EU constution & Joining Europe

[Tiptoes]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Last I heard the Queen was taking legal advice on the situation and wasn't very happy as they way she sees it, TB has lied to her about it not affecting her position.

Yes but she evident ally believes him...

There will be mass demonstration and disruption if he sign up without a referendum

I have already told him what I think here

www.bigconversation.org.uk

But ~I must say I think this is just a ploy ready for his spin merchants to be saying the right things before the next general election...

Consider this.

The British people voted in a referendum to join a Common Market, in which 10 European nations freely traded a wide range of goods and services. So far so good. However, in a series of creeping extensions to this original, perfectly laudible concept, the Common Market became the European Economic Community, then the European Community, and now the European Union. And where once there was a collection of nations freely trading according to a number of agreed and ratified treaties, is now an emerging organisation in its own right, with powers apart from the nations that created it and demanding more †“ a single governing constitution which does not merely draw together the treaties previously agreed, but also slips in clauses that would radically extend its powers, in some cases even superseding those of the national parliaments of its members.
This proto-superstate already weilds influence over vast areas of domestic British affairs. Here are a few examples.

Fisheries: Fisheries within British territorial waters are controlled by the European Union. Quotas are set in Brussels and are fished by those with a licence to do so. Many of the licences to fish in our waters are in the hands of Spanish fishermen. This is the case because the EU has made it intolerably difficult for many British operators to make a living, forcing them to sell their licences and break up their boats.

Urban regeneration: Large wooden signboards in cities the length and breadth of Britain proudly claim that the urban regeneration project they are announcing would not be possible were it not for the †˜Objective Oneââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ funding provided by the European Union. The European flag sits big and bold on these signs, underlinging the †˜factâÃà ‚¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ that this project is funded with European money. Wrong. The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. Brussels is merely giving us back some of the money we handed over in the first place, with European flags stamped all over it to make us think we are somehow benefiting.

Social affairs: European directives extend well into areas of British social life that could just as easily have been planned and legislated for by our own sovreign Parliament acting by itself. What business does a free trade community have in dictating policy in any area except trade?

Taxation: Despite Gordon Brownââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s insistence that the UK must retain control over UK taxation, a certain level of control has already been conceded. There is VAT on fuel in the UK because the EU demanded it. The Zero-Rating of VAT on childrenââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s clothing in the UK is now also under threat by EU directive.

The Euro: Not implemented in the UK yet, but already proving troublesome where it has been introduced. Outside the Euro, the UK, Sweden and Denmark are among the most vibrant and successful economies in Europe. Inside the Euro zone, its members suffer recession, budget defecit and the ignominy of being instructed by Brussels civil servants on how they may, and may not, plan their economies. France and Germany quite rightly act in the interests of their people by flouting the Euro-stability rules, but at the same time risk destabilising the single currency to the detriment of the entire project.

I could go on, but instead I sign off with the words of the most effective champion of British interests in Europe:

†œNo! No! No!ââ‚Âà ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�

[Tiptoes]

Towny have you actually read the draft EU constitution?

Article 10 EU Law shall take primacy of UK Law

in other articles it also follows:-

On LAW, "member states shall facilitate the achievement of the union's tasks and refrain from any action which could jeopardise [them]". On TAX, "The union shall adopt measures to ensure the co-ordination of economic policies of member states". On DEFENCE, "Member states shall actively and unreservedly support the union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity". There is more........

But essetially you are distinctly right in what you say...

For those who disagree why dont you join in on the Virtual March on 10 Downing Street.

http://www.referendum04.co.uk/march.html

Also have you head about the UKIP party?

http://www.independence.org.uk


Please if anyone agrees please pass these links around to your freinds and family..................................


A few weeks ago some friends came from France to visit England, family and friends, one is a French Doctor whose wife is a Translator for the EU who had been Living in France with her husband for some 20 or more years and classified as a French citizen.

After dinner and niceties we got talking about the EU, Despite being derided as a Euro-Sceptic in print I like to take a balanced view and wanted to discuss how other countries are fairing in their excitement to join the EU super state, from a man on the street point of view of course.


Not all was well, prices over the last few years had risen and these friends were heavy smokers, they said the prices for cigarettes had rocketed 50% so they were now embarking on a 40 Minute journey out of Metz across the border to Luxembourg where they are cheaper.

In a jovial fashion I commented this was cheating the EU and their country out of much need tax which would help France pay their EU Fines, †œThatâà ƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€ žÂ¢s okayââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� they said, †œEveryone does itââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�. So I continued and pointed out the UK give roughly £30 Million a day to the EU and get back approximately only half of that in effect funding or subsidising their actions. Astonishingly, I was told it was a selfish view and that I should think about the collective good of Europe.

Despite being a bit aghast I highlighted a point on the unpaid fines
placed on France by the EU for not staying within the rules. †œOhÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� they said †œThey are only rules, if you donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t like them you can always pay the fineââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�. Now the UK has always stuck by its side of the bargain, a trait which most UK citizens would subscribe to. Are we to presume now those other countries such as France a do as they please within the EU.

[Lew]

Originally Posted by Defiant

In theory the queen still has allot of powers. Enough to bring the stuck up prat down. She's never used them before but I think its about time she did.

Off with his head!

Originally Posted by Tiptoes

Towny have you actually read the draft EU constitution?

No, so far I've relied on others to summarise it for me. But I don't think what I posted contradicts what you are saying in any case.

Are we to presume now those other countries such as France a do as they please within the EU.

You don't need to presume anything, it's a well-known fact that most of the rest of Europe thinks the rules are optional. It's one of the many reasons we'd be insane to get any more tangled up in it than we already are.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Defiant

In theory the queen still has allot of powers. Enough to bring the stuck up prat down. She's never used them before but I think its about time she did.

