What exactly is so bad about the EU? For me it means that I can easily work in another country, stronger environental protection, social and employment laws. It may be a bit of a gravy train but no worse than the city of London investing our pensions. At least the EU seems to want to make things better with a vision for the future rather than the anti politics nature of the UK. I would rather be like Sweden than The USA.

What exactly is so bad about the EU?

They want to straighten our bananas and ban eccles cakes, and errr some other stuff I read in the sun.

GEDA – Member

What exactly is so bad about the EU?

The question is equally applicable to ‘What exactly is so good about not in EU?

The answer is simple bureaucratic jobworth. There reach a point where bureaucracy is simply overbearing to the point of believing in self hype. A nation can function perfectly without complicating matters by becoming a superstate.

😈

stronger environental protection, social and employment laws

Stronger than what ?

Stronger than a single country.

A couple of simple, every-day things the EU has done are:

Reduced the costs of roaming on mobiles
Tightened rules on misleading airline ads

A couple of simple, every-day things the EU has done are:

Reduced the costs of roaming on mobiles
Tightened rules on misleading airline ads

All that on a budget of only E130 billion!

Stronger than a single country.

A single country such as the UK is perfectly capable of passing laws concerning “environmental protection, social and employment laws”.

It doesn’t require 28 countries to get together to pass such laws.

Any which require international cooperation can and are agreed upon without the need to a member of the EU.

Love this thread. Keep on winding up the usual liberal left posters on here, guys. Farage for PM anyone? 🙂

28 countries are more likely to do something together than each doing it alone in many cases.

Edit: double post!

28 countries are mire likely to do something together than each doing it alone in many cases.

Well when you force countries to implement laws that they wouldn’t otherwise pass on their own, then yes, of course.

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

What’s wrong with being self-governing ?

Doesnt necessarily apply to EU law. How about the Montreal Protocol?

Except that this thread is about the EU and what is being discussed is the perceived advantages of EU membership.

I’ve already pointed out that laws which require international cooperation can and are agreed upon without the need to a member of the EU.

ernie_lynch – Member

Any which require international cooperation can and are agreed upon without the need to a member of the EU.

Posted 23 minutes ago

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

Except that this thread is about the EU and what is being discussed is the perceived advantages of EU membership.

The thread is about Europe, and the apparent rise of xenophobia and extremism.

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 we 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.

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 ?

Well not for the scots apparently where this is emotive, weak and not compelling eh ernie 😉

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 🙂