- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,758
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Country
david and julie said:
Yes! Used to get pis, I mean, revise in there when I went to Hollings.....22 years ago now......sigh.....
Yes! Used to get pis, I mean, revise in there when I went to Hollings.....22 years ago now......sigh.....
Sponsored Links
I think the whole points raised in this thread and other similar ones are-------------
The EU is corrupt and made this way by corrupt Politicians.
The people do not want any part of it
It shows it does not and cannot work
It is in danger of imploading now as we sit here
And Damocles is in favour of something he doesnt really know anything about or understands, infact i cant really see anybody being that dense as he makes out and fails to take any of the real facts on board
The EU is corrupt and made this way by corrupt Politicians.
The people do not want any part of it
It shows it does not and cannot work
It is in danger of imploading now as we sit here
And Damocles is in favour of something he doesnt really know anything about or understands, infact i cant really see anybody being that dense as he makes out and fails to take any of the real facts on board
Damocles said:
No, your analogy is flawed. Us blaming the EU for problems is not like Hitler blaming the Jews for the problems in Germany. It is like German Jews in the 1930s blaming Hitler for their problems. The EU wants our wealth under their control (and already has this control, to an extent).
I am not comparing the EU to the Third Reich (although many have), but I'm pointing out that the EU isn't just some made-up scapegoat for decline in this country. It is very much to blame for many facets of the UK's difficulties. They tell us how and where to spend our money instead of letting those here decide what is best. They take much of our money away, and to top it all off they remove much of our money-making capability through restrictions on subsidies and production quotas.
I think the formation of a European superstate would have worked much better had it been started in 1945 (or even 1918), and not hidden behind trade agreements and other benign treaties. People are getting just as annoyed now as if we had gone in right after peace was declared and said "Right you's lot, here's what's going to happen!". If all the countries in Europe had sat round a big table and said "We've got to join together to stop this happening again", much as the leaders of the various Italian princedoms did in the mid-1800s, then we might have a great, happy, European Union.
PARIS, France (AP) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has urged French President Jacques Chirac not to be discouraged by France's rejection of the European Union constitution, counseling him to listen to voters' concerns and "go back to work."
Clinton to Chirac: "Don't give up..."
Chirac to Clinton: "Sucez ceci ...."
Clinton to Chirac: "Don't give up..."
Chirac to Clinton: "Sucez ceci ...."
Sponsored Links
I've been away and haven't had a chance to read all the pages so this may have been said before, but.....
Given that all of the countries having referenda on this seem to be having them in the next few weeks, and given that until this morning we were meant to be having one as well, then shouldn't our plans have been a bit more advanced than they seem to be at the moment.
You know - Stuff like dates, debates, etc. We could even have taken some sort of lead and had our vote first, rather than a year after everyone else has made their decision.
Its almost as if we were never really going to have a vote at all.......
Given that all of the countries having referenda on this seem to be having them in the next few weeks, and given that until this morning we were meant to be having one as well, then shouldn't our plans have been a bit more advanced than they seem to be at the moment.
You know - Stuff like dates, debates, etc. We could even have taken some sort of lead and had our vote first, rather than a year after everyone else has made their decision.
Its almost as if we were never really going to have a vote at all.......
The agreement was to ratify the treaty by November NEXT year, and that is when we were planning to have the referendum. So in reality it has not been postponed one second so far.
Freddie, the EU is not corrupt. It strives very hard to improve the control of corruption in all member states to the level which is normally expected in other states such as the UK. Obviously, this is difficult.
By all accounts, most people DO want it. This is confirmed by polls even where there were just 'no' votes on the new treaty.
Plainly, it has been working for nearly 50 years and continues to do so. Despite the hype from many people who always did dislike it, there is no reason to think it could not continue indefinitely exactly as it is now.
One reason for having the new treaty was to allow it to grow and change faster. So it will proceed more slowly without it.
