|
The European Elections
So Labour have had their nose seriously bloodied in the Euro Election results, UKIP have had a resounding boost and what do we get from Labour?
Do we get an admission that maybe they've totally mis-read the views of the British public and they're going to re-consider their strategy? Nope, we get Jack Straw desperately spinning this as a defeat for the *Tories* because there were massive protest votes against all the ruling parties in Europe and that they're going ahead with the final revison of the draft constitution *anyway*!! Helloooo?? This is Reality calling Mr Straw! The protest vote was the kicking you got in the local elections! The European Elections is the British people saying they don't like what you're doing and telling you to think again! So, have the Labour leadership lost the plot? Are they so committed to a misguided policy that they're like Captain Ahab, dragging the rest of us on to our doom because they can see nothing else? Can anyone really now argue that the British Voting public *want* closer integration and the introduction of the Euro? (Or am I exaggerating for effect?! ;-) ) What do people think? |
Re: The European Elections
I think you're right ... this morning's papers have some intresting commentary and analysis. One of them talks about the massive gap between Labour's heart-of-Europe rhetoric and the reailty - which is that 'under [Tony Blair's] watch, Europe has become even more unpopular than it was in the days of the Major and Thatcher governments' (can't remember which paper, I had to read so many of them this morning :spin: )
The Guardian has been a priceless read today, spluttering about the anti-European reasults from virtually every page. They even put a Polly Toynbee opinion on the front. There is no doubt that the Guardian believes the British electorate cannot be trusted to deliver the 'correct' result. The most tiresome thing about post-election inquests is how everybody who has done badly is so keen to talk instead about how everybody else has done even worse. It is here more than anywhere that the saying 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics' is shown to be true. Often I wonder whether the politicians are looking at the same set of results as me (or each other for that matter). My own 'take' on this is that UKIP is the 'winner' here and the Lib Dems, if they are ever to hope to form a Government, need to realise that their raving Euro-enthusiasm is, like many of their 'policies' something they will need to re-think carefully. If they don't, all they will ever be is a recipient of the protest votes of traditional Tory (or Labour) supporters who can't bring themselves to vote for 'the other lot'. As for the Tories and Labour, they have both done badly. I don't think this vote is a protest against Iraq and domestic failure - the British electorate is more sophisticated than that, and becoming more so - in both cases it is a vote against their policies and/or actions towards Europe. The lesson for the Tories is clear - they need to become an avowedly Euro-sceptic party and weed out the Europhiles in the same way Neil Kinnock weeded out the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. Europhile sniping and carping helped bring down the last Tory Government and will do them no favours in the future. EDIT I voted 'they should listen'. I was tempted to vote 'they will never listen' but the fact is, Labour was, not such a long time ago, campaigning for outright withdrawl. Opinions on Europe do change. |
Re: The European Elections
In all fairness, I think itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s still very much a case that the vast majority of the English (Iâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢m going with the English because, at the moment, I donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t know if the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish results have been announced) couldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t give a monkeys about Europe one way of the other.
I donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t actually know what the turnout was, but I bet it was less than 50% - if the politicians canââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t get people to vote in the local / general elections (which directly affect the electorate), theyââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve got no chance when it comes to the European elections. However, hopefully the †˜mainâà ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ parties will take stock of whatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s happened (Tories worst result since 1832 / Labours since the 1930s), and come to the conclusion that they need to get back to doing what the public want (or at least trying to ask them in the first place). Oh well, with a bit of luck, seeing as heâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s won a seat in Europe, we wonââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t have to see so much of Robert Kiljoy-Joke †“ although itâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s somewhat ironic that a party that wants the UK to pull back from Europe will now have 12 members sitting there. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Is it appropriate for a political party to radically change their stance on an issue simply because they lost votes at an election? The various parties have different policies on Europe, ranging from further integration to a complete withdrawal. There is a party that most people can vote for that reflects their opinion on Europe, be that Labour, Tory, UKIP or something else.