The people will not stand her affecting the democratic process (she doesn't even give personal opinions - if she has any), then there will be an uprising.

Or the US will invade to remove the vicious dictator ........ and leave the queen in charge

[Tiptoes]

Towny,

You have put your own slant on my question yet again.........................I give up

I know you are against European integration so am I and your statments evidentally agree with that of mine..

I was asking had you read it ... it was a "question" not a "statment".................

Originally Posted by downquark1

The people will not stand her affecting the democratic process (she doesn't even give personal opinions - if she has any), then there will be an uprising.

Or the US will invade to remove the vicious dictator ........ and leave the queen in charge

There hasn't been an 'uprising' against the monarch in this country for well over 300 years. Who do you think is going to rise up, and what might they do? The very people who are most likely to take to the streets and protest about any given ishoo are the same rent-a-mob who were at the core of the march through London to demonstrate against the war and occupation in Iraq.

Given that there is no possibility of achieving a British Republic simply by herding a gaggle of hard-left whistle-blowing hippies through Whitehall, how might any kind of revolution be achieved? Bringing down a Government with mass demonstrations is in an entirely different league to achieving fundamental constitutional change by revolution.

In fact, I would have thought the protestors would applaud our Liz if she overthrew Blair for them, I think they're far more interested in getting rid of him than in getting rid of her. As you say, there's only one dictator in Britain and he doesn't live in a palace.

[Tiptoes]

Originally Posted by towny

No, so far I've relied on others to summarise it for me. But I don't think what I posted contradicts what you are saying in any case.


You don't need to presume anything, it's a well-known fact that most of the rest of Europe thinks the rules are optional. It's one of the many reasons we'd be insane to get any more tangled up in it than we already are.

I know Im tryingt to get the message across .... this was one of my letters to the papers...


As for uprisings someone has got the wrong end of the stick....


I was talking about an insurgence against Tony Blair....

NOT the queen..

Originally Posted by Tiptoes

Towny,

You have put your own slant on my question yet again.........................I give up

I know you are against European integration so am I and your statments evidentally agree with that of mine..

I was asking had you read it ... it was a "question" not a "statment".................

Beg your pardon sir ... the phrasing 'have you actually' is not uncommonly employed by those who wish to imply they think they know their subject 'actually hasn't' and is therefore to be criticised. Evidently I misunderstood you.

Let's not argue - much more fun to enjoy discussing one of the issues we agree on.

Also they receive the orders from the government yes but the military and Police serve the queen and the majority would not go against her. Lets not forget its TB who is not being democratic here. He's signing our rights away bit by bit till we have nothing left and are left taking order's from the Frence and Germans

[philip.j.fry]

To add a bit more to my last post, I don't believe in dividing up the world into seperate countries, I think that we are all humans and deserve to have an equal start in life. For example, why should someone who was born seconds apart from me but in a 3rd world country have any less of a start in life than me simply because of geography? So I see the EU as slowly working towards redressing this issue, one step on a very long road.

However, the people in charge of the EU obviously don't share my views, it's just another selfish corrupt organisation. Until people reach a state where they are prepared to think about the good of all countries, not how they can benfit their own (often to detriment others), the EU will not work. So I'd just have to say the EU as it stands is not worth it, it'll only cause problems.

As for Mrs Windsor trying to assert 'her powers', would be exremely funny

[Tiptoes]

I agree back bench revolts do nothing for the labour party do they

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

There hasn't been an 'uprising' against the monarch in this country for well over 300 years. Who do you think is going to rise up, and what might they do? The very people who are most likely to take to the streets and protest about any given ishoo are the same rent-a-mob who were at the core of the march through London to demonstrate against the war and occupation in Iraq.

Given that there is no possibility of achieving a British Republic simply by herding a gaggle of hard-left whistle-blowing hippies through Whitehall, how might any kind of revolution be achieved? Bringing down a Government with mass demonstrations is in an entirely different league to achieving fundamental constitutional change by revolution.

In fact, I would have thought the protestors would applaud our Liz if she overthrew Blair for them, I think they're far more interested in getting rid of him than in getting rid of her. As you say, there's only one dictator in Britain and he doesn't live in a palace.

Hmmmmm, royal family removes democratically elected leader and replaces him with one or her own liking.

OR:

She could remove TB and begin a new election which wouldn't be so bad, but she would be accused of interfering and people would fear that she may recall another election if the result is 'unsatisfactory'.

The royals are hanging by a thread anyway, they are rich enough yet take tax payers money and all they do is the occaisonal appearance and tabloid scandel.

An easier solution would be the house of commons call for vote of no confidance. But since the torries aren't sure if they are ready for an election - it won't happen.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Tiptoes

Yes but she evidentally believes him...

No, that's why she's seeking legal advice, she thinks that her priminister has lied to her about what effect the EU constitution will have.

I think it would be very interesting if she were to dissolve parliment and call for a general election, as her reasons would prove that TB has not only been lying to her, but to us as well.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Hmmmmm, royal family removes democratically elected leader and replaces him with one or her own liking.

OR:

She could remove TB and begin a new election which wouldn't be so bad, but she would be accused of interfering and people would fear that she may recall another election if the result is 'unsatisfactory'.

The royals are hanging by a thread anyway, they are rich enough yet take tax payers money and all they do is the occaisonal appearance and tabloid scandel.

An easier solution would be the house of commons call for vote of no confidance. But since the torries aren't sure if they are ready for an election - it won't happen.

Now you're just showing your ignorance.
The royal family are not hanging by a thread, and you obviously have never looked into what they actually do
Her powers are to call a new general election.
No sensible party would then run with the policy of adopting the constitution.