[Closed] Europe...

Silly me how dare I post anything on your thread I do apologise.

Eh, wtf you talking about ?

Would the Montreal Protocol have been a success without the EU would all the member states have signed up? Your assertion that everything could be agreed by individual countries is simply false. Would a fisheries policy have been agreed that would have avoided a huge collapse in fish stocks? For all its faults the EU does have its uses.

Your assertion that everything could be agreed by individual countries is simply false.

So only the 28 countries which are EU members can agree about anything ? All the other countries in the world presumably can't ?

So only the 28 countries which are EU members can agree about anything ? All the other countries in the world presumably can't ?

You big hitting argumenteers have a name for this type of thing dont you.
You clearly dont want to read what I've written or respond to any of the points I've raised so why do you keep banging the same drum.

I have a different opinion to yours. But I can see from what's already been moderated that you're not in the mood to tolerate that. And since I'm unlikely to agree with you let's leave it there 🙂

I can tolerate discussion. You dont seem able to respond to the points I've raised. I gave two examples of where having 28 countries speaking as 1 got something done which may not have happened without the EU.
Its pointless having a thread if the discussion and views are fixed from the start. But I suppose since the sad demise of TJ you are the king of pointless discussion.

Forgive me if I avoid this pointless discussion.

I get the impression that our government does not give a monkeys about environmental protection (ie fracking) or supporting the man on the streets employment (privatising so they don't have to pay a living pension and happily watching tax payers money end up offshore) so i am glad to balance this we have europe.

But what is the justification of forcing countries to implement laws which they otherwise wouldn't pass?

You just said countries were capable of passing their own laws, but this statement contradicts this.

The justification is the greater good, of course. The EU govt is further removed from national party politics so can be braver on things like the environment. Plus because it's EU wide the member states can't undercut each other in business with softer environmental legislation that costs business less.

anagallis_arvensis - Member
I gave two examples of where having 28 countries speaking as 1 got something done which may not have happened without the EU.

They can speak as 1 without EU so long as they really understand each others. At the moment they understand each other because there are handouts.

1. Montreal protocol. As if this protocol is going to solve the dying planet.

The debate is still on going regarding ozone depletion. Are we still in the process of coming out ice age? If so then we are slowly dying so what's the problem with that?

Well, the bad boys/girls seem to be from industrialise nations. Ya, stop preaching it to 3rd world countries they are the cause. Also if individual nation do their own bits with common sense then we can do so without EU. EU is just there to set standard that will gradually impose on nations outside of EU. Go away!

2. Fishery stock - you don't need EU to prevent fish stocks depletion but rather go around fishing states to negotiate for an understanding. Yes, over fishing is a problem but EU do not seem to understand that throwing dead fish back to the sea would not increase fish stock. Damn zombie maggot bureaucrats.

🙄

Chewkw
1. the Montreal Protocol has worked very well and the idea that the planet is dying is laughable.

2. Well of course anything can be done in theory but do you know of any good examples in practise? As fot throwing back by catch well it does make the fishermen not take the piss with their quotas.

anagallis_arvensis - Member

Chewkw
1. the Montreal Protocol has worked very well and the idea that the planet is dying is laughable.

Like I say you don't need EU if the individual nations are sincere to decide for their own.

I doubt you will live long enough to see its demise put it this way, so yes it's laughable in that sense. Check out the scientific arguments anyway regarding dying planets.

2. Well of course anything can be done in theory but do you know of any good examples in practise? As fot throwing back by catch well it does make the fishermen not take the piss with their quotas.

Net size.
Fish sanctuary - none fishing zones. (Torpedo the ship U-boat style if the breach the zones - just saying like)
Drift net length limitation.
Drastically reduce fishing time during spawning seasons.
Limit large scale commercial fishing.
Fish stock breeding to be released back to the ocean.
Gun boat policy - otherwise it's a toothless tiger if it is not enforceable.
etc.

🙄

Sorry half of that makes no sense and the other half is incomprehensible.

Think the Media are trying very hard to blank out the negatives throughout Europe
But has been the making of very interesting Politics

I get the impression that our government does not give a monkeys about environmental protection (ie fracking) or supporting the man on the streets employment (privatising so they don't have to pay a living pension and happily watching tax payers money end up offshore) so i am glad to balance this we have europe.

That's why the tories only want free trade and nothing else. This country is so messed up with regards to looking after its own people that you have rely on the EU to be the responsible parent. And only 40,000 employed in EU operations, which is 60,000 less than HMRC employ, and still crap at tax collecting.

I hope that the EU give Cameron nothing in the "negotiations" he is seeking, and the in out referendum goes ahead, then we'll see who has the bottle to vote out, and hopefully it will be an end to what has been a tory party problem played out to the detriment of the nation.

anagallis_arvensis - Member
Sorry half of that makes no sense and the other half is incomprehensible.

The ideas are there so it's up to EU to decide their own faith. I know I am not here to convince but rather to vote out of EU so incomprehensible or not does not bother me a single bit.