Listening to the opinions of the public and shaping policy in that manner is one thing. To do a radical about face on a policy is another issue entirely. I do not believe it should be a case of saying whatever the public want to hear simply to gain more votes, a party should stand or fall by its policies and have the courage of their convictions to stand by them even if it does mean that there is a dent in their popularity. To have anything else would be to undermine the whole point of having a multiparty system in this country. One group could effectively run the country and just radically update their policies whenever there is a change in opinion. While it might be argued that there would be some worth in adopting anarchy in the original sense of the word, as the system currently stands I do not think that political parties should chop and change simply for the sake of popularity. To do so speaks volumes about their lack of integrity. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
So, you are right insofar as you say we can't extrapolate the results across the whole population - that would be to impute to them a political view that they might not hold. However if you are implying that the results are, as a consequence of this, meaningless (as less than 50% of electors voted), then I think you are wrong. Those who were entitled to vote but did not, left the choice to those that did. Therefore the result, regardless of turnout, is legitimised by the choice of the entire electorate. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
I think Blair seriously needs to start listening and re-evaluating. The line between a leader who stands up to public adversity and a dictator-like person that just drags the country into descisions against the mass appeal of the country is a fine one, but he's really starting to stand on the wrong side. Over the weekend, Blair gave the whole "It is rough time, but stick with me" speech, but I think that will be suicidal. Blair is gambliing everything on the Europe policy, and he is going to lose out. I remember Ian Hislop's brilliant quote from HIGYFY, when he was asked: "Why isn't Blair giving us a referdum on europe?" and he said: "Because he would lose". Labour have had a serious kicking. In some places they are even 3rd. The Iraq war was bad for them, but recoverable, especially when the corner over there is turned, but if Blair is going to continue to standby his popular policies, surely the MPs won't stand for it. Especially as Brown is gaining huge support. |
Re: The European Elections
The ballot box is the one true way in a democratic society that the electorate can express it's opinion on issues of the day. Unfortunately General and local council elections usually have so many different conflicting issues that it is difficult to detect the real mood of the electorate, many of whom, if they vote at all, do so on the basis of lesser of evils. European elections are somewhat different at the moment, as effectively this vote was the closest we could get to the key single European issue. Do we want to integrate more closely with Europe or not?
It is irrelevant what proportion of the electorate get off their bacsides to vots. Everyone has that right to vote, if they choose not to express an opinion, it does not devalue the result it just, as said above, means they are content to go with the flow. Any political party that does not take this poll result for what it was, that the electorate is wanting less rather than closer ties to Europe, is going against the wishes of democracy. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Similarly, if you choose not to vote, you express the view that nobody comes close to representing you. The end result is that the politicians think, 'hmm, how can we get the abstainers to vote for us next time?'. By not voting, you don't necessarly support 'status quo' or declare your support for whoever wins the election, but you are declaring your willingness to allow others to make the decision for you. If you say that nobody comes close to representing your views, and you are not happy to let others make the decision by casting their votes while you abstain, then a third option is open to you - you can stand for election yourself. |
Re: The European Elections
As my wife keeps telling me every time I go off on one of my direct taxation rants. Shut up or stand for election.
|
Re: The European Elections
Graham wrote:
Quote:
Given that the UKIP has today said that they feel no need to work with the European Parliament and in fact want to wreck it, I suggest that anyone who voted for them has voted not to be represented in a democratic institution, and I can't recall anywhere else that has ever happened. One other reason for liking the EU I forgot yesterday was that Rupert Murdoch is scared of it - in a world where corporations like News International are bigger than governments (I've lost count of the number of times Blair has gone along with what Murdoch says) I think we need large scale co-operation between nations to provide a balance. In this case, Europe-wide media ownership laws to ensure diversity of media. Incidentally, I recommend everyone read the UKIP website - the number of times they mention 'co-operation with the United States' on the defence section of their website rather precludes anyone opposing the Iraq war from supporting them. They're also a bit wide of the mark blaming the EU for the Tornado F3 - an aircraft that dates from the early 70s for a NATO requirement. Didn't mention Airbus, either. They also consider rail privatisation as the consequence of EU membership - a fallacy, rail privatisation was a Tory policy to get the railways off the Government's books. They stop short of blaming the EU for France beating England last night, but it's surely only a matter of time. Practically every policy they have depends on spending a vapourous 'Independence Dividend' that would come from EU withdrawal. Hmm... Practically every failure, real or imaginary is the fault of the EU, even when it isn't. GM food is an EU policy? Monsanto is a US corporation, last time I looked. They seem to exist about fifty years in the past, and a nostalgic politician is a bad politician. Everyone thinks things were better in the past. So you can see, plenty to aim at. Why on earth neither Labour or the Tories picked them apart I don't know. Still, their loss. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Also the recent volte-face by Blair on a European Constitution Referendum suggests that he *is* very concerned that were he to have continued with his "now don't you worry your pretty little heads about this" attitude, he would have lost more support. IMO we're going to hear more "independant state in Europe" noises from Labour in the next few months. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
UKIP had an INCREDIBLE result, considering they are essentially a one-issue party like the Referendum Party was - well, as far as their point in London seemed to be, they stand against waste, beaurocracy and career politicians. We need LESS government, not MORE.