Adam, do you equate the EU with 'all the other countries, together', or 'the civil sevants and officials who administer it'? All the other countries contain many people with very many different views some who hate the EU and some who love it. But I don't doubt they think of it as something apart from the country to which they belong. So the EU as such which is being argued about is a slightly vague entity which only exists outside your own country, whichever that might be.
I said all that because it is normally hard for a minority to use a majority as a scapegoat. Hitler blamed a small minority which was rather wealthy. Arguably doing this so weakened his country that he lost in the end, but it did help him to get the war started. An exact analogy to what I see here. Who exactly do you reckon is trying to get us?
You still see the EU as malign. You are ignoring the patent fact that it is nothing more tham the governments of each of its members sitting round a table and agreeing what to do together. It has never been a question of surrendering control of Britain to foreigners. It has only ever been exercising that control via a different organisation. It is the same government still controlling Britain, it just side-steps those troublesome MPs at Westminster.
I just hunted up some figures. Apparently UK gross domestic product is around 1100 billion. UK taxes around 150 billion. EU taxes around 15 billion. EU rebate and money spent back into the UK around 10-12 billion.
The EU figures seem subject to argument depending on how you count them. But 5 billion or less is not a big amount of money in national terms. Much much more has just been spent in Iraq.
You think we should subsidise companies more? Rover? Earlier in this thread was some discussion about what heppened when we tried that 40 years ago. It was rather disastrous for the country. Which production quotas are you on about? growing too much sugar beet for the EU conceivably to eat.
Germany surrendered after WW1 because it could see that it was going to lose. The winners chose to extract revenge for the war. The result eventually was WW2 when Hitler fanned up German determination for revenge against the revenge.
This time people decided to use a softly softly approach to European integration. It is not the idea to forcibly create one superstate. The Russians tried that approach and it failed. Our problems now are largely because we are picking up the pieces for the Russians failure. It is the idea to integrate all the nations by showing them quite plainly that they are better off cooperating than fighting. It is a carrot and stick process: the problem now is that people are so wealthy they are not tempted by the carrot, and have rather forgotten the consequences of the stick.
Freddie, the EU is not corrupt. It strives very hard to improve the control of corruption in all member states to the level which is normally expected in other states such as the UK. Obviously, this is difficult.
By all accounts, most people DO want it. This is confirmed by polls even where there were just 'no' votes on the new treaty.
Plainly, it has been working for nearly 50 years and continues to do so. Despite the hype from many people who always did dislike it, there is no reason to think it could not continue indefinitely exactly as it is now.
One reason for having the new treaty was to allow it to grow and change faster. So it will proceed more slowly without it.
Adam, do you equate the EU with 'all the other countries, together', or 'the civil sevants and officials who administer it'? All the other countries contain many people with very many different views some who hate the EU and some who love it. But I don't doubt they think of it as something apart from the country to which they belong. So the EU as such which is being argued about is a slightly vague entity which only exists outside your own country, whichever that might be.
I said all that because it is normally hard for a minority to use a majority as a scapegoat. Hitler blamed a small minority which was rather wealthy. Arguably doing this so weakened his country that he lost in the end, but it did help him to get the war started. An exact analogy to what I see here. Who exactly do you reckon is trying to get us?
You still see the EU as malign. You are ignoring the patent fact that it is nothing more tham the governments of each of its members sitting round a table and agreeing what to do together. It has never been a question of surrendering control of Britain to foreigners. It has only ever been exercising that control via a different organisation. It is the same government still controlling Britain, it just side-steps those troublesome MPs at Westminster.
I just hunted up some figures. Apparently UK gross domestic product is around 1100 billion. UK taxes around 150 billion. EU taxes around 15 billion. EU rebate and money spent back into the UK around 10-12 billion.
The EU figures seem subject to argument depending on how you count them. But 5 billion or less is not a big amount of money in national terms. Much much more has just been spent in Iraq.