The beast in EU must be slayed. 😈

I get the impression that our government does not give a monkeys about environmental protection (ie fracking) or supporting the man on the streets employment (privatising so they don't have to pay a living pension and happily watching tax payers money end up offshore) so i am glad to balance this we have europe.

It's the government that [i]we[/i] elect. What you appear to be suggesting is that the EU needs to protect us from own government. Or to be more precise, from UK governments which you don't support.

They might well not give a monkeys about environmental protection or supporting the man on the street, but the solution is to elect governments that do, not to circumvent that and have the EU protect us from our own election results.

There is no need to ride roughshod over the democratic wishes of the British electorate just because you failed to win the political argument.

A strategy which clearly appeals to the defeatist soft-left.

.

"But what is the justification of forcing countries to implement laws which they otherwise wouldn't pass?"

You just said countries were capable of passing their own laws, but this statement contradicts this.

There is no contradiction at all. We can and do pass laws. I'm asking what is the justification of forcing countries to implement laws which they otherwise wouldn't pass? Don't you believe in self-government ?

The UK can, just like most other countries in the world, be a self-governing country which engages in international cooperation and obligations, there is no need to be in the EU to do that.

Big hitters seem to be present and correct. . . . . . . Carry on.

The UK can, just like most other countries in the world, be a self-governing country which engages in international cooperation and obligations, there is no need to be in the EU to do that.

Well wrapped up in one sentence. Nice one ernie 😉

I would say the WTO is much more damaging than the EU but nobody talks about that. Mass immigration is hard to deal with as it is quite easy these days to get to any country in the world and what realistic policies have any of the right wing parties got to solve this? Bugger all as far as I can tell.

I would see myself as neither left of right wing but a realist and the reality is that we are rich and other countries are dirt poor and at war and due to the Geneva convention we are bound to offer asylum. Isn't the real question how we make a functioning strong society where people are empowered to make the most of their lives from what ever background and be pround of our cultures principles such satire which from Georgian cartoons to life of brian and Spitting image is one of our greatest and most under threat parts of our culture.

[img] [/img]

I would say that you can tell our political system does not reflect public opinion or empower or inspire the british people if you look at how low voter turnout is and the declining membership of political parties.

Don't you believe in self-government ?

Its funny how those who support the UK union oppose the EU one and the ones who oppose the UK union support the EU one = generally anyway.

Are you anti democratic ans soft left as well then * 😈

* its a fair criticism you make of the left there

Junkyard - lazarus
Its funny how those who support the UK union oppose the EU one and the ones who oppose the UK union support the EU one = generally anyway.

I don't. Anything that supports the creation of zombie maggot bureaucrats as in the notion of "big is beautiful" gets a thumb down from me.

Scotland can go their own way if they wish. 🙄

Fffrrreeeddoommmm! 😆

I'm asking what is the justification of forcing countries to implement laws which they otherwise wouldn't pass? Don't you believe in self-government

I gave you two examples of justification.

As for self government - two issues here:

1) our political/democratic system is buggered and
2) the electorate aren't very bright and are easily led by people with money.

So I'm not sure about self government tbh. It's a bit like having primary school kids hire and fire teachers.

I am fully supportive of Scotland's right to self-government (as I am of England's btw) I am also fully supportive of Scotland's right secede from the Union, if it so wishes - I respect the right of self-determination.

That doesn't however translate into recognizing that a good case for Scotland's secession has been made - it hasn't imo.

2) the electorate aren't very bright and are easily led by people with money.

So I'm not sure about self government tbh. It's a bit like having primary school kids hire and fire teachers.

Well I asked you if you believed in self-government and you have given me a straight answer, ie, no, you don't.

It's so refreshing when people respond to direct questions with direct answers 🙂

molgrips - Member
As for self government - two issues here:
1) our political/democratic system is buggered and

The political/democratic system is Not buggered but they people who are leading are. In certain generation you get real leader but most of the time you get wannabes. It is choosing the right leader that is the problem because most, if not all, are zombie maggots.

2) the electorate aren't very bright and are easily led by people with money.

You will be surprised how bright they can be when their livelihood is being disrupted. Alternatively, the argument can also be said of the failure of the leaders who aren't that bright to lead or to make the people understand. Shouldn't it be easier for a bright person to lead/explain to those that can't understand since they are that bright?

Money? That is temporary effect and sooner or later they will be caught.

So I'm not sure about self government tbh. It's a bit like having primary school kids hire and fire teachers.

The problem is not about self govt but the inability to find a true leader that can lead with honesty and integrity. Most of the leaders "inherited" their status to lead.

No, they are not like kids hiring or firing teachers. That is reserved for higher education level where students are treated as customers. 😆

@aa you can have a group of nations co-operating on targeted legislation or trade initiatives without unresicted freedom of movement and without an implied liability for the debts of the other countries. The EU began as the "common market" it was a trade grouping. It has morphed into something else altogether.

morphed?

or a handful of treaties, requiring unanimous agreement and ratification?