Yep!, I'd vote to abolish the Mayor and london assembly, which came into being on a thin majority, of a thin vote, with no real NO campaign - a lesson to all who DO NOT want something, go and VOTE AGAINST IT. If you don't like the main parties (especially in a proportional election), go and vote for one of the absurd candidates. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Quote:
However the fact that there were *substantial* differences suggests that many of those who voted were actually doing so on the basis of issues and principles, rather than simple "party alliegence". |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
However this is IMO, frankly, a red herring and off topic for a discussion about Europe, so I'll not address it further here. Quote:
Quote:
I also think Kilroy's comment about "wrecking" the European Parliament was an ill-adviced off the cuff joke rather than a serious suggestion. Quote:
Quote:
Now that's somewhat different from the spin you seem to want to put on it which appears to suggest that UKIP would have blithely gone along with the US invasion as Blair did. Quote:
"Some of the most controversial aspects of rail privatisation, such as the creation of Railtrack as a private monopoly, were introduced to comply with EU rules" ... which, whether it is true or not (I can't prove or deny this at the moment from the searches I've done) is, again, different from what you claim. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Green Party MEP Patricia McKenna today hit out at retiring Irish EU Commissioner David Byrne for being more concerned with protecting the interests of multinational companies than the interests of consumers. Referring to today's decision by the European Commission to lift the ban on selling genetically modified sweetcorn in Europe, she said Mr Byrne has been central to development of the EU's policy on GMOs." http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?n...ticle&sid=5130 Now if that's not a result of EU policy, what *IS* it the result of?? Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
The euro-lovers are slating UKIP for being a one issue party, but it isn't just one issue. It is one extremely important issue. Most other things pale into insignificance to the Euro issue.
Votes for UKIP were mostly a protest vote though. I know plenty of people who voted for UKIP, and none like Kilroy-Silk, or anyone else in the party, but they just wanted to pull out of the EU consitition. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
I saw the first signs of this a few years back when, despite Labour's renaissance at Westminster, Liverpool's voters ditched Labour and gave the city council to the Lib Dems. Prior to that, even the blue half of the city would have voted for a monkey providing it was wearing a red rosette. </obscure footballing metaphor> |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
I think the EU has actually done (or was doing) quite a good job of "protecting" us from GMOs - against stiff opposition from the US, & some EU member states (such as the UK). It is because of the EU that there was an (almost) 6 year long moratorium on the approval of any new GM food, which acted as a de facto ban. It is because of the EU that when GMOs actually are approved, they have to be properly labelled as such, to ensure consumers can make informed choices on purchasing them. (much to the chagrin of the US government - & others - & the biotech companies, as they do not want us to have that choice, as they know many people would be unwilling to buy any GM food or anything containing GM ingredients) The Commission voted in favour of approving this particular GM sweetcorn after the governments of EU member states had failed to reach an agreement on it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...220460,00.html & http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...217227,00.html Oh, & apparently the UK strongly wanted to give the go ahead, despite opposition from other EU members: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/env...p?story=461997 Quote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe...p?story=475142 Quote:
Quote:
The US, Canadian, & Argentinian governments complained to the WTO about the EU's GM moratorium, as they believed it was an unscientific ban, & went against free trade & WTO rules etc. IIRC, the US also threatened the EU with various things in retaliation, which could have sparked a trade war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...220460,00.html Quote:
And besides, even though it has been approved by the EU... Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
