationalized industries and government monopolies are over. We can't possibly change back, and the global economic structure that supported this is gone for good. The price of not integrating with the global economy is recession, reduced capital and negative (or zero) terms of trade. If you want an example of such a country, look at Bhutan - or North Korea. Even Burma has finally seen the light and is now opening up its borders and economy to the world.

Globalization has its discontents, but these need to be addressed on a case by case basis, and in the national interest. Selling a country's resources and industries off to foreign investors is not always a smart option, but in most cases, some form of foreign investment is the only option available for economic growth.

Like most countries, Australia's economy is driven by the multinationals - BHP, Rio Tinto, Shell, even pastoral and retail companies. Economic growth is driven by foreign capital. We can put in tight regulations to manage these resources and industries, but we can't escape the fact that we're financed by foreigners. This is the bargain. Labour requires capital and vice versa. That capital comes from a shrinking pool of foreign hedge funds and private investors. Our economy is totally subject to the fortunes of the global economy.

Global economic integration is fundamental to our development. Without it, we'd become a banana republic. The same principles apply to every other country in the world. Trade, finance and even labour are global. Pretending otherwise turns countries into economic basket cases. Look at Britain - one referendum and they've lost their AAA credit rating.

Australia is about to lose ours. The only thing that will save us is foreign trade, investment and regional economic integration. Believe it.

lee wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 5:48pm:



gweggy will be thrilled I think he has been lobbying for it..

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:


Common cause is why villages, cities and regions joined to form nations.

EU is the same principle. Establishing common objectives and eliminating obstacles to trade and employment across national borders.

UK has totally stuffed up and will probably descend into a recessionary spiral. The City of London  financial centre will be hardest hit in finance, banking and insurance.

A recession is coming to UK. Thank you Boris, Nigel and David.

hear hear!

Squire wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:


Actually, kingdoms were formed by monarchs who's armies made villages and cities to join through the sword.

Nations were formed by monarchs' bureaucrats and parliaments - who often caused monarchs to sign them over through the sword (or guillotine or threat of revolution).

The EU is, perhaps, the only voluntary "empire" in history. Even the United States had a revolution and a civil war.

There is nothing voluntary about the history of nations, Squire. And this is why, after two world wars, the EU is so unique.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on Jul 6^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Your example with regard to Vietnam suggests that it does not.

On the other hand, it's not as if nations don't reserve the right to reverse course and nationalize foreign investments, as in the 1970s:
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer100-101/arab-economies-1970s

Quote:


So perhaps a certain amount of foreign investment, or even foreign control of a nation's soil, can benefit the populace by providing them with more economic opportunities. I wouldn't support a total ban on foreign investment, but don't ask me where to draw the line.

My take on national sovereignty is that it enables the citizens of a country a better shot at determining their own future, as opposed to allowing, say, the EU to dictate how many "Syrian" refugees each member nation is required to take.

And that's better than being ruled by an oligarchy located outside your nation's borders, and that you and your fellow citizens had no part in electing. Blurred borders are the antithesis of personal freedom, and we should never be eager to serve some dictatorial global or transnational collective.