Schengen agreement to ratified Amsterdam Treaty had several UK general elections. UK electorate returned governments that negotiated opt-out, and ratified (with at least one change in power).

Maastricht Treaty had a general election right in the middle between signing and ratification. Also with opt outs. And Blair was clear that he would ratify one of those opt outs. UK voted for a Blair landslide.

Morphing is a bad choice of word. Progression, with unanimous ratification by member states, some with referendum, some with general election, others with "who cares, we'll let the elected government sort it".

it hasn't imo

At no stage have the British people been asked to ratify membership of the EU, which is a very different organisation to what the EEC was.

It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification.

General elections and the argument that they provide a mandate for who ever wins them does not cover that.

The UK were given a General Election in 1992.

The UK electorate voted for a Eurosceptic Conservative government that intended to ratify the Maastricht Treaty with negotiated UK opt-outs.

They were given a voice. They spoke.

General elections and the argument that they provide a mandate for who ever wins them does not cover that.

I don't recall any laws specifying that these issues must be dealt with separately.

I don't recall any laws specifying that these issues must be dealt with separately.

You obviously didn't read my post carefully enough. I made no such claim. This is what I wrote :

[i]It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification.[/i]

This is a concept which has fairly universal recognition.

It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification

All the others [ 9]were on devolution or similar issue

I agree they should be but they are not

General elections and the argument that they provide a mandate for who ever wins them does not cover that

I don't recall any laws specifying that these issues must be dealt with separately.

It is not generally accepted hence why they are so incredibly rare

It is indeed generally accepted, the reason they are rare is because important proposed constitutional changes with far reaching consequences are rare.

But most countries allow for a separate vote/referendum on important constitutional issues. Scotland is having one on an important constitutional issue this September.

And if a referendum was justified over the constitutional issue of EEC membership then one is also justified over the issue of EU membership, which has even more far reaching constitutional consequences.

I can understand why some people might not want a referendum though - for them democracy is only a wonderful thing when it guarantees to give the results which they approve of.

I am not disagreeing that we should have them nor that we should on this issue. I am only arguing against it being universally accepted. If it was universally accepted we would have had one by now and we would not have UKIP campaigning for 20 years [ and others before]
The will of the people is being forced on the political masers IMHO

My only concern is that most folk know **** all about what the EU really does and get drip fed a distorted view by the media- hence the massive media coverage UKIP get that the greens dont.... saying this plays into your weak left attack 😀

chewkw - Member
My prediction is this in GE: Hang Parliament with UKIP as King/Queen maker for now

but let's hope UKIP will get enough seats in future elections to get us out totally without being in a coalition govt.

@aa you can have a group of nations co-operating on targeted legislation or trade initiatives without unresicted freedom of movement and without an implied liability for the debts of the other countries. The EU began as the "common market" it was a trade grouping. It has morphed into something else altogether.

I never said you couldnt I just suggested two examples where agreement as a group could well have been easier than lots of lone states trying to agree.

r4 reported the latest "in out" YouGov poll gives the in camp a 5 point lead 42 to 37

I like straight Banana's, can we keep them if we cut loose?

you like straight banana's what?

A straight banana's shape is more pleasurable.

I had a straight banana for my breakfast today, rumours of their demise are great exaggerated.

@andy - 1992, a long long time ago, pre the significant expansion of the EU, pre the euro crises and the abuse of the EU and its tax system by international business. The sceptic back then spoke of the potential issues the new treaties could bring and they have been proven right. Those laws wouldn't pass today. Sarkozy said that admitting Greece to the euro had been a mistake. Just because a decision was made in the past and voted on doesn't make it correct.

The Tories may be sceptic but they are not anti-EU, they have pushed a referendum off till 2017 (date not confirmed) as they know it's quite likely a vote today would be "out". UKIP is popular as it's very clearly "out"

It is generally accepted in democracies that important constitutional issues with far reaching consequences need to be put before the people for separate consideration and ratification.

The reason this wasn't done IMO is that it was too important a decision to risk people saying no. People would have voted along spurous nationalistic lines instead of economic ones; then bitterly complained about their economic situation later.

I do believe in self government (ie democracy) but that confers a responsibility on the electorate. You have to actually learn about and consider the issues. I don't know what the solution is.. Maybe some kind of license to vote 🙂

Seriously though there is no alternative that isn't abhorrent, so we once again return to the bottom line, education.

@molgrips - 1 pound, 1 vote - average your last 5 income tax returns. I heard, a deliberately controversial, viewpoint recently that too many people had a vote who don't contribute anything to the tax system on a net basis. This was set at those who paid less in tax than the benefits they obtained from Education, NHS etc. It was a switch in the common phrase to "no representation without taxation"

Clearly this is not democratic and is never going to happen but the numerical truth is that those who take more than they give have a disproportionately large influence on elections.