In our recent 'voting intentions' thread there was a little discussion about the lack of honest discussion on the genuine pros and cons of EU membership. I thought I'd resurrect that train of thought here because this morning's Independent is making my blood boil ... under the headline 'The £23bn question', the entire front page is given over to what is, frankly, scaremongering. Or rather it would be scaremongering if it wasn't such a blatant tissue of lies, half-truths and spin. I have seen better written defences of Europe from 'A' level geography students. Here's just one of the priceless nuggets of nonsense:
Quote:
The Convention was drawn up by the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation that pre-dates the EU. The Convention is adhered to by the EU, it does not belong to the EU. Withdrawing from the EU would in no way involve withdrawing from the Convention. And in any case, the Convention is now enshrined within our own Law. Repealing it would be a matter entirely separate from any concerns about which international organisations we belong to. Honestly, the anti-Europe camp have been accused of scaremongering and lies but this takes some beating. I'm not proposing to re-type the entire article here (I am supposed to be at work :D ) but I would urge anyone with an interest in the whole Europe debate to get a look at it. This is a sad day for rational debate. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Yes, leadership is required but not if it is against the will of the people (realises he has just undermined his Iraq war argument - Doh). There is no case to continue down the road of a federal Europe. We have not been in the Euro now for over two years and guess what. The economy hasn't collapsed, millions of jobs haven't been lost all the scaremongering has been showed to be just that. The country is waking up to the fact that we don't need to be "in" Europe politically. The continental shelf already dictates we are "in" Europe geographically and that is enough. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Quote:
Addendum: In fact that article irritated me so much I've just sent the following e-mail... To the Letters Editor: Letter for Publication. Sir, Your paper's article "The £23bn Question" is the most ludicrous scaremongering I have read in a non-red top newspaper for a long time. It suggests that, by "leaving Europe" we would be forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It begins with rank economic speculation claiming "More volatile interest rates would add to the risks of boom and bust in the housing markets." but why? Our interest rates are under control now, why should they suddenly become "more volatile" if we leave Europe? What exactly will change? It lists rights we would apparently lose "Workers would be unable to bring sex, race or disability claims against their employers" and "The Government would have to repeal hundreds of EU directives in UK law." But why? If a law is good, what does it matter whether we're in the EU or not? This whole article is a tissue of nonsense and is not the sort of reporting I expect from a newspaper such as yours. You should be ashamed of it. Yours Faithfully, Graham Marsden |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Some old laws have been repealed, eg (sorry, this is a little biological!) it used to be illegal for heterosexual couples to engage in anal intercourse.
That law is no longer on the statute books at all. Anyway, that's getting off topic. |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Especially the part you mention about the European Convention on Human Rights :rolleyes: The scaremongering sounds as bad as some of the anti-EU scaremongering bandied about by people. Why is it that neither side seems capable of a rational debate on the pros & cons? Stupid. Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
You say they lie but do you have any proof?
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Also i heard the paper says we lose 23billion pound which is what I have heard elsewhere several times from news items |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Well some have admitted to 'being economical with the truth' .
If that's not lying I don't know what is. I've said that they are mostly all liars many,many times.If you believe this then you are never disappointed when they live up to expectations. When an truthful and truly honourable member comes to light I'm totally delighted.However they are becoming fewer year by year.Even the 'characters' are disappearing or have become silent.They are such a dull bunch these days.:( |
Europe - What is to be done?
As Lenin famously said over a century ago, "What is to be done?" So, we elect a UKIP government and promptly withdraw from Europe. Then what? I don't fancy becoming the 51st state, or even becoming part of Nafta so that all our jobs can move to Mexico rather than India or China. As someone in Norway once said, they are now ruled from Brussels by fax.
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
WE will be ruled and broke when they have finished with us. with no royalty and no government just EU puppets doing the dirty washing...
