Forum menu
Mogrim - just because the country is in a mess right now, it does not mean it needs to be completely governed by EU. There are some very successful countries outside the EU who are doing better than those within it.
My take on the EU is that it is far from perfect, but we need to make a proper decision about it sooner or later. We've been America's whipping boy for far too long and EU members are a little bemused by us because we've skirted around the issue of full membership for so long.
The fact is, that if you look back at history, being a member of a bigger group generally improves prosperity. If it didn't we'd all still be living in caves waving our clubs in anger at the enemy that live in the cave around the corner.
The UK has a very culturally diverse population compared to a lot of other EU nations and aside from a new currency would we really notice any real negative consequences of full membership?
Having spent about eight years living in Europe on and off I can only see benefits. With regards to political interference from the EU, I think it's been massively exaggerated, if it were that bad the French would have walked out years ago;-)
Mogrim - just because the country is in a mess right now, it does not mean it needs to be completely governed by EU.
Of course not, and I never said it should be. I want a federal EU government.
I'm with mogrim, I like the federal idea. Why not come up with our version of the American political model? Several things I would change, but in essence two tier government with the state level retaining a considerable wedge of legislative freedom. Makes total sense to me. Failure to do that will actually lead to more centralised bureacracy not less.
Zulu-Eleven - Member
No Gus,I don't expect you to read the document (The Plan: twelve months to renew Britain) you're trying to criticise
LOL ! A classic bit of 'rattism' there mate, ie : pretending that I said/did something which I didn't say/do 😀
No ratty, I didn't 'try to criticise' [i]any document[/i] written by the right-wing freak Dan Hannan. As I stated in my post immediately before yours, my criticism was on what he said to an American TV audience, ie : that the British National Health Service had been a failure since it was first founded, that it made people 'iller', and that US health care provisions were in fact much better.
These are clearly monstrous lies, and I don't know whether Hannan's ability to tell them with such ease in front of large TV audiences represents some sort of 'mental illness', but the fact that he has accused Gordon Brown of having 'pathological' tendencies isn't lost on me.
BTW ratty, thanks for not disappointing me and coming so swiftly to the right-wing retard's defence ! And why am I not surprised that you've read the book which he co-authored ! 😀
I'm with mogrim, I like the federal idea. Why not come up with our version of the American political model? Several things I would change, but in essence two tier government with the state level retaining a considerable wedge of legislative freedom. Makes total sense to me. Failure to do that will actually lead to more centralised bureacracy not less.
But the American model is bottom up and has the reverse assumption: that as much land tax/education/criminal law/legislation etc should be at the town or county level as possible, and that as little power should be given to the federation as possible.
thats what this meant
Failure to do that will actually lead to more centralised bureacracy not less.