You think we should subsidise companies more? Rover? Earlier in this thread was some discussion about what heppened when we tried that 40 years ago. It was rather disastrous for the country. Which production quotas are you on about? growing too much sugar beet for the EU conceivably to eat.
Germany surrendered after WW1 because it could see that it was going to lose. The winners chose to extract revenge for the war. The result eventually was WW2 when Hitler fanned up German determination for revenge against the revenge.
This time people decided to use a softly softly approach to European integration. It is not the idea to forcibly create one superstate. The Russians tried that approach and it failed. Our problems now are largely because we are picking up the pieces for the Russians failure. It is the idea to integrate all the nations by showing them quite plainly that they are better off cooperating than fighting. It is a carrot and stick process: the problem now is that people are so wealthy they are not tempted by the carrot, and have rather forgotten the consequences of the stick.
Hi freddie, nice to hear again.
1 If you reckon that one part being corrupt means the whole is corrupt, then you would have to say that the whole of the British police force is corrupt, the british army is corrupt, the British civil service is corrupt, and so is the Government. I do not subscribe to that argument.
2 The treaty may or may not be dead. I imagine it is, but that is not my point. The EU will continue to carry out its business under the current riles.
3 Um yes, that sounds like Germany thought she was going to lose. Wars are not just about shooting the enemy. If the German state was in danger of being unable to continue, I reckon that means she was going to lose.
oops, almost forgot. I take it you reckon all the British foreign aid budget should be cut, and the G8 guys should screw those Africans for as much as they can get. Most people definitely would not agree with that. When it comes to it, what do you think that EU money is being spent on? Mostly the poorest member states. They need it.
1 If you reckon that one part being corrupt means the whole is corrupt, then you would have to say that the whole of the British police force is corrupt, the british army is corrupt, the British civil service is corrupt, and so is the Government. I do not subscribe to that argument.
2 The treaty may or may not be dead. I imagine it is, but that is not my point. The EU will continue to carry out its business under the current riles.
3 Um yes, that sounds like Germany thought she was going to lose. Wars are not just about shooting the enemy. If the German state was in danger of being unable to continue, I reckon that means she was going to lose.
oops, almost forgot. I take it you reckon all the British foreign aid budget should be cut, and the G8 guys should screw those Africans for as much as they can get. Most people definitely would not agree with that. When it comes to it, what do you think that EU money is being spent on? Mostly the poorest member states. They need it.
Damocles time to shove this in to history but i see the G8 now, well you are just twisting things again.
I would have thought all through these EU threads you would have realised by now, that your thinking may be impaired as you are in these matters the lone voice in the wilderness--i cant remember anyone agreeing with you ever about the EU----have you ever stopped for one minute and thought that you may be wrong and regardless of what you think, the people have a right and a will to have what they think is best for them and not have the likes of you and your few friends impose your will and what you think is best for us------i can honestly say the answer to that is no as you always know whats best for us
I would have thought all through these EU threads you would have realised by now, that your thinking may be impaired as you are in these matters the lone voice in the wilderness--i cant remember anyone agreeing with you ever about the EU----have you ever stopped for one minute and thought that you may be wrong and regardless of what you think, the people have a right and a will to have what they think is best for them and not have the likes of you and your few friends impose your will and what you think is best for us------i can honestly say the answer to that is no as you always know whats best for us
The new constitution may be dead.
But the old one remains in place....
The vote was on the new, nothing else.
A lot has been read into the reasons for voting, seems more like dissatisfaction with own leaders than anything else ..
But the old one remains in place....
The vote was on the new, nothing else.
A lot has been read into the reasons for voting, seems more like dissatisfaction with own leaders than anything else ..
Freddie, maybe you remember there was an opinion poll on here before the general election. On the results of that poll the conservatives would have got every single seat in parliament. This does suggest that people on here are not representative of the real population.
Sponsored Links