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
- the population is only about 5 million people. - over 90% of their electricity is generated by hydro power - they export massive amounts of gas & oil (only Russia & Saudi do more) but - the majority of their trade is with EU countries and to do that they must comply with EU legislation. I guess this is what was meant by the 'ruled by fax from Brussels' quote. Food producers have to have EU licences, for example - and to get them they have to comply with EU standards. notwithstanding that, the Norwegians enjoy a good standard of living, reliable,sophisticated communications & transport, plus they have a culture that combines being outwardly modern, with retaining a true pride in their tradition & heritage. It may change when the oil & gas run out, but for now Norway demonstrates you can live with the EU, without having to be in it. I'm quite happy to retain the mechanism of the trading agreements and the consistent standards for export licences, for example - but when it starts to involve a constitution & a common currency, I'm not so sure.:shrug: |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
I want Britain run by people with British tans dammit. Bloody orange skins coming over here stealing our xenophobic politicians jobs.
:p: |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
I don't want us out of Europe I just don't want us in a federal state of Europe.
It's not what I voted for in the referendum what ever Edward Heath thought.If I'd actually been asked I'd would have said no.All I voted for was to join a Common Market. |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
I want blair removed and us out of Europe apart from the minimum standard of trade levels. That is all but Blair must be removed ASAP.
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
I don't want us to move to the Euro. Too complicated.
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
I think gettin the UK out of europe wil involve filling sandbags and errecting bardedwire at the beaches.................. again. ;)
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
I want to remain in europe and to join the euro but thats it as for the EU constitution I dont really care it doesn't really set anything in stone and for the first time theere will be a way to opt out but there are loads of benfits economy wise and trade and law wise so we should be careful before we hastly decided to withdraw
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
easy one, no to the euro, no to brussels, no to them creating our laws or associated details including interest rates etc, although i welcome trade ties.....
|
Re: The European Elections
What are the benfits of withdrawing from europe?
We need the EU more than it needs us trade wise we make money from the EU, easer tourism to the eu their and back it is so EASY to go to france and have medical treatment if you had a problem over there and such WHat is to gain |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
we lose over £20 billion pound also we still have to follow EU trade laws but cant change them
Also a lot of laws from the eu have been good such as the enviromental ones, confirmed 4 weeks holiday, more martinity leave etc |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
(Sorry I couldn't resist) |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
Perhaps you could explain to me what is to be gained by 'ever closer political union'? When the current draft Constitution of the EU calls for certain powers to be granted to the EU in such a way that national Governments are not allowed to make their own decisions in certain areas, unless the EU has first decided that it doesn't want to, where is the British national interest served? When membership of the Euro would instantly mean interest rates in the UK reduced from 4.5% as we now have, to just 2%, how would British national interest be served, given that the expert opinion of the Bank of England is that interest rates in the UK need to go up in order to prevent the housing market spiralling out of control? In fact, perhaps you could explain how the German national interest is served by its membership of the Euro, given that its economy is in recession and economists believe that the country requires an interest rate of 0% in order to kick-start growth? These are the questions that I have never yet heard a Euro-enthusiast answer convincingly. This morning's sad excuse of a front page in the Independent did not even begin to address these issues. What it did was cloud the debate with yet more amateurish rhetoric (something I accept the anti-euro camp is also doing). I can't answer your question about withdrawing because I don't want to withdraw. I'm going to bed now but tomorrow (if I get time, busy day) I will post some of my reasons for wanting less close integration. Perhaps you would return the favour and post some defence of European integration? (and please, don't just quote the Independent at me, it will make you look foolish ;) ) |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
Stop quoting the Independent and tell us why you think the Euro, and closer European integration, is a good idea. I answered your question in The European Election thread with some worrying statistics about the Euro last night .... and could somebody pleeeeease merge this thread into that ongoing Europe thread: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...ad.php?t=13531 This is the third Europe thread in as many weeks and each one winds up discussing the same general issues, regardless of the initial question. I want to talk about it but it's getting confusing!!!! :spin: |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
I personally agree with the principles of a greater democracy and regulating certain aspects of trade, but I'm not going to agree on something that will ultimately harm us for no good reason, so I personally am going to wait before the constitution is finished before deciding on whether or not it is a good thing.
As for the Euro, I have no gripes with the principle (apart from 5 euros doesn't sound as snappy) but I'm no economist so I don't know the greater implications. |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
Gordon Brown, love him or loathe him, is just about the most respected finance minister in the world, and he has repeatedly, and carefully, insisted that Britain would only join the Euro if it was demonstrably in our interest to do so. It is clear that he is sceptical that it will ever be in our interest. The Bank of England, in setting an interest rate of 4.5% while the Eurozone rate is just 2%, demonstrates by its actions that the Euro would be bad for Britain. Macro-economic policy isn't like dusting crops, boy: a base rate of 2% would fuel rampant house price inflation, prompt massive levels of consumer debt in the UK and eventually stoking up inflation ... and that would end our economic stability real quick wouldn't it. Conversely Germany, languishing in recession, finds 2% to be too high to stimulate recovery. Economists there say the country needs a 0% rate. There is no way Germany will get this, of course - 2% is the best compromise the ECB can come up with, seeing as it has the impossible task of setting a single rate for the dozen or so Eurozone economies, none of which are as converged as they were meant to be in order to allow the currency to come into existence in the first place, because of course the economic criteria were fudged and sidestepped when they threatened to derail what is, and always has been, a political project. |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
I was too young to have a vote then but realistically that is what Europe was about, and what it should still be about. Somehow over time the principle of free trade and a level playing field for all countries in the Common Market, or Eurpoean Economic Community as it became, has become confused with a need for legislation that now affects all aspects of our life. I fail to see how ideas of integrated EU foreign policy, a European Army and even a European Court really promote this free trade process. I cannot understand why we must potentially loose control of our own taxation and similar economic issues if realistically the aim of free trade must surely be to allow every body to sell or buy goods or services at the most competetive price or value, provided that appropriate standards for the product are met. I don't necessarily support a complete withdrawal of Britain from the EU. But I certainly don't support us loosing further controls to centralisation, which has nothing to do with the ideal of free trade. |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
Also people have said to stop quoting other people and news items but I like you lot have to get my information from somewhere and if you automatically dismiss every source then this discussion is pointless My position is that what we have now is good and should be kept, also I would like to one day have the euro i go to france and back a lot and like the convenience of a single currency it also makes things simpler. Also easyer travel between member states and a bit more intergration in terms of transport and communcations |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
The only reason I can see that the â‚ ¬ would not work and the $ would be that there is not a federal tax and redistribution system so the poorer countries / states get funding from the wealthier, but there is. We contribute (according to other posters) £20Bn / yr, which is then used for redistribution to poorer parts of the EU, Greek islands, southern italy etc. Maybe I'm being :dunce: but, the â‚ ¬ is working a heck of a lot better than the pundits predicted in '99 and in another 5 years time will have settled in nicely. |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
we give money to the EU -> they give it to poorer countries -> economy of
those countries improve -> our jobs goes to those countries = well done. also Britain is pretty much the only country to follow all the rules, you can still buy fruit and veg in Brussels in pounds and ounces ffs. France and Germany can't even stick to their own tax laws they demanded the EU adopt. |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
Is this the same EU that employed someone to root out corruption and when she did they sacked her? As for the euro, ease of currency abroad is an awful reason to adopt a financial project which has caused so many countries so much trouble. Why do you think our economy is in such a better state than other european economies? Why do you think Germany and Portugal are having to break Euro rules? You yourself state that we lose £20bill ion to Europe, that's £20bill ion this country needs! |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
Good point....threads merged :) (a bit belatedly, I admit) |
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
Also we do break euro rules a recent one about human rights for example |
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
|
Re: Europe - What is to be done?
Quote:
That does not require a single currenct, especially one which is damaging so many of the economies that use it. Not having to change money when going abroad is a pathetic reason to adopt it. Quote:
|
Re: The European Elections
Quote:
An article by this fellow, Dick Morris, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E7583,00.html |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Anyone got a link to a summary of the final constitution?
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
The one that, despite public apprension, he signed !!!!
It still sounds like it can be thrown out by a referendum though - "RED LINES?" - we need to draw the red lines a step back from where we are now and drag europe, or at least our own part in it, back to being a trading partnership ONLY - I too am in the "trade yes, political/economic union no!" camp, but if push came to shove, I'd vote OUT rather than IN if the current direction continues. |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
http://www.britainineurope.org.uk
Good site, since all we have heard is the negative side of the EU lets here the other side |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Preferably this list should avoid meaningless cliches about inevitability (because it isn't), and putting forward holiday exchange rates (which are utterly trivial when compared to the economy as a whole). EDIT Just spent a few minutes reading that site. Long on the scaremonger rhetoric (Britain will be 'on the fringe', 'left behind' 'has nothing to fear', etc etc etc etc) but very short on fact-based discussion. A real pity, as I genuinely want to engage with this issue. I think my favourite part of the whole site, though, is the link which promises to tell you all about how the Euro would be good for Britain ... it causes a 404 Page not found error. :rofl: |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Listening on the Radio today, some PR company has done a survey of MPs and Cabinet ministers and the number of times they mention Europe in speeches (and in a positive light) and it is near 0.
Conclusion the govt needs some PR from within aswell. |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Do you really want us to get into bed with such unscrupilous goverments? And what is "We will be left behind the rest of euro and be 'on the fringe" if not scaremongering? |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Have you forgotton all of those. ALos we will be on the frindge as again we canot control european law but still have to follow them |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Shooting fish in a barrel doesn't mean you're a good fisherman...! Quote:
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
After all, it's not as if France and Germany have completely blown through their assigned spending limits and gone into deficit and then said "sod you lot", is it?! Still, I'm sure we're both just "scaremongering" by suggesting such things, aren't we?! |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Yes, we will have to comply with *some* of them if we want to trade with Europe, but that's the same as us trading with America or Japan or any other countries and is nothing new. But you seem to be suggesting that, even though we're not part of some Greater Europe, they can *force* any laws they choose upon us. |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Can someone set up a simple pros and cons of the debate.
Instead of the current system of debate being: Pro: something nice will happen Con: the pro was said by a pro-europe paper. |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3825521.stm |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. You are anti-EU. 2. The Sun is also anti-EU. 3. The Sun's position is clearly ridiculous, and wrong. 4. Therefore you are wrong. This is a logical fallacy, specifically, the 'Straw Man' fallacy (I'm going to make Graham regret he ever linked to this website: ;) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html ) This is what this morning's Inde does in generous measure, by presenting the pro-EU point of view as 'reality' and the anti-EU view as 'myth' and then illustrating the myth by reference to some of the more lurid claims in the weekend's papers. EDIT Damien, why did you feel the need to change your most recent post so completely? :confused: |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
That independent article is pointing out the myths and countering them, what they say is true. Admittedly they are giving a lot of pros about europe , however they seem to be the only ones, but you should be more cooncered with all the tabloids who are all anti--europe. Also read the BBC article
I have a oopiion and will write a long post when i have finished college and hense work at the end of the week |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
And on the subject of the tabloids, why should I be concerned if they are all anti-EU? Does the fact that they are tabloid newspapers mean they are necessarily wrong? Don't forget, for every over-excited red-top and morally-outraged midmarket, there's a respected broadsheet or news magazine echoing their concerns - the Inde quoted the Sunday Telegraph and The Economist as well. |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
I am not but you made two referances to the inderpendent being pro-eu was i was just pointing out that this is a good thing as most of the other papers are anti-eu
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
From today's Telegraph, which is definately not a tabloid. here is a fairly balanced breakdown of the fundamental changes that this new document would bring to the status quo.
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Quote:
Thanks for posting those quotes. |
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
|
Re: [Merged] The Europe Thread
Some of the anti-europe points are true while some are not. You can not be right or wrong it depends on what you want but the fact that most of the media is anti-europe means no one is sure of the advantages people shoould be allowed to make up their own minds
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:09. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are Cable Forum